SECTIONS
Environmental Consequences
Park managers have reviewed critical cultural and natural resources that may be impacted through the implementation of a fire management plan. Impact topics have been selected on the basis of the significant resources of the park and the potential for beneficial or adverse effects on them by each alternative. Internal Scoping meetings held in the park determined the identified impact topics as having particular relevance for Petersburg National Battlefield.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts to cultural and natural resources may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or farther removed from the place, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which implements the National Environmental Policy Act, requires assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the effects of each of the alternatives with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). As a result, it was necessary to identify other ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future projects within the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park area and, if applicable, the surrounding region. Cumulative impacts are considered for all of alternatives.
IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES OR VALUES
In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, National Park Service policy (Management Policies, 2001) requires analysis of potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair park resources.
The fundamental purpose of the National Park System, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. National Park Service managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adversely impacting park resources and values. However, the laws do give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow limited impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park. This applies as long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it has a moderate or severe adverse effect upon a resource or value whose conservation is:
Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;
Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.
Determinations as to impairment are included for each of the following impact topics under each alternative.
IMPACT SUMMARY
The impacts of implementation of the proposed Alternative for the Fire Management Plan are described and analyzed in this section.
Table 1 Summary Comparison of Impacts
Firefighter and Public Safety
Air Quality
Cultural Resources (a)
Cultural Resources (b)
Vegetation
Adjacent Communities and Landowners
Wildlife
Soils
Floodplains and Wetlands
Threatened and Endangered Species
1. PROVIDE FOR FIREFIGHTER AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Affected Environment.
Petersburg National Battlefield does not currently have a Fire Management Plan. However, all National Park Service areas capable of sustaining wildfire are required to have a fire management plan in place by the end of CY 2004. The overriding goal of this plan will be for the protection of park resources and also to provide a safe environment for visitors, park personnel, and adjacent property owners. Perhaps the most important goal of any fire management planning effort, and PETE is no exception, is the provision for the protection of park resources, visitors, personnel, and adjacent land owners. Safety is always number one!
Methodology.
All available information on wildland fire operations and safety was compiled. Intensity of effects is defined below.
Negligible - Impact barely detectable and not measurable; if detected, would have slight effects.
Minor - Impact measurable but short-term and localized. No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Moderate - Changes in safety would be measurable and would have consequences to personnel and resources. Mitigation measures necessary and likely effective.
Major - Changes in safety would be measurable and would have substantial consequences to resources. Mitigation measures necessary and success of measures not assured.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up though time becoming minor to major and may be hazardous and irreversible.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Conditions - Park natural and cultural resources, including visitors, personnel, and adjoining landowners would be protected from unsafe practices emanating from within park boundaries.
Source - NPS DO-18 (2003).
Impacts of Alternative I - No-Action
Impact Analysis
Under the no-action alternative, a fire management plan would be developed that would address safety issues involved with preparedness for wildfires and firefighter training. No hazardous fuel reduction or wildfire prevention would be adopted. Under this alternative the safety of firefighters would be enhanced in the short term due to less exposure to fire. However, there would be a moderate to major long term risk to both the general public and firefighters as a result of the accumulation of fuels that may increase the seriousness of wildfires that occur. While the risk of wildfires is relatively low, should one occur, the present and future accumulations of fuels is sufficient to seriously jeopardize human life, property, and resources. Firefighters would be forced to aggressively suppress ignitions that might be beyond their effective capability to safely suppress, thus significantly increasing the threat to firefighter and public safety. Overall, this would be a moderate to major adverse impact.
Cumulative Effects
The accumulation of forest fuels over time presents a greater risk to firefighters with this alternative, since firefighters are working under a suppression strategy that dictates aggressive suppression such as line construction and the extinguishing of residual fires, regardless of the intensity and size of the fire. Since many fire suppression agencies outside of the park employ this type of response, the use of this alternative could lead to a continued accumulation of hazardous forest fuels across the general landscape.
Conclusion
The no-action alternative would have temporary moderate to major impacts on the safety of resources both in the park and outside. The implementation of this alternative would place the safety of some critical park resources, i.e. firefighters, at increased risk; thus making the implementation of this alternative less desirable than any of the other alternatives.
Mitigation
Firefighters engaged in suppression activities will be required to be trained in firefighter safety as dictated through RM-18. Because wildland fires may be burning at high intensity levels, firefighters may have to "back off" from some intense fires and suspend operations until environmental conditions are again favorable for suppression efforts.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
The most positive impact of this alternative is the decreased potential for both ignition and intensity as they relate to the amounts of hazardous fuel that is available to burn in a wildland fire situation. By utilizing a variety of reduction methods, managers will be able to utilize a variety of methods to reduce fuels over a broad spectrum of environmental conditions. The effectiveness of these reduction activities are enhanced in this alternative by the ability to utilize increasingly low impact reduction methods, i.e. prescribed fire and herbicides, in order to maintain fuels in a safe state for an extended period of time (generally 5-10 years per treatment). Although safety is of paramount importance in prescribed fire operations, some risk of injury is possible. Adequate training, planning, and supervision minimize the likelihood of these occurring.
Cumulative Effects
The ability of the park to utilize integrated management activities in reducing excess fuel loading, combined with the coordinated efforts of adjacent local agencies such as the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Fort Lee Military Reservation, would create an environment where the potential for wildland fires is decreased through the cooperative effort.
Conclusion
This alternative provides the best opportunity for safety of both park resources and the public of the alternatives considered. Its implementation provides the opportunity for long term protection that presents only minor risks to park and public resources.
Mitigation
Firefighters engaged in suppression activities will be required to be trained in firefighter safety as dictated through RM-18. Since they will also be engaged in hazardous fuel reduction activities, personnel will have to be trained in the use of chainsaws, chippers, brush cutting, and related safety equipment. Prescribed fires can be utilized during those time periods when environmental conditions are favorable to the safety of firefighters and the public and in accordance with the approved prescribed burn plan. For example, prescribed fires would only be used during time periods when exposure to smoke is minimized through the combination of environmental parameters conducive to smoke dispersion. Herbicides would only be applied by trained and qualified practitioners as outlined in NPS policy (NPS-77).
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
This alternative provides some of the benefits associated with the manual reduction of hazardous fuels, but falls short of providing the long-term protection of the preferred alternative. The exclusion of prescribed fire as a tool in this alternative eliminates the ability to reduce fuels in those areas where access is limited, and prevents the follow-up low maintenance benefits of fuel reduction that the preferred alternative provides. As a result, impacts on safety are confined to minor risks, but are extended over a longer period of time than in the preferred alternative.
Cumulative Effects
Similar to the preferred alternative, but the cumulative accumulation of fuels in some areas where manual reduction methods are unable to be used, such as in those areas where access is limited, may lead to moderate impacts on safety through increased fuel loadings and potential higher intensity wildfire events.
Conclusion
This alternative provides some of the advantages of the preferred alternative in the short term, but fails to capitalize on the long term benefits of an integrated fuels management treatment program involving the use of prescribed fire. The risk associated with manual reduction methods (chainsaws, brush cutters, and axes), is proportional to the level of experience and training that the personnel involved in these types of activities possess.
Mitigation
Same as alternative II but without prescribed fire.
Affected Environment.
Petersburg National Battlefield is classified as a Class II Air Quality area. A Class II designation indicates the maximum allowable increase in concentrations of pollutants over baseline concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as specified in the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Further, the Clean Air Act provides that the federal land manager has an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values (including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and visitor health) from adverse pollution impacts.
Air quality in the greater Petersburg area is impacted by what can generally be described as a relatively highly industrialized environment, with attendant high levels of air pollution (primarily sulfates, nitrates, chlorides, and iron). The Virginia Department of Air Quality's Division of Air Pollution Control classifies the park as a non-attainment area for ozone and as a Class II area for all other major air pollutants.
Methodology.
All available information on air quality was compiled. Intensity of effects are defined below.
Negligible - Impact barely detectable and not measurable; if detected, would have slight effects.
Minor - Impact measurable but short-term and localized. No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Moderate - Changes in air quality would be measurable and would have consequences to sensitive receptors, but effects are localized. Mitigation measures necessary and likely effective.
Major - Changes in air quality would be measurable and would have substantial consequences to sensitive as well as to non-sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures necessary and success of measures not assured.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up though time becoming minor to major and may be irreversible
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Conditions - Air quality related values would be protected from pollution sources emanating from within and outside park boundaries. Park management activities do not violate Federal and State air quality and conformity standards.
Source - Clean Air Act; NPS Organic Act; NPS Management Policies (2001).
Impacts of Alternative I - No-Action
Impact Analysis
Under the no-action alternative, wildland fires would be aggressively suppressed with the primary goal being the keeping of the fire at the smallest acreage possible. Direct adverse impacts to air quality from wildland fire under this alternative would include the release of particulates and smoke into the airshed. Since these fires would most likely be the result of heavier than normal accumulations of dead and downed fuel, fire intensity and duration could provide considerable resistance to control for suppression resources. This condition is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, even though areas of excessive hazardous fuel are located in the park, they are generally not continuous, but rather are composed of isolated cells of heavy fuel that are not always interconnected with one another. This fact may give suppression resources the opportunity to isolate heavy fuel accumulations and suppress fires in a more expeditious manner. This would reduce smoke and particulate emissions. Generally, durations of smoke particulates would range from minor to moderate. In most cases, especially those in which drought is not a factor, fires will produce a short term impact. The fire suppression tactics used in this alternative would focus on extinguishing fires as quickly as possible. This would normally minimize smoke production because the total number of acres burned would be kept to a minimum.
Cumulative Effects
Due to the short-term nature of most wildland fires, the cumulative effects on air quality would be localized and minor. This alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects on air quality in the long term. Air quality in the park would continue to be impacted from daily vehicle emissions on park roads and other management activities that utilize power-driven machinery. Outside of the park, backyard trash burning, a common practice in rural communities, will continue and present a consistent impact on air quality over time. Although development along the boundary is regarded as normal at this point in time, it is expected that this process will accelerate in the future with increased demand for housing and commercial land. At the present time, very little use of prescribed fire occurs in the area, though that is expected to change during the next ten years as the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Ft. Lee Military Reservation anticipate the use of this management practice as a tool to manage forest resources in areas found on their lands in the vicinity of the park.
Conclusion
The no-action alternative would have temporary short term (1-4 days) minor to long term (7+ days) moderate impacts on air quality due to the effects of wildland fire. Wildland fire smoke impacts would be minimized in the case of smaller fires that result from the implementation of aggressive suppression tactics. It should be noted that there may be cases where fires, particularly those driven by excess hazardous fuel loadings, may exceed the capabilities of suppression resources to effectively and safely suppress, thus allowing fires to burn with increased intensity and resultant smoke production. Despite the potential for adverse impacts in the short term, the adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
During aggressive fire suppression activities, the rapid suppression of fires and the extinguishment of residual smoke during the mop-up phase generally help reduce smoke impacts, particularly during the smoldering phase of combustion often seen during these periods of a wildland fire's life cycle.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Wildland fire suppression, manual hazard fuel reduction and prescribed fire would result in minor to moderately adverse, but short term (1-4 days) impacts to air quality. Depending on the tactics of wildland fire suppression used, air quality impacts could be prolonged because tactics would be employed to minimize potential resource damage. As a result, wildland fires could burn longer and consume more total acres. This would lead to minor to moderate smoke impacts of longer duration (5-6 days). Indirect adverse impacts resulting from these emissions could be responsible for reduced visibility along park roads, reductions in visitor use due to the presence of smoke, and odors, and potential health effects to sensitive receptors, including local park residents and the visiting public. These adverse impacts would be short to long term (7+days), localized, and minor. Smoke from prescribed fires is only present during the time period when a prescribed burn is being implemented. This includes those time periods when mop-up activities will be in process and residual smokes will be suppressed and eliminated. Since most prescribed burns at the park are projected to be small in acreage, a typical burn would last approximately 4-12 hours. Smoke from prescribed fire can be minimized by altering ignition patterns and burning during times of the day when smoke dispersal would be maximized. In spite of these measures, minor to moderate short term impacts could occur.
Cumulative Effects
Because of the relatively short duration of these hazardous fuel reduction and prescribed fire management activities, this alternative would not contribute to the cumulative impacts of air quality over the long-term. Air quality in the park would continue to be impacted in the short term with minor impacts from such uses as daily vehicle emissions and other similar management and/ or public activities such as trash or backyard burning. In the long term, adverse impacts would be lessened as accumulations of hazardous fuels were reduced through fuel reduction strategies (manual, mechanical, prescribed fire) both in and outside the park through cooperative efforts with neighbors and sister agencies.
Conclusion
This alternative would have a temporary minor to moderate adverse impact on air quality in those areas where hazardous fuels were being removed, either by manual fuel reduction or through prescribed fire. Wildland fire smoke impacts may be increased in the short term through the use of the appropriate management response to fire suppression tactics. In the long term, this same approach allows more fuels to be consumed and may actually reduce the potential for both smoke production and duration. Smoke impacts from prescribed burns are short term, usually from between 4-12 hours, and may be planned for periods of the day when environmental conditions are maximized for smoke dispersion and direction. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Extinguishment of residual smoke from burning fuels during wildland fire incidents.
Coordination with adjacent regulatory agencies before prescribed fire operations. During prescribed fire operations, a variety of techniques may be utilized to reduce the production of smoke emissions and/ or plan for their dispersion:
Ignitions only implemented when relative humidity is optimized for fuel consumption (less smoke production in a "clean" burn.
Fuel moistures are relatively low
Ignition patterns utilized that minimize smoke production (backing fires).
Mixing heights at least 500 meters or more
Transport winds greater then 12 mph
Wind direction away from critical identified targets
Prescribed burn projects compartmentalized into smaller units, resulting in smaller sections burned with less smoke production.
Burning during periods of atmospheric instability (daylight hours)
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Wildland fire suppression (appropriate management response) and hazard fuel reduction would cause minor to moderate adverse, but short term impacts to air quality. Depending upon the wildland fire suppression tactics utilized, air quality impacts could be prolonged because tactics would be employed to minimize potential resource damage. As a result, wildland fires could burn longer and consume more total acres, leading to minor to moderate smoke impacts over longer periods of time. This alternative would eliminate smoke from prescribed fires and would rely upon manual and mechanical methods to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations.
Cumulative Effects
There would be no short term smoke produced from prescribed fires in this alternative. Because of the short duration of most hazard fuel reduction activities, this alternative would not contribute to the cumulative impacts of air quality over the long-term in the strict sense of the activity. But, because prescribed fire is not available as a fuel reduction tool in this alternative, potential for increased fuel loading to occur over time may lead to increased wildland fire activity and smoke production in the future. Air quality in the park would always be impacted in the short term from daily vehicle emissions and other management activities, both in and outside of the park, such as trash or backyard burning.
Conclusion
Alt III would have a short term minor to moderate adverse impact on air quality in those areas of the park where mechanical reduction of hazardous fuels is undertaken. Although mechanical reduction is an effective means of removing hazardous fuels, it is at the same time a costly, labor intensive treatment that depends upon significant funding for implementation. Funding for these projects may or may not be available. As a consequence, significant amounts of fuel may continue to exist which increases the potential for smoke impacts, both in terms of intensity and duration, when wildland fires do occur in untreated areas. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Extinguishment of residual smoke from burning and smoldering fuels during wildland fire incidents.
3. PROTECT AND PRESERVE CULTURAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment.
Petersburg National Battlefield is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic context for battlefields, earthworks, and other individual property types within Petersburg National Battlefield was established in a National Register Property Listing in February 2000. Portions of the park have been documented and are registered as individual properties, or as a part of a district designation.
Cultural landscapes
The designation of cultural landscapes are crucial to an understanding of the significance of these resources when seen in the context of management activity.
The following cultural landscapes form an integral part of the Petersburg Campaign:
Civil War battlefields themselves;
Plantation setting of Appomattox manor and Grant's headquarters at City Point;
Poplar Grove National Cemetery;
The historical representation of these cultural resources, coupled with the manner in which local human populations adapted and utilized the land and resources, are what define a cultural landscape. The identification, preservation, development, interpretation, and protection of each of these cultural landscapes are reflected in the mission statement of Petersburg National Battlefield.
These principal cultural landscapes are the core areas of the Petersburg Campaign battlefields. Topography, watercourses, and other physiographic features help define tactical and strategic military positions. In general, remnants of open fields, forests, farmsteads, and earthen fortifications are the principal features of PETE cultural landscapes.
Historic Structures:
Petersburg National Battlefield has a total of 118 structures listed on the List of Classified Structures, the official National Park Service inventory and database of important historic structures. Even though all of the historic structures/ resources within the park are included by virtue of their inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, only the major structures and objects are specifically listed in the Register. Also, there are many sites, road traces, earthworks, or other structure that are on the NPS List of Classified Structures, but are not presently documented for inclusion on the National Register.
Appomattox Manor in City Point, the family home of the Epps family for over 300 years, is the primary structure in the Grant's headquarters at the City Point Unit. This structure has been restored for public viewing on a limited basis. Grant's Cabin, used as his living quarters during the Campaign, is located near the manor house. Bonaccord, a two and one half-story home is also found in this area. It is a contributing element in the historic district. The Hunter House, constructed around 1917 is also a contributing structure within the National Historic District. The Naldara duplex, a 2 ½ story wood frame house was built in 1912 as a rental property by the Eppes family. In addition, a variety of ancillary, but important structures are found in the area. These include a barn, garage, detached kitchen/ laundry, old smoke house, new smoke house, dairy house, and gazebo. In addition, since this area was utilized as the main supply distribution center for Federal armies during the Siege, a significant number of historic resources are most certainly distributed throughout the entire area.
The historic structures found in the Western Front Unit are located in the Poplar Grove National Cemetery. They include a lodge, stable, and utility building.
There are a number of vernacular structures (survey and significance still under study) found in the Five Forks Unit of the park. These include barns, a former gas station (now serving as the Five Forks Visitor Center), and numerous structures on four post-Civil War tenant farms. Descendents of one of the tenant families remain on the farm under a life tenancy agreement.
Many different types (battery, breastwork, fort, redan, redoubt, and salient) of earthworks are found at PETE. They constitute the largest historic resource in the park totaling more than 20 miles in length. Many of these earthen features are on the List of Classified Structures.
The Eastern Front contains the majority of Petersburg National Battlefield monuments. This Unit of the park also contains a cemetery and a family burial ground in a wooded area near the Jordan house site.
The western Front has two monuments - the Gowen and the Pennsylvania Monuments that commemorate one of the battles of the Final Assault.
Poplar Grove National Cemetery, located in Dinwiddie County south of Petersburg, was established in 1866 as a part of the national cemetery system. Buried here are 6,181 soldiers who died in the Petersburg and Appomattox Campaigns.
The Five Forks has two monuments, both located at "the junction". They are the Battle of Five Forks Monument and the Five Forks National Historic Landmark plaque.
Archeological:
Until recent years, there had been very little study of the park's cultural resources. An archeological excavation was conducted in 1959 in the area where the reconstructed cabin is located today. In 1998, and Archeological Overview and Assessment was conducted under a cooperative agreement with Sweet Briar College. Approximately 30 of the parks 224 acres were surveyed. Over 1,350 objects and specimens were recovered and catalogued as a result of this work. The most noteworthy aspect of the survey was the discovery of a 19th century slave cabin that would likely have existed on the plantation during the time period when Washington was in bondage there. Further archeological studies may lead to further knowledge about spatial organization, circulation, land-use, and site details of the former Burroughs farm.
In addition, knowledge about the poorly understood Sparks cemetery could also be gained through archeological investigation.
Cultural Landscapes:
The designation of cultural landscapes are crucial to an understanding of the significance of these resources when seen in the context of management activity.
The following cultural landscapes form an integral part of the Petersburg Campaign:
Civil War battlefields themselves;
Plantation setting of Appomattox Manor and Grant's headquarters at City Point;
Poplar Grove National Cemetery;
The historical representation of these cultural resources, coupled with the manner in which local human populations adapted and utilized the land and resources, are what define a cultural landscape. The identification, preservation, development, interpretation, and protection of each of these cultural landscapes are reflected in the mission statement of Petersburg National Battlefield.
These principal cultural landscapes are the core areas of the Petersburg Campaign battlefields. Topography, watercourses, and other physiographic features help define tactical and strategic military positions. In general, remnants of open fields, forests, farmsteads, and earthen fortifications are the principal features of PETE cultural landscapes.
The landscape at PETE contains a few remaining signs of the U.S. Military Railroad, a Civil War line established to ensure Union troops were well supplied during the Petersburg Campaign.
In addition, there are two existing railroad lines in the Eastern Front Unit that follow the basic alignment of those in the Civil War. The Norfolk and Petersburg and the Petersburg and City Point railroads operate today as a portion of the CSX system
A portion of the significant roads used during the time period of the Petersburg Campaign have been added to the Eastern Front Unit's trail system. In addition, some roads have been integrated into the present-day highway system (VA Rt. 627, VA Rt. 613, VA Rt. 645). There are also a variety of Civil War Era farm lanes and/ or wagon paths visible in some areas of the park.
Objects (museum collection):
There are a total of 4, 394 total objects and specimens contained in the museum collection of Petersburg National Battlefield. This collection includes specimens and documents from archeology and history that relate to Civil War military history and the campaign for Petersburg; artillery collection; maps; archeological objects recovered from within the park. A collection of library volumes, ethnographic documents, artifacts and period memorabilia (weapons, insignia, etc), cannon tubes, and paintings are currently stored in the park Visitor Center. Some items in the collection are stored at the City Point Unit. Neither location is large enough to adequately handle the large number of artifacts needing storage and preservation.
Properties on the National Register:
See Historic Structures section above.
Methodology.
All available information from the GMP (2004), Cultural Landscapes Report (2000), and internal park documents were compiled and used to assess impacts of the projects on cultural resources. The following definitions were used in analyzing effects on cultural resources.
Negligible - The impact is at the lowest levels of detection, barely perceptible and not measurable.
Minor - The impact is slight and localized within a relatively small area of a site or group of sites, but is measurable or perceptible.
Moderate - The impact is measurable and perceptible, but does not diminish the integrity of the affected resource.
Major - The impact is substantial, noticeable and permanent.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up though time becoming minor to major and may be irreversible.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Condition: Inventory, protection, preservation and enhancement of cultural resources based upon documented data from appropriate investigation and research. In terms of prescribed fire and non-fire hazard fuel reduction, this especially applies to historic structures including agricultural fields, forests, cemeteries, monuments, and traces of historical conveyance patterns. In the event of a wildfire requiring suppression, all of the alternatives would call for the protection of cultural resources through an immediate tactical suppression response.
Source - National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11593; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; Archeological Resources Protection Act; the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation; Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); NPS Organic Act; NPS Management Policies.
Impacts of Alternative I - No Action
Impact Analysis
Historic Structures
Under the no-action alternative, protection issues relating to historic structures would only occur when a wildland fire was underway. Protection through a proactive hazardous fuels reduction program would not occur thus potentially creating a minor to moderate adverse impact through the accumulation of hazardous fuels adjacent to historic structures. In the event of a wildland fire, fire lines would be constructed in order to protect structures resulting in a moderate beneficial impact in the short term.
Archeological Resources
The implementation of this alternative would provide no proactive protection for those areas where archeological resources are found or suspected to be. Protection would only occur when a wildland fire was taking place. The use of aggressive wildland fire suppression tactics could have potentially moderate to major adverse impacts upon archeological resources. This fact could be exacerbated by the lack of definitive knowledge of the location and extent of archeological resources in the park. It is entirely possible that these resources could be subjected to major impacts through inadvertent aggressive techniques of fire suppression.
Historical Landscapes
Under this alternative, no proactive fire management activities would take place to protect historical landscapes. In the event of a wildland fire, fire lines would be constructed in order to protect resources. In the short term, this would protect resources in question, but, over the long term, impacts could actually be increased though the additional accumulation of hazardous fuel. As a result, historic forest resources could be subjected to fire intensities that exceed the normal range, thus potentially damaging stand integrity. Areas that are currently open meadows would be sustained by continued use of the Agricultural Lease program and such techniques as mowing and trimming. Moderate to major long term adverse impacts could result if this alternative were implemented.
Objects
Because collections are stored in structures, the impact of wildland fire would be the same as in the Historic Structures section.
Cumulative Effects
Under this alternative a build-up of hazardous fuels would continue. As a result long term minor to major impacts would accrue over time. The long term potential for development along the park boundary could provide additional ignition sources for wildland fires and, when combined with the increased fuel load within the park, could significantly increase the potential for wildland fires, both in terms of number of fires and in intensity.
Conclusion
The no-action alternative could result in moderate to major impacts to the integrity of the park's cultural landscapes. Current forests would continue to change due to natural succession and the potential effects of insects and storm damage. This would lead to a potential loss of historical viewsheds particularly those involving historic road traces, railroad lines and earthworks. Wildland fire suppression actions could lead to long-term moderate to major adverse effects. The adoption of this alternative could reasonably be expected to lead to the eventual degradation and potential damage to critical cultural resources found in the park.
Mitigation
Minimize impacts from suppression operations through the use of MIST (minimum impact suppression tactics). See Appendix D for specific procedures and techniques.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Historic Structures
Under this alternative project activities would occur that would have minor to moderate long term beneficial impacts to historic structures. The use of appropriate management response fire suppression tactics would be designed to minimize impacts by avoiding suppression techniques and locations that might damage historic structures. Alternatively, this alternative allows the flexibility to use aggressive suppression in the case of an unplanned ignition that directly threatened a historic structure. Non-fire hazard fuel removal treatments would be designed to reduce hazardous fuel loadings in the vicinity of structures. Prescribed fire would not be utilized as a hazardous fuel removal tool in close proximity to some historic structures because of the risk, albeit slight, of potential damage caused by an escape or by fire behavior that exceeds planned parameters.
Archeological Resources
The implementation of this alternative could have moderate to major beneficial impacts on archeological resources. This alternative allows suppression resources the flexibility to manage wildland fires in a way that allows aggressive fire suppression techniques, such as heavy mechanized equipment or hand line construction, to be excluded from areas where archeological resources are located. Appropriate management response techniques of wildland fire suppression such as using existing roads, trails, streams, and sparse fuel areas as fire breaks instead of traditional hand line construction; assist in the protection of resources while at the same time extinguishing the fire. An additional benefit of this method of suppression is that potential hazardous fuels are consumed and thus eliminated. This fact benefits the protection of resources in the long term. Other techniques such as the use of foam and water provide suppression alternatives to traditional ground disturbance type activities and further protect resources from damage. Prescribed fire operations have the potential to impact archeological resources by exposing them to the elements as well as through construction of hand lines. For this reason, the use of existing roads, trails, watercourses, and natural terrain breaks will be indicated when preparing prescribed burns. Each prescribed burn will have an individual plan prepared, including the identification and mitigation of negative impacts through a compliance section specific to that plan. Non-fire and prescribed fire operations have the potential to expose these types of resources to the negative effects of weather as well as exposing them to potential predation by relic hunters and artifact seekers. Negative impacts can be classified as minor and short term.
Cultural Landscapes
As with archeological resources, historical landscapes are afforded the protection of
suppression activities that take advantage of natural breaks in fuel, rather than relying on more invasive ground disturbance suppression activities. Open fields that comprise an important component of the historic landscape, are enhanced through the application of prescribed fire. The capabilities of prescribed fire to enhance and propagate native warm season grasses are well documented. This also discourages the introduction of pioneer woody species that, over time, eliminate open fields and attendant vistas. Prescribed fire also enhances the oak hickory forests found in the park and, in the long term, reduces wildland fire risk by promoting a more fire resistant hardwood forest and reducing hazardous fuels. Moderate to major beneficial impacts may accrue as a result of the implementation of this alternative. Short term minor adverse impacts could result from the use of this alternative. These adverse impacts generally manifest themselves with a visual presence. Generally speaking, areas such as native grass fields recover from the implementation of a prescribed fire within a few weeks or less. Forested areas take considerably longer to recover from the visual impacts of a prescribed burn. These include the presence of dead trees (snags) and blackened scorch marks on the trunks of standing trees.
Objects
Because collections are stored in structures, the impact of wildland fire would be the same as in the Historic Structures section.
Cumulative Effects
The impacts on the cultural landscape from proposed projects would afford better long-term protection for cultural resources due to restoration of a lower fire intensity ecosystem in the oak-hickory forest, and reduction of hazardous fuels in the park. At the present time, the potential for development and change in land-use patterns outside of the park boundary, from a primarily agricultural landscape, to one that is representative of an urban land use, makes the preservation of cultural landscapes within the park an even more important priority for park management. The potential for wildland fire ignitions is increased through development occurring along the park boundary. Since very little, if any, protective activities relating to pro-active fire suppression are being undertaken in these areas, the potential for risk to cultural resources is significantly increased.
Conclusion
This alternative provides the advantage of negligible negative impacts on cultural resources. Wildland fire suppression techniques would be designed to minimize cultural and natural resource impacts, and provide a safer working environment for firefighters. Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would aid in the restoration and maintenance of cultural resources and landscapes for which the park was established. These resources are key components to the natural integrity of the park. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Minimize impacts from suppression operations through the use of MIST (minimum impact suppression tactics)(See Appendix D). Hazard fuel reduction around historic structures is implemented with hand tools and other methods that are less invasive than methods using mechanical techniques. Through the implementation of appropriate management response fire suppression techniques, low intensity wildland fires would be allowed to burn over the surface of archeological sites where little, if any, damage occurs from the low heat developed in these relatively fast moving surface fires. Standing structures would be protected with water, foam, and other protective treatments that would have negligible, if any, negative effect on cultural resources. The development of accurate maps of cultural resources would allow suppression resources the opportunity to avoid areas of concern in a proactive manner.
As this alternative is implemented, consultation and communication with cooperating agencies; state (Virginia Department of Forestry, SHPO), federal (Ft. Lee Military reservation, USFWS), and local (County Preservation Society), will be maintained throughout the life of the project(s).
A cultural resource professional will be assigned to the planning and implementation phase of each prescribed burn and /or manual reduction effort to help minimize negative impacts to cultural resources.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Historic Structures
Same as Alternative II
Archeological Resources
Because prescribed fire will not be utilized as a management tool in this alternative, there will be a greater reliance on non-fire hazardous fuel reduction. This may lead to an increased threat to archeological resources through the attendant increase in hazardous fuel loading and through increased ground impaction from manual and mechanical fuel reduction activities. Higher costs may also result from the implementation of this alternative. Impacts from the utilization of Appropriate Management Response suppression techniques will be same as those described in Alternative I.
Cultural Landscapes
The inability to utilize prescribed fire as a restorative and maintenance tool in order to propagate and enhance warm season grasses may lead to heavier reliance on more invasive measures such as mowing by machinery with an increase in potential for resource damage. Continuation of the agricultural lease program could provide a similar result, though ecosystem diversity is not enhanced with the implementation of this program. Oak hickory forests would likely continue to decline without the benefits of prescribed fire. Even though excessive hazardous fuel loadings could be mechanically removed, the understory components of this forest type would not benefit from prescribed fire treatment, reducing natural reproductive capabilities.
Objects
Because collections are stored in structures, the impact of wildland fire would be the same as in the Historic Structures section.
Cumulative Effects
The implementation of this alternative would moderately contribute to the protection of cultural resources, though not to the extent allowed by Alternative II. In the long term, hazardous fuel loading removal and the potential for damage through these more invasive techniques, even when implemented with great care, could lead to minor impacts as the result of increased foot traffic and equipment. Because these types of projects are expensive, and often require large numbers of personnel for implementation, there is a high probability that implementation may be delayed or foregone altogether due to the realities of increased budget shortfalls and funding constraints. As a result, cultural resources may be placed at minor increased risk over time. The potential for wildland fire ignitions is increased through development occurring along the park boundary. Since very little, if any, proactive activities relating to fire suppression are being undertaken in these areas, the potential for risk to cultural resources is significantly increased.
Conclusion
The removal of encroaching vegetation from the areas surrounding historic structures and archeological resources would have a beneficial long-term impact and would minimize wildland fire intensity. The use of appropriate management response during wildland fires would provide protection of cultural landscapes, historic structures and archeological sites from the effects of those types of incidents. The lack of ability to use prescribed fire could lead to increased impacts from non-fire reduction of hazardous fuels caused by increased foot traffic, use of mechanized equipment, and the removal of excess fuels. This could also result in greater project costs. As a result, restoration of some cultural landscapes would not occur, with long term minor to moderate adverse effects occurring in these areas from a lack of treatment. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Minimize impacts from suppression operations through the use of MIST (minimum impact suppression tactics Appendix D). Hazard fuel reduction around historic structures is implemented with hand tools and other methods that are less invasive than methods using mechanical techniques. Through the implementation of appropriate management response fire suppression techniques, low intensity wildland fires would be allowed to burn over the surface of archeological sites where little, if any, damage occurs from the low heat developed in these relatively fast moving surface fires. Standing structures would be protected with water, foam, and other protective treatments that would have negligible, if any, negative effect on cultural resources. The development of accurate maps of cultural resources would allow suppression resources the opportunity to avoid areas of concern in a proactive manner.
As this alternative is implemented, consultation and communication with cooperating agencies; state (Virginia Department of Forestry, SHPO), federal Ft. Lee Military Reservation, USFWS), and local (County Preservation Society), will be maintained throughout the life of the project(s).
A cultural resource professional would be assigned to the planning and implementation phase of each hazard fuel reduction effort to help minimize negative impacts to cultural resources.
Affected Environment
Petersburg National Battlefield consists of a variety of habitat types including: upland coastal plain and piedmont forest, old field, managed old field, and marsh/ riverine vegetation. With the exception of the City Point, all of the park's units are more forested than during the time period encompassed by the Civil War and the park's establishment (1865-1933). Trees constituted less than half of the vegetative cover in the park area in 1865; almost ninety percent of the land is now under forest cover.
There is an absence of recorded fire in the unit that has most likely contributed to the density of vegetation. There is extensive evidence that intentionally set fires were used to clear underbrush and trees in the Petersburg area prior to European settlement. There is also evidence that European settlers also used fire to keep the areas clear of overstory vegetation and dense underbrush. The use of fire started to decrease in the 1800's.
In general, park forests are healthy. Historically, damage from the southern pine bark beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) has been minimal, but in recent years infestations have been on the increase. Forests and open fields have been disturbed periodically throughout the park, providing opportunities for the invasion of non-native (exotic) plant species such as Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Kudzu vine, (Pueraria lobata), an extremely invasive plant species, has recently been identified just outside of the park boundary in two locations in the Eastern Front; one behind the old K-Mart (now a pallet manufacturing facility), and a second along the railroad right-of-way and Harrison Creek. Other invasives that have been identified will be discussed in the more in-depth discussion of the park units that follow. The Petersburg Natural Resource Management Plan and the Strategic Plan for Managing Alien Invasive Vegetation for Petersburg National Battlefield have developed a strategic plan to actively manage invasive species in the park.
Periodically, extreme weather conditions have resulted in damage to the park's earthen structures. High winds and ice storms, often accompanied by intense periods of ground-soaking moisture, have uprooted many trees and broken the tops out of many more. Battery XIII, Forts Fisher and Conahey have been particularly impacted. For example, as the result of Hurricane Isabel in September of 2003, almost all of the forested areas contained within the Eastern Front have seen the uprooting of hundreds of mature trees, both on earthworks and elsewhere. Since the up-rooting of large trees and their associated root-balls has a deleterious and often irreversible effect upon earthworks, pro-active measures to address the protection, sustainability, and interpretation of earthworks has been undertaken through an environmental assessment process completed in 2000.
Grant's Headquarters at City Point
Grant's Headquarters at City Point consists of approximately 21 acres that include managed park-like lawns and wild-growth riverbanks. The Epps Manor House grounds contain some specimens that date back to the original European imports over 300 years ago. A botanical inventory conducted in 1990 found that herbs, vines, and shrubs dominated the flora cover on the banks leading to the river. Dominant taxa included: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Vicia (Vicia augustifolia), and Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis). In addition, Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), American elm (Ulmus americana), River birch (Betula nigra), Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), and Paper Mulberry (Broussonetia papyriferia) predominate. A specimen of Water Hickory (Carya aquatica) found at this site may very well be an inland limit for this species.
The Eastern Front
The eastern Front is comprised of approximately 1444 acres and is dominated by two plant communities: second and third growth, mid-succession stage forests; old field/ cut fields. Old field and cut fields surround most of the tour road in the park. Pine plantations consisting primarily of Loblolly pine have been used in order to provide a forest buffer and visual screen in some areas along the park boundary. Four "pest-species" have been identified: poison Ivy (Rhus radicans), Poison Sumac (Rhus toxicodendron), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Poison oak (Rhus vernix). Poison ivy and Japanese honeysuckle dominate the ground cover in some areas. In addition, the presence of Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Kudzu, Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Periwinkle (Vinca minor and major), and Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) are a concern to park managers, since it is the desire to eliminate the presence of these invasive species into the PETE ecosystem.
Since this unit of the park serves as the main visitor interpretation area, the predominance of open grassy expanses are encouraged and maintained through an active mowing program. Earthworks, forts, and earthen remnants of the Petersburg battle are maintained in tall grass so as to deter trespass upon fragile structures, but at the same time allow for the visitor to enjoy the benefit of an open vista so as to better interpret the battlefield as it would have existed in 1865. Forested areas range from almost pure pine stands to mixed pine and hardwood in composition. The forested areas are approximately 75 years old and dominant species include Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), White oak (Quercus alba), Black gum (Nyassa sylvatica) and Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
The Western Front
Fifty-nine percent of the Western Front is forested. Dense natural re-forestation and undergrowth cover most of the Long Flank, Fishhook, and Fort Wheaton sites. Confederate Fort Gregg and Fort Wadsworth are treeless. These forts are covered by turf and are periodically mowed as a part of regular management practice. The fields at Confederate Fort Gregg (approximately 29 acres) are maintained under an agricultural lease agreement. Poplar Grove National Cemetery is maintained with mowed turf and ornamental plantings. The plantings reflect the pattern of the original design. The up-rooting of isolated trees in this location has caused disturbance to some of the gravesites. Invasive species of concern in this unit of the park are Japanese honeysuckle(Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Periwinkle (Vinca minor and major), Privet (Ligustrum spp.), and Tree- of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima) .
Five Forks
Approximately ninety -two percent of the Five Forks 1115 acres are vegetated in forest and eight percent in agricultural fields. An historic vegetation study of the Five Forks ascertained that substantial change in the location and configuration of fields and in the composition of the forests had occurred since the ending of the Civil War in 1865. At that time, 188 acres were managed as fields, while just 77 acres were managed as fields in 1998. There is some overlap in field configurations, but most of the current fields were forested during the war. The current open acreage (97 acres) at Five Forks is generally included in the agricultural leasing program as pasture or for field crops.
The botanical inventory found the composition of the woods and fields at Five Forks resembled similar communities of the eastern Front. Most of the forested areas are relatively young, second growth pine. In many cases, logging roads have been cleared through these areas. Many of the small fields in this unit are the result of recent timber harvesting that took place before the park acquisition. The unit contains a 13-year-old, dense loblolly pine plantation. A marshy habitat in the northeastern portion of the unit, the result of an active beaver population, contains a diversity of wetland plants. Areas along the border of the marsh consist of young trees, shrubs, and herbs. Dominant trees include Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), and Shining Sumac (Rhus copalina). Shrubs inventoried include the dominant species Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Tall Alder (Alnus rugosa), Button Bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Lizard's Tail (Saururus cernuus). Dominant herbaceous vegetation includes: St. Johns Wort (Hypericum mutilum), Arrow Arum (Peltandra virginica), Marsh Fern (Thelypteris palustris), Sweet Goldenrod (Solidago odorata), and Broom Sedge (Andropogon virginicus). Plants in the marsh area are dominated by Water Lily (Nymphea odorata), Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum), Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), Yellow-eyed Grass (Xyris platylepis), and Bladderwort (Urticularia fibrosa).
An occurrence of a Granitic Flatrock natural community has been documented on existing park lands in the Five Forks Unit. This community is classified as Woolly Ragwort (Packera tomentosa) - Willdenow's Croton (Croton willdenowii) - Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) - Rock Spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris), Herbacious Vegetation (Granit Flatrock Complex, Perennial Zone, CEGL004298) in the U.S. National Vegetation Classification where it has a G3 conservation rank. A G3 conservation rank is defined by the Natural Heritage Program as being very rare or found locally in a restricted range. It may also be considered vulnerable to extinction due to other factors. Usually fewer than 100 occurrences are documented.
Invasive species that are found in this unit are Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin).
Methodology
All available information on vegetation was compiled from the General Management Plan (2004), Resource Management Plan (2000), Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Vegetation (2000), Forest Management and the restoration of Historic Scenes and various literatures. Predictions about short- and long-term site impacts were based on this information. Intensity of effects is defined below.
Negligible - An action that may cause changes to the vegetation structure, but the change will be so small that it will not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the population.
Minor - An action that may cause changes to the vegetation structure, but the change will be small and that if it is measurable, it will be a small and of localized consequence to the population.
Moderate - An action that will cause changes to the vegetation structure, and the change will be measurable and will have a sufficient consequence to the population, but is more localized.
Major - An action that will cause a noticeable amount of change to the vegetation structure, and the change will be measurable and will have a substantial and possible permanent consequence to the population.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up though time becoming minor to major and may be irreversible
Source - NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies (2001), National Environmental Policy Act, Executing Order 13112 Invasive Species
Impacts of Alternative I - No-Action
Impact Analysis
Under the no-action alternative, wildland fires could not be managed to produce desired changes in vegetation; and aggressive suppression activities would be used that may have short term minor adverse impacts on vegetation. Since emphasis in this alternative is on keeping fires to the smallest possible size, suppression methods may be utilized that place those types of activities in areas of sensitive vegetation, such as those where invasives are located. In addition, the use of mechanized equipment and fireline construction techniques that utilize extensive line construction may have obvious negative adverse short term impacts upon vegetation. The timing and intensity of wild land fires might also favor the further development of invasive species. For example, ignitions that occur as the result of human activity may typically in the spring months. This is the time of the year when many types of vegetation are undergoing phenologic changes as a result of their efforts to achieve robust spring growth. In this condition, many types of vegetation are susceptible to the effects of even moderate heat generated by a wildland fire. Unwanted wildland fires, particularly those fueled by excess fuel accumulations during the spring months, can cause extensive mortality in many native species. This allows invasive species on the periphery of the fire to colonize with their often hardy and abundant seed sources. In addition, fires fueled by excess fuels can remove significant amounts of the duff layer, thus laying bare large areas of mineral soil which make the area ripe for the introduction of invasive species. Short to long term moderate adverse impacts may occur as a result of these processes.
Because the reduction of hazardous fuels would not be undertaken, the potential for large or unusually intense fires would be increased with the potential results described in the preceding paragraph.
Due to the aggressive suppression of wildland fires, fields in the park would be reduced in size due to the effects of natural succession. At the present time, fields are kept open through mechanical mowing and agricultural leases. While these methods are effective in maintaining current open fields, they are costly, both in terms of time and personnel, and accomplish little to improve native plant propagation (warm season grasses for example) or the promotion of ecosystem diversity. Under this alternative, these areas may be maintained by mowing and agricultural use with no change or improvement in species diversity resulting. Long term adverse impacts would be minor to moderate in nature.
Cumulative Effects
The no-action alternative would contribute to long-term changes in the structure of the vegetation. Barring some management practices, such as mowing in open fields, succession in both forested and open areas would continue, unimpeded by disturbance, and the historic scene would be modified from that described in the desired futures discussion. Wild land fire suppression techniques could cause immediate adverse impacts that would accumulate over time with moderate to long term adverse impacts upon some vegetative communities. As land use patterns change outside the park with increases in development and the disturbance they engender, the potential for the introduction of invasive species is increased with the attendant decline in native species encouraged through the implementation of this alternative.
Conclusion
This alternative would produce minor to moderate adverse vegetation impacts in the short term, and would have long term moderate to major adverse impacts on some vegetation types.
Mitigation
Current management practices, such as mowing or other agricultural uses, would temporarily set-back the effects of succession of open fields, but would do little to enhance species and habitat diversity.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Evidence exists that strongly suggests the existence of frequent (2.8 -14 year fire return interval) fires that occurred in the area of the park during the pre-European settlement period. The predominately oak-hickory forest type typically experienced low intensity under story fires. The frequency and extent of Native American burning decreased substantially after European contact. As a result, forest canopies closed over previously open grasslands, savannas, and woodlands (Buckner 1983; Deneven 1992; Dobyns 1983; MacCleery 1993, 1995; Pyne 1997). European settlers increased the frequency and extent of burning in the oak hickory forest type and shortened fire return intervals to 2-10 years; many sites were burned annually (Cutter and Guyette 1994, Guyette and Dey 1997, Holmes 1911, Sutherland and Others 1997 and 1995). Others, (Van Lear 1989 and Abrams 1992), have made a strong case for the re-introduction of fire to what were once the oak dominated forests and woodlands of this geographic area.
As shade tolerant species invade present day oak forests, the oak trees and other less shade-intolerant companion species cannot thrive and become reproductively unsuccessful. The recent predominance of red maple in oak forests has been shown to prohibit reproduction of oaks (Apfelbaum and Haney 1989). This condition is evident within many of the oak forests in the park. During a survey conducted by Abrams at the request of the park in 1998, the absence of oak and hickory regeneration (seedlings) was noted in park forests. Implementing a program of prescribed fire would provide the potential for the creation of open forest gaps, increased ground forage, and nutrient release to the soil. These are all conditions that are needed in order to support increased woodland/ forest diversity by providing resources needed for a variety of flora and fauna and by creating viable seedbeds necessary for oak reproduction.
The beneficial impacts of fire to oak and companion species (hickory, for example) that are relatively fire tolerant would be immediate following a prescribed fire as would also some short term adverse impacts (mortality and/ or weakening) to fire intolerant species. Estimating the duration of these impacts is difficult to quantify because there are a number of factors that are involved, most of which are highly variable. Factors to be considered are the survivability of some mature species that are fire intolerant in their seedling stage, but exhibit resistance to fire in their more mature stages of development; the presence of a viable seed-bank in the soil, the environmental conditions following the fire, and the time interval between prescribed fire treatments. Post-burn activities such as invasive species removal and native species planting programs, will also determine the duration of the impacts to vegetation.
The time interval between prescribed fire applications will also exert a significant influence upon the intensity and duration of impacts to vegetation. The generally accepted return interval for oak forests is between 5 -10 years. Weakening and mortality of some fire-tolerant trees can be expected with the return intervals suggested. It can also be expected that most of the desired species will re-sprout following prescribed fire. This is the primary method utilized by many oak species in order to regenerate. Hickory, redbud, and dogwood species in the park also react in this manner as long as they are not top-killed by fire (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis). A prescribed fire that utilizes low intensity ground fire would not significantly affect larger trees of these and other species. Long term moderate to major beneficial impacts are expected to occur over time (2-15 years), foreshadowing any minor short term adverse impacts that may occur immediately post burn.
Recently, guidelines have been developed for using prescribed fire in order to thin dense natural stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) (Van Lear). Since the park has significant amounts of this species present, the potential use for prescribed fire as a tool to effectively manage this resource is evident.
The effect of prescribed fire on populations of native warm season grasses in the park (Andropogon virginicus, Sorghastrum nutans, Panicum virgatum, Eragrostis curvula, Dicanthelium spp.) is well known (Wright, 1982 and (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis). The applications of prescribed fire to representative populations of these species within the park, particularly during the very early spring when grasses are still in the dormant stage, have proven to be most effective in propagating these species. While mechanical processes such as mowing have been used to keep grasses short, primarily as a means of maintaining the historic scene in the park, these methods do little to enhance current populations of native warm season grasses and may actually contribute to their decline in the long run. On the opposite side, prescribed burns in the spring have been shown to be very effective in killing cool season grasses, particularly those classified as non-natives such as Poa pratensis and Elymus virginicus (Hensel 1923, Ehrenreich, 1959, Old 1989). The strategy of applying prescribed fire to selected open field areas on a rotational schedule of between 1-3 years has been proven to be most effective in enhancing native warm season grass populations and in reducing some selected non-natives. In addition, the acreage selected for treatment of this type in the park is relatively small. Attention to monitoring will provide important information as it relates to the effectiveness of the prescribed burn program in meeting management objectives.
Immediate beneficial impacts on these species will be realized and the long term prognosis for moderate to major benefit is a realistic expectation regarding these species.
There are some small forest patches in the park that can best be characterized as being relatively homogeneous stands of Virginia pine. These areas are present largely due to the natural succession process of old fields that are in the process of converting to forest in the park. A program utilizing hazard fuel reduction involving the use of non-fire removal of dead and downed fuels, possibly coupled with prescribed fire, would be effective in reducing the risk of wild land fire present in these stands where there is increased fuel loading on the ground due to the effects of insects and ice and storm damage. After the removal of hazardous fuels, the use of low intensity prescribed fire in those areas where gap openings have been developed would benefit the development of hardwoods and other forbs present in the under story. It is likely that prescribed fire may top-kill the majority of the oak seedlings. As a result, up to 100% of top-killed seedlings will re-sprout. This is the primary mode of oak regeneration (Collins, 1987). Of note is the fact that at least one post-fire season must pass before the effects of a prescribed fire on oak regeneration can be accurately assessed (Stickel, 935). As with any prescribed operation, care must be taken to prepare and implement burns in the more volatile coniferous forest types. Minor to moderate beneficial impacts will accrue as these management practices are implemented. Some short term minor negative impacts can be expected, primarily manifested in tree mortality and snag production.
Severe disturbance events, such as those manifested in an unwanted wild land fire, can have profound impacts upon these resources, interrupting the natural succession process. As a result, other resources, both natural and cultural, may be placed at increased risk. This is exacerbated due to the fact that coniferous species are generally higher in flammability and are more susceptible to the negative effects of ice storms, insects, and wind damage. These elements often combine to create the potential for an increase in fire activity through the accumulation of dead and downed forest fuels above normal levels.
In those areas where access is available, non-fire reduction of dead and down fuels is the treatment of choice in these forest types. Forest stands in this transitional phase present the most risk regarding wild land fire. This is largely due to the presence of large amounts of fuel, chiefly in the form of snags (standing dead trees) and downed trees and branches. Where relatively pure pine stands are beginning to make the transition to a more mature stand with attendant over story, residual hardwoods in the under story can begin to develop. These areas are the most susceptible to damage from environmental elements. Care will have to be taken not to damage hardwood seedlings and reproduction in the under story when manual hazardous fuel reduction activities are undertaken. Minor, short term adverse impacts can be expected, but these will be quickly overshadowed by the long term major beneficial changes in forest structure and attendant lower fuel loading. Caution must also be taken to preserve those gap openings in the forest canopy that will allow for shade intolerant hardwoods in the under story the opportunity to respond to the sunlight provided by the gap openings in the forest canopy. This also encourages the growth of grasses and forbs in the under story and increases overall site diversity.
Cumulative Effects
This alternative would contribute to desired major long-term beneficial changes in the structure of the vegetation within the park. The establishment and maintenance of native grass and forbs, as well as the restoration and maintenance of the oak-hickory and loblolly forests would help reduce impacts on vegetation from unplanned ignitions and help restore the natural and historical landscape. The cumulative effect of this process would manifest itself in the preservation of species diversity and view sheds in the park. This is of particular importance because of gradual development projected to occur along the park boundary within the next several decades and the potential for increased ignition of unwanted wild land fires. Also, the introduction of structures in areas where they were previously not found add to the list of values at risk should a wild land fire ignite in the area.
Conclusion
The use in this alternative of prescribed fire, non-fire hazardous fuel reduction, and appropriate management response in wild land fire suppression situations, provides a range of alternatives that maximize the ability of park managers to manage vegetation in order to promote public safety and enhance resource value. The establishment and maintenance of native grasses and the restoration and maintenance of the oak and pine forests are instrumental to the restoration of the park historical landscape and to species diversity. Major long term beneficial impacts are expected to result from the implementation of this alternative.
Mitigation
A natural resource management expert will be consulted during planning and development of each of these projects to identify the location of state or federally protected species and define how they will be protected and managed
Non-fire hazard reduction methods (chainsaws/ brushblades, etc) will be used in lieu of other mechanized equipment, particularly in those areas where hardwood seedlings are already present in the forest under story.
Spot treatments of herbicide may be used to eliminate invasive species present in the under story. Their application will be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive vegetation (2000).
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative, impacts would be similar to those outlined in alternative II. Because prescribed fire activities would not be allowed under this alternative, there is potential for increased short term minor to moderate adverse impacts to vegetation and soils resulting from hazardous fuel reduction. This typically manifests itself in the form of increased foot and machine traffic of the personnel and / or equipment involved. Non-fire treatments without prescribed fire are less effective in favoring or discouraging selected species and are could cost more in the long term. Native warm season grasses would not benefit from the restorative efforts of prescribed fire, thus populations would slowly decrease or likely be replaced by non-native grass species.
Cumulative Effects
Because growth adjacent to and along the park boundary is projected to occur during the next several decades, the restoration and maintenance of species diversity and historical view sheds is a major importance to the park. Under this alternative, there is potential for minor to moderate loss of native grasses, and minor to moderate long term loss of forested historical view sheds.
Conclusion
This use of non-fire hazardous fuel reduction activities in this alternative would have minor to moderate adverse impacts on vegetation. Some areas would not receive treatment due to lack of access for personnel and equipment. The use of appropriate management response techniques during wild land fire suppression incidents would afford an increased level of protection and /or benefit for vegetation since fire managers would be able to prioritize suppression responses in selected areas. Non-fire hazardous fuel reduction treatments would cause minor localized changes to the forest canopy cover as well as to vegetation in the forest under story. The enhancement of existing vegetative communities would not occur to the extent as demonstrated in alternative II; in particular native warm season grasses and other associated flora and fauna. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
A natural resource management expert will be consulted during planning and development of each of these projects to identify the location of state or federally protected species and define how they will be protected and managed
Non-fire hazard reduction methods (chainsaws/ brushblades, etc) will be used in lieu of other mechanized equipment, particularly in those areas where hardwood seedlings are already present in the forest under story.
Spot treatments of herbicide may be used to eliminate invasive species present in the under story. Their application will be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive vegetation.
5. ADJACENT COMMUNITIES AND LANDOWNERS
Affected Environment.
In the seventy-eight years that Petersburg National Battlefield has been under the stewardship of the National Park Service, there have been no formal comprehensive fire management plans developed with the intent to guide direction of fire management activities. Despite the fact that the park has vegetation capable of sustaining wildland fire, relatively few fires occur within the park. Since 1990, fourteen fires have been detected and suppressed within the park. The largest fire recorded since 1970 was three acres. However, anomalous years can occur with respect to wildland fire occurrence. For example, in 1974 the park experienced a record 25 fires. Through the years park managers have identified the need to confer with local fire protection organizations, particularly volunteer fire departments, the Ft. Lee Military reservation and the Virginia Department of Forestry, in order to confer on basic fire protection needs for the park. As a result of new federal fire policy implemented in 2002, the park has been mandated to prepare a comprehensive fire management plan to govern those activities in the park. In compliance with NEPA regulation, this Environmental Assessment is being completed as a part of that process, and will be included as an Appendix to the Petersburg National Battlefield Fire Management Plan.
A variety of park management documents have identified natural and cultural resources in the park that require continuing protection. The fire management plan will address the full spectrum of activities that will be used to protect these identified resources. These activities include; the suppression of unwanted wildland fires, the removal of hazardous forest fuels, potential use of prescribed fire to enhance native warm season grasses and enhance forest succession, reduction of hazardous forest fuels through the application of prescribed fire, and the removal and/ or reduction of invasive species.
Because most of these activities will be "new" to most park neighbors and users, including both visitors and the public, it is critical that the rationale for each of the actions discussed in the environmental assessment be clearly defined and presented in such a manner that a clear sense of what is to be accomplished is presented. The goal of this interactive process is to enhance protection efforts for park resources and eliminate potential conflicts that might be based upon a lack of knowledge of management goals, objectives, and procedures. Local fire departments, adjacent landowners, and local communities will be invited to participate, to the extent of their training and background, in the planning and implementation of the park fire management plan. This will not only provide "buy in" from these resources, but it will also enhance overall protection efforts for resources both in an outside of the park. In addition, resource availability and potential project funding may be increased by widening the funding base across agency lines.
Methodology.
All available information on resources needing to be afforded protection, as well as park planning documents such as the General Management Plan, Resource Management Plan, Cultural Landscape Reports, and other park documents relating to resources and their protection have been used as resource material for development of this action item. In addition, the use of public comment to assist in gathering information regarding public perception of proposed management actions may be carried out in a variety of ways, including newspaper notices, visitor contacts in the park visitor center, local service clubs and organizations, employee contacts with peers in the local community, and through public notices and meetings. Each park has a different relationship with its constituents, so there is no specific set of actions that must be undertaken. Emphasis should be placed upon effective communication of park goals and objectives, and, to the extent practicable, an explanation of the techniques utilized to meet those objectives and the expected results. The development of cooperative efforts in both planning and implementation of non-fire hazardous fuel reduction, prescribed fire, and fire suppression operations, is undertaken.
Negligible - Impacts barely perceptible or below detection levels.
Minor - Changes in public and interagency support are minor and short-term. Little, if any, mitigation in the form of public meetings or further contacts beyond normal communication would be necessary.
Moderate - Changes in the ability of the park and local resources to protect values at risk are possibly long-term, but localized. Mitigation to offset adverse effects could be necessary, and would likely be successful. This may involve the use of public meetings, forums, and enlistment of other agency representatives in order to clarify programs and treatment methods and ensure joint operations are undertaken to the advantage of both the park and adjacent communities and landowners.
Major - Impacts on park resources may be considerable or require significant effort on the part of park staff, adjacent landowners and other cooperating agencies to mitigate. A portion of the fire management program may have to be set aside for special coordination and education efforts or even suspended pending additional planning and cooperative implementation efforts. Mitigation to offset adverse effects would be necessary as discussed above, but success would not be assured.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible in the short term, could add up though time becoming minor to major and may be irreversible.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Conditions: Provide maximum protection to cultural and natural resources, both in the park and out, in perpetuity, by employing a wide range of fire management strategies, including developing working relationships with local fire departments, adjacent landowners, the public, and other fire management organizations, in order to maximize protection of resources. Opportunities for cooperative efforts relating to a wide range of fire management issues including, prescribed fire planning and implementation, hazardous fuel reduction, and educational opportunities, are explored so as to garner public and visitor support of these programs and ensure program implementation achieves the desired protection efforts.
Source - NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies (2001), National Fire Plan, (2000).
Impacts of Alternative I - No Action
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative the only fire management actions taken would be the development of a fire management plan with emphasis upon the use of aggressive fire suppression as a tool to suppress all unwanted wildland fires. In the short term, the public would have little or no difficulty with this alternative, as they would simply see the continuation of the status quo. However, as time passes and public awareness of the deteriorating condition of park resources, both natural and cultural, and the risk to those resources increases, minor to moderate pressure would be brought to bear on park management to correct deficiencies. Park management would be exposed to increased pressure from park neighbors to provide protective measures to both private and park land and property from the effects of wild land fire caused, in part, through the deterioration of forest fuels (hazard fuel accumulations). Local fire departments would have a difficult time responding to wildland fires that are driven by heavy fuel accumulations that are currently accruing. When a wildland fire response was required, the potential for damage to park resources would be increased. This may be due to the lack of suppression resource availability and/ or potential strain placed upon local fire departments to respond rapidly to fires in the park when activity in their own jurisdictions needs attention. Threats to public and private property along the boundary of the park would be placed at increased risk as accumulations of wildland fuels increase within the park. Because the historical landscape could be altered, park visitors and neighbors would question the validity of this management response. It is likely that some type of wildland fire event would eventually occur resulting in loss to either park resources or private property or both.
Cumulative Effects
The no-action alternative could contribute to long-term negative cumulative effects on park resources manifested by the inability to handle a catastrophic wildland fire and a lack of public support for a fire management program that otherwise should prove instrumental in providing a leadership role in preserving and protecting both park and community resources. Adjacent agencies with fire protection responsibilities would not benefit from fuel reduction activities within the park, placing an increased risk for wildland fire on their jurisdictions located along the park boundary.
Conclusion
This alternative could have negligible to minor impacts on park resources in the short term. Over the course of time, impacts could be expected to increase in a minor to moderate fashion, but, this process could be significantly accelerated to the status of a major impact by the presence of precipitating event such as a wildland fire along the boundary or adjacent to a historic structure. The combination of accumulation of hazardous fuels and increase in ignition potential as the result of development along the boundary of the park, are a significant cause for concern. Fire potential may exceed the ability of local fire departments to effectively suppress wildland fire ignitions, primarily due to a lack of cooperative training, planning, and pro-active hazardous fuel reduction activities.
Mitigation
A vigorous public education program should be undertaken to inform the public and cooperating agencies of the need to develop co-operative assistance in programs relating to fire management. A logical product of these types of efforts would be cooperative efforts in implementing hazardous fuel reduction, both mechanical and through the use of prescribed fire.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
This alternative could be expected to generate considerable interest and public concern in the short term among neighbors, adjacent communities and the public. Most of the concern can be attributed to the proposed implementation of prescribed fire. For the last 50 years the public has been effectively informed by "Smokey Bear" that all fire is bad. Not until the last few years has it come to light that the total exclusion of all wild land fires has actually had a negative impact on our environment. This is most easily seen through the unnatural accumulation of dead and down forest fuels that, if left alone, create a situation where the stage is set for a potentially catastrophic wildfire fueled by that abundance of fuel. The positive implementation of this alternative would be expected to quickly dispel much of the public concern about the techniques utilized. By enlisting active participation, during the planning and implementation phases of both prescribed burns and manual hazardous fuel reduction activities, local fire departments and the Virginia Department of Forestry would become partners in a successful fire management program. This would greatly assist in developing positive results that would be seen first-hand by the participants and contribute significantly to the beneficial impacts of this alternative. Cooperative planning and program implementation would benefit local landowners and communities since resources would be shared for all of the involved parties. Realistically, there is always the potential for inappropriate use of mechanized equipment or personnel in the hazardous fuel reduction process. In addition, the use of prescribed fire, even with all of the safety checks built in to the implementation process, presents the potential for an escape outside control lines. As a result, minor to moderate short term adverse impacts could result. A cooperative effort in planning and implementing this phase of the alternative would be instrumental in providing for operations that cover all contingencies, both in the park and out, that may arise during the course of prescribed burning operations or mechanical hazardous fuel reduction projects.
Cumulative Effects
This alternative would not contribute to any long-term negative cumulative effects on adjacent communities and landowners since cooperative efforts at fire prevention and suppression activities would be undertaken in partnerships developed as a result of the implementation of this alternative. The potential does exist for long term positive cumulative effects that will accrue to the benefit of the park and its neighbors.
Conclusion
This alternative could have moderate long term beneficial impacts on the manner in which adjacent communities and landowners cooperate with one another in order to ensure the protection of both park and private resources. It is more likely that, as a result of the implementation of this alternative, the long term benefits accrued will enhance all park operations as well as those outside of the park. Cooperative efforts with local fire departments, other agencies, and the public, regarding training, operations, and planning should benefit all fire management operations and lead to increased protection for resources both in the park and out. Proper utilization of this alternative would be likely to offset the negative aspects, no matter how slight the probability, of a prescribed fire that escapes control or that exceeds predicted intensity levels.
Mitigation
The key to the implementation of this alternative is the development of good working relationships with local fire departments, other fire protection agencies, and the public. The development and presentation of quality, proactive education programs about goals and techniques utilized in implementing this alternative is also important to its success. Proactive efforts at public education may be achieved through a variety of techniques including, site bulletins, school and group meetings, visitor center handouts, interpretive talks, etc.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative short term impacts created through implementation strategies could be expected to be about the same as those in alternative I. In the long term the inability to enhance some resources, both in the park and out, (forest, native grasses, etc) through the use of prescribed fire could generate questions from cooperators and the public as to the validity of using this alternative. Because maximum ecological benefit would not be maximized through the implementation of this alternative, some systems, park mixed oak-pine forests for example, would not make an effective transition to a more fire resistant oak hickory forest type. A reliance on non-fire hazardous fuel reduction activity could not be expected to achieve the scope and breadth of results as those described in alternative II.
Cumulative Effects
This alternative would have approximately the same impacts as those in alternative II, except that the potential for long term positive benefit is somewhat reduced since park natural and cultural resources will not be afforded the opportunity to be enhanced through the positive effects of prescribed fire. Depending upon the participation of local fire departments and other agencies, the implementation of this alternative could bring into question the validity of using it as an effective means of preserving park resources. Local communities and landowners would be less likely to be afforded the opportunity to utilize common resource protection strategies with the implementation of this alternative. Species composition, both in and out of the park, would suffer a long-term loss in diversity.
Conclusion
The implementation of this alternative offers many of the benefits of both alternatives I and II, without the potential for loss, no matter how slight, that can result from a prescribed fire that escapes control or that exceeds intensity. This alternative could have negligible to minor impacts on the manner in which adjacent communities and landowners work with the park to achieve common fire management goals in the short time. It is more likely that, as a result of the implementation of this alternative, the long term benefits accrued will enhance all park operations in a minor fashion, though not to the extent as outlined in alternative II. Unfortunately, under the auspices of this alternative, species composition and diversity would probably decline, both in and outside of the park. This would comprise a long term moderate adverse impact.
Mitigation
Same as alternative II.
Affected Environment.
Wildlife at Petersburg National Battlefield benefits from a combination of mixed hardwood/ pine forests and open fields. These mixed habitats support a surprising variety of wildlife typical to the area. Inventories of small mammals and aquatic species, as well as for reptiles and amphibians, are currently being conducted and are expected to be completed in 2005.
Methodology.
Information based upon PETE Resource Management Plan and other species inventories found in assorted park documents. Predictions about short- and long-term site impacts were based on this information. Intensity of effects is defined below.
Negligible - An action that may cause changes to wildlife, but the change will be so small that it will not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the population.
Minor - An action that may cause changes to wildlife, but the change will be small and of a localized consequence to the population.
Moderate - An action that will cause changes to wildlife. The change will be measurable and may have a sufficient consequence to a specific population.
Major - An action that will cause a noticeable amount of change to wildlife. The change will be measurable and will have a substantial and possible permanent consequence to a specific population.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up through time becoming minor to major and may impose changes upon wildlife.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Conditions: Promote natural wildlife populations, minimize degradation, destruction, or loss of habitat and/ species, encourage species diversity, and maintain wildlife habitat to the maximum extent practicable.
Source - NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies (2001), PETE Resource Management Plan, General Management Plan (2004).
Impacts of Alternative I - No Action
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative no hazardous fuel reduction activities would occur. The use of aggressive suppression strategies would allow hazard fuel levels to accumulate over time, increasing the potential for long term moderate to major impacts on forest structure and hence on wildlife. Wildland fires would exhibit fire behavior, greater intensity and duration time, driven by the presence of excess fuels, both on the ground (brush, needles, twigs and logs) and in the form of snags (standing dead trees). The potential for fires to occur in the forest canopy, particularly in coniferous species, is greatly increased due to the presence of a "fuel ladder" (continuous fuels from the forest floor to the canopy). As a result of this change in forest structure, wildlife diversity and abundance can be expected to be reduced.
Cumulative Effects
The no-action alternative could contribute to long-term moderate to major cumulative impacts on wildlife and associated habitat. Since local agricultural use outside of the park may gradually be replaced by development along the park boundary, both residential and industrial, it is reasonable to assume that wildlife populations will decline in both number and diversity.
Conclusion
This alternative could have moderate to major, and potentially cumulative, impacts on wildlife. Aggressive wild land fire suppression techniques, coupled with a lack of hazardous fuel removal and lack of ecosystem restorative processes such as prescribed fire, will point the way towards adverse impacts on vegetative/ forest structure and wildlife habitat.
Mitigation
None
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative the application of a variety of strategy and tactics regarding the reduction of hazardous fuels and habitat enhancement would occur. The cumulative effect of these could have negligible to minor short term adverse impacts on wildlife, particularly in regard to the mortality of some individuals during prescribed fire operations. In addition, the short term modification of habitat resulting from increased human traffic during the implementation phase of non-fire hazard fuel reduction, would impact wildlife habitat adversely in the short term. In the long term, increased diversity and abundance of wildlife would occur through improvement and expansion of habitat. The improvement of native grass habitat in open areas would provide increased cover and food sources for wildlife. Gap openings in the forest canopy that have been produced through the effects of prescribed fire and non-fire hazardous fuel reduction would provide opportunities for new forbs and succulent growth to occur, thus providing increased reproduction and nutrient availability through habitat improvement. Immediately following a prescribed burn, many species of wildlife are actually attracted to the burned area. Predators would more easily find prey due to the removal of vegetative cover and leaf litter. Fire damaged trees would provide new homes for many insect species and thus would attract insectivorous birds to the area. Some species however, would avoid burned areas due to the lack of adequate cover to protect them from predators. Generally these impacts would last one growing season. The expected increase in population of forbs, small mammals, and insects would attract a variety of birds and other wildlife to the park, improving overall diversity. Long term moderate beneficial impacts would accrue as a result of the implementation of this alternative. In addition, prescribed fire could be used to reduce the potential for stand-replacing wildland fires, thereby protecting existing habitat and the wildlife who currently reside there.
Cumulative Effects
This alternative could contribute to moderate long-term beneficial and cumulative effects on wildlife based upon the ability to use prescribed fire, non-fire hazardous fuel reduction, and less aggressive fire suppression techniques outside of the park on adjacent lands. The implementation of this alternative through cooperating agencies and adjacent landowners would lead to improved protection of resources both within and outside the park.
Conclusion
This alternative would provide negligible to minor short term adverse impacts on wildlife during the implementation phase of hazardous fuel reduction or prescribed fire projects. However, in the long term cumulative moderate beneficial impacts on wildlife populations and diversity would occur.
Mitigation
During prescribed fire operations, larger animals can easily flee the fire, while small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles can burrow or flee to escape. Ground fires can locally impact non-flying insect populations in the short term, but most non-flying insects can also burrow and survive low intensity prescribed fires. Since prescribed fire burn units are rather small in size and will be burned at different time periods, any loss of individuals during prescribed fire operations would have a negligible short term impact on the overall abundance and diversity of wildlife. The availability of un-burned areas adjacent to burn units will provide ample habitat for any animals temporarily displaced by prescribed fire. Prescribed fires can be implemented during times of the year when many species are dormant, thus significantly reducing the impact on wildlife populations.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
As stated in the evaluation of Alternative I, the lack of ability to use prescribed fire could have minor to moderate adverse impacts on habitat and wildlife. Prescribed fire tends to be the most natural and cost-effective way to restore and maintain both forest structure and open native grass fields. The restoration and enhancement of herbaceous native species is difficult to achieve through strictly non-fire methods, though some progress towards that goal may be achieved through the manipulation of forest structure, and to a lesser degree open fields (Covington and Moore, 1992) that provide habitat for many wildlife species.
Cumulative Effects
This alternative could contribute minor negative long-term cumulative effects on wildlife habitat based upon the lack of ability to use prescribed fire. A reliance on non-fire methods of hazardous fuel reduction would probably be perpetuated which would contribute to a slight increase in wildlife habitat and population over time. It is probable that some wildlife species might seek to live in areas outside of the park where habitat more closely meets their needs. As these areas change from an agriculture use to more developed in nature, the loss of habitat could result in a further loss of wildlife diversity and population size.
Conclusion
This alternative would have moderate adverse impacts impact on wildlife in the long term. Non-fire hazard fuel reduction activities used as a stand-alone process can be utilized to minimize or eliminate negative impacts of undesirable wildland fire; however the lack of ability to use prescribed fire precludes the enhancement of ecosystem diversity and fails to aid reproductive processes in many wildlife species to the maximum extent possible. Despite the fact that this alternative is not as effective as alternative II, its implementation does provide minor opportunities for beneficial impact upon wildlife in the short term.
Mitigation
To the extent practicable, hazardous fuel reduction activities can be undertaken during those times of the year and in those locations where impacts from foot traffic and cutting and removal of materials would be minimized. This typically means that these activities would occur during the non-growing season.
Affected Environment.
PETE and the Petersburg area have a wide variety of soils that range from well-drained upland agricultural sandy loams to poorly drained silt and clay bottomland bordering drainage watercourses. Many of the soil types are susceptible to moderate to severe erosion and sedimentation. Soils in the park units support natural and maintained vegetation, developed roadways and other facilities and historically constructed earthworks. The predominate soil types in the Eastern Front are Emporia and Norfolk Sandy Loam. Soils in the Five Forks area are well-drained sandy loam with a clay loam subsurface. Most of the land is well drained. In many areas of the park, particularly in those upon which earthworks have been constructed, the soil profile(s) has been overturned and normal soil construction has been disrupted.
The proposed project areas can be found on slopes of varying degree, and some areas have slopes that go down to wetland and stream areas. Although soil erosion can occur immediately after wildland and prescribed fire, the reestablishment of vegetation on the sites will ultimately decrease the amount of erosion on the site.
The soils mapping for the Eastern Front has been reported in two separate soils manuals. (See Appendix A for a complete listing of both counties). The Prince George County manual (Jones et al. 1985:sheet 14) provides information of the eastern portion of the park, while the Dinwiddie Area manual (Clausen et al. 1996:sheets 7 and 8) defines the soils in the central and western portions of the park that are now located within the boundaries of the City of Petersburg. The soils on the uplands of the Sunderland and Wicomico terraces and on the side slopes of drainages reflect the Emporia and Slagle sandy loams. The well drained Emporia soils were associated with much of the uplands due to drainage promoted by natural stream dissection (Jones et al. 1985:59, 66, 70), while the moderately well drained Slagle soils formed at greater distances from drainage valleys. Other upland soil types included the well drained Uchee loamy sand and moderately well drained Mattaponi sandy loam (Clausen et al. 1996:68, 72).
All of the historic plantation and farm dwellings were constructed on the upland plateau of the Sunderland Terrace, at or above 100 feet ASL. These soils on the Sunderland and Wicomico terraces are considered to be good farm land when occurring on level or slightly sloping ground (Clausen et al. 1996:93) and cultivated fields were located on the uplands in association with the Hare, Taylor, and Gibbons properties in the mid-nineteenth century. However, a greater percentage of those fields lying on the lower Chowan Terrace along the Appomattox River were under cultivation in the mid-nineteenth century.
A small portion of the Chowan Terrace at the north end of the park was the location of farm fields and a "quarter" associated with the Friend plantation. The soils at this location are classified as Bolling silt loam, a moderately well drained soil found on low-lying flat lands on low river terraces (Jones et al. 1985:56). Opperman (Opperman and Hanson 1985:2-5, 2-7) summarized various soils studies that emphasized the comparatively greater fertility of lowland and stream terrace soils compared with those on the uplands. He cited a passage from Robert Beverly's 1705 description of Virginia that indicates the distinction had been recognized from the early days of the colony, and further that the coniferous pine forests of today represent a replacement of earlier more diverse forest associations.
The Middle of the Necks, or Ridges between the Rivers, is generally classified as poor soil quality, being either a light Sand, or a white or red Clay, with a thin Mould: Yet even these Places are stored with Chestnuts, Chinkapins, Acorns of the Shrub-Oak, and a Reedy Grass in Summer. The richest land lays next to the Rivers and Branches, and are stored with large Oaks, Walnuts, Hickories, Ash, Beech, Poplar, and many other Sorts of Timber, of surprising size.
The apparent fertility of river and stream margins may in part explain a suggested shift in prehistoric settlement patterns from the uplands during the Late Archaic to the lower stream terraces during the Early and Middle Woodland periods. These patterns should be interpreted with caution, however, since many of the soils in the narrow tributary valleys and along the wider creeks are described as well drained but sloping Emporia and Slagle soils or poorly drained ones on flood plains, such as the Kinston complex or Roanoke loams along Harrison and Poor creeks (Jones et al. 1985:21,22; Clausen et al. 1996:70). Such settings would hardly make for favorable agricultural conditions. However, low stream terraces with well drained soils slightly above the flood plains would be favorable, if at times constricted, agricultural areas.
Methodology.
All available information on soils was compiled from the Resource Management Plan (1999), General Management Plan (2004), and the Soil Conservation Service Information Network. Predictions about short- and long-term site impacts were based on this information. Intensity of effects is defined below.
Negligible - Impacts would be below detectable levels and not measurable.
Minor - Changes to character of soils is detectable but short-term and localized. Any mitigation needed to offset adverse effects would be standard and uncomplicated and would be effective.
Moderate - Changes to character of soils readily apparent and long-term over a large portion of park area. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would probably be necessary and likely successful.
Major - Impacts to soils characteristics severe or of exceptional benefit over a wide area for the long-term. Mitigation to offset adverse effects would be needed, but its success not assured.
Cumulative - Impacts, though negligible, add up though time becoming minor to major and may be irreversible
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Condition: Inventory and protection of soil resources, including frequent testing and monitoring of soils, to maintain and enhance the existing condition.
Source - NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies (2001)
Impacts of Alternative I - No-Action
Impact Analysis
Under the no-action alternative, fire suppression activities could occur that would cause minor to moderate temporary soil stability impacts. Without the vegetative cover, soils could be exposed by wildland fires, and be more susceptible to erosion until grass reestablishes on the site. Aggressive wildland fire suppression actions could have even more adverse impacts to soils. Actual wildland fire effects can be mitigated by rehabilitating the area with native grass seed soon after the fire. The establishment and maintenance of native grasses has been shown to reduce erosion, however this will be difficult without the use of prescribed fire.
Cumulative Effects
No similar actions.
Conclusion
Aggressive suppression of wildland fires would occur under this alternative. These suppression activities could have temporary minor to moderate impacts on soil stability and thus increase the potential for erosion, unless mitigation were implemented. In the eastern United States, even under severe conditions, soils are unlikely to be damaged seriously by the direct effects of the wildfires themselves (Kozlowski et al, 1991). The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Re-seeding and fireline rehabilitation activities could be undertaken as soon as possible after a wildland fire occurrence.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Under the preferred alternative, activities relating to fire management would occur that could temporarily impact soil stability. Without the vegetative cover removed during wildland and prescribed fire activities, soils could be temporarily exposed and be more susceptible to erosion until grass is reestablished. Utilizing the appropriate management response method of wildland fire suppression allows fire managers the opportunity to minimize the impacts associated with suppression activities, primarily through pre-identification and avoidance. The implementation of minimal ground disturbing methods of line construction such as establishment of wet lines, cold-trailing, and burn-out contribute to a significant reduction in soil disturbance. Actual wildland fire effects can be mitigated by rehabilitating the area with native grass seed soon after the fire. Prescribed fire impacts can be mitigated by varying the intensity of the fire and burning during the time of year that would facilitate natural re-vegetation. Establishment and maintenance of grasses, both native and non-native, have been shown to reduce erosion. The restoration of the oak hickory and pine forests will lead to a more open understory that will support a variety of vegetation types and produce a lighter fuel load in the event of a wildland fire.
Cumulative Effects
No similar actions
Conclusion
Under this alternative fire management activities would occur that could have temporary negligible to minor impacts on soil erosion, most of which could be mitigated. The adoption of this alternative does not constitute impairment.
Mitigation
Wildland fire suppression techniques implemented as a part of the appropriate management response would be designed to protect sensitive soils. This would occur primarily through the avoidance of traditional hand line construction, instead substituting less obtrusive methods such as the use of water and foam to stop fire spread. Avoidance of sensitive soil areas altogether would contribute to the protection of soil resources. The ability to balance the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would allow managers to mitigate negative impacts effectively, particularly in those areas where access to personnel and equipment is limited and/ or potentially harmful to soil resources.
Any soil series found on steep slopes (>15%), requires careful forest management practices so as to minimize damage. This would best be achieved through avoidance altogether, or the use of less invasive non-fire methods of fuel reduction. Because the primary soil types of the park are frequently intermixed, any heavy mechanized equipment use associated with hazardous fuel reduction activities would be confined to dry periods of the year so as to minimize any potential damage to the soil.
Prescribed fire would be used in those situations where hazardous fuels could safely be consumed without threatening the integrity of soils. This would generally confine the use of prescribed fire to those treatments where moderate to light fuel concentrations (< 15 tons / acre) were to be removed.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
As with alternative II, wildland fire suppression actions could be initiated in order to minimize impacts through the implementation of appropriate management response strategies and tactics. Actual wildland fire effects could be mitigated by rehabilitating the area with native grass seed or other desirable species soon after the fire. There would be no direct impact on soils from prescribed fire from this alternative; however, the inability to use prescribed fire could lead to increased fuel accumulations and additional disturbance to soil resources through accelerated mechanical treatments.
Cumulative Effects
No similar actions.
Conclusion
This alternative would potentially have temporary negligible to minor impacts on soil erosion. The ability to utilize appropriate management response techniques during fire suppression would largely eliminate activities that contribute to soil erosion. The increase in hazardous fuel reduction necessary to offset the inability to use prescribed fire could lead to increased adverse impacts on soil resources, and would be caused by the cumulative effects of personnel and equipment walking and working on soils.
Mitigation
Same as Alternative II, except no prescribed fire.
Affected Environment.
Petersburg National Battlefield contains floodplains and wetlands. Flooding has historically occurred in most of the drainages in the park. In general, hurricanes are associated with the most severe flooding episodes. The Petersburg National Battlefield wetlands inventory was derived from the wetlands map database at the US Fish and Wildlife Service and applied to USGS quadrangle maps.
Wetland areas in the park are interpreted for the historic conditions that strongly affected troop movements, living conditions, and battle outcomes. Wetlands are also important because they function as wildlife habitat, drainages for hydrologic systems, and mechanisms for improvement in water quality through physical and chemical processes.
Grant's Headquarters at City Point
Flood hazard maps for PETE show only a portion of City point lies in Zone A - the one hundred year flood plain. In this area, the lower portions of the slopes along both the Appomattox and James rivers are within 100 - year flood plain. Additional lands are designated as being in either Zone C or D (Zone C corresponds to areas outside the 100 - year floodplain or areas with minimal potential flood hazard based upon geography, area, and protective measures such as levees; Zone D are lands where no flood hazard analysis has been conducted).
The National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate that there are no wetlands located in this management unit.
Eastern Front
The Eastern Front is designated as Zone D in flood hazard mapping.
For most of its passage through the Eastern Front, the Harrison Creek Corridor is never wider than 50 feet, with relatively steep creek banks and a bed with an average width of approximately five feet. At the southern edge of the Eastern Front, the creek broadens into a short section of open water. The entire Harrison creek corridor is designated as a persistent palustrine emergent wetland subject to seasonal flooding. The park has a small pond located on a tributary of Harrison Creek, at Soldier Springs. It has a surface area of approximately one acre. The date of construction of this earthen dam has not been determined, but it is believed to be less than fifty years of age, thus removing it from historic structure status.
The existing elevation of the Poor Creek streambed is substantially lower than it was during the time of the Civil War. At that time, a substantial portion of the Poor Creek corridor was a shallow wetland caused by the partial removal of an earthen dam near Gracie's Salient. Poor Creek is designated as a persistent palustrine forested (deciduous) wetland subject to temporary flooding. This stream corridor, which averages fifteen feet across, has almost vertical stream banks due to active cutting from storm surges that have increased in volume, speed, and frequency as upstream areas have been paved - over for development. Channel incision appears to have eliminated most of the palustrine wetland habitat that may have bordered the channel in the past. The flow of water in the stream fluctuates seasonally, with up to a 50% reduction in volume occurring in the summer due to redirection activities occurring upstream outside of the park.
Taylor Creek, which joins Poor Creek below Gracie's Salient, is identified as an intermittent stream. It dries up during the summer months and carries water only periodically during the other seasons of the year. Neither the riparian corridor, which averages 25 feet in width, nor the stream channel, which averages three feet in width, is identified as a wetland on the wetlands inventory.
Western Front
The 100 - year flood plain associated with the Arthur Swamp in this unit passes through the earthworks between Fort Conahey and Fort Fisher, and the 100 -year flood area associated with Rohoic Creek passes along portions of the eastern boundary of the Confederate Fort Gregg site. The Second Swamp 100 year floodplain passes through the Globe Tavern lands.
The branch associated with Arthur Swamp is quite small, no more than 25 feet as it passes through the park. Rohoic Creek is much wider, except at the northeast corner where a narrow channel carries it under Interstate 85. Neither location is designated as a wetland.
Five Forks
Five Forks flood plains are associated with the Appomattox River along Dinwiddie County's northern border and Hatcher's Run. Portions of lands proposed for acquisition at Five Forks and Hatcher's Run are within the 100 - year flood plain for Hatcher's Run.
A series of palustrine wetlands are associated with Hatcher's Run and its smaller tributaries at Five Forks. These wetlands extend along the western and northern boundaries of the unit and smaller branches reach into Five Forks. Most of the designations for the Five Forks area identify the wetlands as persistent palustrine wetlands that are either forested or shrub/ scrub. Several of these areas have been created by beaver (Castor Canadensis) activity in the area. A portion of the proposed northern boundary expansion at Five Forks incorporates additional wetlands associated with Hatcher's Run. One of the primary goals of the Petersburg National Battlefield Fire Management Plan is to avoid any abrogation of the protection afforded to wetlands and floodplains as defined in federal and state regulations. The primary objective is the avoidance of any of the areas where these resources exist. As a result, no fire management activity, including wildland fire suppression, prescribed fire, hazardous fuel reduction or herbicide use will be conducted within 100 feet or less of any riparian resource, be it wetland or floodplain. The only case(s) where this policy would be amended would be in situations where human life or irreplaceable cultural resources were in imminent danger of damage or loss. As a practical matter, with the exception of select species found in marsh habitats (which are not found at PETE), the presence of wildland fire, either prescribed or of the suppression variety, is excluded in these areas. As one might expect, this is primarily due to the presence of water, accompanying higher humidity, and vegetation communities whose succulence acts as a natural heat sink, retarding ignition potential and fire spread.
Methodology.
All available information on wetland and floodplains was compiled from the General Management Plan (2003), Resource Management Plan (1999), and associated studies and plans relating to wetlands and floodplains. Map locations of wetlands and floodplains were compared with locations of proposed prescribed and non-fire projects to assist in the determination of potential impacts. Predictions about impacts were based on this information. Intensity of impacts is defined below.
Negligible - An action that may change a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource, but the change, if measurable, will be so small and localized consequence to the population.
Minor - An action that may change a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource; but the change, if measurable, will be a small and localized consequence to the population.
Moderate - An action that will have some change to a population of individuals of a species or a natural physical resource. The change will be measurable and will have a sufficient consequence to the population but is more localized.
Major - An action that will have a noticeable change to a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource. The change will be measurable and will have a substantial and possible permanent consequence to the population.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Condition: Minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and floodplains and preserve their natural and beneficial values.
Source - Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands; National Park Service Management Policies.
Impacts of Alternative I - No Action
Impact Analysis
This alternative foregoes any activity to manage wildland fire in a pro-active manner, other than those enacted through seasonal preparation and training of response personnel. Because suppression operations are aimed at keeping wildland fire at the smallest possible size, the use of aggressive suppression operations could have minor to moderate localized adverse short term impacts on wetlands. This would primarily occur as a direct result of fireline construction, whether by hand or by mechanized equipment, in or near wetland areas. Use of firefighting foams and chemical suppressant agents can also have negative effects on water quality in wetland areas. These impacts are somewhat self-negating however, as wetland areas typically contain vegetation that is succulent and has inherent fire-resistant tendencies. In addition, environmental conditions in wetland areas generally are not favorable to the spread and propagation of wildland fire. Relative humidity and fuel moistures are typically very high in wetland areas. These factors may work individually or in unison to exert significant dampening influences on the ignition, propagation, and intensity of wildland fires. Though wildland fires occur in the park at a frequency of approximately four fires each year, the fire history in wetland areas is rare.
Cumulative Effects
As the area around Petersburg National Battlefield becomes more developed, the presence of wetlands and floodplains in the park provides critical habitat for the plants and animals that live and reproduce in these ecosystems. As a result, any degradation of these resources is to be avoided or minimized since they are at risk outside of the park. The proliferation of some invasives outside of the park, such as common reed (Phragmities australis), provides increased opportunities for such invasives as this one and others to expand their range into the park. This process may be accelerated since invasive control activities may not be executed to the same extent outside of park boundaries as they are within the park. Fire intensities in some of these fuel types are outside the range of many suppression forces to effectively handle.
Conclusion
This alternative could have minor to moderate short term to long term impacts on wetlands. The use of aggressive wildland fire suppression in these areas can have detrimental effects on vegetation and the wildlife that utilizes these ecosystems for their habitat.
Mitigation
Areas impacted by wildland fire and suppression operations can be re-seeded with native vegetation as soon as possible after a wildland fire event in order to restore pre-fire conditions. Although it may not be practicable in all cases, avoidance altogether of wetlands during wildland fire suppression operations may be desirable.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative prescribed fire, non-fire hazardous fuel reduction, and appropriate management response fire suppression activities would occur that could have negligible adverse impacts on wetlands. Prescribed burns and non-fire methods of fuel reduction and vegetation management can be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to wetland areas, and in fact, may provide minor to moderate benefit to wetlands habitat in the long term. The use of prescribed fire and non-fire techniques allows park managers the opportunity to reduce hazard fuels and manipulate vegetation in wetland environments at the locations and times when impacts are either absent altogether or negligible. For example, some invasive species, Phragmites australis for example, can be reduced in density through the effective use of appropriately timed prescribed burning in conjunction with follow-up treatments of mechanical removal. These activities can be planned during advantageous times of the year so as to maximize results while at the same time exerting negligible impacts on nesting birds and other species that inhabit wetland areas. Wildland fire suppression operations utilizing appropriate management response strategy and tactics can be managed to minimize impacts on wetlands. The use of appropriate management response techniques allows fire managers options to avoid areas where fireline suppression activities might do more harm than the effects of the actual wildfire itself.
Cumulative Effects
The preferred alternative could contribute to minor to moderate positive long-term impacts on wetlands and floodplains through the implementation of well planned and executed prescribed burns and other non-fire treatments that benefit wetland ecosystems and habitat, thus protecting and enhancing existing limited wetlands habitat still found in the park, but that are placed under considerable pressure outside of the park primarily due to encroaching development.
Conclusion
This alternative could have negligible to minor impacts on wetlands. The management prescriptions for prescribed fire and non-fire treatments can minimize or eliminate negative impacts on wetlands, while at the same time providing for habitat improvement. Appropriate management response for wildland fire suppression will help minimize, and in most case eliminate altogether adverse impacts on wetland areas.
Mitigation
Same as Alternative I.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative activities would occur that could have negligible to minor adverse impacts on wetlands. Although non-fire fuel reduction can be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to wetland areas, it does not provide the same level of ecological benefit in many species that prescribed fire provides. Since prescribed fire will not be used in this alternative, an increased reliance on non-fire treatments will likely create an elevated potential for disturbance of wetlands. This will typically manifest itself in the form of increased foot travel by suppression and project crews as well as impacts caused by mechanized equipment and/ or the use of mechanical devices and chemicals. Wildland fires and suppression operations could still be managed through the appropriate management response mode to allow management to minimize detrimental effects of suppression operations in sensitive areas. Wildland fire occurrences under this alternative may increase over time, since fuel reduction and vegetation modification will most likely proceed at a slower pace that those identified in alternative I.
Cumulative Effects
Under this alternative, wetlands and floodplains would receive limited protection and enhancement through the implementation of non-fire vegetation and hazard fuel reduction projects, as well as benefiting from appropriate management response strategies when wildland fires do occur. However, the level of benefit and protection would be limited by the inability to utilize prescribed fire as an efficient cost effective tool across the general landscape.
Conclusion
This alternative could have negligible to minor adverse impacts on wetlands. An increased reliance on non-fire vegetation and hazard fuel treatments has the potential to lead to more disturbances of wetlands through increased impacts caused by foot travel and the use of mechanized equipment and chemicals. The inability to use such techniques as prescribed fire, a process that replicates natural processes, limits the ability of park management to restore and enhance wetlands vegetation and wildlife.
Mitigation
Management prescriptions for non-fire hazard fuel reduction and vegetation management treatments can be designed to minimize impacts on wetlands. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including varying seasonal timing of treatments in order to minimize impacts on vegetation and nesting species, or through avoidance strategies where benefits accrued through a limited treatment protocol would not outweigh the impacts caused by non-fire treatment methods.
9. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Affected Environment.
The Division of Natural Heritage of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted an inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered species in the park as a part of the process for the development of the Petersburg National Battlefield General Management Plan (2004). No rare, endangered or threatened animals were found during the surveys. An occurrence of a Granitic Flatrock natural community has been documented on existing park lands in the Five Forks Unit. This community is classified as Woolly Ragwort (Packera tomentosa) - Willdenow's Croton (Croton willdenowii) - Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) - Rock Spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris), Herbacious Vegetation (Granit Flatrock Complex, Perennial Zone, CEGL004298) in the U.S. National Vegetation Classification where it has a G3 conservation rank. A G3 conservation rank is defined by the Natural Heritage Program as being very rare or found locally in a restricted range. It may also be considered vulnerable to extinction due to other factors. Usually fewer than 100 occurrences are documented.
An American Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest was found inside of the park boundary at Colquitt's Salient of the Eastern Front in February 2004. A Wildlife Protection Zone has been established to protect the site pending further study of the nest and consultation with the USFWS has been undertaken.
Methodology.
Impacts to threatened and endangered species were qualitatively assessed by means of literature review of the effects of fire on these species, consultation with biologists and agencies, review of park management documents (such as the PETE General Management Plan (2003), Resource Management Plan (1999), and associated plans and research documents and studies as well as professional judgment.
Negligible - An action that may change a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource, but the change, if measurable, will be so small and localized consequence to the population.
Minor - An action that may change a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource; but the change, if measurable, will be a small and localized consequence to the population.
Moderate - An action that will have some change to a population of individuals of a species or a natural physical resource. The change will be measurable and will have a sufficient consequence to the population but is more localized.
Major - An action that will have a noticeable change to a population or individuals of a species or a natural physical resource. The change will be measurable and will have a substantial and possible permanent consequence to the population.
Regulations and Policies.
Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:
Desired Condition: Minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of rare and endangered species and preserve their natural habitat to the extent possible.
Source - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), Bald Eagle Act (16 USC 668), National Park Service Management Policies.
Impacts of Alternative I - No Action
Impact Analysis
This alternative foregoes any activity to manage wildland fire in a pro-active manner, other than those enacted through seasonal preparation and training of response personnel. Because suppression operations are aimed at keeping wildland fires to the smallest possible size, the use of aggressive suppression tactics could have minor to moderate long term localized adverse impacts on listed species. While this alternative could potentially reduce exposure of listed species to just the direct impacts of a wildland fire, the exclusion of all fire from the ecosystem would perpetuate the ongoing, long-term decline in value of park vegetation communities and the accompanying effects on wildlife. Among the federally listed species, the primarily fish-eating, shoreline-nesting bald eagle would most likely be largely unaffected (no effect) in the long term. In the short term, the presence of suppression personnel, and equipment, could interrupt normal nesting and feeding activities. On the other hand, low intensity wildland fires may provide increased opportunities for hunting prey species by removing vegetative cover and creating dead trees, or snags, that eagles utilize both for nesting and hunting. Under this alternative, there is the potential for buildup of hazardous fuels through a continued use of a suppression-only fire policy. The increased fuel accumulations that occur over time could fuel wildland fires that burn with greater intensity and whose effect upon forest vegetation could lead to destruction of forest canopy and remove older growth species from availability as nesting sites and hunting perches.
The granitic flatrock community is found in habitat that is near a watercourse and is flooded on occasion, and hence it is unlikely to be affected directly by wildland fire, either directly or through suppression activities. If retardants or foam suppressant used in fire suppression were spilled or misapplied in the vicinity of these species, they could conceivably have a direct effect, but it is uncertain whether this would be either a positive or a negative effect. In either case, the likelihood of this occurring is remote since the park has a policy of allowing no chemical retardant or suppressive within 100 feet of any wetland, water or riparian resource. In the event of a large-scale, high intensity wildland fire, such as those that manifest themselves during periods of extended drought, and when accompanied by low relative humidity and high winds, direct or indirect adverse impacts to these species could occur as the result of intense heat and/ or severe erosion. This could occur as an adjunct effect to soil exposure as the result of an exceptionally intense fire.
Cumulative Effects
As the area around Petersburg National Battlefield becomes more developed, the presence of appropriate protected environments in the park provide critical habitat for the plants and animals that live and reproduce in these ecosystems. The presence of some plants and animals of special concern that are found on lands adjacent to the park leads to the possibility of their existence within park boundaries. At present, none of these species have been found within the park, though they may exist, since appropriate habitat and environmental conditions are present. Any degradation of these species is to be avoided or minimized since they are at risk. In addition, the proliferation of some invasives outside of the park, such as kudzu (Pueraria Montana var lobata), provides increased opportunities to expand their range into the park. This process may be accelerated since invasive control activities may not be executed to the same extent outside of park boundaries as they are within. Fire intensities in some of these fuel types are often outside the range of many suppression forces to effectively handle. This could result in increased risk to species of concern and lead to moderate adverse long term impacts.
Conclusion
This alternative could have minor to moderate long term impacts on threatened and endangered species as well as other species of concern .The use of aggressive wildland fire suppression in areas where these species are found can have direct impacts upon vegetation and, as a secondary result, on the wildlife that utilizes these ecosystems for their everyday activities.
In sum, with regard to the federally listed species protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, Alternative I would likely result in the following impacts:
Bald eagle - may effect, but not likely to adversely affect.
Mitigation
Under this alternative, the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
All bald eagle nests, sensitive plant locations, or any other listed species identified as being at risk due to a wildland fire, would be protected from the effects of those incidents chiefly through avoidance during fire suppression operations.
Maps of all known locations of species of concern will be made available for all personnel responding to wildland fire incidents.
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) will be taught at all park fire training sessions.
In the event that an avoidance strategy fails during wildland fire operations, any fire that threatens an active bald eagle nest will be suppressed.
Impacts of Alternative II - Preferred Alternative
Impact Analysis
Generally, this alternative would have impacts upon threatened and endangered species that are best classified as long term, and if successfully implemented, largely beneficial. Through a thoughtful and well-executed program of prescribed fire and the utilization of non-fire hazardous fuel and invasive species reduction, this alternative would allow park management the opportunity to make marked progress in the direction of restoring vital ecosystem components and allowing the park to closely mimic the natural fire regime that was previously found in the ecosystem. For reasons discussed in the previous alternative, listed species like the bald eagle would benefit from the restoration of both wetlands and forest ecosystems by allowing more favorable habitat for nesting and hunting activities.
Under this alternative, the proposed five-year plan would be fully implemented. When subjected to the treatments of prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, listed species would likely suffer negligible to minor temporary adverse impacts. These would chiefly take the form of temporary effects of smoke and human presence during the implementation phase of any treatment. In the long term, the implementation of this alternative would likely benefit these species through a reduction in invasives and accompanying increase in native species that provide levels of forage and cover more in keeping with natural park ecosystems.
Cumulative Effects
The preferred alternative would contribute to minor to moderate positive long-term impacts on species of concern. This would largely be accomplished through restoration of habitat, both wetlands and associated forest types. It would be achieved through the implementation of well planned and executed prescribed burns and other non-fire treatments that benefit wetland and forest ecosystems and the animals that use them. Enhancing the existing limited wetlands habitat that are still found in the park, but that are under considerable pressure outside of the park due to encroaching development, would provide long term benefit to species of concern, particularly the bald eagle.
Conclusion
This alternative could have negligible to minor impacts on species of concern. The management prescriptions for prescribed fire and non-fire treatments can minimize or eliminate negative impacts on wetlands and forests, while at the same time providing for habitat improvement. The use of appropriate management response strategies and tactics for wildland fire suppression would help minimize, and in most cases, eliminate adverse impacts on wetlands and forest ecosystems.
In sum, with regard to the Federal listed species protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, Alternative II would likely result in the following impacts:
Bald eagle - no effect
Mitigation
All bald eagle nests, sensitive plant locations, or any other listed species identified as being at risk due to a wildland fire, would be protected from the effects of those incidents chiefly through avoidance during fire suppression operations.
In order to ensure that they are not impacted, all bald eagle nests, sensitive plant locations, or other listed species identified as being present in or near the close proximity (generally 100 feet) to a prescribed burn unit, would receive mitigation as described in the individual prescribed burn plan prepared for that specific burn.
Fire management personnel would provide the Chief of Natural Resources and the Prescribed Fire Committee with copies of prescribed burn plans far enough in advance to allow a detailed survey of the area before implementation.
Fire management staff would inform the Chief of Natural Resources of wildland fire suppression activities as soon as possible.
Maps of all known locations of species of concern would be made available for all personnel responding to wildland fire incidents.
Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) will be taught at all park and cooperating agency fire training sessions.
In the event that an avoidance strategy fails during wildland fire operations, any fire that threatens an active bald eagle nest would be suppressed.
Impacts of Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
Impact Analysis
Under this alternative activities would occur that could have negligible to minor impacts on species of concern. Although non-fire fuel reductions can be designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to wetland areas and forest ecosystems, they do not allow for the same level of ecological benefit in many species that the use of prescribed fire allows. Since prescribed fire will not be used in this alternative, an increased reliance on non-fire treatments will likely create an elevated potential for disturbance of wetlands. This will typically manifest itself in the form of increased foot travel by suppression and project crews as well as impacts caused by mechanized equipment and/ or the use of mechanical devices and chemicals. Wildland fires and suppression operations could still be managed through the appropriate management response mode to allow management to minimize detrimental effects of suppression operations in sensitive areas. Wildland fire occurrences under this alternative may increase over time, since fuel reduction and vegetation modification will most likely proceed at a slower pace that those identified in alternative I.
Cumulative Effects
Under this alternative, park ecosystems would receive limited protection and enhancement through the implementation of non-fire vegetation and hazard fuel reduction projects, as well as benefit from appropriate management response strategies when wildland fires do occur. However, the level of benefit and protection would be limited, perhaps in a significant manner, by the inability to utilize prescribed fire as an efficient cost effective tool across the general landscape.
Conclusion
This alternative could have negligible to minor impacts on species of concern. An increased reliance on non-fire vegetation and hazard fuel treatments has the potential to lead to more disturbances of habitat through increased impacts caused by foot travel and the use of mechanized equipment and chemicals. The inability to use such techniques as prescribed fire, a process that replicates natural processes, limits the ability of park management to restore and enhance park ecosystems that support species of concern.
In sum, with regard to the Federal listed species protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, Alternative II would likely result in the following impacts:
Bald eagle - no effect
Mitigation
Management prescriptions for non-fire hazard fuel reduction and vegetation management treatments can be designed to minimize impacts on species of concern, chiefly through manipulation of applicable habitats. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including varying the seasonal timing of treatments in order to minimize impacts on vegetation or on nesting species, or by avoiding those areas altogether where benefits accrued through a limited treatment protocol would not outweigh the impacts caused by non-fire treatment methods.