Andersonville 2003 Fire Management Plan

Andersonville National Historic Site

Fire Management Plan

Environmental Assessment

August 2003

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

Andersonville National Historic Site
496 Cemetery Rd.
Andersonville, GA 31711

Document Prepared by:
Mangi Environmental Group
7915 Jones Branch Drive
Ste. 2300
McLean, VA 22102

Project Manager:
Joel Gorder

Geographic Information Systems Analyst:
Rebecca Whitney

Compilation date: August 2003

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the results of a study of the potential environmental impacts from fire management activities proposed in the Andersonville National Historic Site Fire Management Plan.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with:

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental analysis for major Federal Actions having the potential to impact the quality of the environment;
• Council of Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, which implement the requirements of NEPA;
• National Park Service Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making; Director’s Order (DO) #12 and Handbook.

Key goals of NEPA are to help Federal agency officials make well-informed decisions about agency actions and to provide a role for the general public in the decision-making process. The study and documentation mechanisms associated with NEPA seek to provide decision-makers with sound knowledge of the comparative environmental consequences of the several courses of action available to them. NEPA studies, and the documents recording their results, such as this EA, focus on providing input to the particular decisions faced by the relevant officials. In this case, the Superintendent of Andersonville National Historic Site is faced with a decision about the fire management activities to be included in the park’s Fire Management Plan, as described below. This decision will be made within the overall management framework already established in the Andersonville National Historic Site General Management Plan and consistent with 2001 federal wildland fire management policy and guidelines.The alternative courses of action to be considered at this time are, unless otherwise noted, crafted to be consistent with the concepts established in the General Management Plan (copies of the General Management Plan can be obtained by contacting NPS personnel at the park) and the 2001 federal wildland fire management policy and guidelines.

In making decisions about National Park Service administered resources, the Park Service is guided by the requirements of the 1916 Organic Act and other laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The authority for the conservation and management of the National Park Service is clearly stated in the Organic Act, which states the agency’s purpose: “...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This authority was further clarified in the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978: “Congress declares that...these areas, though distinct in character, are united...into one national park system.... The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.”

Andersonville, or Camp Sumter as it was officially known, was one of the largest Confederate military prisons established during the Civil War. It was constructed early in 1864 after Confederate officials decided to move the large number of Federal prisoners kept in and around Richmond, Virginia, to a place of greater security. Since July 1, 1971, the National Park Service has administered the park. Andersonville National Historic Site is the only park in the National Park System to serve as a memorial to all American prisoners of war throughout the nation’s history. Congress stated in the authorizing legislation that this park’s purpose is “…to provide an understanding of the overall prisoner of war story of the Civil War, to interpret the role of prisoner-of-war camps in history, and to commemorate the sacrifice of Americans who lost their lives in such camps and to preserve the monuments located therein…” In 1998, the National Prisoner of War Museum opened at Andersonville, dedicated to all men and women of this country who have suffered captivity as a result of war.

The requirements placed on the National Park Service by these laws, especially the Organic Act, mandate that resources are passed on to future generations “unimpaired” (DOI, 2001). This EA addresses whether the actions of the various alternatives proposed by Andersonville National Historic Site impair resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents (see Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences).

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

Ecological and meteorological evidence indicates that lightning-caused fires were major environmental force shaping the vegetation of North America for millions of years prior to human habitation (Van Lear and Waldrop, 1989). According to fire ecologist Dr. Cecil Frost (1998), “…fire once played a role in shaping all but the wettest, the most arid, or the most fire-sheltered plant communities of the United States.”

Prior to the establishment of Andersonville Prison in 1864, the prison site and surrounding land were forested with pine. After 1864 the natural fire regime was essentially halted with the unfolding of historic events. The prison site and surrounding land were clearcut, and the timber used in the construction of the stockade, associated structures, and fortifications. Currently, 120 acres of the park are maintained in park-like condition (e.g. manicured lawns, pruned trees and hedges, ornamental flower beds) through the use of mechanized thinning and mowing. The whole of the prison site area is mowed to maintain scenic vistas and to mimic, as close as possible, the conditions that were present during the time of the prison. The remaining 395 acres are currently unmaintained and the vegetation is primarily a pine/hardwood association. A natural fire regime no longer exists at the park.

National Park Service Wildland Fire Management Guidelines (DO-18) states, “All parks with vegetation that can sustain fire must have a fire management plan.” The purpose of this federal action is to develop a fire management plan and program that utilizes the benefits of fire to maintain the cultural landscape while minimizing the fire danger to park resources and adjacent lands from hazardous fuel accumulations. There is a need to manage native plant communities, such as oak-pine forest, and restore and protect the historic landscape while at the same time protect visitors, facilities, and resources on and adjacent to the park.

1.3 BACKGROUND

Andersonville National Historic Site is located in the rolling hills in southwest Georgia in Macon and Sumter Counties. The city of Andersonville is immediately adjacent to the park on the west and has a population of approximately 300 people. (see Figure 1-1). The nearest major metropolitan areas in the region are Atlanta, located approximately 135 miles north of the park, and Columbus, located 65 miles northwest from the park. The authorized boundary of the park is 515 acres. Andersonville National Historic Site consists of:

• Historic prison site - The prison pen initially covered about 16.5 acres of land enclosed by a 15-foot-high stockade of hewn pine logs. It was enlarged to 26.5 acres in June of 1864. The stockade was in the shape of a parallelogram 1,620 feet long and 779 feet wide. Inside, about 19 feet from the wall, was the “deadline,” which prisoners were forbidden to cross upon threat of death. Nothing except archeological evidence remains of the 1864 stockade wall. Five-foot high white, concrete stakes marks the stockade and deadline, while stone markers identify the north and south gates. The fortifications surrounding the stockade today appear as grass-covered earthworks. At the northern end of the stockade site and at the hospital site are 32 escape tunnels and well sites, most of which have been filled in for safety reasons. The prison yard itself is currently a grassy field.
• The national cemetery – Following the Civil War, the area 500 yards north of the stockade, which had been used as a burial ground for deceased prisoners, was established as a national cemetery effective on July 26, 1865. The cemetery contains the graves of approximately 13,000 Union soldiers who died while prisoners at Andersonville. Also interred here are veterans of the Spanish-American War (including the Philippine Insurrection), World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. The cemetery is maintained in park-like condition.

The annual occurrence of wildland fires at Andersonville National Historic Site is very low. Since 1980, only one wildland fire has occurred at the park. The escaped trash fire entered the park from adjacent non-agency land in May of 2000, and burned only 6.5 acres.

1.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

National Park Service Wildland Fire Management Guidelines (DO-18) requires that all parks with vegetation capable of sustaining fire develop a wildland fire management plan that will meet the specific resource management objectives for that park and to ensure that firefighter and public safety are not compromised. This guideline identifies fire as the most aggressive natural resource management tool employed by the National Park Service. The guideline further states that all fires occurring in the wildland are classified as either wildland fires or prescribed fires. Prescribed fires and wildland fire use may be authorized by an approved wildland fire management plan and contribute to a park’s resource management objectives. Human-caused wildland fires are unplanned events and may not be used to achieve resource management objectives.

DO-18 identifies three paramount considerations for each Park’s fire management program. They are:

• Protect human life and property both within and adjacent to Park areas;
• Perpetuate, restore, replace, or replicate natural processes to the greatest extent practicable; and
• Protect natural and cultural resources and intrinsic values from unacceptable impacts attributable to fire and fire management activities

The overall objectives of the Andersonville National Historic Site are the following:

• Suppress all wildland fire in a cost-effective manner, consistent with resource objectives, considering firefighter and public safety (always the highest priority), and values to be protected (including adjacent non-agency land);
• Use prescribed fire and/or non-fire applications to:
  • Preserve the historic (1864-1865) landscape
  • Reduce hazard fuels accumulations to create and maintain defensible space around park infrastructure, which in turn:
    • Reduces the threat of catastrophic wildland fire, and reduces the risk of negative impacts to park resources in the event of a wildland fire; ·
    • Improves conditions for firefighter and public safety, and reduces suppression costs in the event of a wildland fire;
  • Control exotic vegetation species, which compete with native vegetation and alter the historic landscape;
• Manage all wildland fire incidents in accordance with accepted interagency standards, using appropriate management strategies and tactics, and maximizing efficiency via interagency coordination and cooperation;
• Provide park employees with fire operations training and experience so as to develop fully-qualified personnel commensurate with the normal fire year workload;
• Develop new and maintain existing memoranda of understanding with state and local fire management agencies in order to facilitate close working relationships and mutual cooperation regarding fire management activities;
• Develop and conduct a monitoring program with recommended standard monitoring levels commensurate with the scope of the fire management program, and use the information gained to continually evaluate and improve the fire management program;
• Integrate knowledge gained through natural resource research into future fire management decisions and actions;
• Maintain the highest standards of professional and technical expertise in planning and safely implementing an effective fire management program;
• Plan and conduct all fire management activities in accordance with all applicable laws, policies and regulations; and
• Incorporate the minimum impact tactics policy into all fire management activities, to the greatest extent feasible and appropriate.

Resource management objectives in relation to the fire management program include the following:

Cultural resource preservation

• Identifying, evaluating, protecting and preserving the park’s cultural resources and artifacts in accordance with legislation and executive requirements and the Service’s historic preservation policies. This, in part, involves:
• Preserving the remains of the Star Fort and other historic resources, determining and marking the locations of other features of the Andersonville Prison site, and restoring cultural resources [e.g. the historic landscape] to the extent necessary for public appreciation of the site’s historical significance and in accordance with applicable policies;

Natural resource conservation

• Promoting reestablishment of mature oak-pine forest in the park, except where manipulation of natural resources is required to maintain the historic setting; (Manipulation of natural resources involves controlling the vegetation in the historic zone to duplicate as near as practical the tree line of 1864);
• Documenting the existing air quality and providing a management strategy to protect the historic resources of Andersonville;
• Promoting safe, efficient access to and circulation within Andersonville Prison site and the national cemetery;
• Securing adequate information to facilitate development of optimal management strategies for the park’s cultural and natural resources

1.5 SCOPING ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS

On March 10, 2003, the park placed announcements in local papers (The Citizen Georgian, Sumter Free Press, Sumter News, Macon County News Leader, and the Americus Times Recorder) and mailed scoping letters to three individuals living near park boundaries describing the Proposed Action and invited the public to an open house. On March 17, 2003, the public open house was held at the park to discuss the Fire Management Plan and the proposed use of manual/mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments in the park. No public comments were made. As a result, park personnel developed all alternatives and impacts to be considered in this EA.

1.5.1 Impact Topics Considered in this EA

Impact topics are derived from issues raised during internal and external scoping. Not every conceivable impact of a proposed action is substantive enough to warrant analysis. The following topics, however, do merit consideration in this EA:

Soils: Low and moderate-severity fires can benefit soils through a fertilization effect, while high-severity fires and fire line construction can damage soils; therefore, impacts to soils are analyzed in this EA.

Water Resources (including Floodplains): NPS policies require protection of water resources consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act. Sweetwater Creek and Stockade Branch are two streams associated with Andersonville National Historic Site. The 100-year floodplain of Prison Branch extends into the park. Prescribed fires and fire suppression efforts can adversely impact water quality (sediment delivery, turbidity); therefore, impacts to water resources are analyzed in this EA.

Vegetation: Approximately 120 acres of Andersonville National Historic Site are maintained in park-like condition. In unmaintained portions of the park, the vegetation is primarily a pine/hardwood association. Areas of swampy bottomland are vegetated by bottomland hardwood. Prescribed fires and fire suppression efforts can impact these plant communities; therefore, impacts to vegetation are analyzed in this EA.

Wildlife: There are resident populations of various species of reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates that can be adversely and/or beneficially impacted by prescribed fires treatments. Therefore, impacts to wildlife are evaluated in this EA.

Threatened and Endangered Species: The Federal Endangered Species Act prohibits harm to any species of fauna or flora listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as being either threatened or endangered. Such harm includes not only direct injury or mortality, but also disrupting the habitat on which these species depend. There are two threatened and endangered species that may inhabit or visit Andersonville National Historic Site, including the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Therefore, impacts to T&E species are analyzed in this EA.

Air Quality: The Federal 1970 Clean Air Act stipulates that Federal agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect a park’s air quality from adverse air pollution impacts. All types of fires generate smoke and particulate matter, which can impact air quality within the park and surrounding region. In light of these considerations, air quality impacts are analyzed in this EA.

Visitor Use and Experience: The 1916 NPS Organic Act directs the Service to provide for public enjoyment of the scenery, wildlife and natural and historic resources of national parks “in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Fire management activities can result in the temporary closure of certain areas and/or result in visual impacts that may affect the visitor use and experience of the park. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed FMP on visitor use and experience are addressed in this EA.

Human Health and Safety: Wildland fires can be extremely hazardous, even life-threatening, to humans, and current federal fire management policies emphasize that firefighter and public safety is the first priority; all Fire Management Plans must reflect this commitment (NIFC, 1998). Therefore, impacts to human health and safety are addressed in this EA.

Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides the framework for Federal review and protection of cultural resources, and ensures that they are considered during Federal project planning and execution. The park in its entirety was administratively listed as an historic district in the National Register of Historic Places, with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A formal nomination was completed and approved in 1976. Thirty-eight park structures are presently included on the List of Classified Structures (LCS). While the intent of the use of fire is consistent with GMP with regards to the maintenance of the cultural landscape, cultural resources can be affected by fire itself and fire suppression activities, thus potential impacts to cultural resources are addressed in this EA.

Park Operations: Severe fires can potentially affect operations at national parks, especially in more developed sites like visitor centers, picnic areas, administrative and maintenance facilities. These impacts can occur directly from the threat to facilities of an approaching fire, and more indirectly from smoke and the diversion of personnel to firefighting. Fires have caused closures of facilities in parks around the country. Thus, the potential effects of the FMP alternatives on park operations will be considered in this EA.

1.5.2 Impact Topics Considered but dropped from Further Analysis

NEPA and the CEQ Regulations direct agencies to “avoid useless bulk…and concentrate effort and attention on important issues” (40 CFR 1502.15). Certain impact topics that are sometimes addressed in NEPA documents on other kinds of proposed actions or projects have been judged to not be substantively affected by any of the FMP alternatives considered in this EA. These topics are listed and briefly described below, and the rationale provided for considering them, but dropping them from further analysis.

Noise: Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Prescribed fires and fire suppression efforts can involve the use of noise-generating mechanical tools and devices with engines, such as chain saws and trucks. Chain saws, at close range, are quite loud (in excess of 100 decibels). The use of machines, such as chainsaws, would be infrequent in light of the limited thinning to be conducted on the park (on the order of hours, days, or at most weeks per year). This is not frequent enough to substantially interfere with human activities in the area or with wildlife behavior. Nor will such infrequent bursts of noise chronically impair the solitude and tranquility associated with park. Therefore, this impact topic is eliminated from further analysis in this EA.

Waste Management: None of the FMP alternatives would generate noteworthy quantities of either hazardous or solid wastes that need to be disposed of in hazardous waste or general sanitary landfills. Therefore this impact topic is dropped from additional consideration.

Utilities: Generally speaking, some kinds of projects, especially those involving construction, may temporarily impact above and below-ground telephone, electrical, natural gas, water, and sewer lines and cables, potentially disrupting service to customers. Other proposed actions may exert a substantial, long-term demand on telephone, electrical, natural gas, water, and sewage infrastructure, sources, and service, thereby compromising existing service levels or causing a need for new facilities to be constructed. None of the FMP alternatives will cause any of these effects to any extent, and therefore utilities are eliminated from any additional analysis.

Land Use: Visitor and administrative facilities occur within the park. Fire management activities would not affect land uses within the park or in areas adjacent to it; therefore, land use is not included for further analysis in this EA.

Socio-economics: NEPA requires an analysis of impacts to the “human environment” which includes economic, social and demographic elements in the affected area. Fire management activities may bring a short-term need for additional personnel in the park, but this addition would be minimal and would not affect the neighboring community’s overall population, income and employment base. Therefore, this impact topic is not included for further analysis in this EA.

Transportation: None of the FMP alternatives would substantively affect road, railroad, water-based, or aerial transportation in and around the park. One exception to this general rule would be the temporary closure of nearby roads during fire suppression activities or from heavy smoke emanating from wildland fires or prescribed fires. Over the long term, such closures would not significantly impinge local traffic since they would be both very infrequent, and, in the case of prescribed fire, of short duration.

Environmental Justice / Protection of Children: Presidential Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionate impacts of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 13045 requires Federal actions and policies to identify and address disproportionately adverse risks to the health and safety of children. None of the alternatives would have disproportionate health or environmental effects on minorities or low-income populations as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice Guidance; therefore, these topics are not further addressed in this EA.

Indian Trust Resources: Indian trust assets are owned by Native Americans but held in trust by the United States. Indian trust assets do not occur within Andersonville National Historic Site and, therefore, are not evaluated further in this EA.

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands: Prime farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Unique land is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. Both categories require that the land is available for farming uses. There is no prime and unique agricultural lands found within the park, therefore, this impact topic is not evaluated further in this EA.

Wilderness: According to National Park Service Management Policies (2001), proposals having the potential to impact wilderness resources must be evaluated in accordance with National Park Service procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Since there are no proposed or designated wilderness areas within or adjacent to the park, wilderness impacts are not further evaluated in this EA.

Resource Conservation, Including Energy, and Pollution Prevention: The National Park Service’s Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design provides a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates principles to be used such as resource conservation and recycling. Proposed project actions would not minimize or add to resource conservation or pollution prevention on the park and, therefore, this impact topic is not evaluated further in this EA.

Table 1-1 Impact Topics for Andersonville National Historic Site Fire Management Plan

Impact Topic	Retained or Dismissed from Further Evaluation	Relevant Regulations or Policies
Soils	Retained	NPS Management Policies 2001
Water Resources	Retained	Clean Water Act; Executive Order 12088; NPS Management Policies
Floodplains and Wetlands	Retained	Executive Order 11988; Executive Order 11990; Rivers and Harbors Act; Clean Water Act; NPS Management Policies
Vegetation	Retained	NPS Management Policies
Wildlife	Retained	NPS Management Policies
Threatened and Endangered Species and their Habitats	Retained	Endangered Species Act; NPS Management Policies
Air Quality	Retained	Federal Clean Air Act (CAA); CAA Amendments of 1990; NPS Management Policies
Visitor Use and Experience	Retained	NPS Management Policies
Human Health & Safety	Retained	NPS Management Policies
Cultural Resources	Retained
Park Operations	Retained	NPS Management Policies
Noise	Dismissed	NPS Management Policies
Waste Management	Dismissed	NPS Management Policies
Utilities	Dismissed	NPS Management Policies
Land Use	Dismissed	NPS Management Policies
Socioeconomics	Dismissed	40 CFR Regulations for Implementing NEPA; NPS Management Policies
Transportation	Dismissed	NPS Management Policies
Environmental Justice	Dismissed	Executive Order 12898
Indian Trust Resources	Dismissed	Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders No. 3206 and No. 3175
Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands	Dismissed	Council on Environmental Quality 1980 memorandum on prime and unique farmlands
Wilderness	Dismissed	The Wilderness Act; Director’s Order #41; NPS Management Policies
Resource Conservation, Including Energy, and Pollution Prevention	Dismissed	NEPA; NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design; NPS Management Policies

Chapter 2 - Issues and Alternatives

This Chapter describes the range of alternatives, including the Proposed Action and “No Action” Alternatives, formulated to address the purpose of and need for the proposed project. These alternatives were developed through evaluation of the comments provided by individuals, organizations, governmental agencies, and the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT).

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER IN THIS EA

2.1.1 Fire Management Plan to include Wildland Fire Use

Wildland fire use involves the management of fires ignited by either human or natural means (usually lightning) that are permitted to burn under specific environmental conditions for natural resource benefits. In many cases, national parks and forests employ wildland fire use as a part of their fire management program to obtain natural resource benefits from wildland fire. These parks and forests typically have large acreages and the areas identified for its use contain few if any private residences and structures nearby (wildland urban interface). In such cases, wildland fire use is a critical component in meeting fire management objectives of federal agencies. This alternative was considered but not analyzed further in this EA because the current authorized boundary of the park (515 acres) is too small to ensure adequate staff to properly manage wildland fire as management tool, and to ensure fire containment could be kept within park boundaries. In addition, because of the unpredictability of wildland fire occurrence, if a wildland fire occurred when meteorological conditions were not ideal, the fire could burn “hot” and have detrimental effects to park resources. Park staff concluded that the potential risks to human health and safety and natural/cultural resources under this alternative outweigh any potential resource benefits that would be obtained from including wildland fire use into the Fire Management Plan.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED IN THIS EA

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) - Fire Management Plan to Include Wildland Fire Suppression and Manual /Mechanical Treatments

Under this alternative, the Fire Management Plan would include the suppression of all wildland fires and allow only for manual/mechanical thinning techniques. Due to its small size and uniformity, the entirety of Andersonville National Historic Site would be contained in one Fire Management Unit (FMU).

Under this alternative, all wildland fires in the park, human-caused fires and naturally-ignited fires (e.g. lightning), would be declared wildland fires and suppressed in a manner that minimizes negative environmental impacts of suppression activities. All wildland fire suppression activities would adhere to minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) guidelines as outlined in Section 2.3 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring. Manual and mechanical treatment would involve limited, selective thinning of small diameter woody shrubs and trees to maintain open areas and historic vistas, promote control of exotic vegetation species (kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), khakiweed (Alternanthera pungens), and bamboo (Phyllostachys spp. and Bambusa spp.)) and create and/or maintain defensible space of at least 30 feet around all park buildings, and include mowing in parts of the grass area (bush hog).

2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Fire Management Plan to Include Wildland Fire Suppression and Expanded Manual /Mechanical Treatments

Under this alternative, the Fire Management Plan would include the suppression of all wildland fires and allow only for manual/mechanical techniques. The entirety of Andersonville National Historic Site would continue to be contained in one Fire Management Unit (FMU). Under this alternative, all wildland fire suppression would be conducted in the same manner as in the “No Action” Alternative. Manual/mechanical thinning treatments would also be conducted the same as in the “No Action” Alternative, however it would be expanded to include annual maintenance of the 10 acre wetted area adjacent to Stockade Branch. The vegetation of this area consists mostly of grasses and forbs and the maintenance would consist of mowing to keep the scenic integrity of the historic vista. Mowing times would be scheduled during the driest part of the year to allow the soils along the creek to thoroughly dry out to avoid excessive compaction and rutting.

2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) - Fire Management Plan to Include Wildland Fire Suppression, Non Fire-fuel Treatment Applications, and Prescribed Fire Use

Under this alternative, the Fire Management Plan would include the suppression of all wildland fires, allow for non-fire applications, and provide for prescribed fires.

Under this alternative, all wildland fires in the park, human-caused fires and naturally ignited fires (e.g. lightning), would be declared wildland fires and suppressed in a manner that minimizes negative environmental impacts of suppression activities. All wildland fire suppression activities would adhere to MIST guidelines as outlined in Section 2.4 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring. Non-fire applications would involve manual and mechanical techniques (e.g. chainsaws, bush hog) to maintain open areas and historic vistas, promote exotic vegetation species control, and create and/or maintain defensible space of at least 30 feet around all park buildings. One of the maintenance facilities at the park includes two buildings, an aboveground fuel storage unit, vehicles, and gas-powered equipment. A 60-foot radius of defensible space (totaling approximately 1 acre) will be mechanically created and maintained around this facility. This will involve removing hazard fuels, including dead and down timber, ladder fuels, exotic vegetation, and timber of less than 4 inches in diameter at breast height. Non-fire applications would be performed from May-Jun 2003 and as necessary thereafter.

Prescribed fire would be employed along the wetted area of Stockade Branch, which consists of about 10 acres of grasses and forbs. Fire would be utilized in this area to facilitate maintenance operations and to minimize the negative impacts that the lawnmowers have on the soft soil surrounding the creek. This maintenance program (2004-2007) would require annual fire return intervals.

2.2.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The National Park Service is required to identify the environmentally preferred alternative(s) for any of its proposed projects. That alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101 (b)).
This includes alternatives that:

1. 1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
2. ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
5. achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

In essence, the environmentally preferred alternative would be the one(s) that “causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” (DOI, 2001).

In this case, Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferred alternatives for Andersonville National Historic Site since it best meets goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 described above. Under this alternative, fire management activities would restore and maintain native plant communities in the park, mimic the natural ecological processes, and help protect park resources and adjacent lands from the threat of wildland fires. Finally, the alternative best protects and helps preserve the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the park for current and future generations.

2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING

Andersonville National Historic Site will collect information on fuel reduction efforts, vegetative resources, and other objective dependant variables after a fire (wildland fire or prescribed fire). During fire events (wildland fire or prescribed fire), data will be collected regarding the current fire conditions consistent with the variables identified in a prescribed fire plan, such as fuel and vegetation type, anticipated fire behavior and fire spread, current and forecasted weather, smoke volume and dispersal, etc.)

Upon implementation of a prescribed fire program, the park will coordinate with the Southeast Regional Office Fire Ecologist to establish monitoring plots at select locations within the park. The Natchez Trace Fire Effects Team will conduct short-term change and long-term change monitoring of these plots and complete associated documentation. Short-term change monitoring, also known as Level 3 monitoring in the NPS Fire Monitoring Handbook (2001), provides information on vegetative change within a specific vegetation or fuel complex. Longterm change monitoring, also known as Level 4 monitoring, typically involves a continuation of Level 3 monitoring at the same permanent transects or plots, and serves to identify trends that can guide management decisions. The information gathered will be used as feedback to make any necessary refinements or changes to the prescribed fire objectives and prescriptions in place at the park. The monitoring program will continue to be refined as more intelligence is gathered through research regarding the role of fire in the various park vegetation communities.

Mitigation measures are prescribed to prevent and/or mitigate adverse environmental impacts that may occur from fire management activities. Mitigation measures are common to all alternatives.

2.3.1 Fire Management Activities

• All suppression guidelines will follow Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines. These include:
• Keep fire engines or slip-on units on existing roads whenever possible;
  • Restrict the use of heavy equipment for constructing fireline. A bulldozer or plow may be used for fireline construction only in extreme situations to protect human life and property, and then only with the authorization of the park superintendent or designee. Plow lines will be kept as shallow as possible;
  • Prohibit the use of fire line explosives;
  • Use existing natural fuel breaks and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold trailing the fire edge in lieu of fireline construction whenever possible. For example, in regard to the use of prescribed fire at Andersonville National Historic Site, holding line construction should not be necessary, as the proposed 10-acre prescribed fire unit is surrounded by mowed grass, and a wetline will serve to contain the burn, while reducing impacts to resources;
  • Keep fire line widths as narrow as possible when they must be constructed;
  • Avoid ground disturbance within known natural (e.g. T&E species) and archeological/cultural/historic resource locations. When fire line construction is necessary in proximity to these resource locations, it will involve as little ground disturbance as possible and be located as far outside of resource boundaries as possible;
  • Use water instead of fire retardant;
  • Use soaker hose, sprinklers or foggers in mop-up; avoid boring and hydraulic action;
  • Minimize the cutting of trees;
  • Scatter or remove debris as prescribed by the incident commander;
  • Protect air and water quality by complying with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements.

2.3.2 Soil and Water Resources (Including Wetlands)

• Stream crossings will be limited to set and existing locations

2.3.3 Air Quality

• The suppression response selected to manage wildland fire will consider air quality standards;
• Fire weather forecasts will be used to correlate prescribed fire ignition with periods of optimal combustion and smoke dispersal. Any smoke situation that arises and threatens any smoke-sensitive areas will entail immediate suppression action;

2.3.4 Visitor Experience and Use

• Prescribed fires will not be ignited during periods of peak visitation;

2.3.5 Human Health and Safety

• Prescribed fires will not be conducted when atmospheric conditions exist that could permit degradation of air quality to a degree that negatively affects public health. Federal and state air quality standards will be the basis for this decision;
• Park neighbors, visitors and local residents will be notified of all planned and unplanned fire management events that have the potential to impact them;
• The superintendent or designee may, as a safety precaution, temporarily close all or part of the park to the visiting public. In the case of prescribed fire, areas needing to be closed for visitor protection will be closed prior to the initiation of prescribed fire;
• When smoke impacts roadways, the park will post “Smoke on Road” signs on either side of the affected area; the park will reduce the posted speed limit when visibility is strongly reduced, and escort vehicles with a well-marked law enforcement vehicle as necessary; and close the road to traffic when visibility is severely reduced;
• Only fully qualified (i.e. meeting NPS qualifications and accepted interagency knowledge, skills and abilities for the assigned fire job), red-carded employees will be assigned fire management duties (unless assigned as trainees, in which case they will be closely supervised by an individual fully qualified for the given position);
• No fire management operations will be initiated until all personnel involved have received a safety briefing describing known hazards and mitigating actions, current fire season conditions, and current and predicted fire weather and behavior;
• Wildland fire incident commanders and prescribed fire bosses will minimize firefighter exposure to heavy smoke by incorporating the recommendations outlined in the publication Health Hazards of Smoke (Sharkey, 1997), available from the Missoula Technology and Development Center

2.3.6 Cultural Resources

• During all fire management activities, MIST guidelines will be incorporated to the greatest extent feasible and appropriate, employing methods least damaging to park resources for the given situation;
• Historic structures and cannons will be protected from wildland fire via defensible space around each (a minimum 30 feet around buildings), which may consist of nonflammable material (asphalt, concrete), or lack of fuel resulting from non-fire applications;
• The park cultural resources program manager will coordinate with Southeast Archeological Center to ensure that Andersonville National Historic Site has the most current data regarding archeological resources within its boundaries. S/he will provide recommendations on how to mitigate adverse effects to these resources during fire management activities, and will coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate.

2.3.7 Park Operations

• To the greatest extent feasible and appropriate, park infrastructure, any other development, and adjacent non-agency land will be protected during all fire management activities

2.4 IMPACT DEFINITIONS

Table 2-1 depicts the impact definitions used in this Environmental Assessment. Significant impact thresholds for the various key resources were determined in light of compliance with existing state and federal laws, and compliance with existing Andersonville National Historic Site planning documents.

Key Resources	"Minor" Impact	"Moderate" Impact	"Major" Impact	Duration
Soils	The effects to soils would be detectable, but likely short-term. Damage to or loss of the litter/humus layers that causes slight localized increases in soil loss from erosion; effects to soil productivity or fertility would be small, as would the area affected; short-term and localized compaction of soils that does not prohibit re-vegetation; If mitigation were needed to offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to implement and likely successful.	The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent, long term, and result in a change to the soil character over a relatively wide area; fire severe enough to cause a noticeable change in soil community; intermittent areas of surface sterilization of soils that may cause some long term loss of soil productivity that may alter a portion of the vegetation community; short-to long-term and localized compaction of soils that may prohibit some re-vegetation; Mitigation measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful.	The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent, long-term, and substantially change the character of the soils over a large area in and out of the park. Damage to or loss of the litter/ humus layers that would increase soil loss from erosion on a substantial portion of the burn area; fire severe enough to cause substantial damage to the soil community; substantial surface sterilization of soils that may cause long term loss of soil productivity and that may alter or destroy the vegetation community over most of the burned area; long-term and widespread soil compaction that affects a large number of acres and prohibits re-vegetation; Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed, extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.	Short Term Recovers in less than 3 years Long Term Takes more than 3 years to recover
Water Resources (Including Wetlands and Floodplains)	Changes in water quality would be measurable, although small, likely shortterm, and localized; localized and indirect riparian impacts that do not substantively increase stream temperatures or affect stream habitats; no alteration of natural hydrology of wetlands; A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit would not be required; no filling or disconnecting of the floodplain; short-term impacts that do not affect the functionality of the floodplain No mitigation measure associated with water quality would be necessary	Changes in water quality would be measurable and long-term but would be relatively local; localized and indirect riparian impacts that may slightly increase stream temperatures or affect stream habitats; alteration of natural hydrology of wetlands would be apparent such that an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit could be required; alteration of the floodplain apparent; Wetland or floodplain functions would not be affected in the long-term; Mitigation measures associated with water quality or hydrology would be necessary and the measures would likely succeed	Changes in water quality would be readily measurable, would have substantial consequences, and would be noticed on a regional scale; localized and indirect riparian impact that may substantively increase stream temperatures or affect stream habitats; effects to wetlands or floodplains would be observable over a relatively large area and would be longterm, and would require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit; filling or disconnecting of the floodplain; long-term impacts that affect the functionality of the floodplain; Mitigation measures would be necessary and their success would not be guaranteed	Short Term Recovers in less than 1 year Long Term Takes more than 1 year to recover
Vegetation	Temporarily affect some individual native plants and would also affect a relatively small portion of that species’ population; short-term changes in plant species composition and/or structure, consistent with expected successional pathways of a given plant community from a natural disturbance event; increase in invasive species in limited locations; occasional death of a canopy tree; mitigation to offset adverse effects, including special measures to avoid affecting species of special concern, could be required and would be effective	The effect on some individual native plants along with a sizeable segment of the species’ population in the long-term and over a relatively large area; long-term changes in plant species composition and/or structure, consistent with expected successional pathways of a given plant community from a natural disturbance event; widespread increase in invasive species that does not jeopardize native plant communities; repeated death of a canopy tree; mitigation to offset adverse effects could be extensive, but would likely be successful; some species of special concern could also be affected	Considerable long-term effect on native plant populations, including species of special concern, and affect a relatively large area in and out of the park; violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973; widespread increase in invasive species that jeopardizes native plant communities; mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects would be required, extensive, and success of the mitigation measures would not be guaranteed	Short Term Recovers in less than 3 years Long Term Takes more than 3 years to recover
Wildlife	Temporary displacement of a few localized individuals or groups of animals; mortality of individuals of species not afforded special protection by state and/or federal law; mortality of individuals that would not impact population trends; mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be simple and successful	Effects to wildlife would be readily detectable, long-term and localized, with consequences affecting the population level(s) of specie(s); Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be extensive and likely successful	Effects to wildlife would be obvious, longterm, and would have substantial consequences to wildlife populations in the region; violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973; mortality of a number of individuals that subsequently jeopardizes the viability of the resident population; extensive mitigation measures would be needed to offset any adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed	Short Term Recovers in less than 1 year Long Term Takes more than 1 year to recover
Air Quality	Changes in air quality would be measurable, although the changes would be small, short-term, and the effects would be localized; temporary and limited smoke exposure to sensitive resources; No air quality mitigation measures would be necessary	Changes in air quality would be measurable, would have consequences, although the effect would be relatively local; all air quality standards still met; short-term exposure to sensitive resources; Air quality mitigation measures would be necessary and the measures would likely be successful	Changes in air quality would be measurable, would have substantial consequences, and be noticed regionally; violation of state and federal air quality standards; violation of Class II air quality standards; prolonged smoke exposure to sensitive receptors; Air quality mitigation measures would be necessary and the success of the measures could not be guaranteed	Short Term Recovers in 7 days or less Long Term Takes more than 7 days to recover
Visitor Use & Experience	Temporary displacement of recreationists or closure of trails, and recreation areas during off-peak recreation use; temporary or short-term alteration of the vista, or temporary presence of equipment in localized area; smoke accumulation during off-peak recreation use; The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative, but the effects would be slight	Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily apparent and likely long-term. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and would likely be able to express an opinion about the changes	Permanent closure of trails and recreation areas; conflict with peak recreation use; longterm change in scenic integrity of the vista; substantive smoke accumulation during peak recreation use; The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and would likely express a strong opinion about the changes	Short Term Occurs only during the treatment effect Long Term Occurs after the treatment effect
Human Health & Safety	The effect would be detectable and shortterm, but would not have an appreciable effect on public health and safety; potential for small injuries to any worker or visitor (e.g. scrapes or bruises); limited exposure to hazardous compounds or smoke particulates at concentrations below health-based levels; If mitigation were needed, it would be relatively simple and likely successful	The effects would be readily apparent and long-term, and would result in substantial, noticeable effects to public health and safety on a local scale; non-life threatening injuries to any worker or visitor; limited exposure to hazardous compounds or smoke particulates at concentrations at or slightly above health-based levels; Mitigation measures would probably be necessary and would likely be successful	The effects would be readily apparent and long-term, and would result in substantial noticeable effects to public health and safety on a regional scale; Serious life-threatening injuries to any worker or member of the public; limited or prolonged exposure to hazardous compounds or smoke particulates at concentrations well above health-based levels; Extensive mitigation measures would be needed, and their success would not be guaranteed	Short Term Occurs only during the treatment effect Long Term Occurs after the treatment effect
Cultural Resources	For archeological resources, the impact affects an archeological site(s) with modest data potential and no significant ties to a living community’s cultural identity Temporary, non-adverse effects to registered cultural resource sites, eligible cultural resource sites, sites with an undetermined eligibility, and traditional cultural properties; no affect to the character defining features of a National Register of Historic Places eligible or listed structure, district, or cultural landscape	For archeological resources, the impact affects an archeological site(s) with high data potential and no significant ties to a living community’s cultural identity; temporary adverse effects to registered cultural resource sites, eligible cultural resource sites, sites with an undetermined eligibility, and traditional cultural properties, but would not diminish the integrity of the cultural resource to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized	For archeological resources, the impact affects an archeological site(s) with exceptional data potential or that has significant ties to a living community’s cultural identity; long-term adverse impacts to registered cultural resource sites, eligible cultural resource sites, sites with an undetermined eligibility, and traditional cultural properties that would diminish the integrity of the cultural resource to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized	Short term Treatment effects on the natural elements of a cultural landscape (e.g., three to five years until new vegetation returns) Long term Because most cultural resources are nonrenewable, any effects would be long term
Park Operations	The effect would be detectable and likely short-term, but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable effect on park operations; short Term suspension of non-critical park operations; negligible impact to park buildings and structures If mitigation were needed to offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple and likely successful.	The effects would be readily apparent, be longterm, and would result in a substantial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public; long term suspension of all park operations (1 to 2 days); detectable adverse impacts to park buildings and structures; mitigation measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful	The effects would be readily apparent, longterm, would result in a substantial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public and be markedly different from existing operations; prolonged suspension of all park operations; substantial adverse impacts to park buildings and structures; mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed, would be extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.	Short termEffects lasting for the duration of the treatment action Long term Effects lasting longer than the duration of the treatment action

2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-2 briefly summarizes the environmental effects of the various alternatives. It provides a quick comparison of how well the alternatives respond to the project need, objectives, important issues and impact topics. Chapter 3 discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives in detail. Table 2-2 Comparisons of Alternatives’ Responses to Project Need, Objectives, Important Issues, and Impact Topics

	Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative	Alternative 2 – Suppress Wildland Fires, Expanded Thinning/Maintenance Activities	Alternative 3 – Suppress Wildland Fires and Employ Thinning, Expanded Prescribed Fire Treatments (10 acres)
Project Need
Restore and protect the historic landscape	Yes, manual and mechanical thinning activities would protect the historic landscape by stopping encroachment of woody vegetation and invasive exotic species that would compete with native vegetation	Yes, thinning activities would protect the historic landscape by stopping encroachment of woody vegetation into meadows and open fields; earthworks would be restored with the removal of trees	Yes, thinning and prescribed fire activities would protect the historic landscape by stopping encroachment of woody vegetation and invasive exotic species that would compete with native vegetation
Impact Topics
Geology and Soils	Very minor short-term soil erosion impacts resulting from thinning activities	Very minor, localized and short-term soil erosion impacts resulting from thinning; Soil compaction and increased erosion along Stockade Branch from the use of mowers to maintain historic vistas	Very minor, localized and short-term soil erosion impacts resulting from thinning and prescribed fire activities; benefits to soil development and soil nutrification
Water Resources (including floodplains)	No water resources impacts	Slight increase in sediment entering Stockade Branch from use of mowers adjacent to stream.	No water resources impacts
Vegetation	Competitive advantage given to native plant species in light of thinning treatments and reduction of noxious weed species	Competitive advantage given to native plant species in light of thinning treatments and reduction of noxious weed species	Competitive advantage given to native plant species in light of thinning treatments and reduction of noxious weed species, benefits to vegetation along Stockade Branch due to soil development and soil nutrification with the use of prescribed fire
Wildlife	Thinning activities would temporarily displace some wildlife species; individual mortality of some species likely; no immediate impact on federal and/or State T&E species; minor impacts to migratory bird habitat from thinning of encroaching trees and shrubs;	Thinning activities would temporarily displace some wildlife species; individual mortality of some species likely; no immediate impact on federal and/or State T&E species; minor impacts to migratory bird habitat from thinning of encroaching trees and shrubs;	Thinning and prescribed fire activities would temporarily displace some wildlife species; individual mortality of some species likely; no impact on federal and/or State T&E species; minor impacts to migratory bird habitat from thinning of encroaching trees and shrubs
Air Quality	No air quality impacts	No air quality impacts	Very minor and temporary effects resulting from prescribed fire; very minor, if any, smoke impacts on sensitive receptors
Visitor Use and Experience (including Park Operations)	Minor and short-term impacts during thinning activities (e.g. trail or road closures, presence of work crews in the vista); no effect on park operations	Minor and short-term impacts during thinning activities (e.g. trail or road closures, presence of work crews in the vista); no effect on park operations	Very minor and short-term impacts during thinning activities (e.g. trail closures or limited access to certain areas, presence of work crews in the vista)
Human Health & Safety	Potential for injury to workers conducting thinning activities	Potential for injury to workers conducting thinning activities	Potential for injury to workers from thinning and prescribed fire activities; very minor exposure to smoke by workers and the public during prescribed fire
Cultural Resources	No impact to known cultural resources	No impact to known cultural resources	No impact to known cultural resources

Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis

This chapter summarizes the existing environmental conditions and the probable environmental consequences (effects) of implementing the action and No-Action alternatives. This chapter also provides the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. The probable environmental effects are quantified where possible; where not possible, qualitative descriptions are provided. Descriptions of the Affected Environments for the various impact topics were taken from the park’s General Management Plan (copies of this plan can be obtained from the park headquarters).

3.1 SOILS

3.1.1 Affected Environment

Soils in Andersonville National Historic Site are generally deep and well drained, with reddishbrown sandy loam or loamy sand surface layers over yellowish-red to dark red sandy clay loam or sandy clay subsoils. These soils are highly erodible when the protective vegetative cover is disturbed.

A Few of the major soil associations found within the park include Bibb series, Kinston series, and Greenville sandy loam. The Bibb series occurs along the banks of Stockade Branch and consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in stratified loamy and sandy alluvium. These soils are on flood plains of streams in the Coastal Plain. They are commonly flooded and water runs off the surface very slowly. Kinston occurs in association with the Bibb series and consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in stratified loamy and sandy recent alluvium. These soils are on flood plains on the Middle Coastal Plain. The Greenville sandy loam is generally located within the forested area of the park and consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands. They formed in clayey marine sediments of the Coastal Plain (USDA, 2002a).

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Soil impacts were qualitatively assessed using soil characteristics, literature reviews, and mitigation measures.

3.1.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Very minor and localized soil compaction would occur from wildland fire suppression and nonfire manual/mechanical thinning applications. Wildland fire suppression activities could result in soil disturbance and could lead to increased erosion, especially in steeper areas within the park. To minimize potential soil impacts from suppression activities, natural barriers (e.g. roads) would be used to the greatest extent possible and vehicle use would be restricted to existing roads. Manual and mechanical treatments (e.g. chainsaws and bush hog) proposed by the park would result in minor and localized soil compaction and soil erosion.

3.1.2.2 Alternative 2

General soil impacts would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative. However, with annual mowing scheduled for the 10 acres surrounding Stockade Branch in the Prison site, the wet soils found along the creek could be damaged by the use of mowers, through compaction or the formation of ruts. This damage would be minimized by mowing only during the drier parts of the year when the soil was less wet and more firm, and able to handle the weight of the mowers.

3.1.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact soils include wildland fire suppression, manual/mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire. The effects of manual and mechanical treatment and wildland fire suppression activities would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative. For prescribed fire treatment unit only natural barriers would be used. Increased soil erosion resulting from a loss of some vegetative cover following a prescribed fire would be reduced and/or eliminated during the spring “green-up” as new herbaceous cover developed.

Prescribed fire would release nutrients into the soil and the fertilization effects of ash would provide an important source of nutrients for vegetation in the area. In addition to increasing nitrification of the soils and increasing minerals and salt concentrations in the soil, the ash and charcoal residue resulting from incomplete combustion aids in soil buildup and soil enrichment by being added as organic matter to the soil profile. The added material works in combination with dead and dying root systems to make the soil more porous, better able to retain water, and less compact while increasing needed sites and surface areas for essential microorganisms, mycorrhizal, and roots (Vogl, 1979; Wright and Bailey, 1980). Additional benefits would be seen with the use of prescribed fire because less compaction would occur without the use of lawn mowers on site.

If a prescribed fire exceeded a burn prescription and burned “hot”, resulting in areas of high-burn severity, the organic layer of the soil could be consumed and soil layers could become water repellant. Fire management personnel would contain and/or suppress out-of-prescription fires, minimizing the potential for and effects of any high-burn severity prescribed fires.

Conclusion

All three alternatives would have very minor, localized, and short-term soil erosion impacts resulting from mechanical treatment and/or prescribed fire activities. However, prescribed fire activities, as detailed in alternative 3, would release nutrients into the soil and the fertilization effects of ash would provide an important source of nutrients for vegetation in the area.

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair soil resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents. Alternative 3 would be the most beneficial, of the three alternatives, to soil development and soil nutrification because of the increased acreage burned.

3.2 WATER RESOURCES

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Sweetwater Creek and Stockade Branch are two streams associated with Andersonville National Historic Site. Sweetwater Creek forms part of the southern boundary of the park and has an average flow of 47 cubic feet per second and drains an area of approximately 47 square miles. Stockade Branch flows through the southern portion of the park and has an average flow of 1 cubic foot per second and drains the 975-acre subwatershed of Sweetwater Creek. These two streams ordinarily flow in well-defined channels, but there are areas along Stockade Branch where the distinct banks disappear and broad wetlands take their place. There is a swampy area where the two join just east of the park. The 100-year floodplain of Stockade Branch extends into the park.

Sweetwater Creek is listed as an impaired waterbody by the Environmental Protection Agency (303 d listed waterbody) (EPA 2003). Impairment of Sweetwater Creek is attributed to detection of lead and zinc. Potential source of these water pollutants is local agriculture and a kaolin processing plant, which is adjacent to the southwest corner of the park. Sweetwater Creek and Stockade Branch are classified for fishing and propagation of game and fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

Water resource impacts were qualitatively assessed using presence/absence of surface water resources and floodplains, literature reviews, and mitigation measures.

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact water resources include building fire lines during wildland fire suppression, however, in light of the mitigation measures employed during fire management activities (e.g. use of natural barriers; use of water instead of fire retardants), there would be little, if any, direct impacts on surface water resources on the park.

The use of fire retardants or foams could potentially cause short and long-term impacts to water resources if misapplied or mishandled. Retardants contain ammonia and phosphate or sulfate ions, which can change the chemistry of a water body, thus making it lethal to fish and other aquatic organisms. Foams contain detergents that can interfere with the ability of fish gills to absorb oxygen. The degree of impact would depend on the volume of retardant/foam dropped into the water body, the size of the water body, and the volume of flow in the stream or river.

For example, if a 800-gallon drop is made into a fast flowing river, it is likely that the lethal effects to aquatic resources will be short-lived as dilution below the toxic level is quickly achieved. On the other hand, a 3,000-gallon drop in a stagnant pond would likely cause toxic levels to persist for some time (USDA, 2001). However, since mitigation measures limit the use, type, and proximity to water bodies of fire retardants, impacts to water quality will be minimal.

Manual and mechanical treatment and suppression activities would not affect the classified uses of the Sweetwater Creek and Stockade Branch. Moreover, these activities would not affect the functionality of the floodplain and wetland present at the park.

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2

General water resources impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative. However, with the inclusion the annual mowing treatments scheduled for the 10 acres surrounding Stockade, the likelihood of minor soil erosion would increase, thus increasing the potential for turbidity and sediment delivery. For the same reasons identified in section 3.1.2.2, these impacts would be minor.

3.2.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact water resources include building fire lines during wildland fire suppression however, in light of the mitigation measures employed during fire management activities (e.g. use of natural barriers; use of water instead of fire retardants), there would be little, if any, direct impacts on surface water resources on the park. Fire lines construction should not be necessary in the area of prescribed burning, as the proposed 10-acre unit is surrounded by mowed grass, and a wetline will serve to contain the burn, while reducing impacts to resources.

Conclusion

The general impacts to water quality among the three alternatives would be similar in nature and very minor. The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair water resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents.

3.3 VEGETATION

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Approximately 120 acres of Andersonville National Historic Site are maintained in park-like condition, with landscaped lawns, ornamental shrubbery, and trees including southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), and pecan (Carya illinoensis).

In unmaintained portions of the park the vegetation is primarily a pine/hardwood association represented by shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), live oak (Quercus virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) with pine dominating. Areas of swampy bottomland at the park are vegetated by sweetgum, yellow poplar, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), river birch (Betula nigra), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), various species of willow (Salix ssp.), as well as some residual loblolly and shortleaf pine. Along Stockade Branch, inside the Prison site, vegetation consists mainly of native grasses and forbs.

Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources revealed that there are no federally or state-listed threatened and endangered plant species known to occur within the park boundaries, nor is any critical habitat known to exist there.

Primary exotics are kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), khakiweed (Alternanthera pungens), and bamboo (Phyllostachys spp. and Bambusa spp.). Kudzu grows in a variety of habitats and environmental conditions but does best on deep, well drained, loamy soils. Almost any disturbed area is suitable habitat for this plant. Roadsides, old fields, vacant lots and abandoned yards are all prime spots for new kudzu growth (USDA, 2002b). Khakiweed is a prostrate, creeping herb, with branched stems, which readily invades disturbed soils, roadsides, city streets, gardens, and cultivated fields (Parker, 1972). Exotic bamboos colonize by rhizomes, rapidly expanding into disturbed areas, out competing native vegetation (Miller, 2002).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation impacts were qualitatively assessed using presence/absence of plant species, literature reviews, and quantitatively assessed by acres impacted.

3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Thinning and any fire suppression activities that resulted in soil disturbance (fire lines) would make those disturbed areas more susceptible to invasive and exotic plant infestations, such as kudzu, khakiweed, and exotic bamboos. Disturbed areas may be seeded with native grasses and would be monitored to guard against such infestations. Coupled with mitigation measures aimed at reducing soil damage, thinning activities would also help reduce the extent of existing invasive and exotic infestations in the park.

3.3.2.2 Alternative 2

Impacts would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.3.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact vegetation include wildland fire suppression, manual/mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire.

Impacts from manual/mechanical thinning and wildland fire suppression would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative. Under this proposed action, prescribed fire would be employed on approximately 10 acres within the park. Vegetation located in these 10 acres unit is made up mainly of native grasses and forbs. While prescribed fire would burn vegetation to ground level, the under ground portions of the plants would remain viable and return with the spring “green-up.” Prescribed fire would also release nutrients into the soil and the fertilization effects of ash would provide an important source of nutrition for vegetation.

Prescribed fire would not have any effect on the most prevalent species of exotic invasive plant species in the park, because none of these species occur in the proposed prescribed burn area (Marsh, 2003).

Conclusion

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair vegetation resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents.

3.4 WILDLIFE

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The terrestrial wildlife species at the park are typical of those inhabiting the region, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus), and house mice (Mus musculus). Birds are abundant, including sparrows, mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), mockingbirds (Mimmus Polyglottos), warblers, bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), and a variety of raptors. Amphibians common to the area are various species of frogs and toads. Reptiles include various species of snakes and lizards.

Sweetwater Creek, which runs along the southern park boundary, contains fish species common to the Flint River Basin, including shiners, carp, catfish, sunfish, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The only fish species known to occur in Stockade Branch are smaller shiners and minnows.

While never documented, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the park falls within the range of the federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and federally listed threatened Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and may inhabit or visit the park.

The park is also within the range of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius). Designated a federally listed endangered species in 1967; the American alligator was delisted in 1987. The Arctic peregrine falcon was designated a federally listed endangered species in 1970. Its status was reclassified in 1984 to “threatened,” and it was delisted in 1994. No other federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered species are not known to exist at the park, nor is any critical habitat known to exist there.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

Wildlife impacts were qualitatively assessed using presence/absence determinations, literature reviews, and mitigation measures.

3.4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact wildlife are associated with wildland fire suppression activities, and thinning. All the fire management activities could result in the temporary displacement of wildlife or individual mortality of wildlife species. The loss of individuals of a non-threatened or endangered species, however, would not jeopardize the viability of the populations on and adjacent to the park.

There would be some loss of migratory bird habitat as a result of thinning woody shrubs and trees encroaching upon open areas, however, the limited amount of thinning to be conducted would not adversely affect the viability of the nesting populations on the park. There would be no impacts to either the bald eagle or the Indiana bat from fire management activities, in the event either was found to inhabit the park. As stated in the National Park Service’s 2001 Management Policies, if a federally or state listed species (bald eagle or the Indiana bat) were to be documented within the park boundaries, active management programs would be undertaken to inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain the listed species’ habitats, control detrimental non-native species, control detrimental visitor access, and re-establish extirpated populations as necessary to maintain the species and habitats upon which they depend. The Park would also manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Measures taken to protect those species, or their required habitat, would supersede any management activities outlined in the FMP in the event any of those management activities would negatively impact the listed species.

Aquatic species in the Sweetwater Creek would not be affected since fire suppression activities would not result in significant amounts of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the Sweetwater Creek, which could impact aquatic habitats.

3.4.2.2 Alternative 2

General wildlife impacts would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.4.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact wildlife are associated with wildland fire suppression activities, thinning, and prescribed fire. General impacts to wildlife during these activities would be minor and would include the temporary loss of some habitat and isolated mortality of individuals. Nutrients released to plants through the fertilization effects of ash would also provide an important source of nutrition for wildlife in the area.

Prescribed fire activities would not directly impact nesting migratory birds since the activities would occur in the fall and winter, and would occur prior to the breeding season (generally May 15 – August 15), in addition there is no woody shrubs or trees found within the prescribed fire treatment unit.

There would be no negative impacts to federally or state listed species from fire management activities under this alternative for the same reasons as outlined under the “No Action” Alternative.

Conclusion

Non-fire applications from all three alternatives and prescribed fire activities from Alternative 3 would temporarily displace some wildlife species, have some minor impacts to migratory bird habitat from thinning of encroaching trees and shrubs, and increase the possibility of individual mortality of some species. The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair wildlife resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents.

3.5 AIR QUALITY

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Under the terms of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the park is designated as a Class II quality area. By definition, Class II areas of the country are set aside under the Clean Air Act, but identified for somewhat less stringent protection from air pollution damage than Class I areas. The primary means by which the protection and enhancement of air quality is accomplished is through implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards address six pollutants known to harm human health including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides (USDA, 2000a).

Principal sources of air pollutants in the park vicinity include industrial emissions, including a paper mill in the park vicinity and kaolin processing plant, agricultural operations and motor vehicle emissions.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Air quality impacts were qualitatively assessed upon review of National Park Service best management practices to reduce air emissions, Georgia Forestry Commission burning permit specifications, Georgia State requirements, and the extent of proposed prescribed fire activities under the alternatives.

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no air quality impacts under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2

There would be no air quality impacts under this Alternative.

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Smoke consists of dispersed airborne solids and liquid particles, called particulates, which could remain suspended in the atmosphere for a few days to several months. Particulates can reduce visibility and contribute to respiratory problems. Very small particulates can travel great distances and add to regional haze problems. Regional haze can sometimes result from multiple burn days and/or multiple owners burning within an airshed over too short a period of time to allow for dispersion.

Prior to any prescribed fire, the park would request an open burning permit from the Georgia Forestry Commission that, among other things, identifies the location and size of the proposed prescribed fire.

For prescribed fires, there are three principle strategies to manage smoke and reduce air quality effects. They include:

1. Avoidance - This strategy relies on monitoring meteorological conditions when scheduling prescribed fires to prevent smoke from drifting into sensitive receptors, or suspending burning until favorable weather (wind) conditions;
2. Dilution – This strategy ensures proper smoke dispersion in smoke-sensitive areas by controlling the rate of smoke emissions or scheduling prescribed fires when weather systems are unstable, not under conditions when a stable high-pressure area is forming with an associated subsidence inversion. An inversion would trap smoke near the ground; and
3. Emission Reduction – This strategy utilizes techniques to minimize the smoke output per unit area treated. Smoke emission is affected by the number of acres burned at one time, pre-burn fuel loadings, fuel consumption, and the emission factor. Reducing the number of acres that are burned at one time would reduce the amount of emissions generated by that burn. Reducing the fuel beforehand, e.g. removing firewood, reduces the amount of fuel available. Conducting prescribed fires when fuel moistures are high can reduce fuel consumption. Emission factors can be reduced by pile burning or by using certain firing techniques such as mass ignition.

There are several “sensitive receptors” (e.g. churches, residential neighborhoods, small businesses) in the vicinity of the park that may be susceptible to smoke impacts from a prescribed fire. If weather conditions changed unexpectedly during a prescribed fire, and there was a potential for violating air quality standards or for adverse smoke impacts on these sensitive receptors, the park would implement a contingency plan, including the option for immediate suppression. Considering the relatively small number of acres that would be affected by prescribed fire in any given year (10 acres), and considering the major fuel types (grasses) to be burned on the park do not generate large quantities of smoke, prescribed fires would not violate daily national or state emission standards and would cause very minor and temporary air quality impacts. The greatest threat to air quality would be smoke impacts on sensitive receptors, however, the park would only conduct prescribed fires under environmental conditions that maximized smoke dispersion.

Conclusion

The “No Action” Alternative and Alternative 2 would not have any impacts on air quality, while Alternative 3 would have only very minor and temporary impacts resulting from prescribed fires. Alternatives 3 would also have very minor, if any, smoke impacts on sensitive receptors.

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair air quality resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents.

3.6 VISITOR USE/EXPERIENCE AND PARK OPERATIONS

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Andersonville National Historic Site contains historic and non-historic buildings, including the National Prisoner of War Museum. The park maintains several walking trails and an auto tour route with interpretive wayside exhibits. There is also a picnic area is located inside park grounds, between the historic prison area and the National Cemetery.

In 2002, 190,001 people visited the park. Historically, summer visitations are the most popular with July and August having the highest numbers of visitors per month.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

Recreation impacts were qualitatively assessed in light of the intensity and duration of fire management activities as they related to visitor use and experience. Visual resource impacts in this environmental assessment were assessed in terms of scenic integrity, visual wholeness, and unity of the landscape.

3.6.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be some short-term reduction in scenic integrity and visitor use and experience during and immediately following any thinning or wildland fire suppression activities from the presence of engines and thinning or fire crews. Short-term reduction in scenic integrity, however, would be minor because 1) fire management activities would likely involve only shortterm presence of vehicles and people, 2) stumps would be cut flush with the ground, and 3) the thinning treatments would involve only limited and selective removal of trees and shrubs. The removal of encroaching woody shrubs and trees in the open area will benefit the visual landscape on the park by preserving the historical landscape of Andersonville National Historic Site.

Thinning treatments would not disrupt or prevent visitor use of the auto tour road within the park, however it may result in temporary restrictions to certain areas of the park where thinning treatments were being conducted.

With the aid of fire management personnel from the Macon and Sumter Counties, park operations and park facilities would not be affected under this alternative. In the event of a wildland fire within or adjacent to the park, park operations could be temporarily affected depending on the severity of the fire and situation at hand as visitors and non-essential park personnel were evacuated to off-site and safe locations.

3.6.2.2 Alternative 2

General impacts to visitor use and experience would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.6.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

Under Alternative 3, visitor use and experience impacts would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative. There would also be some short-term reduction in scenic integrity and visitor use and experience during and immediately following any prescribed fire treatments from the presence of engines and fire crews. Short-term reduction in scenic integrity, however, would be minor because 1) fire management activities would involve only short-term presence of vehicles and people, and 2) smoke accumulation would be temporary since prescribed fires would be ignited under favorable conditions for smoke dispersion.

Any prescribed fires would likely produce short-term smoke accumulations that impact local visual quality. Minimizing smoke emissions through best management practices would reduce any short-term impacts. Additionally, prescribed fires would be conducted during the fall and winter, which are the seasons of lowest visitor use.

Conclusion

Negative impacts to the park, under all three alternatives, would be very minor and temporary during fire management activities (e.g. trail closures or limited access to certain areas, presence of work crews in the vista). The potential for temporary closure of certain areas of the park, especially during the times of the prescribed burns, are increased under alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative.

3.7 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.7.1 Affected Environment

Prior to the ignition of any prescribed fire in the park, all the burn parameters of the existing and approved prescribed fire burn plan must be met to ensure a safe and effective prescribed fire. In addition, staff would inform public and adjacent landowners of all planned and unplanned fire management events that have potential to impact them. The extent of public notice would depend on the specific fire situation. In every case, assuring visitor and park staff safety would take priority over other activities.

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

Human health & safety impacts were qualitatively assessed through determination of activities, equipment and conditions that could result in injury, literature review of type and extent of injury caused by equipment and conditions, and in light of mitigation measures and best management practices.

3.7.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Factors most likely to adversely impact firefighter health and safety include activities associated with wildland fire suppression efforts (accidental spills, injuries from the use of fire-fighting equipment, smoke inhalation, and, in severe cases, injuries from wildland fires). Impacts to the public could include smoke inhalation, and in severe cases, injuries from wildland fires.

While each of the crew is trained in the use of firefighting equipment, accidental injuries may occur from time to time. Strict adherence to guidelines concerning firefighter accreditation, and equipment and procedure safety guidelines would minimize accidents.

Smoke inhalation can also pose a threat to human health & safety. Smoke from wildland fires is composed of hundreds of chemicals in gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. The chief inhalation hazard appears to be carbon monoxide (CO), aldehydes, respirable particulate matter with a median diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and total suspended particulate (TSP). Adverse health effects of smoke exposure begin with acute, instantaneous eye and respiratory irritation and shortness of breath, but can develop into headaches, dizziness, and nausea lasting up to several hours. Based on a recent study of firefighter smoke exposure, most smoke exposures were not considered hazardous, but a small percentage routinely exceeded recommended exposure limits for carbon monoxide and respiratory irritants (USDA, 2000b).

3.7.2.2 Alternative 2

The general impacts to human health & safety under Alternative 2 would be similar to those under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.7.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

The general impacts to human health & safety under this alternative would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative and Alternative 2. In addition, use restrictions applied to areas of prescribed fire and thinning activities would minimize public human health & safety concerns resulting from smoke exposure and other injuries. When using prescribed fire, mitigation measures, such as presence of engines and strict adherence to prescribed fire plans, would minimize the potential for an out-of-prescription fire or fire escape. Elements of the prescribed fire plan that relate to ensuring a safe burn include such measures as wind speed, rate of fire spread, and estimated flame lengths. While the potential for a fire escape will always exist when conducting prescribed fires, that potential is extremely small. Recent statistics summarized by the National Interagency Fire Center report that approximately 1% of prescribed fires on federal lands required suppression activities of some kind. In most cases these prescribed fires jumped a control line and suppression tactics were successfully used to control them. Out of the 1% of prescribed fires that required suppression, 90% were controlled without incident. Statistically, this result leaves about 0.1% of prescribed fires that required major suppression actions (Stevens, 2000).

Conclusion

Under all three alternatives there is the potential for injury to workers from suppressing wildland fires, and conducting mechanical/manual treatment. For Alternative 3 there is the potential for injuries to workers while carrying out prescribed fire activities. Under alternative 3 the potential for minor exposure to smoke by workers and the public during prescribed fire is slightly increased.\

3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their proposals on historic properties, and to provide state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, and, as necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on these actions.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Andersonville National Historic Site in its entirety was administratively listed as an historic district in the National Register of Historic Places, with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A formal nomination was completed and approved in 1976. The park consists of the historic prison site and the national cemetery.

Andersonville Prison Site, the original stockade, was built in early 1864 by the Confederacy to house Union prisoners taken during the Civil War. The prison pen initially covered about 16.5 acres of land enclosed by a 15-foot-high stockade of hewn pine logs. It was enlarged to 26.5 acres in June of 1864. The stockade was in the shape of a parallelogram 1,620 feet long and 779 feet wide. Sentry boxes stood at 30-yard intervals along the top of the stockade. Inside, about 19 feet from the wall, was the “deadline,” which prisoners were forbidden to cross upon threat of death. Two entrances, the North Gate and the South Gate, were located along the western side of the stockade. Earthen fortifications located around the exterior of the prison were equipped with artillery to quell disturbances within the compound and to defend against feared Union cavalry attacks.

Nothing except archeological evidence remains of the 1864 stockade wall. Five-foot high white, concrete stakes marks the stockade and deadline. Stone markers identify the north and south gates. The fortifications surrounding the stockade today appear as grass-covered earthworks. At the northern end of the stockade site and at the hospital site are 32 escape tunnels and well sites, most of which have been filled in for safety reasons. Wrought-iron fences enclose two examples of wells.

Andersonville National Cemetery - following the Civil War, the area 500 yards north of the stockade, which had been used as a burial ground for deceased prisoners, was established as a national cemetery effective on July 26, 1865. The cemetery contains the graves of approximately 13,000 Union soldiers who died while prisoners at Andersonville. Also interred here are veterans of the Spanish-American War (including the Philippine Insurrection), World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. The cemetery is still active.

Thirty-eight park structures are presently included on the List of Classified Structures, (list of classified structures can be found in Fire Management Plan; detailed descriptions of the structures are on file at the park). Scattered about the stockade setting are six historic cannon tubes (four mounted on reproduction carriages), which are listed as museum objects in the Automated National Catalogue System (ANCS+).

Officially listed cultural resource sites and sites determined eligible or with an undetermined eligibility are of concern. Ineligible sites are dropped from management concerns unless otherwise noted, and determinations of effect on these properties are not addressed in this analysis.

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

Cultural resource impacts were qualitatively assessed through a presence/absence determination of significant cultural resources and mitigation measures to be employed during wildland fire suppression, manual/mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire activities.

3.8.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Proposed activities with the potential to impact known and unknown cultural are associated with fire suppression and non-fire application activities. The park will keep impacts to cultural resources to a minimum by implementing the following fire management practices:

• The park cultural resources program manager will coordinate with Southeast Archeological Center to ensure that Andersonville National Historic Site has the most current data regarding archeological resources within its boundaries. S/he will provide recommendations on how to mitigate adverse effects to these resources during fire management activities, and will coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate;
• Historic structures and cannons will be protected from wildland fire via defensible space around each (a minimum 30 feet around buildings), which may consist of nonflammable material (asphalt, concrete), or lack of fuel resulting from non-fire applications;
• During all fire management activities, MIST guidelines (see Section 2.4) will be incorporated to the greatest extent feasible and appropriate, employing methods least damaging to park resources for the given situation. Tactics directly or indirectly facilitating the protection of cultural resources include:
  • Keep fire engines or slip-on units on existing roads whenever possible;
  • Restrict the use of heavy equipment for constructing fireline. A bulldozer or plow may be used for fireline construction only in extreme situations to protect human life and property, and then only with the authorization of the park superintendent or designee. Plow lines will be kept as shallow as possible;
  • Prohibit the use of fire line explosives;
  • Using existing natural fuel breaks and human-made barriers, wet line, or cold trailing the fire edge in lieu of fireline construction whenever possible.
  • Keep fire line widths as narrow as possible when they must be constructed;
  • Avoid ground disturbance within known archeological/cultural/historic resource locations. When fire line construction is necessary in proximity to these resource locations, it will involve as little ground disturbance as possible and be located as far outside of resource boundaries as possible;
  • Use soaker hose, sprinklers or foggers in mop-up; avoid boring and hydraulic action;
  • Minimize the cutting of trees;
  • Scatter or remove debris as prescribed by the incident commander

The objective of maintaining the appearance of the 1860’s prison site and protecting identified cultural resources and cultural landscapes will be facilitated by the selective thinning of woody shrubs and trees encroaching upon open and creating or maintaining 30 feet defensible space around all building.

3.8.2.2 Alternative 2

General impacts to cultural resource sites under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative.

3.8.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)

General impacts to cultural resource sites under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under the “No Action” Alternative and Alternative 2.

While there has been no Cultural Landscape Report done on the park, and there may be historic and/or archaeological resources located within the prescribed fire treatment unit, it has been determined through consultation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division that there would be negative cultural impacts resulting from the use of prescribed fire as a management unit (see Appendix A).

Conclusion

The cultural landscape of the park would be benefited equally under all three alternatives with the removal of encroaching trees and shrubs on the open areas and creating or maintaining 30 feet defensible space around all building.

The implementation of any of the alternatives would not impair cultural resources or values that are (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the enabling legislation of the park, (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or opportunities for enjoyment of the park, and (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other Park Service planning documents.

3.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The cumulative impacts analysis for the Fire Management Plan environmental assessment considers the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on land uses that could add to (intensify) or offset (compensate for) the effects on the resources and that may be affected by the Fire Management Plan alternatives. Cumulative impacts vary by resource and the geographic areas considered here are generally the park and areas adjacent to the park. In some instances, activities may result in both negative and positive impacts when considering the short and longterms. As a result, some resource categories in Table 3-1 show both positive and negative impacts resulting from a particular activity. The information provided in Table 3-1 is the basis for the cumulative impacts described in Table 3-2.

Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers

Joel Gorder, Project Manager, Mangi Environmental Group
Andrea Pahlevanpour, Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group
Rebecca Whitney, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group

Persons, Organizations, and Agencies Consulted

Fred Boyles – Park Superintendent, Andersonville National Historic Site
Alan Marsh - Cultural Resources Program Manager, Andersonville National Historic Site
Sandra S. Tucker - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Serena G. Bellows – Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Historic Preservation Division
Robin Toole - Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service
Jami Hammond - Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service
Georgia Forestry Commission (Macon County Office)
Macon County Fire Department
Andersonville Volunteer Fire Department
Friends of Andersonville - Langdon C. Sheffield, President

Persons, Organizations, and Agencies Who Received this Environmental Assessment

Georgia Forestry Commission
(Macon County Office)
P.O. Box 669
Oglethorpe, GA 31068

Andersonville Volunteer Fire Department
114 Church Street
Andersonville, GA 31711

Macon County Fire Department
P.O. Box 297
Oglethorpe, GA 31068

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Blvd., Room 240
Atlanta, GA 30345

Friends of Andersonville
Langdon C. Sheffield, President
202 Mallon Rd.
Americus, GA 31709

Georgia Forestry Commission
Sumter County Office
243 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Americus, GA 31719

Scoping

Details of the scoping process and the issues that arose from it are described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5 – Scoping Issues and Impact Topics.