2003 FMP and FONSI

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Fire Management Plan
Andersonville National Historic Site

Andersonville National Historic Site is located in southwest Georgia, in Macon and Sumter Counties. The city of Andersonville is immediately adjacent to the park and has a population of approximately 300 people. The nearest major metropolitan areas in the region are Atlanta, located approximately 135 miles north of the park, and Columbus, located 65 miles northwest of the park. The authorized boundary of the park is 515 acres. Andersonville National Historic Site consists of the historic prison site and the National Cemetery. Currently, 120 acres of the park are maintained 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 of a pine/hardwood association.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to understand better the environmental effects associated with wildland fire suppression, manual/mechanical thinning applications, and the use of prescribed fire to protect the cultural and natural resources of the park, while at the same time protecting employee and visitor safety during the implementation of these fire management activities. Environmental issues identified during scoping and evaluated in the EA included geology and soils, surface water resources, vegetation and wildlife (including federally-listed threatened and endangered species), air quality, visitor use and experience, human health and safety, and cultural resources. Alternatives considered for managing the cultural and natural resources included employing the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments (the preferred alternative) and employing mechanical treatments only. The purpose of this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is to state which alternative has been selected and to explain why the selected action will have no significant effects on the human environment. This decision is based on information in the EA and comments gathered during coordination with other agencies and the public.

Prescribed fire will help the staff at Andersonville National Historic Site to help maintain the historic prison site. Fire will be utilized in this area to facilitate maintenance operations and to minimize the negative impacts that lawnmowers have on the soft soil surrounding the creek.

SELECTED/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative from the EA has been selected for implementation. Under this and the other considered alternatives, the entirety of Andersonville National Historic Site will be contained in one Fire Management Unit (FMU). All wildland fires in the park, regardless of origin, will be suppressed in a manner that minimizes negative environmental impacts of suppression activities. All wildland fire suppression activities will adhere to Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines, outlined in chapter 9 of Wildland Fire Management Reference Manual-18. Non-fire applications will 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 will be performed from May-Jun 2003, and as necessary thereafter.

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

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED

The No Action Alternative

The “No Action” Alternative would be a continuance of the park’s current fire management policies. All wildland fires in the park, regardless of origin, would be suppressed in a manner that minimizes the negative environmental impacts of suppression activities. 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 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).

Alternative 2

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, they would be expanded to include annual mechanical maintenance (mowing) of the 10-acre wetted area adjacent to Stockade Branch.Neither of these alternatives was selected, as neither promotes the national environmental policy expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as effectively as does Alternative 3.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The selected alternative (“Fire Management Plan to Include Wildland Fire Suppression, Non-Fire Fuel Treatment Applications, and Prescribed Fire Use”) is also the environmentally preferred alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed by §101 of NEPA. This includes alternatives that:

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”.

The preferred alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative for Andersonville National Historic Site since it 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.

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

As defined at 40 CFR §1508.27, from the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement the provisions of NEPA, significance is determined by examining the following criteria:

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

There are overall benefits to the human and natural environment at Andersonville National Historic Site from the proposed action. The preferred alternative in particular, will have positive effects on the human health and safety of the park’s visitors, on its facilities, vegetation communities, and landscapes. Prescribed fire will be less damaging to the soil than mowing, and will also release nutrients into the soil benefiting the vegetation in the area. These impacts are considered to be minor and localized.

The EA also discusses the negligible to minor impacts to air quality associated with the “Preferred” Alternative. Considering the relatively small number of acres that will be affected by prescribed fire (approximately 10 acres) and in light of the current air quality in the area and review and approval of the burn permit by the State of Georgia, air quality impacts are thought to be negligible to minor, and not significant.

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety

When conducting fire management activities, human health and safety are of primary concern. Under the preferred alternative, there will likely be very minor human health and safety impacts (small cuts and bruises) to firefighters resulting from wildland fire suppression and prescribed fire activities. Before conducting any prescribed fire, fire management officials will ensure that adequate weather conditions existed to facilitate smoke dispersion, thus minimizing and/or eliminating potential smoke impacts on sensitive receptors and the general public.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, and wetlands.

As described in the EA, the intent of the action alternatives was to provide the maximum amount of protection for the important natural and cultural resources of the park. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, determined that implementation of the preferred alternative will result in no adverse effect to historic properties or archeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Due to their distance from any of the treatment areas and also mitigating factors taken to protect wetland resources, there will be no impacts to wetlands within the park. There are no prime farmlands within the park.

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

There were no controversial impacts identified during the analysis done for the EA, and no controversial issues were raised during the public review of the EA.

Degree to which the possible effects on the quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

There are no identified risks associated with the preferred alternative that are unique or unknown, and there are no effects associated with the preferred alternative that are highly uncertain identified during the analysis for the EA or during the public review of the EA.

The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The preferred alternative does not establish a precedent for any future actions that may have significant effects, nor does it represent decisions about future considerations. The purpose of this action is to develop a fire management plan and program that utilizes the benefits of fire to achieve desired cultural resource conditions, while minimizing the fire danger to park resources and adjacent lands from hazardous fuel accumulations through manual/mechanical thinning.

Under such a program, prescribed fire and thinning activities will be conducted over several years to manage native plant communities, restore and protect the historic landscape, and reducing the extent of noxious weeds. This program will be evaluated and, if necessary, revised during future revisions to the park’s Fire Management Plan.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

Since the vegetation resources thrive under a management scheme that includes fire, the application of fire on an annual basis will cumulatively improve this 10-acre grassy area of the park. The air quality impacts associated with prescribed fire will be permitted through the Georgia Forestry Commission and will have a very minor and localized cumulative effect on the region’s air quality. The EA determined that there will be no significant cumulative impacts associated with the preferred alternative.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed on National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Andersonville National Historic Site in its entirety is 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.

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.

The EA was written in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. On April 29, 2003, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, determined that the proposed action will result in no adverse effect to historic properties or archeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The federally-listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and federally-listed threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) may inhabit or visit the park; however this is not documented. In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the National Park Service determination that the proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species.

Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

This action violates no Federal, State, or local environmental protection laws.

Impairment

In addition to reviewing the list of significance criteria, the National Park Service has determined that implementation of the proposal will not constitute an impairment to the critical resources and values of the Park. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts described in the Fire Management Plan and its EA, public comment, relevant scientific studies, and the professional judgment of the decision-maker guided by the direction in NPS Management Policies 2001 (December 27, 2000). The plan under the preferred alternative will result in only negligible to minor adverse impacts to air quality resources, primarily in the form of smoke impacts to visibility. Overall, the plan results in benefits to park resources and values, opportunities for their enjoyment, and it does not result in their impairment.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The environmental assessment was made available for public review and comment during a 30-day period ending August 31, 2003. A legal notice announcing its availability was published in the local paper on or about July 29, 2003. No comments were received during this period. The lack of comment on the part of the general public and other agencies resulted in no changes to the text of the environmental assessment.