Albany South Integrated Resource

United States Department Project of Oxford County, Maine Agriculture

Forest Draft Environmental Assessment Service Prepared by the Androscoggin Ranger District April 2016

For Information Contact: Pat Nasta, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Androscoggin Ranger District 300 Glen Road Gorham, NH 03581 Email: [email protected] Phone: 207-824-2813 Fax: 603-466-2856 http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/whitemountain/landmanagement/projects

White Mountain National Forest

This document is available in large print. Contact the Androscoggin Ranger District Phone 603 466-2713 For TTY call 711 to be connected to a Forest Service number.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Project Area ...... 2 Forest Plan Management Areas ...... 5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 5 Wildlife Habitat Improvement ...... 6 Silviculture and Forest Health...... 9 Natural Community and Oak-Pine Maintenance ...... 13 Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the Wildland-Urban Interface ...... 14 Watershed, Aquatic Habitat, and Riparian Restoration ...... 14 Recreation Improvements, Public Access, and the Transportation System ...... 17 Summary of Need for Action ...... 20 Scoped Proposed Action ...... 21 Decision Framework ...... 21 Public Involvement and Governmental Consultation ...... 22 Interagency and Governmental Consultation ...... 23 Public Scoping ...... 24 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Alternatives Studied in Detail ...... 29 Proposed Activities ...... 29 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 35 Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action ...... 36 Alternative 3: No Activities in the Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Area ...... 40 Alternative 4: No Hauling on the Hut Road...... 44 Alternative 5: No Hauling on the S-Turn Section of the Hut Road ...... 47 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 48 Comparison of Alternatives Studied in Detail ...... 53 Summary of proposed Activities by Alternative ...... 53 Chapter 3. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 57 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...... 57 Incorporating by Reference ...... 57 Wildlife ...... 58 Background ...... 58 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 59

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest i Table of Contents

Existing Conditions ...... 60 Environmental Consequences ...... 63 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species ...... 84 Species and Habitats Analyzed in Detail ...... 84 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 86 Existing Conditions Federally-Listed Threatened Species ...... 86 Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...... 88 Environmental Consequences ...... 91 Vegetation ...... 101 Background ...... 101 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 101 Existing Conditions ...... 102 Environmental Consequences ...... 103 Prescribed Fire and Fuels ...... 115 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 115 Existing Conditions ...... 115 Environmental Consequences ...... 117 Water Resources ...... 122 Background ...... 122 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 123 Existing Conditions ...... 124 Environmental Consequences ...... 125 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat ...... 144 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 144 Existing Conditions ...... 145 Environmental Consequences ...... 148 Soils ...... 155 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 155 Existing Conditions ...... 155 Environmental Consequences ...... 156 Recreation ...... 162 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 162 Existing Conditions ...... 162 Environmental Consequences ...... 164 Roadless ...... 171 Background ...... 171

ii Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 172 Existing Conditions ...... 173 Environmental Consequences ...... 174 Transportation ...... 180 Background ...... 180 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 180 Existing Conditions ...... 181 Environmental Consequences ...... 182 Scenery ...... 192 Background ...... 192 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 192 Existing Conditions ...... 193 Environmental Consequences ...... 195 Non-native Invasive Species ...... 201 Background ...... 201 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 201 Existing Conditions ...... 202 Environmental Consequences ...... 202 Socioeconomics ...... 207 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 207 Existing Conditions ...... 208 Environmental Consequences ...... 209 Wilderness...... 213 Background ...... 213 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 214 Existing Conditions ...... 214 Environmental Consequences ...... 215 Heritage ...... 218 Effects Indicators and Measures ...... 218 Existing Conditions ...... 218 Environmental Consequences ...... 218 Consistency and Compliance with Regulatory Framework ...... 220 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 220 Alternatives 2-5 – Action Alternatives ...... 221 Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, Coordination, and References ...... 223 US Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team ...... 223

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest iii Table of Contents

US Forest Service Supporting Specialists ...... 223 Other Agencies Consulted ...... 223 References Cited ...... 224 Appendix A – Alternative Maps ...... 235 Alternative 2...... 235 Alternative 3...... 235 Alternative 4...... 235 Alternative 5...... 235 Appendix B – Project Design Features ...... 237 Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives...... 249 Appendix D – Roads and Transportation System Details ...... 259 Appendix E – Changes From the Scoped Action...... 263 Treatment Units ...... 263 Watershed Improvement ...... 264 Recreation Improvements ...... 264 Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 269 Appendix G – Water Resources and Analysis Area Maps ...... 273 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics ...... 277 Introduction ...... 277 Existing Conditions ...... 277 Predicted Future Conditions ...... 279 Snowfall and Snowpack ...... 280 Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Project Area Resources ...... 281 Tree Species and Groups...... 281 Understory Vegetation ...... 282 Wildlife ...... 282 Human Environment ...... 284 Heritage Resources ...... 285 Interactions with Project Related Disturbance ...... 285 Summary ...... 286 Carbon Dynamics Report Summary ...... 286 Appendix H References Cited ...... 287

List of Tables

Table 1. Acres of existing and desired age classes in MA 2.1 lands by habitat type in the Albany South HMU ...... 6 Table 2. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 2 ...... 37 iv Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Table 3. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 2 ...... 38 Table 4. Watershed restoration objectives and activities proposed under Alternative 2 ...... 39 Table 5. Campsite and snowmobile trail proposals, Alternative 2...... 40 Table 6. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 3 ...... 41 Table 7. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 3 ...... 42 Table 8. Watershed restoration objectives and activities proposed under Alternative 3 ...... 43 Table 9. Campsite and snowmobile trail proposals, Alternative 3...... 44 Table 10. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 4 ...... 45 Table 11. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 4 ...... 46 Table 12. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 5 ...... 47 Table 13. Comparison of proposed activities by alternative ...... 53 Table 14. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for wildlife habitat and forest management ...... 54 Table 15. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for watershed restoration ...... 55 Table 16. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for recreation improvements ...... 55 Table 17. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for forest transportation system adjustments ...... 55 Table 18. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for hazardous fuels reduction ...... 56 Table 19. Comparison of alternatives in addressing the issue of roadless character in the inventoried area ...... 56 Table 20. Comparison of alternatives in addressing the issue of log trucks on the Hut Road ...... 56 Table 21. Indicators used to measure effects to wildlife habitat and species, and special habitat features 59 Table 22. Potential WMNF MIS in the Albany South Project Area ...... 61 Table 23. Proposed harvest treatments (acres) by action alternatives...... 66 Table 24. Acres of harvest by season for all action alternatives ...... 67 Table 25. Effects of the Albany South Integrated Resource Project on the Albany South HMU ...... 70 Table 26. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered for cumulative wildlife and wildlife habitat effects ...... 77 Table 27. Summary of indicators and measures for wildlife habitat, alternatives 2-5 ...... 82 Table 28. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species analyzed in detail ...... 85 Table 29. Indicators used to measure effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species ...... 86 Table 30. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to vegetation ...... 101 Table 31. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to vegetation, by action alternative ...... 105 Table 32. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to prescribed fire and fuels ...... 115 Table 33. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to prescribed fire and fuels, by action alternative ...... 118 Table 34. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to water resources ...... 123 Table 35. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to water resources, by alternative ...... 126 Table 36. Riparian management descriptions for water body types in the project area...... 132 Table 37. Summary of effects on water quantity and water quality ...... 142 Table 38. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to riparian and aquatic habitat ...... 145 Table 39. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to riparian and aquatic habitat, by action alternative ...... 149 Table 40. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soils ...... 155 Table 41. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to soil productivity by action alternative ...... 157 Table 42. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to recreation ...... 162 Table 43. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to recreation, by alternative ... 165 Table 44. Legend for figure 14 ...... 172

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest v Table of Contents

Table 45. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to roadless inventory criteria and wilderness characteristics ...... 173 Table 46. Summary of direct and indirect effects on roadless inventory criteria ...... 175 Table 47. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to Transportation ...... 180 Table 48. Summary of existing transportation analysis area roads ...... 181 Table 49. Proposed timber haul routes and jurisdictions, by alternative ...... 183 Table 50. Potential increase in truckload traffic in loads and trips per day by haul route, truck type, season, and alternative ...... 183 Table 51. Changes to the national forest transportation system, by alternative ...... 183 Table 52. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to scenery ...... 193 Table 53. Visible treated acres of proposed clearcuts and patchcuts contributing to scenery effects, by alternative ...... 195 Table 54. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to non-native invasive plan ...... 202 Table 55. Qualitative assessment of direct and indirect effects related to non-native invasive plants, by alternative ...... 203 Table 56. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to socioeconomics ...... 207 Table 57. Socioeconomic indicators and measures for the existing condition for project-area communities ...... 208 Table 58. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to socioeconomics, by alternative ...... 210 Table 59. Wilderness characteristics and measures used to assess effects to wilderness ...... 213 Table 60. Resource indicator and measure for assessing indirect effects to heritage resources ...... 218 Table 61. Unit details and treatment objectives by alternative ...... 249 Table 62. Proposed road work by alternative ...... 259 Table 63. Timber harvest treatment unit changes after the 2013 public scoping period ...... 265 Table 64. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered for cumulative effects .... 269

List of Figures

Figure 1. Albany South Integrated Resource Project vicinity map ...... 4 Figure 2. Stand of aspen in the project area that could be regenerated through clearcutting in order to maintain this habitat type in the project area ...... 8 Figure 3. Undersized culvert that should be replaced to reduce potential sedimentation into the brook, improve stream functioning, and protect against road washouts ...... 15 Figure 4. A view from the south end of Virginia Lake. Closing the beach area to overnight camping will ensure better compliance with the conservation easement that prohibits development along the shoreline ...... 18 Figure 5. Existing habitat in Management Area 2.1 – 6,611 acres ...... 60 Figure 6. Existing habitat in other management areas – 1,317 acres ...... 60 Figure 7. Unit 69 is proposed for patch cut and release treatment to encourage northern hardwood regeneration...... 107 Figure 8. Single tree selection would help maintain the mixedwood forest in unit 110 ...... 109 Figure 9. Incursion of spruce-fir regeneration in the red pine community on Albany Mountain ...... 116 Figure 10. A home in the wildland-urban interface adjacent to the project area ...... 117 Figure 11. Water bar added to a decommissioned legacy road in 2012, within two weeks of completion ...... 133 Figure 12. Landing in White Mountain National Forest timber harvest area, six years after use with application of best management practices ...... 135 Figure 13. A skid trail in a White Mountain National Forest timber harvest area, one year after use with application of best management practices ...... 136

vi Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Figure 14. Inventoried roadless areas in relation to the project area...... 171 Figure 15. Speckled Mountain viewpoint looking east toward the project area ...... 194 Figure 16. Virginia Lake viewpoint looking north toward the project area ...... 194 Figure 17. Keewaydin Lake dam viewpoint looking north-northwest toward the project area ...... 194 Figure 18. Model image of visible acres from Speckled Mountain under Alternatives 2 and 5 ...... 197 Figure 19. Model image of visible acres from Virginia Lake under Alternatives 2 and 5 ...... 198 Figure 20. Model image of visible acres from Keewaydin Lake dam under Alternatives 2 and 5 ...... 198 Figure 21. Albany South Project cumulative effects analysis connected activities ...... 272 Figure 22. Streams mapped as of 8/21/15 on the west side of the project area ...... 274 Figure 23. Streams mapped as of 8/21/15 on the east side of the project area ...... 275 Figure 24. Subwatersheds used in effects analysis of water quantity and water quality effects ...... 276 Figure 25. Climate Divisions of Maine (Climate Prediction Center - National Weather Service, 2015) . 278

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest vii

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 1. Purpose and Need Introduction

The Androscoggin Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is proposing to conduct an integrated resource management project on national forest lands in Stoneham, Lovell, Albany Township, and Mason Township in Oxford County, Maine. The project is designed to accomplish goals outlined in the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a; referred to as the Forest Plan) to promote desired wildlife habitat and vegetation conditions; provide a wide range of recreational opportunities; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; maintain healthy watersheds; manage fire risk near private lands, and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs.

The primary actions proposed to address the above needs include campsite and trail relocation; timber harvest, reduction of hazardous fuels near private land, manual release treatments in harvested units, prescribed fire; and road and trail decommissioning. Connected actions (actions necessary to accomplish the primary proposed actions) include maintenance, reconstruction, construction, and decommissioning of roads, landings, skid trails, and fire control lines as needed. Details about these proposed actions, including locations and extent, are described in detail in Chapter 2.

The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. Chapter 3 describes the resource analyses and discloses the predicted direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from each of five alternatives studied in detail: the proposed action, a no-action alternative, and three alternatives developed to address issues raised by the public. Resources and conditions studied include: vegetation; wildlife habitat; water resources; aquatic and riparian habitat; threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and wildlife species; recreation; roads; scenery; soils; roadless and wilderness areas; socioeconomic conditions; fire and fuels; air quality; non- native invasive species; and heritage resources. The project’s impact on climate change, and the effects to resources from climate change, is also evaluated. The interdisciplinary team conducted this analysis using the best available science, current data, public input, interagency coordination, and observations and measurements made in the field. Detailed resource reports and additional supporting documents are in the project record located at the Androscoggin Ranger District office in Gorham, New Hampshire.

As permitted by federal regulations (40 CFR 1502.20), this environmental assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2005b) for the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and all subsequent NEPA analysis for amendments. The

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 1 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

proposed activities are consistent with the management direction, goals, objectives, and desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan.

We prepared this environmental assessment to determine whether implementation of the proposed activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA is a required to be a concise document that briefly summarizes the environmental analysis (FSH 1909.15 Ch. 40), and therefore much of the data and information supporting the analysis resides in the project record and is available for public review upon request. This analysis included a wide variety of site-specific data for every resource including data collected in the field, Forest Service corporate data, and data and information obtained from other agencies. Project Area

The project area is about 7,500 acres located on the east-central edge of the White Mountain National Forest (figure 1). Much of the project area’s south, east and west boundaries coincide with private land. The northern boundary winds through the national forest on the ridgeline over Miles Knob, through Miles Notch and tracks just north of Albany Mountain. It is located within the Kezar Lake and Songo Pond-Upper Crooked River watersheds. Town roads provide access to the area and a network of national forest roads and trails provide access within the project area. The area is administered primarily by the Androscoggin Ranger District, with a small portion on the Saco Ranger District.

While natural processes continually shape the environment in the project area and contribute to the wild character enjoyed by neighbors and visitors, the presence of stone walls, cellar holes, cart paths, wire fencing, historic plantings, and woods roads remind us that humans have been active on this land for nearly 200 years. The forest itself tells the story of past uses: the mosaic of forest types, age classes, and habitats are the successional stages following previous disturbances on the land. The existing conditions reflect a rich land use history that included widespread logging, land-clearing, homesteading, and streamside and lakeside development that pre-dated national forest ownership. The land, forest, and water resources supported early settlers and their thriving timber and wood products industries, farming, and other economic pursuits. The Weeks Act of 1911 was enacted in part to allow the federal government to purchase land in order to restore and protect the headwaters of eastern rivers and watersheds that had been over-cut and cleared. National forest purchases in the project area began in 1918 with parcels acquired from the Publisher Paper Company and the Hastings Brothers. Acquisition continued through the years, with the most recent in 1987 when the land surrounding Virginia Lake was purchased. A conservation easement with that purchase prohibits most forms of development within 1,700 feet of the shoreline. The last major harvest activity in the project area followed the severe 1982 windstorm when the Forest Service joined a community-wide effort to salvage wind thrown timber and ease concerns about forest fire danger. The Forest Service’s multiple-use mission to protect resources while providing

2 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment economic and social benefits to citizens is the foundation for current management, and is balanced in the project area as directed by the Forest Plan management areas discussed below.

Currently, development in the project area includes the road and trail systems, primitive boat ramps, dispersed campsites, and Crocker Pond campground. Homes (primary and seasonal) and paved roads are common on adjacent private land. While recreation use here is lower than in other parts of the WMNF, local and regional visitors value the area for its scenic beauty, quiet setting, and the opportunity to hike, hunt, fish, snowmobile, camp, and use the forest roads to explore the woods and waterways by car, foot, skis, bike, and snowshoes. Virginia Lake offers a small beach and a quiet spot for boating and views of the surrounding forest. Summits along the northern rim of the project area provide occasional landscape views to the south. Perennial streams are common throughout the project area and, in addition to Virginia Lake, water features include Number 8 Pond, Lombard Pond, Kneeland Pond, Round Pond, Crocker Pond, and unnamed streams, wetlands, seeps and vernal pools. Kezar Lake, Keewaydin Lake, and the Crooked River are major water bodies immediately downstream from the project area. The forest is a mix of community types including northern hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir, aspen-birch, hemlock, and oak-pine. The project area includes land included in the 2005 Forest Plan roadless area inventory, and the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness is just to the north.

See the “Purpose and Need for Action” section below and individual resource sections in Chapter 3 for additional descriptions of existing conditions in the project area.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 3 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Figure 1. Albany South Integrated Resource Project vicinity map

4 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Forest Plan Management Areas The Forest Plan allocates lands to a variety of management areas (MAs) that emphasize particular goals, objectives, and desired conditions. Each management area has standards and guidelines that set parameters on activities to ensure protection of the character and resources of the land. We designed the Albany South project to be consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines associated with each management area. The project area includes the following management areas:

• MA 2.1, General Forest Management, allows for a range of uses and activities, including timber harvest, prescribed fire, roads, motorized recreation such as snowmobiling, and developed areas such as campgrounds (Forest Plan pp. 3-3 through 3-8).

o 81 percent (6,050 acres) of the project area is MA 2.1. o Nearly all of the proposed activities occur in MA 2.1. • MA 6.1, Semi-Primitive Recreation, emphasizes non-motorized recreation but allows motorized trail use in winter. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new roads are not allowed (Forest Plan 3-19 through 3-22).

o 4 percent (300 acres) of the project area is MA 6.1. o These lands are located in two parcels in the project area: around the shore of Virginia Lake and just southeast of Round Pond. o No activities are proposed in MA 6.1. • MA 6.2, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation, emphasizes non- motorized dispersed recreation and relatively undisturbed landscapes. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new roads are not allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to maintain viability of fire-adapted communities (Forest Plan 3-23 through 3-26).

o 15 percent (1,150 acres) of the project area is MA 6.2. o These lands are located along the northern boundary of the project area and include Albany Mountain and the lands to the northwest and southeast of Albany Mountain. o A portion of the prescribed fire proposal is in MA 6.2. No other activities are proposed in MA 6.2. Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for this project is to work toward vegetation, wildlife habitat, watershed, transportation, ecosystem restoration, fuels reduction, and recreation goals and objectives for lands located in the project area (Forest Plan pp. 3-4 through 3-8). The need for the project is identified by comparing the existing conditions on the ground with the desired conditions as established in the Forest Plan. Management activities are then designed to maintain existing desirable conditions or help move the land closer to those desired conditions.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 5 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Wildlife Habitat Improvement One goal of vegetation management in the project area and across all suitable lands on the WMNF is to “use sustainable ecosystem management practices to provide a diversity of habitats across the Forest, including various habitat types, age classes, and non-forested habitats” (Forest Plan, 1-20).

The project area is entirely within the Albany South Habitat Management Unit (HMU) which encompasses the upper watersheds of Beaver, Goodwin, Hannah, Meadow, and Albany Brooks, a portion of the upper Great Brook watershed as well as tributaries to the Crooked River. Habitat management units are blocks of land delineated in the WMNF Forest Plan with objectives established to ensure that diverse habitats are well-distributed across the landscape (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 20-22). The Albany South HMU covers about 7,900 acres with about 6,600 acres in MA 2.1 and the remaining acres allocated to other management areas. The wildlife habitat objectives in the Albany South HMU were identified by examining the existing forested and non-forested areas, and considering the site-specific land capability, age, and species composition. Land capability identifies which broad community of vegetation is best suited to grow in a particular area based on soil type, climate and geology (Forest Plan glossary, page 15).

Table 1. Acres of existing and desired age classes in MA 2.1 lands by habitat type in the Albany South HMU Total Total Regeneration Young Mature Existing Potential (0-9 years) Habitat Acres in Acres in MA 2.1 MA 2.1 Existing Desired Existing Desired Existing Desired lands lands (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Northern 2,350- 3,222 3,176 3 129-161 913 483-644 2,309 Hardwood 2,543 Mixedwood 1,431 465 0 29 138 71 1,294 1,216 Spruce-fir 31 1,137 0 - 0 - 31 -- Aspen-birch 342 342 5 123-154 41 123-154 301 55-75 Hemlock 217 217 0 - 0 - 217 - Oak-Pine 1,229 1,229 0 49-61 188 184-246 1,041 897-971 Openings 31 NA NA NA 0 NA 0 NA Non-forest 110 NA NA NA 0 NA 0 NA Notes: 1. Potential acres for northern hardwoods, mixedwood, and spruce-fir are based on the ecological land types, meaning that the site characteristics favor some species over others, therefore the potential exists for those favored species to grow. The remaining habitat types are maintained wherever they occur, regardless of ecological land types. 2. Desired acres are based on percentages of the HMU area identified in the Forest Plan to ensure diversity, or for special habitat types with no percentage goal, the desired acres are based on the existing acres and would be maintained where it occurs. 3. Existing acres of hemlock, aspen-birch, and oak-pine would be maintained where feasible. There are no age class goals for hemlock. 4. The 31 acres of spruce-fir occur on land considered unsuitable for timber harvest so spruce-fir would be maintained and encouraged where it occurs in other habitat types. 5. Openings – Eight areas totaling 31 acres are managed as permanent wildlife openings. 6. Non-forest – areas such as wetlands and rock that are not forested and not identified as opening habitat.

6 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Goals for wildlife habitat on the WMNF (Forest Plan 1-20) that are applicable to the Albany South HMU include:

1. Provide regeneration-age forest habitat to sustain biological diversity and support wildlife species preferring this habitat. 2. Maintain mature forest on a majority of the landscape for wildlife species that use this habitat for all or part of their life cycles. 3. Maintain a diversity of habitat types across the landscape consistent with ecological capability including northern hardwoods, mixedwood, and softwoods. 4. Maintain less common habitats such as aspen-birch, oak-pine, and hemlock where it is ecologically feasible and desirable.

Age Class Diversity As shown in table 1, there is a lack of regeneration forest habitat for all habitat types, an abundance of young northern hardwood and mixedwood habitat, and an adequate amount of mature northern hardwoods habitat.

The Forest Plan specifies that we should strive to have habitat type match land capability on a majority of our lands with adjustments to maintain aspen-birch and wildlife opening habitats at existing levels (USDA Forest Service 2005a, Chapter 1, pages 20-21). Examination of the ecological site characteristics in the project area indicate the following disparities between land capability and existing habitat.

1. There is a lack of existing softwood habitat compared to the potential ecological site conditions that favor softwood habitat. Softwoods in this HMU are a combination of spruce-fir or hemlock. There are opportunities to manage northern hardwood and mixedwood stands to favor softwoods in the long-term. These stands currently support wildlife species that prefer hardwood or mixedwood forest habitat, though stands with a thick softwood understory may have additional species using that understory for food and cover. 2. Hemlock is more abundant than spruce-fir habitat in this HMU, with some hemlock occurring as a component of another habitat type. Hemlock mostly occurs on soils that favor softwoods or mixedwood habitats, including outwash soils, but some hemlock is also found on soils that favor hardwoods habitat. Some of the hemlock sites on northern hardwood sites probably were converted to hemlock as a result of past agriculture practices and will be difficult to maintain as hemlock in the future. 3. Oak/pine is abundant in this HMU and would be maintained at current levels. 4. The presence of several hundred acres of aspen-birch is notable because this important habitat could be lost on the forest landscape if it is not regenerated during the current timeframe (USDA Forest Service 2005c, USDA Forest Service 2002a, revised 2007, p. 5). Aspen-birch is a

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 7 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

pioneer type that regenerates from large natural or man-made disturbances (Perala 1977, Safford 1983). Most of the aspen and birch in the project area is mature and without some kind of disturbance, these stands will succeed to northern hardwoods or softwoods.

Need for Action and Proposed Actions Considering Forest Plan goals for habitat diversity and the site-specific existing and desired conditions noted above, the following needs for action in the project area have been identified:

• Increase regeneration (0 to 9 year old) forest habitat; • Where ecologically feasible, increase softwood habitat; • Maintain mature forest habitat; • Maintain existing northern hemlock, oak-pine, and aspen-birch habitat across the landscape. These needs could be addressed and progress made toward achieving desired conditions using a variety of silviculture prescriptions for timber harvest in the project area. Field surveys identified forest stands that could be harvested to create regeneration-aged habitat. In addition, softwood habitat could be increased and hemlock maintained by favoring hemlock and spruce-fir when harvesting northern hardwoods and mixed wood habitat growing on softwood ecological land types. Mature habitat could be maintained by avoiding harvest or conducting uneven-aged harvests in mature stands.

Figure 2. Stand of aspen in the project area that could be regenerated through clearcutting in order to maintain this habitat type in the project area

8 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Oak-pine could be maintained using a variety of methods including prescribed fire and ground scarification. Aspen-birch could be regenerated by clearcutting several northern hardwood stands that still have a component of mature aspen- birch mixed with other species. In stands with smaller patches of aspen-birch, group or patch cut treatments would maintain this important habitat type without clearcutting surrounding hardwoods or softwoods. Silviculture and Forest Health The project area has been managed by the Forest Service for resource protection, wood products, wildlife and aquatic habitat, forest health, and recreation since the 1940s. Regular periodic timber harvests occurred in the project area until the mid-1980s, when the last major harvest occurred in the salvage efforts following the 1982 wind storm. Vegetation management has continued since then with prescribed burning or mowing of permanent wildlife openings and some minor timber harvest. Many of the stands in the project area are even-aged, second growth that originated from harvests in the late 1880s and early 1900s. Past management practices and natural events have promoted age class and structural diversity in many stands.

The current forest cover types consist of a mosaic of northern hardwoods, mixed wood, and oak-pine intermixed with hemlock, aspen-paper birch, and some spruce-fir (table 1), This patchwork of vegetation is a result of landforms, soils, plant succession, and past disturbances including natural events and forest management practices. In recent history, trees were damaged by the 1982 windstorm and the 1998 ice storm. As noted in table 1, most of the forested stands in the project area are mature, which is vulnerable to insect and disease infestations. Field surveys in 2008, 2009 and 2011 identified signs of white pine weevil, sugar maple borer, fungus and conks on aspen and yellow birch, beech bark disease, and light to moderate amounts of ice storm damage.

The project area is at risk for infestations of hemlock wooly adelgid and emerald ash borer, both of which are destructive non-native forest pests. Emerald ash borer is now in southern and central New Hampshire and hemlock wooly adelgid is also now abundant in southern and coastal Maine.

These agents affect tree growth and quality and some can be moderated by timber harvest designed to improve the quality and vigor of remaining trees.

Forest Plan goals and objectives for vegetation management that apply to the Albany South Integrated Resource Project are (Forest Plan p. 1-17):

• Manage vegetation using an ecological approach to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer. • Manage for commercial products using well-integrated prescriptions that protect biotic and abiotic resources and are compatible with the high level of recreational use on the White Mountain National Forest.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 9 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

• The Forest timber harvest program will function as an outdoor classroom, permitting visitors to see the benefits of sound stewardship implemented through well-executed, integrated resource management. • The Forest Service will ensure that products harvested on national forest lands are fully accounted for, and that fair value is received for all products sold. • The Forest Service will use timber harvesting as a tool to attain wildlife habitat and other objectives.

Need for Action and Proposed Actions A variety of silvicultural methods are proposed in this project to sustainably harvest trees, provide high quality sawtimber and other forest products, provide healthy ecosystems and a landscape mosaic of forest types, sizes and ages for forest health and wildlife habitat diversity (Forest Plan, pp. 1-17, 1-20 and 3-3). Forest management is also used to meet wildlife habitat objectives as described above. The particular stands proposed for treatment in this project were selected after field reviews, outcomes of past land management practices, review of current literature, scientific research from research institutions, and discussions with research foresters. The application of silvicultural treatments on the White Mountain National Forest is supported by numerous scientific studies, many conducted by Bartlett and Hubbard Brook Experimental Forests and the Northeastern Research Station.

Silvicultural treatments can accomplish Forest Plan goals and address the need for action using the types of timber harvest proposed in this project as discussed below.

Even-Aged Management Clearcutting is proposed in stands containing poor quality, low vigor and mature trees. Clearcutting is a silvicultural method that removes all the trees in a stand, except for trees in reserve areas, allowing for an entirely new generation of trees to grow. Five percent of the acreage of each stand would remain uncut in reserve areas as directed by the Forest Plan. This type of treatment creates openings of 10-30 acres that allow full sunlight to reach the forest floor. Certain tree species such as sugar maple, yellow birch and white ash are more likely to become established under full sunlight conditions when beech and striped maple are present in the midstory. Clearcuts are proposed in this project primarily to promote either aspen or northern hardwood regeneration.

Patch cuts (2-10 acres in size) would provide a similar growing environment as clearcuts at a smaller scale while producing a wide variety of vegetation for deer and moose browse. Patch cuts are proposed in this project to promote aspen- birch, red oak, and northern hardwood regeneration in areas of variable soil classifications and in visually sensitive areas.

Seed-tree Seed Cuts with Reserves involve the removal of most but not all trees in a stand. A sparse number of scattered mature trees would be retained to provide a seed source to help establish a new generation of trees. The retention of

10 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment overstory trees for the purpose of seed dispersal would increase the chances that those tree species would be regenerated in an open environment and retained in the future stand. Once future stands are established seed trees may be removed or left indefinitely to provide a source of high shade and wildlife habitat. Five percent of each stand would remain uncut in reserve areas as directed by the Forest Plan. Seed-tree seed cuts with reserves are proposed in oak and oak-pine stands throughout the project area to promote oak regeneration and release existing young softwood species. Brush saws, chainsaws, or prescribed fire are proposed in some seed tree seed cuts for site preparation to encourage establishment of red oak.

Shelterwood Seed Cuts are proposed in this project to promote and maintain oak-pine and northern hardwoods. This harvest creates growing conditions for species that are moderately tolerant of shade. By removing approximately 50-60 percent of the stand, additional sunlight would accelerate growth on existing young pine and oak saplings and seedling allowing them to move into the midstory. Stands would remain in a high-canopy forested condition after harvest.

Commercial Thinning is designed to improve species composition, growth, and quality of even-aged stands. Northern hardwood stands in the Beaver Brook, Hannah Brook, and Goodwin drainages that were minimally affected by the 1980s blowdown and 1998 ice storm are of the size, spacing, and structure where thinning would benefit the trees that remain. Commercial thinning would focus on the removal of poor quality or low vigor trees while providing an opportunity for the trees that remain to develop canopy and bole diameter growth. This treatment would provide adequate sunlight and growing space for the trees with the highest potential value in the future. The goal is to leave many high quality mature trees that are well distributed throughout the stand to take advantage of the open growing space. Commercial thinning aims to increase future timber value and harvest trees that might otherwise die off because the stand is too dense.

Uneven-Aged Management Group Selection creates small openings, approximately 1/10 to 2 acres in size, within stands in order to release existing young growth or to regenerate new trees. Approximately 10-20 percent of the acreage of each stand proposed for group selection would be harvested in this project (for example, if a unit is 100 acres, only 10-20 acres total within the unit would be cut). Group locations target areas containing poor quality, low vigor, and mature overstory trees of optimal financial return. Group selection is proposed for many stands across the project area in a variety of forest types, including northern hardwood, mixed wood, hemlock and oak-pine, in an effort to release regeneration-aged softwood or to release or regenerate shade-intolerant hardwood species. Nearly all the species currently represented in the stands would have an opportunity to germinate and grow in these varied light conditions. Many of the seedlings present in areas designated for group selection would remain in each group immediately following treatment. Small or regeneration-age trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space in the groups within five years following

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 11 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

harvest. Trees around the perimeter of groups would also expand their crowns into the groups within this same period.

Single-Tree Selection releases seedlings and saplings and regenerates hardwood or softwood trees by removing poor quality, low vigor, or mature trees of optimal financial return, including damaged trees and those affected by insects and disease. High quality, healthy trees which have not attained optimal diameters would be retained. Single-tree selection improves the abundance and quality of shade-tolerant species. Approximately one third of the trees in each stand would be removed to create growing space for remaining trees and to provide light for tree seeds to germinate. Trees would be cut from all size classes, and the trees that remain would be of variable sizes and age classes, and would begin to occupy the growing space within five to ten years following the single-tree selection treatment. Though small gaps would be created, residual trees would restrict and filter sunlight. As a result there would be a shift in species composition toward shade-tolerant tree species such as American beech, sugar maple, red maple, eastern hemlock, and red spruce, and a decline in shade intolerant species such as paper birch, trembling aspen, and bigtooth aspen. Northern hardwood stands along the Miles Notch Trail would be harvested using single tree selection to improve the health of the stands and preserve the diversity of the unique understory communities in the area.

Improvement Cuts remove lower quality trees to improve tree composition and quality while shifting the stand toward an uneven-aged structure. Improvement cuts remove approximately one third of the trees in each stand and are proposed in softwood stands and northern hardwoods to maintain and promote hemlock, white pine, and northern hardwoods.

Release Treatments Release treatments are non-commercial treatments involving the cutting of sub- merchantable midstory and understory trees. Sub-merchantable trees include those less than 5 inches diameter at breast height, which is the diameter of a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. The goal of these treatments is to clear away most of the smaller trees in the midstory to provide more growing space and open sunlight to developing seedlings and saplings. Dense regeneration of some species (primarily American beech and striped maple) currently inhibit regeneration of many other species in the project area, so beech and striped maple saplings and poles are often the primary species cut. Doing so provides more space and resources for seedlings and saplings of northern red oak, eastern white pine, red pine, paper birch, trembling aspen, bigtooth aspen, sugar maple, yellow birch, red spruce, and eastern hemlock. Initial release treatments would occur during or immediately following the commercial timber harvest at locations the midstory is inhibiting to reproduction. One or more release treatments per unit may be needed to achieve desired conditions. These treatments may be implemented in all even-aged regeneration and group selection harvests in the project area.

12 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Natural Community and Oak-Pine Maintenance Red pine, white pine, red oak, and associated vegetation such as blueberry and huckleberry are recognized as fire-dependent or fire-adapted (Sperduto and Nichols 2011). Disturbance by fire creates a seed bed to promote regeneration of these species, and mature trees are adapted to survive periodic fire.

Albany Mountain is a ridge-top red pine woodland identified as a natural community by the Maine Natural Heritage Program. This site has a canopy of red pine with some red spruce and scattered white pine and red maple. Many of these sites have some evidence of past fire.

The ridge top of Cecil Mountain has characteristics of an oak-pine woodland but the area is too small to be classified as a natural community by the Maine Natural Heritage Program. Oak-pine woodlands are dominated by oak with white pine and red spruce, and fire may have a role in reducing competing hardwoods in some areas.

Oak-pine habitat also occurs at lower-elevations and would respond to prescribed fire treatments as well.

Past wildfires and drought served as disturbances that helped perpetuate the oak and pine communities in the project area. Without disturbance, these communities will convert to spruce-fir or northern hardwood types (Maine Natural Heritage Program Community Fact Sheets). Fire creates ground conditions favorable for oak and pine regeneration (such as added light and reduced duff levels on the forest floor) and reduces competing fire-susceptible northern hardwoods

Need for Action and Proposed Actions Reintroducing fire to portions of the project area that have a fire history and support fire-adapted species would provide the necessary disturbance to promote and maintain these oak-pine natural communities. Prescribed fire in oak-pine habitat would sustain these natural communities and enhance ecosystem resiliency by retaining species diversity across the landscape. This would achieve Forest Plan goals for wildland fire management by creating, maintaining or improving plant community composition by influencing the scale and pattern of vegetation across the landscape, including changing successional patterns (Forest Plan, 1-18). It would also work toward the wildlife objective of maintaining less common habitat types such as oak-pine (Forest Plan, 1-20). The oak-pine communities in the project area were studied to determine the site-specific need for action and viability of treating the areas with prescribed fire. The proposed action would conduct prescribed fire treatments on Cecil Mountain and Albany Mountain to perpetuate oak-pine, and also would be used as a silvicultural tool to manage for oak-pine habitat at lower elevations by reducing competing hardwoods and scarifying the soil.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 13 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the Wildland-Urban Interface The wildland-urban interface refers to the area where homes are located in close proximity to the forest and may be at risk from wildfire. Fires in the wildland- urban interface can originate in the forest and threaten homes or start as structural fires and threaten the forest. A substantial portion of the project area boundary coincides with private lands with homes and other structures in close proximity to the national forest, many near the Hut Road and in the Birch Avenue area northwest of Keewaydin Lake. Seventeen homes have structures within 300 feet of the national forest boundary. Many of these structures are in vegetation type that has a fire return interval of 30-200 years and several are in areas with a fire return interval of less 35 years.

The U.S. Forest Service worked cooperatively with the Maine Forest Service and the Town of Stoneham to develop the Stoneham Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Maine Forest Service 2013), which identifies wildfire risk and strategies to reduce the risk. One strategy integral to this effort is the Firewise Communities Program, a national effort to encourage local citizen action to help reduce community wildfire risk by creating defensible space around their homes.

As part of the strategy to reduce the spread, intensity, and potential harm to resources and property in the event of a wildfire, this project proposes mechanical treatment of fuels on national forest lands that abut private properties that have structures within 300 feet of the WMNF boundary. Reducing hazardous fuels adjacent to private lands would moderate wildfire intensity and spread and create defensible space in the event of a wildfire. This can be accomplished by reducing surface fuels (leaf litter, downed wood, etc.), and minimizing the threat of fast-moving crown fires by removing ladder fuels (lower branches that would carry a surface fire to tree crowns), and thinning trees to reduce canopy density. This fuels reduction action would be coordinated with the Maine Forest Service and local landowners, and is based on the Stoneham Community Wildfire Protection Plan mentioned above. Watershed, Aquatic Habitat, and Riparian Restoration The White Mountain National Forest aims to “manage streams at proper functioning condition to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality” (Forest Plan 1-18). Surface waters on the White Mountain National Forest are considered “outstanding resource waters,” and water quality is maintained or improved to protect existing and designated instream water uses such as aquatic life (Forest Plan 1-17). An associated Forest Plan objective is to improve watershed and soil condition on at least 25 acres per year (Forest Plan 1- 18).

Watershed Restoration Need for Action and Proposed Actions The following discussions identify the existing conditions and need for action related to watersheds in the project area. The actions proposed to address the needs are necessary to restore hydrologic function and meet the goals and objectives in the Forest Plan as stated above.

14 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Remove or replace undersized culverts Twelve culverts in the project area do not meet the current guidance for properly designed stream crossings. These culverts (with the exception of Forest Road (FR) 2009) were installed possibly under prior ownership, and before recent advances in the state of science and policy on stream crossing dynamics and best management practices. Undersized culverts can be a significant source of sediment due to increased erosion on either end, potential for road washouts, and potential for diversion of channels down the road. They can also impact stream function by changing channel shape and creating barriers for aquatic species. Therefore, there is a need to remove or replace these structures.

Figure 3. Undersized culvert that should be replaced to reduce potential sedimentation into the brook, improve stream functioning, and protect against road washouts

Four culverts to be removed are on FR 308A (Virginia Lake Spur A). This road would not be open for public motorized use (see recreation improvements proposal below), and culverts would be removed after forestry operations are complete. Stream channels would be reconnected where necessary, and road elevations would be designed to preserve wetland hydrology adjacent to one crossing. Four additional culverts are on FR 722 (Beaver Brook Road), which is part of the Stoneham State Snowmobile Trail (Interconnected Trail System (ITS) 82). These would be replaced with appropriately designed crossing structures which is essential due to the public use in this area. Forest Plan Standard S-5 for Water Resources states: “Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge unimpeded,” (p. 2-31). There is a need to replace these culverts with structures of a proper size and alignment. Minor changes in road elevation or alignment near the crossings may also be necessary. Replacing these culverts will primarily benefit stream channel function, with a small increase in aquatic habitat connectivity. By allowing high flows and material to pass through

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 15 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

these crossings, the integrity of both the stream channel and the road will be protected. By extension, the uses that rely on this access will also be preserved. Three additional culverts on unclassified roads1 (FR 3324 and FR 2009) in the Great Brook watershed would be removed, and channels immediately adjacent to the culverts restored as necessary. These three culverts are on old road segments not proposed for use in this project, and their removal will restore more natural flow patterns to floodplain and wetland areas. One culvert on a private section of the Beaver Brook Road would be replaced if road use and improvements for this project are acceptable to the adjacent landowner.

Restoring old road and trail beds Improperly closed or poorly located roads and skid trails can concentrate and redirect stream flow out of natural channels and contribute to erosion. Some road beds and skid trails in the project area used in the 1980s or earlier have begun to channel water. Since their last use, best management practices, scientific studies, and in some cases, changes in ownership have changed the approach to forest road and skid trail management. Individually, these features may not have a measurable impact on water quality, but collectively they contribute to alteration of hydrology in the watershed. They will also be an ongoing source of sedimentation where they cross water bodies as high flows erode more material. Best management practices for close-out of temporary roads and skid trails dictate that flow should be dispersed from the trail over vegetated ground or allowed to pass unimpeded where appropriate channels already exist. Therefore, there is a need to rehabilitate the areas of improperly closed or poorly located roads and skid trails by dispersing flow into vegetated areas and allowing sediment to settle outside water bodies.

Roads and trails in the Beaver Brook and Virginia Lake watersheds were last used as part of a salvage operation following severe storms in the 1980s. These lands were acquired by the federal government in 1987 after this operation was complete. Within the Beaver Brook watershed, an approximately 400-foot section of FR 308B, which is not proposed for use in this project, needs additional water bars due to surface erosion. Because of steep slopes and shallow soils, water dispersal is a particular challenge and an excavator will be needed to build and anchor larger and more frequent water bars than may be typically constructed. An unclassified spur road (FR 3347) and adjoining skid trail in the Beaver Brook watershed have channelized flow for approximately 800 feet. This road is proposed for reconstruction, which may involve a minor relocation in areas that are not easily drained, and installation of cross drainage features that meet Maine BMPs. Because of the moderate slopes and shallow gullies, restoration of abandoned segments will primarily involve felling trees across the road or trail at periodic intervals to divert water onto vegetated ground and allow sediment to settle. All sections of road and skid trail will be closed out with water bars and drainage dips as needed to prevent gully erosion. An old road bed west of Virginia Lake that is not proposed for use will be rehabilitated to prevent erosion on steep slopes above Virginia Lake. This involves up to 300 feet of

1Unclassified roads are also referred to as unauthorized routes in this document. They are travel ways that are not part of the official national forest transportation system and therefore not maintained for motorized use.

16 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment stabilization activities including water bars created by excavator or felling trees across the road bed as described above.

In the Kewaydin Lake watershed, an old road system is currently capturing flow from nearby intermittent and ephemeral streams. A combination of minor relocation, stream crossing improvement, and improved surfacing and water barring are needed on approximately 300 feet of roadbed to prevent channelized flow and erosion. Due to the presence of wetlands and steep slopes in the vicinity, this general route provides the most sustainable access to portions of the National Forest. The area near the stream crossing will continue to be used, while a portion paralleling the stream will be removed from the road system (see transportation proposal below). Recreation Improvements, Public Access, and the Transportation System Recreation use and facilities (trails, trailheads, and campsites) and the road network in the project area were examined to determine if the existing conditions are consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives, and if there is a need for change to approach or reach desired conditions. The following discussions describe the site-specific existing and desired conditions, the need for action, and the activities proposed to address the needs.

Recreation Need for Action and Proposed Actions Forest Plan goals and objectives for recreation (p. 1-10-15) most applicable to the project area address the need to provide a range of recreational opportunities, maintaining or lowering development levels in the backcountry, maintaining the White Mountain National Forest’s role in the state and regional snowmobile trail network, and managing the trail systems and dispersed camping in a manner that protects resources.

Dispersed camping along Great Brook. Dispersed camping between Great Brook and the Hut Road has contributed considerable soil compaction and loss of ground cover and vegetation along the brook. Water quality may be impacted in these areas by nutrients, bacteria, fuel, human and animal waste, and litter. Bare, compacted soil caused by human use in the riparian areas is likely to contribute small amounts of sediment from erosion, which could increase if gullies form. The Forest Plan states that “dispersed campsites causing unacceptable impacts that cannot be reasonably mitigated must be removed” and guides the Forest to consider relocating facilities, including campsites, that are within 100 feet of a perennial stream (Forest Plan, p. 2-21 and 2-25). There is a need to mitigate these impacts along Great Brook. This project proposes to close and rehabilitate four of the five campsites currently located between the brook and the road, and construct three primitive campsites on the east side of the road just north of the trail to the swimming hole and south of the bridge and gate. Two of the sites will have a capacity of eight people at one time and the third will have a 12-person capacity. The rehabilitated campsites would be protected from further impacts with a Forest Protection Area designation by relocating the Great Brook Trail trailhead to the upper gate on FR 4.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 17 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Virginia Lake. The small beach at the southern end of the lake currently receives day and overnight use. Overnight camping has rapidly increased over the last decade, and at times the beach and the forest area immediately adjacent have been occupied by squatters and others staying beyond the 14-day limit. The use is similar to that of a developed campsite but without the facilities such as maintained access and parking, restrooms, trash receptacles, and fireplaces that would protect natural resources. Current resource damage in the form of expanding vegetation clearing, soil compaction, increased erosion, and unsightly and unsafe waste issues are unacceptable. Law enforcement officers have attempted to address trash and human waste issues, but they remain a constant problem.

Motorized use of the spur road leading to the beach area (FR 308A) is also causing resource damage. The road was originally intended for intermittent use for timber harvest, and was not constructed to a standard that supports regular, long-term use, however it was not closed following timber harvest and has been used by the public year-round. Over the years, it has become increasingly rutted and eroded. This road provides administrative access to MA 2.1 lands, but there is a need to minimize damage to the road surface and to nearby wetlands that has been caused by on-going motorized use.

Development within 1,700 feet of the shoreline of Virginia Lake, including the establishment of developed recreation sites and parking lots, is restricted under the terms of the conservation easement attached to the property when the White Mountain National Forest acquired it in 1987. To better meet the intent of the conservation easement and in order to protect riparian and aquatic habitats, there is a need to close the beach area to camping, rehabilitate the entire site, and close FR 308A to motor vehicles following timber harvest. A permanent Forest Closure Order would be put in place to prohibit overnight camping at the beach area.

Figure 4. A view from the south end of Virginia Lake. Closing the beach area to overnight camping will ensure better compliance with the conservation easement that prohibits development along the shoreline

18 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Snowmobile Trails The Old State Cutoff Trail, north of Virginia Lake, once served as a portion of the link between the State Snowmobile Trail and the Stoneham Club Trail. This trail exists on the map but is essentially impassible. The trail crosses Hannah Brook and is mostly within a wetland. The trail has not been maintained in recent years, most of the trail tread is gone, and it is rarely if ever used. It is not needed as part of the snowmobile network and there is a need to remove this trail from maps and protect wetland habitat. The proposed action is to formally decommission this nearly nonexistent trail. Little work would be needed to decommission this trail on the ground and discourage further use.

The section of the State Snowmobile Trail just east and south of Lombard Pond currently travels through several poorly drained, wet, and muddy spots in the vicinity of Lombard Pond between Birch Avenue and the Keewaydin Spur Trail. These spots are of concern for resource damage as well as limiting snowmobile use because they do not hold snow well. There is a need to provide reasonable snowmobile access in this area to maintain the current trail network. With road construction proposed in this project (FR 320A), there is an opportunity to relocate this wet section of trail onto the proposed road system. The relocation would place the snowmobile trail on higher, better drained, and more stable ground away from Lombard Pond. Abandoned segments of trail would be stabilized and allowed to naturally rehabilitate over time. Any trail-related infrastructure such as bridges, culverts or signs would be removed and some drainage features such as waterbars may be enhanced to better protect soil and water resources. Intersections between the old and new trail alignments will be blocked and obscured to dissuade future use. Logs, brush and rocks would be placed in the former corridor to naturalize the site and prevent passage.

Transportation Need for Action and Proposed Actions The project area currently has about 20 miles of system roads (also called classified or forest roads) that are inventoried and managed as part of the Forest transportation system, and about 3.5 miles of what are called unauthorized routes. Unauthorized routes (also referred to as unclassified roads) are travel ways that are not part of the official forest system and therefore not maintained for motorized use. These 3.5 miles of unauthorized routes in the project area are historic roads that were built primarily for management of forested lands under previous ownership. Approximately 14 miles of system roads and unauthorized routes in the analysis area share use with snowmobile trails and about 4 miles share use with hiking trails. Most system roads in the project area are not currently suitable for logging truck traffic and will require some form of maintenance or reconstruction for use in this project.

Forest managers are guided to maintain and update the forest road inventory and index during project planning (Forest Plan, 1-17). The Forest Roads program should “provide a safe, seamless and efficient transportation and parking network that allows for current, continued, and projected management, use and enjoyment of the Forest with a variety of challenge levels” (p. 1-17). A Forest-wide travel analysis completed in 2015 made recommendations regarding which roads are likely to be needed or not likely to be needed in the future to meet this objective.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 19 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

At the project level, roads are evaluated to make a final determination on which roads are necessary for current and future management, as well as public use and enjoyment. Proposals are then developed for road work and decommissioning to bring the road system closer to the minimum needed. Field reconnaissance by the interdisciplinary team across the project area identified the current status, need for action, and proposed actions that would meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for the road system as discussed below.

Road maintenance, reconstruction, and new construction Road maintenance and reconstruction of about 9.7 miles of existing system roads would be needed to support the vehicle traffic associated with this project.

New road construction is needed to relocate short segments of existing system roads and to provide access for current and future management activities. This project proposes to construct a total of 1.3 miles of new system roads, ranging in length from 0.1 miles to 0.5 miles. All new construction would be for administrative use only (except the segments where the State Snowmobile trail would be relocated) and built to standards for winter-only use.

Road decommissioning and additions Approximately two miles of system roads and one mile of unauthorized routes were identified as not needed in the future and are proposed for decommissioning. Decommissioning unneeded roads allows soil to return to productivity, reduces impervious cover, and reduces erosion risk. It is also consistent with Forest Plan Guideline G-6 for Road Management (Forest Plan p. 2-29). There is a need to close these roads to further use, update the forest database of system roads, allow natural regeneration, and perform restoration activities where necessary. Summary of Need for Action

The following needs for action were identified after comparing the existing and desired conditions as discussed above:

• Increase habitat diversity to accomplish habitat management unit (HMU) objectives for wildlife habitat. • Improve forest health, productivity, and diversity using silvicultural treatments to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives, provide a sustained yield of high quality forest products, and create stand conditions that are more resistant and resilient to natural disturbances such as insects and disease. • Use fire as a disturbance process to restore and maintain oak-pine communities. • Reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface near private lands to create defensible space and moderate potential fire behavior in the event of a wildfire. • Restore watersheds where road and skid trail conditions are currently a source of sediment and other resource concerns.

20 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • Adjust the snowmobile trail system by decommissioning segments no longer in use and relocating current segments away from wet areas and onto system roads. • Reduce current impacts and development associated with dispersed camping on Great Brook and at the south end of Virginia Lake. • Adjust the national forest transportation inventory of system roads by adding roads needed for current and future management activities, and decommissioning existing roads that are no longer needed. • Conduct road maintenance and reconstruction as needed to support vehicle use in implementing the proposed action. Scoped Proposed Action

The Forest Service used the needs for action and general proposed activities described in the above section as well as early public input to develop a comprehensive and detailed proposed action that included locations, extent, and descriptions of each of the proposed activities. That proposed action was released as the “Albany South Integrated Resource Project Scoping Report” for public review and comment in July 2013. The process of scoping is an integral part of environmental analysis and is an early and open process used to refine the proposed action, identify issues, establish analysis criteria, and explore possible alternatives to the proposed action. Scoping is also an important tool for gathering new information and perspectives and encouraging public participation in the analysis process.

As a result of public scoping and on-going analysis by the Forest Service, the July 2013 proposed action was refined and is now described as “Alternative 2- Modified Proposed Action” in Chapter 2. A list of modifications made to the scoped proposed action is in Appendix E. Decision Framework

The Androscoggin District Ranger will examine the final environmental analysis, public involvement and response to the analysis, use of current science and field reviews, and consultations with other agencies and governments to make an informed decision about which alternative, if any, to implement. For consideration will be:

1. Are there additional issues or alternatives that should be analyzed in detail? 2. Which of the alternatives would best move the project area toward the desired condition of the land as outlined in the Forest Plan, and which best meets the purpose and need for the project? 3. Are there potential significant effects to the human environment that would require preparation of an environmental impact statement?

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 21 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Public Involvement and Governmental Consultation

Public involvement began in early 2012 when the Forest Service met with the Stoneham selectmen to discuss road access into the Albany South project area. This was early in the analysis process and well before the scoped proposed action was fully developed. Between early 2012 and July 2013 when the Scoping Report was released for public review and comment, Forest Service personnel and local individuals and organizations met numerous times and shared many emails and phone calls to discuss aspects of the developing proposal. Some of the public involvement efforts and activities are as follows:

July 2012: White Mountain National Forest staff attended and provided a preliminary overview of how land management projects are conducted on the WMNF to the Kezar Lake Watershed Association’s annual meeting.

July 2012: White Mountain National Forest staff and a number of local citizens including members of the Kezar Lake Watershed Association, the Greater Lovell Land Trust, and interested local residents, toured Kezar Lake and discussed Forest Service land management goals and objectives, the WMNF Forest Plan, the viewshed from the lake, and project development.

August 2012: a public open house at the Stoneham Town Hall was attended by more than 100 people. The objective was to share information about the project area and gather public input to refine the developing proposed action.

August 2012: the Saco Ranger District hosted a field trip for interested parties to tour older and recently completed timber sales along the Kancamagus Highway and to discuss WMNF timber harvest practices in a National Scenic Byway corridor.

November 2012: White Mountain National Forest staff met with the Stoneham selectmen to share information regarding town roads and access.

January 2013: some of the Albany South interdisciplinary team met with the Kezar Lake Watershed Association, the Greater Lovell Land Trust, and F.B. Environmental Associates to discuss how watershed best management practices are incorporated into projects, share watershed and fisheries habitat information, and continue collaborating in areas of mutual interest.

2013-2015: Field visits with resource specialists.

2013-2015: Wildlife, watershed, and fisheries monitoring and data collection by volunteers as well as data sharing with Kezar Lake Watershed Association, F.B. Environmental Associates, and interested individuals.

July 2013: The “Albany South Integrated Resource Project Scoping Report” describing the proposed action was distributed for public scoping.

September 2013: The District Ranger mailed a summary of the comments receive during the scoping period and an analysis update to those on the project mailing list, and posted the letter on the project webpage.

22 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment August 2014: Outreach to local communities and those on the project mailing list to provide an update on the analysis and to encourage people to join the project mailing list and participate in all future public involvement opportunities. Outreach was done via a mailing to those on the project mailing list; post on the project website; flyers hung and Forest Service staff visiting in local communities; and a newspaper article in the Bethel Citizen newspaper.

January and August 2015: The District Ranger mailed a project update letter to those on the project mailing list and posted on the project webpage.

Some public response to project updates in August 2014 and January 2015 was impassioned and mistrustful of Forest Service motives and priorities related to the project timeline, which has been extended several times, and ongoing deep concern about the effects of the project. Others requested analysis information, asked to join the project mailing list, and offered assistance, access, and local knowledge to help with the analysis and project implementation.

Ongoing: Contacts between the Forest Service and many interested organizations and individuals. Local residents continue to share site-specific information related to wildlife habitat, heritage resources, intermittent and perennial stream locations, and possible project proposals for watershed restoration. These activities have provided an ongoing dialogue via emails, letters, phone calls, office visits, and field visits.

We fully expect this level of public involvement to continue through the duration of this project, and welcome the hard work, thoughtfulness, passion, and cooperation extended by local individuals and organizations. Interagency and Governmental Consultation Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians; Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians; Penobscot Indian Nation; Arrostook Band of Micmacs: The Chief and Tribal/Cultural Historic Preservation Officer of each of these tribes were contacted with information about the project proposals and the known heritage sites in the project area. Each was invited to share any tribal concerns and potential effects to the environment, cultural sites, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites to help refine or modify the proposed project. In response, the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation stated that the proposed project would not have any adverse effects on cultural and historical concerns of their tribes.

Maine Natural Areas Program: Data-sharing, meetings, and a field visit to identify rare or unique botanical features, rare animal populations, and essential wildlife habitats that may occur in or near the project area. Information provided by this agency was incorporated into the environmental analysis, including project design features for resource protection that would be applied in all action alternatives.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: Information-sharing and a field visit to discuss protection of species and habitats in the project area. Information provided by this agency was incorporated into the environmental

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 23 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

analysis, including project design features for resource protection that would be applied in all action alternatives. In April 2014, White Mountain National Forest officials visited with the Commissioner to discuss this project and other current Maine issues.

Maine Department of Conservation: Best management practices developed and monitored by this agency have been incorporated into all action alternatives. Best management practices reflect current science and monitoring results for maximum effectiveness in protecting natural resources potentially affected by land management activities. The State Snowmobile Coordinator from this agency was also contacted for input on the proposed action.

Maine Forest Service: In April 2014, White Mountain National Forest officials visited with the Maine State Forester to discuss the Albany South project and other current issues of mutual interest.

Maine Historic Preservation Commission: The Maine State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the modified proposed action and concurs with the project archeologist’s finding that the project would have no adverse effects to historic properties.

US Fish and Wildlife Service: A biological assessment has been prepared for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts to threatened and endangered species.

Elected Officials: In 2014, Forest Service officials were in contact with members of the Maine State Legislature, United States Senator Angus King, and United States Congressman Mike Michaud’s office for information-sharing and in response to contact from their constituents. No objections to this project were expressed. Forest Service officials have also communicated with local town officials with updates and information-sharing periodically during the analysis process. Public Scoping The Forest Service received and analyzed approximately 50 unique responses with about 264 comments during the scoping period, and additional comments (unique and form letters) in 2014 and 2015 after the District Ranger’s project update letters were sent. All comments were thoughtful narratives reacting to the proposed action with support, opposition, concerns, or requests for revision and new alternatives. Many of the later comments expressed similar concerns as those received during the 2013 scoping period with added concerns about the timing of the draft EA for the 30-day comment period, and a request that it occur in the summer months.

The interdisciplinary team and the District Ranger considered all comments to identify issues and generate appropriate responses. Issues, as defined by Forest Service procedures, are statements that predict adverse environmental effects or other unwanted effects from the proposed activities. Identifying and addressing issues early in the analysis provides the opportunity to reduce potential adverse

24 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment effects and compare trade-offs among effects and alternatives to inform the public and the Responsible Official (FSH 1909.15 Ch. 12.4).

The public raised concerns about the effects of the proposed activities on the following resources (see comment letters and report in the project record for specific comments and additional concerns):

• The ecological health of the Great Brook watershed and Kezar Lake, including the brooks, headwater streams, water quality, aquatic environment, native brook trout, and spawning wild salmon • Water quality of all streams and Virginia, Keewaydin, and Kezar Lakes • Town infrastructure and public safety resulting from log truck traffic on the Hut Road, Beaver Brook Road, Virginia Lake Road, and Birch Avenue • Scenery from Kezar Lake, Route 5, Speckled Mountain, and other points in and near the project area • Public access and experiences for recreational pursuits including motorized access to Virginia Lake, and non-motorized use of hiking trails, forest roads, and off-trail walking • Wildlife • Heritage resources • Old tree retention • Inventoried roadless areas • Project costs and economic effects to taxpayers • Climate change • Prescribed fire on Albany Mountain

The issues above and others raised by the public are addressed in the analysis by one or more of the following methods:

1. Modify the proposed action (change, add, or drop actions) to reduce or eliminate potential unwanted effects. Appendix E lists the changes made to the 2013 scoped proposed action in response to public input and further analysis by the Forest Service. 2. Develop project design features to reduce or eliminate potential unwanted effects. Appendix B lists the design features to be implemented in this project. 3. Develop specific indicators to measure the potential unwanted effects and disclose the effects for all alternatives to allow comparison by the public and the responsible official. Each resource analysis summary in Chapter 3 lists the indicators and measures used to evaluate environmental effects. 4. If an issue cannot be resolved as above, develop an alternative to the proposed action that specifically addresses the issue by reducing or eliminating the unwanted effects. These are described in the following section, “Issues and Alternatives to the Proposed Action.”

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 25 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

In addition to issues related to resource concerns, we also received many comments of the following types: • information requests • submitted data and information • process, analysis, alternatives, and project design suggestions • suggestions for actions or analysis beyond the scope of the stated purpose and need • not related to the proposed action • general comments of support, opposition, and alternative preferences • potential environmental effects already planned for analysis and disclosure in the EA • topics already decided by higher law, regulation, or policy • conjectural in nature and not supported by scientific evidence • statements of potential minor or immeasurable effects of the proposed action All public comments were considered, addressed appropriately, and are available in the project record.

Issues and Alternatives to the Proposed Action Please see Chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of these alternatives.

Issue #1: The proposed timber harvest and connected activities could adversely impact the roadless character of the 2005 Caribou-Speckled 2 Forest Plan inventory area and jeopardize future consideration for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (designated wilderness).

Resolution: Develop Alternative 3 – No Activities in Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas that excludes all proposed actions in the inventoried roadless area.

Measurement Indicators: • The degree to which the inventoried roadless area meets the inventory criteria for inclusion in any future roadless inventories.

• Impacts to wilderness capability characteristics and potential consideration for wilderness designation.

Issue #2: Log truck traffic on the Hut Road would be unsafe due to the frequency of the truck traffic and the narrow, winding nature of the road, in particular in the “S” turn section of the road. The section of road that is of primary concern is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Stoneham.

26 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Resolution: 1. Develop Alternative 4 – No Hauling on the Hut Road. This alternative drops some harvest units that would have used the Hut Road for timber haul and reroutes the timber haul from the remaining Beaver Brook units to FR 722 to FR 3350, FR 3321, FR 308, and out Virginia Lake Road and Birch Avenue. 2. Develop Alternative 5 – No Hauling on the S-Turn Section of the Hut Road. This alternative retains all of the harvest units in the proposed action, but all timber trucked from the Hut Road would route to the Beaver Brook Road and out to Birch Ave via Virginia Lake Road. 3. In addition to developing the above alternatives to address Issue #2 , the following project design feature would be incorporated into all action alternatives: a. Consult with local road officials to determine necessary measures to provide safety to all project traffic during harvesting and trucking operations on the Hut Road. Consider options that would restrict project traffic to certain times of day or week, speed limits, rerouting logging traffic away from the Hut Road, or requiring the use of flaggers, traffic lights, or escort vehicles.

Measurement Indicators for Alternatives 4 and 5: • Public safety impacts as measured by trips per day by season on the Hut Road. • Public safety impacts as measured by trips per day by season in the S-turn section of the Hut Road.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 27

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives Introduction

This section describes the alternatives considered for the Albany South Integrated Resource Project. It includes alternatives studied in detail and those alternatives considered but not studied in detail.

The modified proposed action (Alternative 2) was developed to meet the purpose and need for action in the Albany South project area as described in Chapter 1. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were developed to address the issues identified by the public by eliminating action in the 2005 Forest Plan inventoried roadless area (Alternative 3), and by varying the use of log trucks on the Hut Road (alternatives 4 and 5). In addition to these action alternatives, a No Action alternative is included in this analysis to provide a baseline from which to compare the environmental effects of the action alternatives (2, 3, 4, and 5). Alternatives Studied in Detail

Proposed Activities This section describes what each activity would entail. The proposed extent (miles, acres, number) and locations for each alternative are listed later in this chapter under each alternative heading.

Appendices A, B, C, D, and E provide additional information for the action alternatives:

• Appendix A: Alternative Maps – these maps display the locations of all proposed activities by alternative. • Appendix B: Project Design Features – these are actions on the ground that will reduce or eliminate potential negative effects resulting from the proposed activities. For example, if timber harvest is implemented, project design features would include stream buffers and other design features known to reduce or eliminate effects to water quality. Project design features are assigned where they would be effective on the ground; they are site- specific. Design features are based on Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Maine best management practices, relevant science, and professional expertise gained from monitoring the effects of past actions. Conclusions regarding the duration and intensity of environmental consequences described in Chapter 3 take into account the implementation of project design features. • Appendix C: Unit Details and Treatment Objectives – this is a list of the individual units as proposed by alternative for timber harvest with acres, forest type, treatment objective, harvest method, and season of operation. • Appendix D: Roads and Transportation System Details – this is a list of road work and transportation system adjustments as proposed by alternative.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 29 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

• Appendix E: Changes From the Scoped Action – this is a description of the more substantive changes made to the proposed action since the public scoping period in July and August 2012.

Timber Harvest The terms “timber harvest,” “harvest method” and “silvicultural prescription” are used interchangeably in this analysis as descriptions of the kind of timber harvest to be conducted in each proposed unit. These include clearcuts, patch cuts, seed tree cuts, shelterwood seed cuts, group selection, single-tree selection, improvement cuts, and release treatments as described in Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need for Action) and in Chapter 3 (Vegetation). These silvicultural prescriptions would be used to meet the project’s wildlife habitat and forest management objectives. Prescriptions vary widely in the number, size, species, and pattern of trees removed.

Timber harvest would require a combination of mechanical harvesters (feller- bunchers), chainsaws, and skidders to cut trees and move them to the landing. Tree tops and limbs would remain on site. Existing landings and skid trails would be used where possible, reconstructed to minimum standards (vegetation and stumps removed and surface graded) necessary for equipment use. New landings would be up to one-half acre in size and may include up to 500 feet of temporary road access. New landings and skid trails would be located prior to operations in order to limit the area affected by harvest operations. They would be built for the site-specific forest and ground conditions. Locations, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning would adhere to Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices developed to protect resources as prescribed in the project design features (Appendix B). The logs would be hauled to the mill using either tractor trailer or triaxle log trucks.

Release Treatments Release treatments would remove non-commercial vegetation and species that may interfere with the establishment of desirable tree species such as white pine, hemlock, aspen, red oak, and other softwood and northern hardwood species. A portion of the dense midstory (mostly beech and red maple saplings) would be removed from harvested areas to provide “free to grow” conditions for regeneration-age and young oak, sugar maple, white pine and softwoods. These treatments would occur from May to September in harvest units after the commercial harvesting operations have been completed. One or more release treatments per stand may be needed to achieve desired conditions. Release treatments would be conducted by crews using brush saws and chainsaws. The removed trees would be cut into pieces and left on site.

Operating Seasons Operating seasons are defined by season and ground conditions and are assigned to timber harvest activities in treatment units and to road use. Forest roads are built to a standard suitable for use during their assigned season.

Winter operations are conducted during frozen ground conditions to protect soil and water resources.

30 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Summer harvest is proposed as follows:

• Operations on bare ground are required to create a seedbed necessary to establish regeneration of particular tree species; • There is low potential for bark damage to residual trees, such as clearcuts, patch cuts, and seed tree cuts • The soil types can support equipment without adverse effects. • Summer harvest is proposed as an option only in the most easterly part of the project near Route 5. Operations would be allowed when site conditions are considered normal for the season: winter harvest would require weather suitable for freezing skid trails and landings or frozen ground; summer would require unsaturated soil conditions. Operations may also be limited to protect nesting wildlife or other resource concerns. Harvesting operations would be overseen by the Forest Service timber sale administrator who has the authority to cease operations at any time to protect resources.

Prescribed Fire Site-specific burn plans would be developed after a final decision on this project is issued. Use of prescribed fire would adhere to the parameters of the burn plans developed for each area to be burned. Burn plans are based on the site conditions including topography, access, size, vegetation, and existing woody debris. They identify the weather and ground conditions, people, equipment, and notification required for safe and effective burning. Resource protection measures and specific actions for containing and controlling the fire are also in the burn plans.

Burning would occur by hand ignition in the spring or fall depending on conditions in each unit. The desired outcomes for prescribed fire would be to have an average overall duff layer of one to three inches and average understory light levels above 35 percent (U.S. Forest Service, 2004). These effects would promote pine and oak regeneration.

Pre- and post-burn forest conditions would be monitored and coordinated with silviculture and botany specialists. Monitoring would include an assessment of fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter), tree mortality, and understory species composition. Burning would be timed to take advantage of years with good pine cone and acorn crops to maximize the sources for regeneration. An adaptive management approach is planned to allow additional treatments in the burn units if the desired outcomes for duff and light are not accomplished with the initial treatment.

Residual understory tree species and fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter) in two red oak timber harvest units (53 and 55) would be evaluated after logging operations are completed to determine the need for prescribed fire to prepare a seed bed for oak regeneration.

Minimum impact suppression techniques would be used to prepare fire control lines. The types of control lines used in prescribed fire units would depend on the

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 31 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

specific topography, vegetation, as well as the time of year and weather conditions. Existing trails, ridgelines, areas of thinner vegetation, and hose-lays would be used as control lines where possible. Other fire control line methods would be used as needed:

• Blackline is an area or a line in which existing fuels have been burned away using prescribed fire. Blackline is created with a low-intensity, slow-burning backing fire. • Handline is constructed using hand tools to scrape vegetation down to mineral soil. The width would vary by fuels and location, but minimum impact techniques would be used and the lines will generally be no wider than 24 inches. Chainsaws may be used to remove small trees, brush, and low hanging branches in the immediate vicinity of the control line.

Access and Roads Proposals Treatment units would be reached via state, county, town, and Forest Service roads. Prescribed fire units may also be reached on foot or all-terrain vehicles.

Specific miles and locations of roads proposals are listed below in the alternative descriptions. The actions are defined as follows:

• Maintenance: This includes road surfaces and shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and any traffic-control devices necessary for safe use. Activities would include all or some of the following depending on the site- specific road conditions: surface blading, ditch cleaning and reshaping, aggregate placement, installation of drain dips and cross drains for surface erosion control, minor culvert cleaning or installation, roadside brushing, dust abatement, mulching and seeding disturbed areas. Roadside brushing would trim lower overhanging vegetation but higher tree limbs would be left to maintain a forested canopy setting. • Reconstruction: Activities would include all or some of the following depending on the site-specific road conditions: realignment, curve widening, clearing and grubbing, excavation work to accommodate safe use of product haul and equipment transport vehicles, establishing road template, adding greater amounts of road surface materials, major drainage structure installation, and general maintenance activities as described above. Vegetation would be removed or trimmed in proposed road rights-of-way to accommodate construction equipment. Most work would be conducted during the driest weather conditions under the guidance of the Forest Service to minimize potential impacts to resources and roads. • New Construction: All new roads would be built to standards for winter travel only. Road construction would adhere to the design specifications developed by engineers to include appropriate drainage, surfacing, clearing, grade, and turning radius to allow for safe use by vehicles needed for timber harvest and haul. Most work would be conducted during the drier weather conditions under the guidance of the Forest Service to minimize potential impacts to resources and roads. • Road Decommissioning: This action involves allowing natural revegetation to continue and using the following activities as needed to accelerate

32 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment restoration and mitigate watershed impacts: remove culverts, install drainage dips or water bars, rip and seed road surfaces, and re-contour road surfaces. Decommissioning is proposed for system roads and old non-system roads existing on the ground that are not needed for future access. Some roads to be decommissioned are revegetated or in the process of revegetating and stable and would require no work on the ground. • Road Additions to the National Forest Transportation System: Roads constructed for this project and some segments of existing unauthorized routes would be added to the forest’s inventory of system roads. These roads will be needed in the future and would be managed as “maintenance level 1” – meaning that they would be closed to motor vehicles and allowed to revegetate except when opened intermittently for future management activities or administrative needs. Maintenance level 1 roads would have appropriate drainage features and receive basic maintenance to minimize harm to adjacent resources and to ensure the road will be usable in the future.

Watershed Restoration Undersized or otherwise ineffective culverts would be removed or replaced. Stream crossings would meet best management practices to protect water resources.

About 1,800 feet of old roads or skid trails would be rehabilitated where the natural hydrology has been altered due to channelized flow in entrenched corridors in the Beaver Brook, Virginia Lake and Kewaydin Lake tributary 1 watersheds. Water flow would be dispersed onto vegetated ground through placement of water bars or large woody material across the corridor at specified intervals. This action would promote infiltration of water into the soil instead of the artificial concentration of overland flow in these areas. Where natural stream channels cross these corridors, channel function would improve by disconnecting these channels from the road or trail bed. These activities would selectively cut and leave in place approximately 75 trees scattered across the project area.

Watershed restoration activities would require use of excavators and other equipment typically used in road construction. Streams and soils would be protected using project design features described in Appendix B.

Recreation Improvements Campsite Decommissioning: Activities would include all or some of the following, depending on site-specific conditions: aerating soil in the barren core of each site, transplanting tree saplings, partially submerging rocks in tenting areas, and naturalizing the sites. Barren core areas would be seeded with a native plant mix approved by the WMNF botanist. Signs would notify visitors of the efforts made to help these sites recover and their other options for camping in the area.

Forest Closure Order, Trailhead Relocation, and Forest Protection Area: The temporary Forest Closure Order that prohibits overnight camping at the beach area at Virginia Lake would be replaced with a permanent Forest Closure Order to prohibit overnight camping at that site.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 33 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

The closed Great Brook campsites would be protected by formally relocating the Great Brook Trail trailhead from the lower gate on the Hut Road (close to the cemetery and WMNF boundary) to the bridge/gate area north of its current location on FR 4. This would be consistent with current use by hikers and with many trail guides that depict the upper gate as the trailhead. Formally relocating the trailhead will also put in place a Forest Protection Area that prohibits camping and fires within one-quarter mile of a trailhead unless in a campsite designated by the Forest Service, and by doing so the campsites proposed for closure along Great Brook will be protected from further impacts.

Primitive Campsite Construction: Vegetation would be removed to create a primitive access path and spots for tents. Mineral soil may be added to the tent pads as necessary to create a well-drained surface that encourages visitor use in appropriate areas. Rocks may be partially submerged in the ground to define fire pits of an acceptable size.

Snowmobile Trail Decommissioning: Trail segments would be stabilized and allowed to naturally rehabilitate over time. Any trail-related infrastructure such as bridges, culverts or signs would be removed and some drainage features such as waterbars installed to better protect soil and water resources. Intersections between the old and new trail alignments would be blocked and obscured to dissuade future use. Logs, brush, and rocks would be placed in the former corridor to naturalize the site and prevent passage. Bare soil on decommissioned segments immediately adjacent to these intersections would be seeded with a native plant mix approved by the WMNF botanist.

Snowmobile Trail Relocation: The majority of relocation would occur onto new or improved system roads. A section of the Stoneham State Trail would be relocated to coincide with FR 2018E, 2018, 2018C, and 320A.

Construction of FR 2018E would not occur in Alternative 3. To complete the trail relocation through this section, about 800 feet of the trail would be constructed on a skid trail used to harvest unit 100. The trail alignment would be similar to that proposed for FR 2018E in other alternatives. This trail segment would meet minimum standards for trail use with stumping, grading, and drainage installed as needed.

For alternatives 2, 4, and 5, the existing trail bridge over Lombard Brook would be removed and a temporary truck bridge would be installed for timber haul and snowmobile use during harvest operations. Following the completion of harvest operations the temporary bridge may be removed for use in another area. If this occurs the Forest Service will work with the local snowmobile club and the State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Land Snowmobile Program to install a replacement trail bridge. For Alternative 3, the existing bridge at Lombard Brook would remain in its current location and not be affected.

Project design features regarding dual use and timing would be applied where harvest equipment or hauling would occur on trails.

34 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Hazardous Fuels Reduction Hazardous fuels reduction would entail removing dead and down woody material greater than four inches diameter breast height and reducing ladder fuels (low branches and small trees that can carry a fire from the forest floor to the forest canopy) within 300 feet of structures on private land adjacent to the project area. Woody material would be pulled back out of the hazardous fuel zone. Treatments would occur on sites where the adjacent private landowner is participating in the Maine Forest Service Firewise program to reduce flammability and create defensible space around homes in the event of a wildfire. The Forest Service would coordinate with landowners in areas identified for treatment.

Project Duration All project activities would be implemented periodically over the course of 10 years, except prescribed fire which could occur 2-3 times over 15 years if needed. During the 10-year period, timber harvest (including the connected road and landing work) would likely occur over 5 years, and the remaining activities would occur seasonally as funding and staffing allows. Alternative 1: No Action None of the proposed actions would occur under this alternative. The effects of taking no action are analyzed in detail in each of the resource reports and summarized in Chapter 3. The No Action alternative does not preclude on-going activities and future proposals in the project area.

By taking no action, the following proposed activities would not occur, and the need for action and resource management goals associated with the activities would not be accomplished.

• Vegetation treatments: No mechanical treatments timber harvesting, (logging), release treatments, or prescribed fire (and connected fire control line construction) would occur. • Road work and transportation system adjustments: No road improvements proposed as part of this project would occur. On-going routine road maintenance planned as part of the forest roads management program would continue. No road additions or decommissioning would occur. • Watershed restoration: No culvert removal or replacement would occur. No road and trail bed restoration would occur. • Recreation improvements: No snowmobile trails would be relocated or decommissioned. No changes to dispersed camping would be made. On- going routine maintenance of trails and other recreation facilities would continue. • Hazardous fuels reduction: No removal of dead and downed woody material or ladder fuels on national forest system lands near structures on private land would occur. • Project design features: No project design features would be implemented for this project, however Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 35 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

practices, and other law, regulation, and policy required for national forest management would continue to be implemented for ongoing activities in the project area. Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action The 2013 scoped proposed action was developed to meet the need for action identified by comparing the existing the site-specific conditions in the project area and the desired future conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, as discussed in Chapter 1.

Alternative 2 was developed by modifying the scoped proposed action as the analysis progressed. Modifications occurred iteratively to incorporate new information, reduce potential impacts, and to address public concerns. See Appendix E for a summary of the revisions made to the scoped proposed action.

Vegetation Treatments As noted in Chapter 1, the overall objectives for vegetation treatments are to promote diverse habitats and enhance forest health and resiliency while providing wood products to local economies. Table 2 summarizes the proposed treatments designed to meet these objectives. See Appendix C - Unit Details and Treatment Objectives, for specific information about individual units, including unit number, forest type, treatment objective, release treatment, harvest method, acres, and operating season.

Alternative 2 would include:

• Trees of merchantable size and quality would be removed from the units using commercial timber sales totaling an estimated 7.5 million board feet of sawtimber and pulpwood. • A total of 35 log landings would be used: 19 existing landings would be re- used, and 16 would be constructed. • Release treatments (non-commercial) would be implemented on up to 577 acres of the treatment units. • All but 142 acres would be winter harvest. Units 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125 could include summer harvest. • Prescribed fire would be used on Albany and Cecil Mountains to mimic the positive effects of natural fire. Light-intensity fire would be used over several years as needed to create the light and ground conditions needed to perpetuate oak/pine communities. • In addition to areas treated by fire only, prescribed fire would be used in small areas of red oak on Cecil Mountain after mechanical timber harvest if post-harvest tree species composition and fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter) warrant additional treatment to promote regeneration. • The majority of timber harvested from the eastern side of the project area would be hauled to FR 320 and out of the project area to the northeast, past Round Pond. Virginia Lake Road, Beaver Brook Road, the Hut Road and FR 88 would also be used for accessing harvest units and trucking timber.

36 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 2 Harvest Method Forest Type Acres aspen Clearcut with Reserves northern hardwood 212 northern hardwood/red oak mixedwood Patch Cut 42 northern hardwood Seed-tree Seed Cuts with Reserves red oak 94 mixedwood northern hardwood Shelterwood Seed Cut 99 red oak/white pine white pine/eastern hemlock Commercial Thinning northern hardwood 138 eastern hemlock mixedwood northern hardwood northern hardwood/eastern hemlock 188 acres would be Group Selection cut from 1,255 unit northern hardwood/red oak acres red oak red oak/white pine red pine/red oak mixedwood northern hardwood northern hardwood/eastern hemlock Single Tree Selection northern hardwood/red oak 493 red oak red oak/white pine white pine/eastern hemlock northern hardwood Improvement Cut 32 white pine/eastern hemlock 1,298 acres would Total Timber Harvest be cut from 2,365 unit acres. Prescribed fire on Cecil Mountain oak/pine woodland 24 Prescribed fire on Albany Mountain red pine woodland 140 Prescribed fire after timber harvest red oak 48 in units 53 and 55 Total Prescribed Fire 212

Road Work and Transportation System Adjustments Road work proposed in this alternative includes the maintenance, reconstruction, and new construction necessary to implement the vegetation treatments noted above. In addition, the network of forest roads in the project area would be adjusted by adding new and existing but unclassified road segments to the national forest transportation system, and decommissioning some segments and removing them from the system. Table 3 displays the miles of road work and adjustments proposed in Alternative 2.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 37 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Unless a road use agreement is formed with the abutting landowner to allow use of FR 722, a new road segment would be constructed on national forest system lands in the vicinity of the Beaver Brook Road (FR 722) to allow for current, continued, and projected management and use of the national forest. This road segment would be FR 3346A and approximately 850 feet long.

Table 3. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 2 Road Proposal Miles Comments 0.9 miles summer use Maintenance and Reconstruction 9.7 8.8 winter use New Road Construction 1.3* All winter use 1.3 miles of existing non-system routes Road Decommissioning 4.3** 3.0 miles of system roads 2.1 miles of existing non-system routes Roads Added to the National Forest 3.4 1.3 miles of new construction Transportation System Add as Maintenance Level 1 *This includes the 850-foot FR 3346A which would be constructed only if needed as described above. **This includes 1,700 feet of old roads proposed for rehabilitation under the watershed restoration proposals.

Watershed Restoration Table 4 displays the actions proposed to restore and improve watershed conditions under Alternative 2.

Recreation Improvements Primitive campsites closest to Great Brook would be closed and rehabilitated. To accommodate continued overnight use, 3 primitive campsites would be constructed on the east side of FR 4 north of the trail to the swimming hole and south of the bridge/gate. Two of the sites would be designed with a capacity of 8 people at one time while the third would be designed for a capacity of 12 people at one time. The total area rehabilitated would be approximately 7,800 square feet. The total area covered by the new campsites would be approximately 5,000 square feet.

The beach area on the south end of Virginia Lake Beach would be closed to overnight use and the existing camping impacts would be rehabilitated. Day use would continue. Motorized access via FR 308A would be closed and beach access would be by foot.

Permanent forest orders to prohibit overnight camping at the closed sites along Great Brook and at Virginia Lake would be issued.

38 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 4. Watershed restoration objectives and activities proposed under Alternative 2 Watershed Restoration Location Objectives/Comments Action Remove after vegetation treatment operations are Remove 4 complete. Stream channels would be reconnected where FR 308A -- Virginia Lake Spur A culverts necessary, and road elevations would be designed to preserve wetland hydrology adjacent to one crossing. Non-system road segments off Culvert removal would restore more natural flow patterns Remove 3 FR 4 along Great Book, mapped to floodplain and wetland areas. Restore the channels culverts as FR 3324 and FR 2009 immediately adjacent to the culverts as necessary. Replacement culverts would be appropriately sized for the Replace 4 FR 722 -- Beaver Brook Road stream. Minor changes in road elevation or alignment culverts near the crossings may also be necessary. Replace 1 Private section of Beaver Brook Would be replaced in collaboration with the adjacent culvert Road landowner if a mutually acceptable solution is found. Because of steep slopes and shallow soils, water Add water bars to 400 feet of FR dispersal is a particular challenge and an excavator would 308B be needed to build and anchor larger and more frequent water bars than may be typically constructed. Because of the moderate slopes and shallow gullies, rehabilitation would primarily involve felling trees across 800 feet of abandoned sections of the road or trail at periodic intervals to divert water onto a non-system road (mapped as vegetated ground and allow sediment to settle. All FR 3347) and a connected skid sections of road and skid trail would be closed out with Rehabilitate trail. 1,800 feet of old water bars and drainage dips as needed to prevent gully roads and skid erosion. trails* Rehabilitate to prevent erosion on steep slopes above 300 feet of an old road bed on the Virginia Lake. Stabilize with water bars created by west side of Virginia Lake excavator or felling trees across the road bed. This road is not proposed for use in this project. This old road and connecting skid trail, last used in the 300 feet of an old road and skid 1980s, is capturing flow from intermittent and ephemeral trail north of Keewaydin Lake streams. Relocate and improve the stream crossing, along FR 2018 surfacing, and water bars to prevent channelized flow and erosion in the trail. *1,700 feet of this is included in the mileage proposed for road decommissioning as noted in table 3.

The relocation of the Stoneham State Snowmobile Trail would require dual use (project vehicles and snow machines using the road concurrently) of the trail during harvest operations; however no trucking of forest products would occur on weekends or federal holidays when recreation use is highest.

The existing trail bridge over Lombard Brook would be removed and a temporary truck bridge would be installed for timber haul and snowmobile use during harvest operations. Following the completion of harvest operations the temporary bridge may be removed for use in another area. If this occurs the Forest Service will work with the local snowmobile club and the State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Land Snowmobile Program to install a replacement trail bridge.

There would be no action on the ground required to decommission the Old State Cutoff Snowmobile Trail because the trail hasn’t been maintained or used

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 39 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

regularly in recent years and is revegetating naturally. Minor work at the intersections to discourage use may be required.

Table 5 summarizes the activities proposed to address resource concerns and improve conditions related to dispersed camping and snowmobile trails.

Table 5. Campsite and snowmobile trail proposals, Alternative 2 Recreation Improvement Location Comments Action Close to overnight camping. Decommission and One site between FR 2009 rehabilitate 4 primitive West side of FR 4 and Great Brook would be campsites along Great Brook retained. Construct 3 primitive East side of FR 4 NA campsites Decommission and South end of the lake, beach rehabilitate 1 primitive Close to overnight camping. and adjacent area. campsite on Virginia Lake Relocate to This relocation would Relocate a segment of the • FR 2018E coincide with new and Stoneham State Snowmobile • FR 2018 improved roads proposed in trail • FR 2018C this project. • FR 320A The segment between FR Decommission 0.98 miles of 320 to FR 3326 that would be the Stoneham State NA relocated as described Snowmobile Trail above. Decommission 0.64 miles of From FR 722 to junction with the Old State Cutoff NA Old State Trail on FR 3329. Snowmobile Trail

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Under alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, hazardous fuels reduction would occur on national forest land near structures located on adjacent private land if the landowner is participating in the Maine Forest Service’s Firewise program. There are approximately 19 sites that could be treated. Treated areas would be about one-half acre per site, with up to 10 acres treated in total. Alternative 3: No Activities in the Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Area As noted in Chapter 1, this alternative was developed to address concerns about potential negative impacts to the roadless character of the area identified during the Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory as Caribou-Speckled 2 Forest Plan inventory area (Issue #1). Alternative 3 eliminates all activities proposed in the inventoried roadless area.

Vegetation Treatments Vegetation treatments would be conducted as described in Alternative 2, except for the following changes to eliminate activities in the inventoried roadless area:

40 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • Approximately 626 acres of timber harvest would be dropped from the project. This would reduce the estimated timber volume by 2.9 MMBF, acres of release treatments by 111 acres, and would require 11 fewer landings. • No prescribed fire would occur on Albany Mountain. The routes taken by log trucks would be adjusted as follows due to the changes in harvest units and associated road work in this alternative:

• Harvest units along road FR 722 would be trucked to the east and then south along roads FR 722, FR 3350, new construction 3321A, FR 3321, FR 308, and Birch Avenue. • If a road use agreement is formed allowing the use of FR 722, harvest units may be trucked to the southwest along FR 722 and Hut Road.

Table 6. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 3 Harvest Method Forest Type Acres aspen Clearcut with Reserves 160 northern hardwood mixedwood Patch Cut 19 northern hardwood Seed-tree Seed Cuts with Reserves red oak 94 mixedwood Shelterwood Seed Cut northern hardwood 70 red oak/white pine Commercial Thinning northern hardwood 138 eastern hemlock mixedwood northern hardwood northern hardwood/eastern hemlock 144 acres would be Group Selection cut within 962 unit northern hardwood/red oak acres red oak red oak/white pine red pine/red oak mixedwood northern hardwood Single Tree Selection northern hardwood/red oak 46 red oak/white pine white pine/eastern hemlock Improvement Cut NA 0 672 acres cut out of Total Timber Harvest 1,489 total acres Prescribed fire on Cecil Mountain oak/pine woodland 24 Prescribed fire after timber harvest red oak 48 in units 53 and 55 Total Prescribed Fire 72

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 41 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 3 would include:

• Trees of merchantable size and quality would be removed from the units using commercial timber sales totaling about 4.6 million board feet of sawtimber and pulpwood. • A total of 24 log landings would be used: 12 existing landings would be reused, and 12 would be constructed. • Release treatments (non-commercial) would be implemented on up to 446 acres of the treatment units. • All but 142 acres would be winter harvest. Units 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125 could include summer harvest. • Prescribed fire would be used in the same manner as described in Alternative 2 but on Cecil Mountain and in Units 53 and 55 only. No prescribed fire would occur on Albany Mountain. Table 6 summarizes the proposed timber harvest and prescribed fire outside of the inventoried roadless area.

Road Work and Transportation System Adjustments Road work proposed in this alternative would be conducted as described in Alternative 2 except for the following:

• Road construction would be reduced by 0.5 miles (FRs 3346A, 3326A, and 2018E would not be constructed). • Maintenance and reconstruction would be reduced by 2.4 miles (FRs 4, 3326, 3328, 3346, and part of 722, would not be reconstructed or maintained). • Decommissioning would be reduced by 0.4 miles (FR 3324 would not be decommissioned). • 0.5 miles would not be added to the national forest transportation system as compared to Alternative 2. Table 7 displays the miles of road work and road inventory adjustments (decommissions and additions) proposed in Alternative 3.

Table 7. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 3 Road Proposal Miles Comments 0.9 miles summer use Maintenance and Reconstruction 7.3 6.4 miles winter use New Road Construction 0.8 All winter use 0.9 miles of existing non-system routes Road Decommissioning 3.9* 3.0 miles of system roads 2.1 miles of existing non-system routes Roads Added to the National Forest 2.9 0.8 miles of new construction Transportation System Add as Maintenance Level 1 *This includes 1,700 feet of old roads proposed for rehabilitation under the watershed restoration proposals.

42 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Watershed Restoration Watershed restoration activities would be conducted as described in Alternative 2, except the two culverts on FR 3324 in the Great Brook watershed would not be removed because they are located in the inventoried roadless area. Under this alternative, five culverts would be removed and five would be replaced.

Table 8 displays the actions proposed to restore and improve watershed conditions under Alternative 3.

Table 8. Watershed restoration objectives and activities proposed under Alternative 3 Watershed Restoration Location Objective/Comments Action Remove after vegetation treatment operations are Remove 4 complete. Stream channels would be reconnected where FR 308A -- Virginia Lake Spur A culverts necessary, and road elevations would be designed to preserve wetland hydrology adjacent to one crossing. Non-system spur off FR 4 in Culvert removal would restore more natural flow patterns to Remove 1 along Great Brook, mapped as floodplain and wetland areas. Restore the channels culvert FR 2009 immediately adjacent to the culverts as necessary. Replacement culverts would be appropriately sized for the Replace 4 FR 722 -- Beaver Brook Road stream. Minor changes in road elevation or alignment near culverts the crossings may also be necessary. Replace 1 Private section of Beaver Brook Would be replaced in collaboration with the adjacent culvert Road landowner if a mutually acceptable solution is found. Because of steep slopes and shallow soils, water dispersal Add water bars to 400 feet of is a particular challenge and an excavator would be needed FR 308B to build and anchor larger and more frequent water bars than may be typically constructed. Because of the moderate slopes and shallow gullies, 800 feet of abandoned sections rehabilitation would primarily involve felling trees across the of a non-system road (mapped road or trail at periodic intervals to divert water onto as FR 3347) and a connected vegetated ground and allow sediment to settle. All sections Rehabilitate skid trail. of road and skid trail would be closed out with water bars 1800 feet of old and drainage dips as needed to prevent gully erosion. roads and skid trails* Rehabilitate to prevent erosion on steep slopes above 300 feet of an old road bed on Virginia Lake. Stabilize with water bars created by the west side of Virginia Lake excavator or felling trees across the road bed. This road is not proposed for use in this project. This old road and connecting skid trail, last used in 300 feet of an old road and skid the1980s, is capturing flow from intermittent and ephemeral trail north of Keewaydin Lake streams. Relocate and improve the stream crossing, along FR 2018 surfacing, and water bars to prevent channelized flow and erosion in the trail. *1,700 feet of this is included in the mileage proposed for road decommissioning as noted in table 7.

Recreation Improvements The recreation improvements would be conducted as described in Alternative 2, except for the following:

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 43 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

• No new primitive campsites sites would be designated across the Hut Road (FR 4) from Great Brook due to the inventoried roadless area. • FR 2018E would not be built in this alternative which is part of the snowmobile trail relocation proposed in Alternative 2. Instead, Alternative 3 would develop a new snowmobile trail segment to connect FR 2018 in Unit 100 with the existing snowmobile trail on north end of Unit 100. This new trail segment would be located on skid trails used to log Unit 100. Stumping, grading, and drainage would be installed as needed. The total length of new connector trail would be 800 feet. • The existing bridge at Lombard Brook would remain in its current location and not be affected.

Table 9. Campsite and snowmobile trail proposals, Alternative 3 Recreation Improvement Location Comments Action Decommission and rehabilitate 4 Close to overnight camping. One primitive campsites along Great West side of FR 4 site between FR 2009 and Great Brook Brook would be retained. Decommission and rehabilitate 1 South end of the lake – beach primitive campsite on Virginia Close to overnight camping. and adjacent area. Lake Relocate to Relocate a segment of the This relocation would partly Stoneham State Snowmobile • FR 2018 coincide with new and improved trail • FR 2018C roads proposed in this project. • FR 320A Connect FR 2018 in Unit 100 This connector would be located Construct 800 feet of connector with the existing snowmobile trail on skid trails used for timber trail. on north end of Unit 100. harvest in Unit 100. The trail would be relocated to Decommission 0.86 miles of the The segment between FR 320 to system roads and the new Stoneham State Snowmobile FR 3326. connector trail as described Trail above. Decommission 0.64 miles of the From FR 722 to junction with Old Old State Cutoff Snowmobile NA State Trail on FR 3329. Trail

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Hazardous fuels reduction would be conducted as described under Alternative 2. Alternative 4: No Hauling on the Hut Road As noted in Chapter 1, this alternative was developed to address concerns about potential negative effects from log truck traffic on the Hut Road (Issue # 2).

Vegetation Treatments Vegetation treatments would be conducted as described in Alternative 2, except for the following changes required to eliminate timber haul on the Hut Road:

44 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • Approximately 252 acres of timber harvest would be dropped from the project, reducing the timber volume by 0.8 MMBF, acres of release treatments by 18 acres, and requiring 8 fewer landings. • No prescribed fire would occur on Albany Mountain. The western-most units in the Great Brook drainage would be dropped. Harvest units along FR 722 and the west side of Beaver Brook would be trucked to the east and then south along roads FR 722, FR 3350, new construction 3321A, FR 3321, FR 308, and Birch Avenue.

Table 10. Acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire, Alternative 4 Harvest Method Forest Type Acres aspen Clearcut with Reserves northern hardwood 212 northern hardwood/red oak mixedwood Patch Cut 27 northern hardwood Seed-tree Seed Cuts with Reserves red oak 94 mixedwood northern hardwood Shelterwood Seed Cut 99 red oak/white pine white pine/eastern hemlock Commercial Thinning northern hardwood 138 eastern hemlock mixedwood northern hardwood northern hardwood/eastern hemlock 188 acres cut within Group Selection northern hardwood/red oak 1,255 unit acres red oak red oak/white pine red pine/red oak mixedwood northern hardwood Single Tree Selection northern hardwood/eastern hemlock 288 red oak/white pine white pine/eastern hemlock Improvement Cut NA 0 1,046 acres cut Total Timber Harvest from 2,113 unit acres Prescribed fire on Cecil Mountain oak/pine woodland 24 Prescribed fire on Albany Mountain red pine woodland 140 Prescribed fire after timber harvest red oak 48 in units 53 and 55 Total Prescribed Fire 212

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 45 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 4 would include:

• Trees of merchantable size and quality would be removed from the units using commercial timber sales totaling about 6.7 million board feet of sawtimber and pulpwood. • A total of 27 log landings would be used: 15 existing landings would be re- used, and 12 would be constructed. • Release treatments (non-commercial) would be implemented on up to 559 acres of the treatment units. • All but 142 acres would be winter harvest. Units 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125 could include summer harvest. • Prescribed fire would be used on Cecil and Albany Mountains and in Units 53 and 55 in the same manner as described in Alternative 2. Table 10 summarizes the proposed vegetation treatments for Alternative 4.

Road Work and Transportation System Adjustments Road work proposed in this alternative would be conducted as described in Alternative 2 except for the following:

• New construction would be reduced by 0.17 miles (FR 3346A would not be constructed). • Reconstruction and maintenance would be reduced by 1.8 miles (FRs 4, 3346, and part of 722 would not be reconstructed or maintained). • Decommissioning would be reduced by 0.4 miles (FR 3324 would not be decommissioned). Table 11 displays the miles of road work and adjustments proposed in Alternative 4.

Table 11. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 4 Road Proposal Miles Comments 0.9 miles summer use Maintenance and Reconstruction 7.9 7.0 miles winter use New Road Construction 1.3* all winter use 3.0 miles of existing non-system routes Road Decommissioning 3.9** 0.9 miles of system roads 2.1 miles of existing non-system routes Roads Added to the National Forest 3.4 1.3 miles of new construction Transportation System Add as Maintenance Level 1 *This includes the 850-foot FR 3346A which would be constructed only if needed as described above. **This includes 1,700 feet of old roads proposed for rehabilitation under the watershed restoration proposals.

Watershed Restoration Watershed restoration actions would be conducted as described in Alternative 2.

46 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Recreation Improvements Recreation improvements would be conducted as described in Alternative 2.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Hazardous fuels reduction would be conducted as described under Alternative 2. Alternative 5: No Hauling on the S-Turn Section of the Hut Road This alternative retains all of the harvest units in Alternative 2 (modified proposed action), but all timber trucked from the Hut Road would route to the Beaver Brook Road and out to Birch Ave via Virginia Lake Road.

Vegetation Treatments All treatment units (timber harvest and prescribed fire) proposed under Alternative 2 are proposed under this alternative as well. See table 2 under Alternative 2 for the acres and forest types proposed for timber harvest and prescribed fire under Alternative 2.

Alternative 5 would include the same timber volume, number of landings, acres of release treatments, and season of harvest as described under Alternative 2.

Road Work and Transportation System Adjustments Road work proposed in this alternative would be conducted as described in Alternative 2 except FR 3321A would be constructed, adding 0.2 miles of construction to the project.

Table 12 displays the miles of road work and adjustments proposed in Alternative 5.

Table 12. Miles of road work and transportation system adjustments, Alternative 5 Road Proposal Miles Comments 0.9 miles summer use Maintenance and Reconstruction 9.6 8.8 miles winter use New Road Construction 1.5* all winter use 1.3 miles of existing non-system routes Road Decommissioning 4.3** 3.0 miles of system roads 2.1 miles of existing non-system routes Roads Added to the National Forest 3.6 1.5 miles of new construction Transportation System Add as Maintenance Level 1 *This includes the 850-foot FR 3346A which would be constructed only if needed as described above. **This includes 1,700 feet of old roads proposed for rehabilitation under the watershed restoration proposals.

Watershed Restoration Watershed restoration actions would be conducted as described in Alternative 2.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 47 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Recreation Improvements Recreation improvements would be conducted as described under Alternative 2.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Hazardous fuels reduction would be conducted as described under Alternative 2. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Most suggested alternatives were not studied in detail because they would not effectively meet the project’s purpose and need as described in Chapter 1. Also, many of the concerns expressed by the public are addressed by the no action alternative, design features incorporated in the action alternatives, and analysis of the effects related to the concerns as disclosed in Chapter 3. Some components of the alternatives studied in detail could be selected in the Decision Notice without being studied as a separate alternative because they fall within the range of actions and effects disclosed.

The following alternatives were submitted for consideration during the 2013 public scoping period.

1. Eliminate all clearcutting. Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Eliminating clearcutting would reduce the effectiveness of this project in meeting the purpose and need related to wildlife habitat objectives and forest management. Clearcutting will help create valuable early successional habitat as described in the Forest Plan and in the specific habitat management goals identified in the project area. It also is the most effective harvest method to regenerate shade-intolerant tree species such as aspen and birch, which is a forest type needed in the project area. See Chapter 1 for details on how clearcutting contributes to the purpose and need for this project. The current amount of proposed acres of clearcutting has been reduced from the original proposal reviewed by the public (see Appendix E). The analysis of alternatives studied in detail summarized in Chapter 3 includes the effects of taking no action (Alternative 1) which addresses the suggested alternative to eliminate clearcutting. Specific resource concerns that may be related to clearcutting such as effects to water quality or scenery were studied by the interdisciplinary team and are summarized in Chapter 3.

2 Retain public motorized access to the beach at the south end of Virginia Lake and add actions to address resource concerns. Several commenters requested that the road to beach be left open for public motor vehicle access because:

• Motorized access is valued by families with young children and grandchildren who would be challenged by the walk in. The beach must remain accessible to all ages and all levels of ability so that our future

48 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment generations will develop a love and appreciation for nature. Closing the road will allow use only by experienced campers and hikers. • Limiting access is unfair to local citizens who use the area the most and take pride in its care. • There is no other nearby sandy beach for local residents to use. • Trash will increase because people will not have vehicles close by and they won’t carry it out. • Rather than closing the road to vehicles, alleviate the current problems by adding Forest Service patrols, adopters, and a toilet. Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Retaining open motorized public access on FR 308A would not meet the purpose and need to protect water resources such as Virginia Lake and streams in the vicinity of the road, and would violate the conservation easement that prohibits development within 1,700 feet of the lake. The road was constructed for access during timber salvage operations in the 1980s and was not built to standards necessary for long-term public access. It is inventoried as a maintenance level 1 road, meaning that it should be opened only intermittently and for administrative use only. The road was not physically closed after the 1980s salvage operations and resource damage is evident from continued motorized use. The Albany South project would fix the road to minimum standards for winter use by project vehicles, followed by closure and watershed restoration actions (culvert removal, reconnect stream channels where necessary). An open public motorized access road requires higher construction standards, including non-native surfacing, that would constitute development within 1,700 feet of the lake.

3 Do not harvest timber along Great Brook and in the Kezar Lake watershed. Several commenters requested that all harvest along Great Brook and in the Kezar Lake watershed be dropped from the project to protect water quality. It was noted that while effects from the project may be short-term, water quality must be protected for ecosystem functions as well as human use, enjoyment, and contributions to tourism and the local economy. Specific concerns expressed are:

• Increased siltation from logging will cause further harm to the watershed which has not recovered from past logging, development, and dredging. • Brook trout and salmon populations and spawning habitat in Great Brook, just now recovering from past dredging and logging, may be jeopardized if headwaters and tributaries are interfered with by roads, stream crossings, and loss of canopy protection. • Lack of adequate buffers may increase sedimentation and water temperature and decrease pH. Recreation and the supply of clear cold water to Kezar Lake may be harmed. • The benefits do not outweigh the risks. Rationale for elimination from detailed study: The Forest Plan identified lands within the Kezar Lake watershed as suitable for forest management, including

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 49 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

timber harvest. It also identifies standards and guidelines for implementing management activities that are designed to protect natural, cultural, and social resources. The project is designed to meet land management goals while protecting resources by applying those Forest Plan standards and guidelines and incorporating Maine best management practices, current science, and professional expertise of the resource specialists conducting the analysis (see Appendix B). Protecting water quality and associated aquatic habitat is a purpose and need for the project and would be accomplished through the watershed restoration proposals and with the application of site-specific project design features as described in appendix B. Eliminating timber harvest in areas where no significant or long-term effects to water-quality are expected would arbitrarily and unnecessarily restrict the Forest’s ability to meet wildlife habitat and forest management goals in the project area. The environmental analysis discloses the predicted environmental effects to water quality in Great Brook and the Kezar Lake watershed (see Chapter 3).

4 Eliminate timber harvest and connected actions in the Great Brook watershed but increase harvest in other areas. One commenter requested that all logging, skid trails, and roads proposed for the Great Brook watershed be shifted to areas outside of the watershed, and that any increased effects to viewsheds in the more heavily cut areas be accepted.

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Please see the rationale for not eliminating timber harvest along Great Brook. The timber harvest currently proposed outside the Great Brook watershed already includes as much harvest as is appropriate given the need for action and requirement to protect all resources from adverse effects, not just scenery. Increasing the harvest intensity in the rest of the project area would harm resources and cause inconsistency and non- compliance with the Forest Plan and relevant laws, regulations, policies, science, and Mane guidance for protecting resources in the project area.

5 Use larger buffers along streams. Several commenters concerned about water quality and fisheries requested the project design be altered to adopt the stream buffer widths and riparian management practices recommended by Stantec, Trout Unlimited, the Best Management Practices Manual, and Shoreland Zoning guidance, and/or the Wilkerson, et al. report.

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Forest Plan standards and guidelines for riparian management, which includes appropriate buffer widths, were developed to protect water quality and aquatic and riparian habitats. In addition, the project includes implementation of Maine best management practices which were developed by loggers, foresters, and scientists from Maine and other states to protect water quality during and after timber harvesting. Finally, in accordance with Forest Service regulations for conducting this project- level environmental analysis, resource specialists considered the need to adjust buffer widths to protect resources based on the specific proposed actions and the conditions on the ground. As a result, buffers were widened in some areas as described in Appendix B. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management

50 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment practices, and project design features are monitored for effectiveness and have been shown to adequately protect watersheds from risks posed by forest management activities.

In addition to adhering to Maine best management practices as mentioned by the commenters, the project design also follows Shoreland Zoning guidance, and recommendations provided during consultation about this project with the State of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Conservation. Also, the recommendations noted by the commenters were taken into consideration and incorporated into the project as applicable when developing design features and predicting environmental effects to fisheries and water quality. See the relevant resource sections in Chapter 3 and the supporting documentation in the project record.

6 Do not log old growth forest. Several commenters mentioned that old growth protection is required by the Forest Plan and therefore any impacts to old growth forest must be disclosed. One commenter requested an alternative that excludes logging of old growth forest.

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: None of the mature habitat in the Albany South HMU is old growth forest as defined in USDA Forest Service 2005a, Glossary, page 21, and no old growth is proposed for harvest.

7 Create and maintain early successional habitat without harvesting mature timber. One commenter offered an alternative for creating and maintaining early successional habitat that would:

• Create 100 acres of permanent wildlife openings in the Albany HMU instead of regularly regenerating forest stands. • Clearcut young forest to re-initiate early successional habitat in the same stands rather than log mature forests. • Maintain early successional habitat along existing roads outside of inventoried roadless areas. Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Timber harvest areas provide valuable components of early successional habitat not found in maintained permanent wildlife openings which would be lost with the suggested alternative. In addition, maintaining permanent wildlife openings or simply re-cutting young forest stands would be high-cost management actions with potential unacceptable environmental effects resulting from frequent entries.

8 Close the Great Brook and Hut Road areas to all dispersed camping. Two commenters suggested closing the Great Brook and Hut Road areas to all camping. No specific concerns about dispersed camping are documented in their comments.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 51 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: Dispersed camping is a desired recreation opportunity that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. The area along the Hut Road has historically been used for dispersed camping and only the sites closest to Great Brook display unacceptable impacts to natural resources. Eliminating all dispersed camping along the Hut Road would arbitrarily prohibit a traditional and desired use of the area with no supporting rationale provided, or basis in science or policy.

9 Delay prescribed fire treatment on Albany Mountain by 20 years to evaluate the succeeding forest type and re-evaluate the need for action. The State of Maine Natural Areas Program suggested that the red pine woodland on Albany Mountain does not appear to be succeeding out of its natural state at this time, and that prescribed fire may be more effective in perpetuating this community if it is implemented in the future. Delaying prescribed fire treatment on Albany Mountain would allow time to better understand the succession of forest types there and the need for action.

Rationale for elimination from detailed study: This suggestion to delay prescribed fire on Albany Mountain is incorporated in and studied as part of Alternative 3. The Responsible Offical will decide whether to drop the proposed treatment on Albany Mountain from this project after considering the completed environmental analysis.

52 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Comparison of Alternatives Studied in Detail

Summary of proposed Activities by Alternative Table 13 summarizes the actions proposed in each alternative. See Chapter 3 for detailed descriptions of environmental effects for each alternative.

Table 13. Comparison of proposed activities by alternative Proposed Activity Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Clearcut with reserves 0 212 160 212 212 (acres) Patch Cut (acres) 0 42 19 27 42 Seed-tree Seed Cut with 0 94 94 94 94 Reserves (acres) Shelterwood Seed Cut 0 99 70 99 99 (acres) Commercial Thinning 0 138 138 138 138 (acres) 188 acres cut Group Selection (acres) 0 within 1,255 144 of 962 188 of 1,255 188 of 1,255 unit acres Single Tree Selection 0 493 46 288 493 (acres) Improvement Cut 0 32 0 0 32 (acres) Release Treatment 0 577 446 559 577 (acres) 1,298 acres cut Total Timber Harvest 0 within 2,365 672 of 1,489 1,046 of 2,113 1,298 of 2,365 (acres) unit acres Prescribed fire (acres) 0 212 72 212 212 Estimated Harvest 0 7.5 4.6 6.7 7.5 Volume (MMBF) Remove or replace 0 12 10 12 12 culverts (#) Restore old roads and 0 1800 1800 1800 1800 trails (feet) Close and rehabilitate 0 4 4 4 4 primitive campsites (#) Construct primitive 0 3 0 3 3 campsites (#) Relocate trail Stoneham State Trail and develop relocation and new 0 Relocate trail Relocate trail Relocate trail connector trail connector trail in Unit 100. Snowmobile trail decommissioning 1.62 1.50 1.62 1.62 (miles) Road maintenance and 0 9.7 7.3 7.9 9.7 reconstruction (miles)

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 53 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Activity Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 New winter-use road 0 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.5 construction (miles) Landings 19/16 12/12 15/12 19/16 0 (# existing/new) Total=35 Total=24 Total = 27 Total=35 Road decommissioning 0 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.3 (miles) Road additions (miles) 0 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.6 Hazardous fuels 0 10 10 10 10 reduction (acres)

Comparison of Environmental Effects Related to Need for Action and Project Issues The following tables provide an overview of environmental effects to the resources associated with the need for action and project issues as described in Chapter 1. These tables should be used in conjunction with the resource narratives in Chapter 3 which provide the details and rationales supporting these conclusions.

Table 14. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for wildlife habitat and forest management Need for Action: 1. Increase the regeneration (0-9 year) age class, maintain mature habitat, increase softwoods where possible, and maintain less-common habitats and habitat diversity to accomplish HMU objectives. 2. Improve forest health, productivity, and diversity to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives, provide a sustained yield of high quality forest products, and create stand conditions that are more resistant and resilient to natural disturbances such as insects and disease. 3. Use fire as a disturbance process to maintain red pine and oak-pine communities. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Acres of 0-9 year age class (created plus 0 262 188 247 262 existing) Acres harvested to enhance overall habitat 1,298 acres cut diversity, forest health, 0 within 2,365 unit 672 of 1,489 1,046 of 2,113 1,298 of 2,365 productivity, and acres resiliency.* Estimated timber volume harvested and 0 7.5 4.6 6.7 7.5 made available to local markets. (MMBF) Treated acres with light and duff outcomes 0 212 74 212 212 favorable to oak and pine regeneration* *see Wildlife section in Chapter 3 for accomplishments related to specific habitat types and age classes.

54 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 15. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for watershed restoration Need for Action: Fix roads and trails where conditions are currently impacting proper hydrologic functioning. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Remove or replace 0 12 10 12 12 culverts (#) Restore old roads and 0 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 trails (feet)

Table 16. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for recreation improvements Need for Action: 1. Improve resource protection in dispersed camping areas adjacent to Great Brook and Virginia Lake. 2. Comply with requirements of the conservation easement purchased with the land around Virginia Lake 3. Adjust the snowmobile trail system to eliminate segments no longer in use and relocate segments away from wet areas. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Four campsites closed, rehabilitated, and protected with Forest None Protection Area put in place with relocated Great Brook Trail trailhead. Changes in dispersed Three new sites Three new sites Three new sites camping opportunities constructed on constructed on constructed on the east side of No new sites the east side of the east side of at Great Brook None FR 4 in the constructed. FR 4 in the FR 4 in the vicinity of the vicinity of the vicinity of the closed sites. closed sites. closed sites.

Changes in dispersed Permanent Forest Closure Order – no overnight camping. camping opportunities at Virginia Lake No public motorized access on FR 308A. Compliance with Closing the beach to overnight camping and closing the spur road to prohibition of At risk of public motorized use will eliminate the current and potential future level development according non- of development which would violate the conservation easement’s to the conservation compliance prohibition of development within 1,700 feet of the shore. All alternatives easement at Virginia remove the risk of non-compliance. Lake Miles of snowmobile trail relocated to drier, 0 0.98 0.86 0.98 0.98 more stable ground. Total miles of snowmobile trail 0 1.62 1.50 1.62 1.62 decommissioned.

Table 17. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for forest transportation system adjustments Need for Action: Adjust the national forest transportation inventory of system roads by adding roads needed for current and future management activities, and decommissioning existing roads that are no longer needed. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Roads added to system 0 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.6 (miles) Road decommissioning 0 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.3 (miles) Net change in system 0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.4 -0.6 roads (miles)

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 55 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 18. Comparison of alternatives in meeting project objectives for hazardous fuels reduction Need for Action: Reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface near private lands to create defensible space and reduce potential fire behavior in the event of a wildfire. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Treated acres with removal of ladder and 0 10 10 10 10 ground fuels out of hazard zone.

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives in addressing the issue of roadless character in the inventoried area Project Issue #1: The proposed timber harvest and connected activities could adversely impact the roadless character of the 2005 Caribou-Speckled 2 Forest Plan inventory area and jeopardize future consideration for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (designated wilderness). Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Limited, short- The degree to which term effects but the inventoried it would retain roadless area meets Same as Same as No effect potential to be No effect the criteria for inclusion Alternative 2 Alternative 2 included in in any future roadless future inventories. inventories. Impacts to wilderness Limited, short- capability term impacts, characteristics and Same as Same as No effect but it would No effect potential consideration Alternative 2 Alternative 2 retain future for wilderness eligibility designation.

Table 20. Comparison of alternatives in addressing the issue of log trucks on the Hut Road Project Issue #2: Log truck traffic on the Hut Road would be unsafe due to the frequency of the truck traffic and the narrow, winding nature of the road, in particular in the “S” turn section of the road. The section of road that is of primary concern is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Stoneham. Indicator Measure Alt. 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Truck loads per day by season on the Hut Road. (Trips per day in parenthesis) If using tractor-trailer trucks 0 4.4 (8.8) 0 0 0.9 (1.8) If using triaxle trucks 0 6.7 (13.4) 0 0 1.4 (2.8) Truck loads per day by season on the S-turn section of the Hut Road. (Trips per day in parenthesis) If using tractor-trailer trucks 0 4.4 (8.8) 0 0 0 If using triaxle trucks 0 6.7 (13.4) 0 0 0 Note: all timber haul on the Hut Road would be winter-only and would not occur on weekends and federal holidays.

56 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

This chapter summarizes the potential effects of the five alternatives (see Chapter 2) on affected physical, biological, economic, and social resources. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Each resource analysis summarized in this chapter uses indicators to meaningfully measure the changes and effects caused by the alternatives (FSH 1909.15, 12.5). Not every resource is affected by every action, so actions assessed in each resource analysis differ.

Indicators and measures differ by resource and are based on project issues, the need for action, and law, regulation, and policy as applicable to the resource.

Three kinds of effects resulting from the alternatives as determined using indicators and measures were analyzed:

• Direct effects – occur at the same time and in the same place as the proposed activities. • Indirect effects – occur later in time or farther removed in distance from the proposed activities. • Cumulative effects – the total potential effects when direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities are added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that overlap with the Albany South activities in time and space. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered for cumulative effects include actions on national forest and private lands located within the effects analysis areas identified in the individual resource sections below. In most cases, the existing conditions serve as a proxy for the effects of past actions and as such past actions are not detailed in Appendix F. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions (36 CFR 220.4(f)). Individual resource specialists may examine specific past actions and natural events if they are relevant and necessary to determine environmental effects for their specific resources. Each resource specialist considered the projects listed in Appendix F and added the effects of the projects to those of the Albany South project. The summary of these cumulative effects is in each resource section in this chapter. Incorporating by Reference

Federal regulations encourage reducing the bulk of this document by incorporating by reference the data, inventories, and relevant information found in other documents (36 CFR 220.7(a, b)). Therefore, the resource summaries in

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 57 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

this chapter are based on the environmental analyses conducted by Forest Service specialists and documented in individual resource reports which are located in the project record and available from the White Mountain National Forest. The summaries in this chapter incorporate by reference the scientific analyses documented in the reports, including the data and methodologies used in determining the potential environmental effects of the alternatives studied in detail; quantified analysis results; relevant law, regulations, and policies; Forest Plan goals and desired conditions; assumptions; literature cited; and additional background information. Wildlife

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Wildlife Report and Summary of Biological Evaluation for Federally Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) (Rowse 2015) located in the project record.

This analysis addresses project effects on:

1. Habitat management objectives for the Albany South Habitat Management Unit (HMU). 2. White Mountain National Forest management indicator species (MIS) identified in the Forest Plan. 3. Species and habitat of concern found in the project area: dead and down wood, natural communities, vernal pools, deer wintering areas, bald eagle and golden eagle. Background As discussed in Chapter 1, the WMNF uses discrete land areas called Habitat Management Units (HMUs) as a tool during project development to ensure that there is a connection between landscape-level goals and objectives and project- level ecological conditions (USDA Forest Service 2007a, Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document). Examination of the existing habitats in the Albany South HMU during the development of this project indicated the need to enhance the range of habitat types and age classes in order to approach the desired mix of essential habitats on the landscape. The degree of accomplishment of these habitat management objectives are a measure of the effects of this project.

Management indicator species (MIS) and their associated habitats are used to evaluate how wildlife is affected by timber harvest. Five MIS habitats occur in this project area: regeneration-age northern hardwoods; mature hardwoods; regeneration-age softwoods; mature softwoods; and all ages of aspen-birch habitat. The species, habitats, forest-wide monitoring, and population trends are discussed in detail in the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2005b, Chapter 3, pages 166-187). The changes in MIS habitat resulting from the alternatives are a measure of the effects of this project.

58 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Species and habitats of concern in the project area were identified by the public and the interdisciplinary team as necessary for evaluation in this analysis. These include dead and down wood habitat, vernal pool habitat, natural communities, wintering white-tailed deer, bald eagle, and golden eagle. The effects of this project are measured by changes to these features as a result of the proposed activities. Effects Indicators and Measures The relevant elements of wildlife and habitat for the Albany South project are:

1. HMU objectives – effects measured by changes in habitat types and age classes. 2. Species/individuals – effects are qualitative expectations based on activity and operating seasons. Conclusions regarding harvest effects on management indicator species habitat are based on Forest-level monitoring of management indicator species. Project- level discussions in this document are tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2005b).

Table 21 displays the indicators and measures used in this analysis to determine the effects to wildlife.

Table 21. Indicators used to measure effects to wildlife habitat and species, and special habitat features Resource Resource Element Measure Source Indicator Forest Plan USDA Forest Direct effects: Qualitative expectations based Service 2005a, Species/Individuals disturbance from on activity and operating Chapter 1, page 8, project activities seasons. Chapter 2, pp 33-36. Forest Plan USDA Forest HMU Objectives for Habitat types and Acres of habitat change short Service 2005a, Chapter 1, Habitat Diversity age classes and long term. pp 20 - 21 Potential changes to species Forest Plan USDA Forest Management Indicator Changes in presence and abundance due to Service 2005b, Chapter 3, Species (MIS) indicator habitat project activities and operating pp 166-187 seasons Forest Plan USDA Forest Reduction in dead Dead and Down Wood Acres of clearcuts and patch cuts Service 2005a, Chapter 2, and down wood pp 35-36. Forest Plan Goals. USDA Suitable habitat Extent to which suitable habitat is Natural Communities Forest Service 2005a, condition conserved. Chapter 1, p.8. Forest Plan Standards and Hydrology and Extent to which these features Guidelines. USDA Forest Vernal Pools shading are maintained. Service 2005a, Chapter 2, pp. 24-26. Potential loss of winter cover and Forest Plan. USDA Forest Suitable softwood disturbance of wintering deer due Deer Wintering Areas Service 2005a, Chapter 2, habitat to project activities and operating p. 34. seasons.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 59 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Existing Conditions

Albany South Habitat Management Unit See Chapter 1 for a detailed description of the existing habitat, age class, and land capability conditions in this HMU. In addition to the narrative, table 1 in Chapter 1 displays the existing and desired habitat types in M.A. 2.1 by habitat type and age class. Figure 5 and figure 6 below display the percentages of habitat types in the HMU by management area.

The most abundant habitat type in the Albany South HMU is mature northern hardwoods followed by mature mixedwood and mature oak-pine. Overall, nearly 80 percent of the MA 2.1 land is in the mature age class, nearly 20 percent is in the young age class, and less than 1 percent is in the regeneration age class.

Figure 5. Existing habitat in Management Area 2.1 – 6,611 acres

Figure 6. Existing habitat in other management areas – 1,317 acres

60 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 22. Potential WMNF MIS in the Albany South Project Area Population trends for Management Representative Probability of Occurrence in the Maine and New Indicator Species Habitat Albany South Project Area Hampshire

Breeding Bird survey No regeneration-age hardwood (BBS) show a declining Regeneration-age habitat occurs in MA 2.1 lands in population in New northern hardwood the project area. Hampshire and Maine. Chestnut-sided (predominantly sapling Forest monitoring shows Chestnut-sided warblers have warbler stages) but could a significant decline. been detected during routine field include some scattered Hunt et al. (2011) shows visits in permanent wildlife softwood. a declining population in openings and in other small New Hampshire. patches of disturbance habitat. BBS show a declining population in New Approximately 3,500 acres of Hampshire and Maine Mature hardwoods representative habitat occurs in MA (significant for New (predominantly 2.1 lands in the project area. Hampshire). Forest Scarlet Tanager northern hardwood but monitoring shows a Scarlet tanagers have been could include significant decline. Hunt detected in and adjacent to the mixedwood). et al. (2011) shows a project area during routine field declining population in visits. New Hampshire. BBS show stable Inclusions of regeneration-age populations in New softwood habitat occurs in other Regeneration- age Hampshire and Maine. forest types on MA 2.1 lands in the softwoods Forest monitoring shows project area. Magnolia Warbler (predominantly spruce- a stable trend. Hunt et fir but could include Magnolia warblers have been al. (2011) shows a some hardwoods). observed adjacent to the project stable population in New area (LeCasse 7/30/2012) and are Hampshire. likely present in the project area. BBS show a declining population in Maine and Approximately 1,500 acres of New Hampshire. Forest representative habitat occurs in MA monitoring shows no 2.1 lands in the project area, with Mature softwoods significant statistical additional inclusions of spruce-fir Blackburnian (predominantly spruce- trend. Visual monitoring and hemlock in other habitat types. Warbler fir but could include of Forest data indicates some hardwoods). Blackburnian warblers have been a stable trend. Hunt et detected in and adjacent to the al. (2011) shows a project area during routine field stable population in New visits. Hampshire. Approximately 300 acres of representative habitat occurs in MA 2.1 land in the project area. BBS show a declining Ruffed grouse have been detected population in New in and adjacent to the project area Hampshire and Maine. during routine field visits. A ruffed Forest monitoring does grouse survey route that has been not indicate a Ruffed Grouse All ages of aspen-birch conducted once each spring in the statistically significant Albany North HMU from 2005 to trend. 2009 along Forest Roads 7 (Patte Hunt et al. (2011) shows Brook Road), 18 (Crocker Pond a declining population in Road), 59 (Harriman Brook Road), New Hampshire. and 756 (Mud City Road) recorded very few grouse drumming events (WMNF unpublished data, Gorham, New Hampshire).

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 61 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

The top of Albany Mountain is in MA 6.2 land and is a forested mountain ridge at approximately 1,900 feet. The mountaintop is characterized as a red pine woodland which has areas of bedrock intermixed with areas of red pine, white pine, red spruce, and red maple. A natural lightning strike burned a small area in the 1980s. The habitat surrounding the red pine woodland is mature mixedwoods intermixed with a component of red and white pine. The tops of Isaiah and Cecil Mountains are in MA 2.1 land. Isaiah is about 1,200 feet and Cecil is at approximately 1,100 feet. The mountaintops are characterized as oak-pine woodland with red oak, red and white pine intermixed with other hardwoods and softwoods. The habitat surrounding these mountains includes a mix of northern hardwoods and oak-pine.

Management Indicator Species Table 22 displays the White Mountain National Forest management indicator species that have representative habitat in the project area, or have documented occurrence in the project area at various times of the year. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data is from The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis 1996-2012 from Sauer et al. 2014; breeding WMNF bird surveys data results (1992-2013) from USDA Forest Service 2012a, and The State of New Hampshire Birds – A Conservation Guide from Hunt et al. 2011.

Species and Habitats of Concern Dead and Down Wood: Dead and down wood occurs throughout the project area and provides habitat for a variety of species. Retaining this habitat relies on recruitment of woody material from forested stands as trees die, branches break, and annual litter builds up on the ground. Mature or dense stands in the project area are particularly favorable to recruitment of dead and down material, and with nearly 80 percent of the MA 2.1 lands currently in mature condition, there is abundant dead and down wood habitat in the project area.

Natural Communities: Natural community conservation contributes to biodiversity across the White Mountain National Forest. The Maine Natural Areas Program identified, surveyed, and mapped the following natural communities in MA 2.1 lands in the project area: maple-basswood-ash, oak-pine woodland, beech-birch-maple, red pine woodland, and red oak-northern hardwoods-white pine (MNAP 2008). These areas range in size from 30 acres to 300 acres. Several of the mapped natural communities lie within a large white pine-mixed hardwoods ecosystem area that occurs mostly outside of MA 2.1 lands. Of these natural communities, only portions of the oak-pine woodland, red pine woodland, and white pine-mixedwood ecosystem are proposed for treatment in this project.

Vernal Pools: Vernal pools are naturally-occurring depressions, seasonally filled with water with no inlet or outlet. They occur throughout the project area, most often in low-lying areas with poor drainage due to compacted sediments or underlying ledge. While they do not support fish, they do provide valuable breeding habitat to some amphibians and reptiles (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004). Surveys in the project area confirmed the presence of vernal pools through

62 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment evidence of breeding activity of wood frog, spotted salamander, Jefferson salamander, blue-spotted salamander, or fairy shrimp.

Deer Wintering Areas: While white-tailed deer numbers have declined in western Maine (MDIFW 2011), they are present in the project area and use a variety of habitat types for food and cover. Key winter browse in the project area includes hemlock, cedar, hardwood, and litter fall from fir and lichen as well as hard mast from mature oak. Herbaceous plants are important for early spring browse.

Adequate quality winter habitat is vital to maintaining healthy deer populations. Hemlock offers the best winter cover for deer (Reay 1999), but deer wintering areas comprised of mature lowland softwood or mixedwood habitat also provide needed thermal cover and protection from winter conditions and disturbance.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife recommends managing deer wintering habitat by interspersing mature softwoods with small openings to perpetuate critical softwood cover, maintain high quality browse production, and ensure deer mobility throughout an area during the harsh winter months (MDIFW 2010).

Documented deer wintering areas in the Albany South HMU are comprised of northern hardwoods and mixedwood with pockets of dense hemlock and include Square Dock A (100 acres), Square Dock B (80 acres), Beaver Brook (400 acres), and a small 60-acre area which lies mostly outside of the national forest along the southern boundary adjacent to Compartment 337. The small hemlock inclusions in these areas provide cover while the large areas of northern hardwood are a winter food source. Most of these areas were pocket yards supporting up to 10 to 15 deer in the 1970s (USDA Forest Service 1978), and a few deer were observed wintering in a small pocket yard near Great Brook along the Hut Road. Field surveys between 2008 and 2012 found approximately 6 deer wintering in Square Dock B and some evidence of deer use in Beaver Brook in the hemlock inclusions up on the ridges. Approximately 4 deer were observed wintering on private land adjacent to Compartment 337. Deer activity also was observed in a pocket yard off the Hut Road in a hemlock inclusion adjacent to Great Brook. No deer or evidence of deer use was found in Square Dock A. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe Direct and Indirect Effects: The project area serves as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects on wildlife because it encompasses all of the proposed activities that could affect species and habitat. The analysis timeframe for direct and indirect effects on wildlife is ten years because this is when species might be affected by proposed activities and this is the timespan for regeneration habitat after it is created by timber harvest. Long-term goals to convert habitats (i.e., hardwoods to softwoods) would take several decades.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 63 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 1

Disturbance and General Wildlife Effects There would be no effects to species or individuals because no timber harvest or other proposed activities would occur that would cause disturbance or change wildlife behavior in the project area. Levels of human use, activity, and noise that currently affect wildlife behavior and survival are expected to continue. Because there are no direct or indirect effects of taking no action, there would be no cumulative effects.

Wildlife Habitat Diversity With no silvicultural treatments as proposed, it is unlikely that measurable progress toward the desired habitat and age class diversity objectives would be possible, and the HMU would remain well below Forest Plan objectives for desired conditions as noted in Chapter 1.

The current mix of habitat types would continue to dominate the Albany South HMU and would continue to mature over time. Patches of existing mature aspen- birch would convert to hardwoods or spruce-fir. Diverse habitats, including large diameter cavity trees, small openings, and accumulation of dead and down wood may be created as individual trees or groups of trees die. Natural events such as storms, fire, and insect and disease infestations would influence the extent and kinds of future habitat types. Ongoing maintenance of permanent wildlife openings would provide habitat for species that favor openings for all or part of the year including chestnut-sided warbler, mourning warbler, and common yellowthroat.

With no underburning in units 53 and 55 or prescribed fire on Albany and Cecil Mountains, the existing oak and pine communities would decline over the long- term. Less availability of food sources such as hard mast, blueberries, and grasses that would follow fire would have a negative effect on some wildlife species. The Forest Plan goals to maintain oak-pine habitat where it is ecologically feasible (USDA Forest Service 2005a) would not be addressed at this time.

Management Indicator Species Mature northern hardwoods, mixedwood, oak-pine, and hemlock would continue to provide habitat supporting scarlet tanager and blackburnian warbler and other wildlife associated with those types. Populations would be maintained or may increase as the forest matures.

With no regeneration habitat created in northern hardwood or aspen-birch, chestnut-sided warbler, magnolia warbler, and ruffed grouse would remain stable or decline in the Albany South HMU. Existing permanent wildlife openings would continue to provide some regeneration habitat for these species, and the population trend of those species would not be altered within their range.

No effects would occur to wildlife habitat or management indicator species as a result of not implementing the transportation and campsite proposals. There would be minor effects to aquatic and riparian species if the watershed projects and snowmobile trail relocation out of wet seepy areas are not implemented.

64 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment These minor effects would not change current trends in wildlife habitat and populations.

Species and Habitats of Concern Dead and Down Wood: Changes in existing habitat condition of the project area would result from natural processes only. Over time, there is a greater potential for development of large diameter cavity trees and accumulation of downed woody material favored by some species of wildlife (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001) compared to the harvest units proposed for treatment under the action alternatives.

Natural Communities: Any changes to natural communities in the project area would result from natural processes only. As described in the need for action section in Chapter 1, without the proposed prescribed fire, the oak-pine communities would eventually convert to other natural communities dominated by spruce-fir or northern hardwood types (Maine Natural Heritage Program Community Fact Sheets).

Vernal Pools: Any changes to vernal pools in the project area would result from natural processes only. The existing vernal pools would continue to provide habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

Deer Wintering Areas: Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on existing deer wintering habitat in the project area. There would not be an opportunity to increase winter browse or availability of early spring food from harvesting activity but that does not preclude this from occurring in the future. Natural disturbance may provide some winter browse from litter fall.

Alternatives 2-5

Direct and Indirect Effects of Disturbance and General Wildlife Effects Timber Harvest: Hotter and drier conditions for 2-4 years after clearcuts and patch cut treatments (Fay et al. 1994) could adversely affect some species of amphibians such as red-backed salamander (DeMaynadier and Hunter 1998) and small mammals. Individual salamanders in large unshaded openings may be more vulnerable to predation and they may burrow underground or avoid openings to escape warmer temperatures, however reserve areas in clearcuts would partially mitigate these effects. Reptiles such as snakes would find warmer conditions favorable. Increased browse and soft mast (berries) after harvest would attract species. There would likely be an increase in insects, small mammals, certain species of birds, and mammals such as fox, white-tailed deer, black bear, and moose that would inhabit these areas for all or part of the year (Costello et al. 2000, Fuller and DeStefano 2003, King et al. 2001, Thompson et al. 2001).

Partial cuts would open the canopy to partial sunlight, and release the understory in northern hardwood, aspen/birch, mixedwood, hemlock, oak-pine, and spruce- fir. Wildlife species associated with mature age class would still occupy these sites, however there would be fewer species associated with closed canopy forest and more species that favor partial canopy closure (DeGraaf et al. 2006). Increased understory vegetation would increase nesting habitat, hiding cover, and

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 65 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

forage for a variety of species. Bird species that favor regeneration habitat might use the openings created in group selection units, however it’s possible that these small patches do not provide quality habitat for this group of species (King et al 2001, King and DeGraaf 2004). Group selection also might increase edge habitat within mature forest resulting in higher predation rates on nests of forest birds (King et al. 1998, 2001).

Under all harvest methods, tree tops and branches left on site would provide hiding cover for some species, and a one-time input of browse, mostly during the winter, for species such as moose and white-tailed deer. The addition of logging slash to the forest floor may inhibit the movement of some larger species. Snow compaction on skidder trails would enhance mobility for some species. At the same time, harvest operations could displace wildlife and nesting birds, and alter travel corridors or mobility of some species including amphibians and small and large mammals.

Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the greatest direct effects because there would be more clearcuts and partial harvest followed by Alternative 4 with Alternative 3 having the least direct effects (table 23).

Release Treatments: Some nesting, roosting, or foraging species would be disturbed or displaced, and travel corridors and mobility of some species such as amphibians, small mammals, and large mammals would be altered. Most individuals that are mobile would be temporarily displaced and either return to the stand or seek an area that better meets their habitat needs. The increase in small-diameter slash on the forest floor may temporarily benefit species such as rodents, amphibians, and some nesting birds by providing cover as well as increasing available browse for species such as white-tailed deer, moose, and snowshoe hare. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the most release treatments followed by Alternative 4 with Alternative 3 having the least amount of release treatments (table 23).

Table 23. Proposed harvest treatments (acres) by action alternatives Treatment Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Clearcut and patch cut 254 179 239 254 Partial Harvest Group Selection 1255 (188) 962 (144) 1255 (188) 1255 (188) Individual Tree Selection 493 46 288 493 Shelterwood Seed 99 70 99 99 Seed Tree Cut 94 94 94 94 Thinning 138 138 138 138 Improvement Cut 32 0 0 32 Total Acres (Net Acres) 2365 (1298) 1489 (672) 2113 (1046) 2365 (1298) Release Treatments 577 446 559 577 TOTAL = total area treated. Net Acres = total areas where trees will be harvested.

Operating Seasons: The season in which a unit is harvested may directly affect wildlife, especially if harvest occurs during critical life cycle periods such as

66 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment breeding, young rearing, feeding, and winter survival. Individuals could be displaced or die during any season of operation. Early summer harvest (June- August) could affect species that use trees for nesting, roosting, cover, and foraging such as breeding birds, bats, and ground-dwelling animals (mammals, amphibians, and reptiles). Individuals would be most vulnerable when young are immobile and cannot move away from an area. Late summer harvest (August- October) would affect fewer nesting species but could potentially affect autumn breeding species, including some amphibians, species that feed on fall mast (acorns and beechnuts) such as black bear, roosting bats (although many leave their summer roosts and start to swarm near winter hibernacula), and small ground-dwelling mammals. Some species such as owls that breed in the winter could be affected by winter harvest (December-March). White-tailed deer are vulnerable to disturbance during this time of year but would benefit from increased browse supplied by residual tops and branches left on site after harvest. Removal of cavity trees in winter harvest would decrease available over- wintering cavities for some species such as chickadees, nuthatches, and denning species such as squirrels and raccoons. Raptors start to breed in February and March, with young fledging in June and July (SPNHF 2010), so they could be affected by both winter and early summer harvest. Because timber harvest is spread out over a number of years, these effects would be limited to a small portion of the project area during any given season. All action alternatives have the same amount of proposed summer harvest. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the most winter harvest followed by Alternative 4 and then Alternative 3 (table 24).

Table 24. Acres of harvest by season for all action alternatives Total Acres Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt. 4 Alt 5 (Net Acres) 142 142 142 142 Summer/Winter (89) (89) (89) (89) 2223 1347 1971 2223 Winter Only (1209) (583) (957) (1209) 2,365 1498 2113 2365 TOTAL (1298) (672) (1046) (1298) TOTAL = total area treated. Net Acres = total areas where trees will be harvested. Net acres does not include trees harvested for skid trails. Seasons may vary somewhat due to weather and site conditions.

Prescribed Fire: Prescribed burns would cause temporary displacement to some individuals, and some mortality of non-mobile species. Prescribed burn in early spring on Albany Mountain could affect some tree-roosting bat species. Non- volant young are usually present from perhaps late May or early June until early- or mid-July. Adult bats can likely escape fire, however bats just emerging from hibernation or during rearing of young may be at more risk. All burning on Cecil Mountain would occur after August 1, so adult bats could likely escape from fire. Burning on Albany Mountain in early spring (April or May), would affect fewer nesting birds than burning after “green up” when more birds may be nesting. Small mammals and amphibians may be able to find refuge in a burrow or leave the area, and no substantial harm to woodland salamanders would occur under the proposed prescribed fire scenario.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 67 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Prescribed fire would result in a patchy mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Temporary reduction of understory vegetation in the burned area would affect wildlife associated with regenerating hardwood, spruce-fir, and hemlock; shrubs and herbaceous ground vegetation; and soft mast such as berries. Herbaceous and shrubby vegetation would grow back quickly (Schlossberg and King 2007) and reestablish food sources. Fire would have some benefits such as increased nocturnal insect prey in the growing season after fire in mixed-oak forest and increased snag habitat (Dickinson et al 2010, Johnson et al. 2009, Lacki et al. 2009). The effects to wildlife from prescribed fire on Cecil Mountain is the same for Alternatives 2-5, and the same for Albany Mountain for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Prescribed fire would not occur on Albany Mountain under Alternative 3 so there would be no effects to wildlife as a result of this project. The need for action to reintroduce fire in this area as described in Chapter 1 would not be accomplished.

Access and Roads Proposals: Disturbance to wildlife would be minor and temporary, lasting only during project operations. Large species would temporarily leave the area and small species may burrow or hide, with potential to be killed during road reconstruction or construction. Use of roads, skid trails, and landings could increase mobility for some species on snow compacted by skidders and other heavy equipment. Many animals including moose, white- tailed deer, coyotes, fox, and some species of bats use roads and trails as travel ways, and forage on vegetation and berries along the sides of roads, skid trails, or in landings. Northern goshawks often nest adjacent to roads, trails, or openings. Most roads used in this project would be closed or decommissioned after operations so disturbance from human presence would be temporary. These types of effects would be greatest under Alternatives 2 and 5 followed by Alternative 4 and least under Alternative 3.

Human use and wildlife disturbance on decommissioned roads would decline except in winter where snowmobile trails occur. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose slightly more road decommissioning with 4.3 miles while Alternatives 3 and 4 propose slightly less with 3.9 miles.

Watershed Restoration: The activities would be limited in area and duration, so most species would be only temporarily displaced, however small mammals and amphibians may be killed during construction activities. Effects would be similar but slightly reduced for Alternative 3 due to fewer proposed actions.

Recreation: Some minor disturbance to wildlife would occur from increased noise and human presence during campsite closure and construction activities. Any wildlife nuisance problems from food and garbage left by campers or day- use visitors at the campsites or at Virginia Lake would likely continue. Minor disturbance from increased noise and human presence near the new snowmobile trail would be offset by closure of the existing trail. Wildlife species would reoccupy the wet, seepy areas along the decommissioned trail segments. Effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat would be similar for all action alternatives.

Fuels Reduction: Some wildlife species may be temporarily displaced during operations but existing habitat condition would remain. Effects of fuel reduction to wildlife and wildlife habitat would be similar for all action alternatives.

68 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Wildlife Habitat Diversity and Management Indicator Species Table 25 displays the changes in habitat diversity expected as a result of implementing Alternatives 2-5. Habitat Management Unit objectives for establishing regeneration forest habitat, maintaining aspen-birch, increasing opportunities for oak/pine regeneration, and favoring spruce-fir and hemlock on softwood sites would be partly met and therefore habitat diversity would increase. Mature and young northern hardwoods, mature mixedwood, and mature oak/pine would continue to dominate the area. The variety of harvest methods combined with the release treatments would increase structural diversity across the landscape.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 69 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 25. Effects of the Albany South Integrated Resource Project on the Albany South HMU Northern Mixed Aspen / Managed wildlife Spruce / fir Oak / pine Hemlock Other Total hardwood wood birch opening Total Acres in MA 2.1 Existing 3222 1431 31 342 1229 217 109 6581 30 Potential 3176 465 1137 342 1229 217 109 -- Total Acres in other MAs Existing 665 303 139 1 163 2 44 1317 0 Regeneration Acres Existing 3 0 0 5 0 0 -- 8 30 Desired Maximum 161 29 -- 154 61 -- -- 405 -- Alt 2 89 0 -- 147 26 -- -- 262 -- Alt 3 35 0 -- 147 6 -- -- 188 -- Alt 4 74 0 -- 147 26 -- -- 247 -- Alt 5 89 0 -- 147 26 -- -- 262 -- Young Acres Existing 913 138 0 41 188 0 -- 1280 -- Desired Maximum 644 71 -- 154 246 -- -- 1115 -- Alt 2 816 138 9 41 188 0 -- 1192 -- Alt 3 831 138 9 41 188 0 -- 1207 -- Alt 4 831 138 9 41 188 0 -- 1207 -- Alt 5 816 138 9 41 188 0 -- 1192 -- Mature Acres Existing 2309 1294 31 all unsuitable 301 1041 217 -- 1559 -- Desired Maximum 2543 1216 NA 75 971 217 -- 5022 -- Alt 2 2121 1126 102 290 1059 292 -- 4990 -- Alt 3 2164 1135 102 290 1095 292 -- 5078 -- Alt 4 2153 1126 102 290 1059 292 -- 5022 -- Alt 5 2121 1126 102 290 1059 292 -- 4990 -- Unavailable for Harvest 60 99 31 0 57 8 -- 247 -- Notes: 1. Numbers are estimated as exact future amounts cannot be guaranteed 5. Other = Areas not forested or identified as non-opening such as wetlands or rock. 2. Desired acres based on Albany South Habitat Management Unit (HMU) Rationale 6. Existing regeneration acres in northern hardwood and aspen/birch will be created in (Rowse 2015) the Bell Mountain Timber Sale. Increases in mature habitat for spruce/fir, hemlock, 3. Age classes are defined in USDA Forest Service 2005c, Appendix D. and oak/pine are long term changes based on conversion from one habitat type to 4. Unsuitable for harvest is defined in USDA Forest Service 2005c, Glossary (p. 33). another.

70 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Regeneration Habitat: The HMU objectives as described in Chapter 1 call for increasing the amount of this habitat which is lacking in the HMU. As displayed in table 25, Alternatives 2 and 5 would create about 262 acres of regeneration habitat, most closely achieving the 400-acre objective in the Albany South HMU. Alternatives 4 and 3 would create approximately 247 acres and 188 acres respectively. Post-harvest increases in grasses, soft mast, and saplings would attract wildlife. Increases in small mammals and insects would provide a food source for birds and mammals.

Management indicator species favoring regeneration habitat such as chestnut- sided warbler and ruffed grouse would benefit, as well as numerous other species that use regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle. For example, newly-fledged birds are known to forage for fruit and insects in this habitat, enhancing survival. The increase in regeneration habitat from this project would not change population trends at a landscape scale but might help slow regional declines in some species.

Implementation of the release treatments is a critical step in creating the characteristics of regeneration habitat. Without release treatments, the residual stands would have the structure of young stands and the HMU objectives for regeneration habitat would not be met.

The effects of regeneration harvest to wildlife and habitat discussed here and above apply to the following discussions as well.

Northern Hardwoods: Objectives for northern hardwood habitat in this HMU as described in Chapter 1 are:

• Increase regeneration habitat by approximately 160 acres. • Maintain approximately 3000 acres of mature or young habitat. • Convert some acres to another type based on the ecological characteristics of the land.

As displayed in table 25, the alternatives would create a range of 35-89 acres of regeneration habitat. There would be a slight decline in young and mature age classes; however mature habitat would remain abundant in the HMU in untreated stands and in the stands with proposed partial cuts. The alternatives would initiate conversion of 180-220 acres of existing northern hardwoods to aspen, softwoods, or oak-pine based on ecological capability of the sites. These stands would continue to provide mature and young northern hardwoods habitat in the short- term.

Opening up the canopy in partial cuts would increase food sources with additional understory vegetation and larger crowns in mast trees such as beech and red oak. The degree of opened canopy varies with the harvest method, and the resulting mix of structural characteristics would benefit species using regeneration, young, and mature habitat types.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 71 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Populations of scarlet tanagers, the management indicator species for mature northern hardwood and mixedwood, appear to be declining despite abundant habitat. Causes for the decline could be related to previous bias in the data, habitat fragmentation in other places, or declining winter habitat in Central and South America. Although not a management indicator species, pileated woodpeckers also require mature habitat, and their population is increasing (USDA Forest Service 2012a). The alternatives would maintain abundant mature habitat in the HMU and would not adversely affect species that favor mature habitat.

Aspen-Birch: The objective in this HMU as described in Chapter 1 is to maintain or increase aspen-birch habitat, which is in decline across the WMNF. As displayed in table 25, a total of 147 acres would be regenerated and approximately 331 acres of mature and young aspen-birch would be maintained across the landscape.

Populations of ruffed grouse, the management indicator species for all ages of aspen-birch, appear to be declining on the WMNF while increasing to the north. The proposed harvests would benefit ruffed grouse by maintaining this habitat with diverse age classes. In addition, numerous other wildlife species use this habitat for cover or food in all or part of their life cycle and would benefit from the proposed treatments.

Mixedwood and Softwoods: The objectives in this HMU as described in Chapter 1 are:

• Manage habitat based on the soil condition or ecological capability. • Increase softwood habitat (hemlock and spruce-fir) on soil types that favor softwoods.

Hemlock is a less-common habitat on the WMNF and would be maintained regardless of the ecological land capability. The spruce-fir habitat in the HMU is not suitable for harvest and would not be treated.

The alternatives would treat 245-300 acres of mixedwood and 50-100 acres of hemlock with partial cuts to maintain or increase these habitat types in the HMU. Conversion of mature northern hardwood to mixedwood or softwood habitat would be initiated on 63 acres. Mature habitat characteristics would be retained in all treated stands. Hemlock and spruce-fir would increase and mature mixedwood and northern hardwood habitat would decrease over the long-term.

Many of the units proposed to create or maintain mixedwood and softwood habitat would be harvested with group selection. Opening up the canopy in partial cuts and group selection would create multi-storied stands and increase food sources from understory vegetation. The degree of opened canopy varies with the harvest method, and the resulting mix of structural characteristics would be favored by some species and not by others (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001).

Blackburnian warbler, the management indicator species for mature softwoods habitat, would benefit from the proposed treatments. In addition, softwood

72 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment (spruce-fir or hemlock) habitat is essential for numerous species including golden-crowned kinglet, purple finch, deer mice, snowshoe hare, American marten, and white-tailed deer.

Oak-Pine: The objectives in this HMU as described in Chapter 1 are:

• Create 60 acres of regeneration age class. • Maintain approximately 150 acres of young habitat. • Maintain 970 acres of mature habitat.

The alternatives would create 6-25 acres of oak-pine regeneration age class using clearcuts and patch cuts.

Conversion of some mature northern hardwoods and mixedwood to mature oak- pine habitat would be initiated on just over 1000 acres (table 25). There would continue to be an abundance of mature and young oak-pine habitat in the HMU.

Mature oak-pine would continue to benefit numerous wildlife species. Oak would continue to provide essential hard mast (acorns) as a fall food source for many species including ruffed grouse, blue jay, red squirrel, black bear, and white-tailed deer (DeGraaf et al. 2006).

Species and Habitats of Concern Dead and Down Wood: Clearcuts and patch cuts would reduce the number of wildlife trees and recruitment of large dead and down wood in the units for 10-60 years following harvest (Fay et al. 1994). Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the most clearcuts and patch cuts with 254 acres followed by Alternative 4 with 239 acres. Alternative 3 proposes the least amount of clearcuts and patch cuts with 179 acres. The Forest Plan requires that reserve areas with snags, wildlife cavity trees, and downed logs be retained in clearcuts to mitigate this effect. Residual trees in all other harvest units would continue to supply standing and down woody material so there would be an adequate amount available to wildlife species after operations. Monitoring results indicate that reserve areas on the WMNF are well-stocked with quality wildlife features such as multiple snags and large wildlife trees (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Road, landing, and skid trail construction and reconstruction, watershed projects to remove old culverts and restoring old roads and skid trails, creation of new campsites, and fuels reduction may result in a minor loss of dead and down wood as trees are cut and down wood is moved to implement these projects. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the most effect followed by Alternative 4 with Alternative 3 having the least effect.

The prescribed burns would result in an immediate reduction of dead and down wood in the burn areas. Some snags or partially dead trees may catch on fire during the burn and be cut down to reduce embers drifting to other portions of the project area. Some dead wood on the ground would burn. However, over time some of the trees that were partially burned and left standing would die, creating new snags, and snags that were cut down during the fire may become additional down wood if the snag wasn’t completely consumed during the fire. Prescribed

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 73 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

fire both creates and destroys dead and down wood (Lyons et al. 2000). The potential loss of dead and down wood would be minor as there are millions of snags across the WMNF that provide this habitat (Sease and Prout 2015b).

The effects to dead and down wood from prescribed fire would be the same for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 and slightly less under Alternative 3 as no prescribed fire would occur on Albany Mountain.

The release treatments and closing down the campsite at Virginia Lake would have no effect on dead and down wood.

Natural Communities: Timber harvesting, road work, watershed restoration, recreation improvements, and fuels reduction proposals would have no effects because none of these activities would occur in maple-basswood-ash, oak-pine woodland, beech-birch-maple, red pine woodland, or red oak-northern hardwoods-white pine communities. A small clearcut is proposed in the white pine-mixed hardwoods ecosystem area which raised no concerns for adverse effects when evaluated by personnel from the Maine Natural Areas Program in 2013.

Mature red pine is resistant to fire and is more likely to survive a fire than hardwoods and spruce. Young red pine is more susceptible to damage by fire. The proposed prescribed fire under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would be light intensity to minimize harm to young red pine trees, and to protect the thin soils in the unit. However, in patches where fire may be hotter, young red pine trees could be killed and thin soils could be damaged and unable to support tree growth in the future. No fire is proposed under Alternative 3 so there would be no direct or indirect effects under that alternative.

The prescribed fire proposed on Cecil Mountain proposed under Alternatives 2-5 would open up this area and restore woodland conditions as described in the need for action in Chapter 1.

Vernal Pools: Most of the proposed activities would have no effect on vernal pools because none occur in the activity areas. Known vernal pools that occur near any proposed activity would be protected with project design features as described in Appendix B. Any new vernal pools discovered during project operations would be protected. Forest Plan direction requires a protective buffer that prohibits harvest within 25 feet and limits harvest for another 75 feet around all identified naturally-occurring vernal pools. Additional design features prohibit alteration of vernal pools from skidding and landing and road construction, and slash must not be left in vernal pools. Timber harvest, skid trail layout, landing construction, and trail relocations could impact unidentified vernal pools by changing the hydrologic characteristics of these areas (Flatebo et al. 1999). It is unlikely that prescribed fire would affect vernal pools as most of these units are dry. If a vernal pool occurs in a burn unit, past experience on the WMNF indicates that fire is unlikely to burn through vernal pool habitat.

Deer Wintering Areas: No harvesting would occur in Square Dock A deer wintering area under Alternatives 2-5. For all other deer wintering areas, the hemlock inclusions where winter deer activity has been observed in recent years

74 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment would be reserved as described in Appendix B. Hemlock provides the best winter cover for deer (Reay 1999), and these reserve areas are expected to maintain winter habitat to support the deer population. Proposed selective harvest treatments in less-dense hemlock and mixedwood habitat in the Beaver Brook deer wintering area would promote a softwood understory in areas that provide cover. Design features (Appendix B) to minimize group size and skid trail widths in softwood and mixedwood would further encourage softwood regeneration and minimize effects to white-tailed deer.

Alternatives 2-5 would create hardwood browse near the Square Dock B, Beaver Brook, and Compartment 337 deer wintering areas. Two clearcuts near Square Dock B and two clearcuts near Beaver Brook would regenerate trees and shrubs and therefore increase winter browse. Increasing herbaceous plants on closed or decommissioned roads in and adjacent to deer wintering areas would provide a source of early spring food. All alternatives would create a similar amount of browse except Alternative 3 which would have approximately 50 percent less harvest in hardwood areas.

Hemlock inclusions in deer wintering areas would be protected as recommended by biologists from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Appendix B details the project design features that would be implemented to protect the softwood features in deer wintering areas.

Alternatives 2-5 includes construction of a 600-foot road for winter access to proposed harvest areas in a part of the Beaver Brook deer yard historically used by wintering deer. The road would be gated, closed to motor vehicles, and allowed to revegetate after project operations. There is no evidence of continued use by wintering deer in this area of the deer yard, so disturbance effects from the road or harvest operations are not expected in this area. The snowmobile trail passes close to this area so there already is some disturbance in this area from snowmobiles which would continue.

Other proposed projects would have no direct or indirect effects on deer wintering areas as they do not occur in these areas or would occur during the non-winter season including road construction, restoration, and maintenance, campsite reconfigurations, watershed restoration projects, prescribed fire, and fuel reduction.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat totals about 29,000 acres including the project area, Albany North HMU, and surrounding national forest and private lands. The timeframe for analysis is ten years in the past and ten years in the future. This analysis area and timeframe are appropriate because they encompass known past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on adjacent lands that are expected to contribute cumulative effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

As shown in table 26, the majority of activities that could cause cumulative effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat are located in the Albany North HMU, and most of those actions were approved in the Decision Notice for the Four Ponds

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 75 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Integrated Resource Management Project in 2010. Timber harvest and connected actions have also occurred and are planned on private lands adjacent to the project area. This analysis uses the best information available when considering actions on private lands. Prescribed fire and ongoing maintenance of Forest Service facilities and wildlife openings is also considered.

76 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 26. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered for cumulative wildlife and wildlife habitat effects Albany South HMU Other National Forest Action Albany North HMU (other than the Albany System Land Adjacent to Private Land South Integrated Resource the Project Area Project) Timber Harvest – 253 acres 3 0 Regeneration Habitat 2499 acres, mostly partial cuts with some patches of Timber harvest – Partial 2587 total acres 318 0 regeneration cuts. Cuts (316 net acres) Prescribed fire for wildlife opening maintenance, Prescribed fire for wildlife Prescribed Fire underburning for oak/pine, and NA NA opening maintenance. maintenance of ridgetop oak/pine community. Road reconstruction Landing and skid trail Road Work, Landings, Skid reconstruction. New road construction; Trails, and Gravel Pit Ongoing road maintenance Ongoing road maintenance gated. Gravel pit development Development Gravel pit expansion. Ongoing road maintenance. Bridge work. Road and trail improvements, relocations, and Watershed Restoration decommissioning. Aquatic habitat improvement NA NA Aquatic habitat improvement Snowmobile trail relocations Ongoing campsite and trail Ongoing campsite and trail Recreation NA Ongoing campsite and trail maintenance maintenance maintenance Permanent Wildlife Opening Mowing, hand-brushing, Mowing, hand-brushing NA NA Maintenance stumping, firelines. Invasive Control Spray known populations Spray known populations NA NA Landlocked Atlantic salmon NA Ongoing. NA NA stocking

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 77 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Disturbance and General Wildlife Effects All of the activities noted in table 26 have the potential for additional disturbance to wildlife as described in the direct and indirect effects sections above. Gravel pit construction and expansion was not analyzed in this project, but would have similar disturbance effects as road construction. The primary effect of all activities would be temporary displacement during project activities, and the potential for mortality of some less-mobile individuals. These activities are spread out over space and time so the cumulative disturbance effects would be negligible. The additional road and trail decommissioning would provide some beneficial cumulative effects by reducing the potential for human presence.

Wildlife Habitat Diversity and Management Indicator Species:

Habitat Management Objectives: The HMU habitat diversity objectives are designed as a tool to achieve Forestwide habitat composition goals (Rowse 2015, USDA Forest Service 2005a). When objectives are met in a particular HMU, then progress is made toward achieving the Forestwide goals for habitat diversity. National forest system lands in the HMU that are not available for harvest, the status of adjoining HMUs, and activities on private lands are considered when analyzing cumulative effects.

Regeneration Habitat: The additional regeneration habitat established in the Albany North HMU slightly exceeds the objective for that HMU, but serves to balance the lack of regeneration habitat in other parts of the analysis area. The total acres of regeneration habitat created during the analysis period, including this project, would be approximately 500 acres with additional small patches on private land. This regeneration habitat would support an array of wildlife species and since this habitat loses its benefits after 10 to 20 years as it becomes young forest (DeGraaf et al. 2006) it is important to continue to create regeneration habitat across the landscape over time. The new gravel pit in the Albany North HMU would be managed as a permanent wildlife opening at some point in the future providing habitat for wildlife species that prefer openings.

Northern Hardwoods: Northern hardwood regeneration habitat would be established in the Albany North HMU (included in the 140 acres noted above) and in small patches on private land, contributing to the goal of providing this habitat across the landscape. Even so, mature northern hardwood habitat would remain abundant throughout the analysis area, exceeding 60 percent of managed and unmanaged forest in the analysis area. Conversion of mature northern hardwood habitat to another habitat type based on ecological land type characteristics would occur to a small extent in the Albany North HMU, and when added to the conversion acres proposed in this project, would contribute to the positive habitat diversity benefits expected in the long-term.

Aspen-Birch, Oak-Pine, and Softwoods: The analysis area has a large amount of oak-pine and hemlock habitat when compared to the rest of the WMNF, as well as opportunities to increase aspen-birch habitat. The cumulative effect of the actions occurring in the Albany North HMU and the assumed maintenance of aspen-birch on private land, when added to the actions proposed in this project,

78 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment would be to better meet the WMNF goal to maintain or increase these uncommon habitats wherever possible. Conversion of mature northern hardwoods and mixedwood to softwood habitat in the analysis area would occur over the long- term and would continue to accomplish the WMNF goal of increasing softwood habitat where possible across the landscape.

Additional Habitat Effects: • Watershed projects are designed to improve ground conditions to protect water quality and ensure that water resources such as streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands are functioning properly. The additional watershed activities in the analysis area would add positive cumulative effects to wildlife by improving riparian and aquatic habitat. • Recreation activities occurring in the analysis area would not measurably change habitat conditions so there would be no cumulative effects resulting from the recreation actions. • No additional fuels reduction projects would occur in the analysis area so there would be no cumulative effects to wildlife habitat. • Expansion and maintenance of permanent wildlife openings in the analysis area would provide positive cumulative effects in providing open habitat that is essential for many wildlife species. Management Indicator Species: Habitats in the analysis area are primarily mature and young northern hardwoods and mature mixedwood intermixed with oak-pine and hemlock. The actions considered for cumulative effects would increase regeneration forest habitat, maintain aspen-birch, promote oak-pine regeneration, expand permanent wildlife openings, and initiate conversion to spruce-fir and hemlock on softwood sites.

While harvesting may change populations of management indicator species in the project area, overall cumulative effects would be close to neutral for all management indicator species because their representative habitats would be maintained across in the analysis area. Any effects to populations would not change WMNF or New England population trends.

Species and Habitats of Concern Dead and Down Wood: Additional clearcuts and patch cuts in the analysis area (Albany North and South HMUs and scattered small patches on private land) would further reduce wildlife trees and the acres available for recruitment of large dead and down woody material. Reserve areas in clearcuts and patch cuts on national forest system lands would largely mitigate this effect. While reserve areas in clearcuts and patch cuts are likely not required on private land, the acres of patches and reduced dead and down wood on private land would be minor in the context of the abundant wildlife trees and dead and down wood available on adjacent national forest system lands.

Natural Communities: Only the portions of the oak-pine woodland, red pine woodland, and white pine mixedwood ecosystem in the Albany South project area are proposed for treatment. No other identified natural communities have been or will be affected by activities in the cumulative effects analysis area.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 79 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Small patches of northern white cedar seepage forest (not identified as a natural community) could be affected by ongoing activities but the potential is minimal as the wetter parts of harvest units are usually excluded from harvest or harvest occurs in the winter when soil conditions are frozen or more stable. There would be no cumulative effects to natural communities.

Vernal Pools: There are vernal pools throughout the analysis area, including the Albany North HMU. Those on national forest system lands that are identified during analysis or implementation would be protected as discussed above. Timber harvest operations and landing and road construction on private lands may result in the loss of vernal pools, although State of Maine guidelines provide forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004). Given that vernal pools are protected by Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design features, and State of Maine guidelines, cumulative effects to vernal pools would be minimal.

Deer Wintering Areas: The timber harvest activities on national forest system lands considered for cumulative effects include a goal to increase spruce-fir habitat, maintain existing hemlock, and release existing spruce-fir and hemlock understory in softwood and mixedwood habitats intermixed with pockets of browse. The largest known historical deeryard in the analysis area is the 800-acre Harriman Brook deer wintering area which has primary and secondary winter cover (Rowse 2009; Four Ponds Environmental Analysis 2010). In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, deer wintering habitat in the analysis area is managed according to Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife guidelines.

There is some documented deer wintering habitat on adjacent private land in the analysis area. Any individual or group selection harvests on private lands in hemlock, spruce-fir, or mixedwood stands would enhance deer wintering habitat. However, even-aged harvest in softwood or mixedwood on private lands could diminish the amount of wintering cover available to white-tailed deer. While the extent of activities in softwood habitat and deer wintering areas on private land are unknown, it is assumed that State of Maine guidelines would be followed in timber harvesting activities. Based on the limited actions in deer wintering areas, the actions proposed to maintain and increase softwood habitat, and the protections applied to avoid negative effects, overall beneficial cumulative effects to deer wintering habitat in the analysis area are expected.

Climate Change The WMNF has used sustainable ecosystem management to provide a diversity of habitat across the forest landscape for a wide array of wildlife species that occur on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002a, USDA Forest Service 2005a, Chapter 1, pages 20-21, USDA Forest Service 2007a, USDA Forest Service 2008). Habitat and species may be affected by climate change in the future, however current scientific information indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Albany South cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2005–2025) (Matthews et al. 2011, Rustad et al. 2012, Whitman et al. 2014). Climate change is not expected to affect wildlife species or habitat under the temporal scope for

80 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment this project analysis. See Appendix H section for a description of potential effects of climate change on wildlife beyond 2025.

Summary of Effects to Wildlife Table 27 displays the summary of effects for all alternatives. Under Alternative 1, No Action, existing mature forests would follow natural succession to climax forest types, but habitat diversity would not be increased over the next 10 years without a natural disturbance or some other management action. The HMU goals for desired conditions would best be met by Alternatives 2 and 5, followed by Alternative 4. Alternative 3 would least meet the desired habitat goals. Approximately 65 percent of lands in the HMU would remain in a mature condition under all action alternatives while less than 3 percent would be in regeneration habitat. The long-term goal to increase aspen-birch, oak-pine, and softwood habitat types would be initiated under the action alternatives.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 81 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 27. Summary of indicators and measures for wildlife habitat, alternatives 2-5 Indicators Alternatives 2 and 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Greatest direct effects from tree felling, Least direct effects from tree felling and Moderate direct effects from tree felling roads, and winter operations, with less transportation system. Least direct and transportation system. Same direct direct effects from prescribed fire, effects from prescribed fire, recreation, effects from prescribed fir, recreation, recreation, watershed, and fuels reduction and watershed projects. Similar direct and watershed projects as alternatives 2 projects. effects from fuels project. Similar amount and 5. Similar direct effects from fuels of summer direct effects. Least winter project. Similar amount of summer direct HMU Habitat Diversity Creates the greatest habitat and age class diversity with the greatest increase in 0-9 direct effects. effects. Moderate winter direct effects. Acres of Habitat and year class. Creates least habitat and age class Creates moderate habitat and age class Age Class Change diversity. Least increase in 0 to 9 year old diversity. Lesser increase in 0 to 9 year regen age class (adds 183 acres via old regen age class (adds 242 acres via clearcut and patchcuts). clearcut and patchcuts). Creates 74 acs Creates 35 acres of hardwood regen, 142 of hardwood regen, 142 acres of acres of aspen/birch regen, 6 acres aspen/birch regen, 26 acres oak/pine oak/pine regen. regen. Greatest progress toward long-term goals Some progress toward long-term goals to Some progress toward long-term goals to to increase aspen-birch, oak-pine, and increase aspen-birch, oak-pine, and increase aspen-birch, oak-pine, and softwood habitat types. softwood habitat types. softwood habitat types Best meets the purpose and need for Least progress of the action alternatives Progress toward meeting the purpose desired future conditions for 0-9 year age in meeting the purpose and need. Mature and need is less than Alternatives 2 and class and habitat diversity on MA 2.1 lands habitat still abundant. 5. Mature habitat still abundant. as outlined in the Forest Plan. Mature habitat still abundant. Greatest increase in habitat for chestnut- Least increase in habitat for chestnut- Moderate increase for chestnut-sided sided warbler. Similar increase in habitat for sided warbler. Similar increase in habitat warbler. Similar increase in habitat for Management Indicator ruffed grouse and blackburnian warbler. No for ruffed grouse and blackburnian ruffed grouse and blackburnian warbler. Species change in habitat for magnolia warbler. warbler. No change in habitat for No change in habitat for magnolia Most decrease in habitat for scarlet tanager. magnolia warbler. Least decrease in warbler. Moderate decrease in habitat for habitat for scarlet tanager. scarlet tanager. Would alter habitat for some MIS but not Would alter habitat for some MIS but not Would alter habitat for some MIS but not affect population trends or viability of affect population trends or viability of affect population trends or viability of

WMNF MIS within the Forest-wide planning WMNF MIS within the Forest-wide WMNF MIS within the Forest-wide area. planning area. planning area. Greatest reduction of dead and down wood Least reduction of dead and down wood; Less reduction of dead and down wood but minor effects due to small number of minor effects. than Alternatives 2 and 5; minor effects. Dead and Down Wood clearcut and patch cut acres, and requirements to maintain snags, cavity trees and down wood.

82 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Indicators Alternatives 2 and 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 No effects on natural communities except No effects on natural communities. No effects on natural communities except Albany Mountain red pine woodland. Young Albany Mountain red pine woodland. Natural Communities red pines susceptible to fire damage. Young red pines susceptible to fire damage. Vernal pools would be protected based on Vernal pools would be protected based Vernal pools would be protected based Vernal Pools guidance from Forest Plan and State of on guidance from Forest Plan and State on guidance from Forest Plan and State Maine. of Maine. of Maine. Greatest increase in softwood habitat and Least increase in softwood habitat and Some increase in softwood habitat and winter browse. Selective harvesting would winter browse. Other effects are the winter browse. Other effects are the foster softwoods understory and increase same as other action alternatives. same as other action alternatives. winter cover in the long term. Harvest in Deer Wintering Areas adjacent hardwoods would create winter browse. Regrowth along roads would create early spring foods. Dense hemlock inclusions would be reserved to maintain winter cover.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 83 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species

The following resource summary incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Biological Evaluation of the Proposed Albany South Integrated Resource Project on Federally Threatened and Endangered Species (Rowse and Sperduto 2015) and Wildlife Report and Summary of Biological Evaluation for Federally Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) (Rowse 2015) located in the project record.

The biological evaluation of the potential effects of this project on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species conducted adheres to Forest Service policies and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Where applicable, this site-specific evaluation tiers to the effects disclosed in the Biological Evaluation for the White Mountain National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

This analysis addresses wildlife and plants in two categories:

1. Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. 2. U.S. Forest Service sensitive species identified by the Regional Forester in the Eastern Region. Species and Habitats Analyzed in Detail Species in the above categories known to occur on the White Mountain National Forest were screened for relevancy to the proposed activities: only species with known occurrence, known habitat, or potential habitat in the project area and those that could be measurably affected by the proposed activities are analyzed in detail. Species analyzed in detail are listed in Table 28.

Species not analyzed in detail are those that have no known occurrence, habitat, or potential habitat in the project area, or otherwise would have no potential for being measurably affected by the alternatives.

The screening process included literature reviews of the best available science related to habitat requirements and documented occurrences for each species, as well as WMNF analyses, species viability evaluations, conservation assessments, federal recovery plans, landscape analysis, and data from the Maine Natural Areas Program and the New England Plant Conservation Program. Data from field surveys conducted in the WMNF over many years also informed the screening process.

84 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment There is no critical habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the project area.

Table 28. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species analyzed in detail Species Status Probability of Occurrence in the Project Area Northern long-eared bat Mature forest in and adjacent to the project area Federally Threatened Myotis septentrionalis with potential foraging and roosting habitat. Small- whorled pogonia Historic and known location and suitable habitat in Federally Threatened Isotria medeoloides the project area. Mature forest, riparian habitat, and rocky outcrops Eastern small-footed bat Regional Forester in and adjacent to the project area with potential Sensitive Myotis leibii foraging and roosting habitat. Mature forest and riparian habitat in and adjacent Little brown bat Regional Forester to the project area, with potential foraging and Sensitive Myotis lucifugus roosting habitat. Mature forest and riparian habitat in and adjacent Tri-colored bat Regional Forester to the project area, with potential foraging and Sensitive Perimyotis subflavus roosting habitat. Northern bog lemming Potential habitat of riparian and softwoods in the Regional Forester project area. Synaptomys borealis Sensitive sphagnicola American peregrine falcon Regional Forester Active eyrie adjacent to the project area, with Falco peregrinus Sensitive possible foraging over the project area. Brown’s ameletus mayfly Regional Forester Potential habitat of fast-moving headwater streams Ameletus browni Sensitive present in the project area. Third ameletus mayfly Regional Forester Potential habitat of perennial streams present in Ameletus tertius Sensitive the project area. Some discrete areas of potential habitat in the Bailey’s sedge Regional Forester project area including wet meadows, overgrown Carex baileyi Sensitive skid trails, openings, and road margins. No plants found during surveys. Potential habitat on dry rocky ridge-tops and in Clustered sedge Regional Forester higher elevation areas where some of prescribed Sensitive Carex cumulata burns are proposed. The project area is beyond the known range in the Autumn coralroot Regional Forester WMNF, but may co-occur with Triphora Sensitive Corallorhiza odontorhiza trianthophora, which is present in the project area. Suitable habitat in the project area along Northern adder’s tongue Regional Forester overgrown skid trails, openings, and road margins. Sensitive Ophioglossum pusillum No plants found during surveys. American ginseng Regional Forester Known populations and potential habitat in the Panax quinquefolius Sensitive project area. Nodding pogonia Regional Forester Known populations and potential habitat in the Triphora trianthophora Sensitive project area.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 85 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Effects Indicators and Measures

Table 29. Indicators used to measure effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species Resource Resource Indicator Measure Source Element Species and Disturbance from Qualitative expectations based on ESA, 2670 Forest Individuals project activities activity and operating seasons. Service Manual Suitable and potential Acres of habitat change short and long ESA, 2670 Forest Habitat habitat term. Service Manual

Existing Conditions Federally-Listed Threatened Species

Northern Long-eared Bat Northern long-eared bats are found in the eastern United States and Canada out to British Columbia, south to Texas, and across the southern United States. They appear to prefer interior mature forests for summer roosting but are adaptable to various conditions. They may roost in tree cavities, under loose tree bark, in crevices, bridges, and buildings (USDA Forest Service 2014b). The majority of roost trees used by Northern long-eared bat on the WMNF are dead or live beech, sugar maple, red maple and yellow birch. The majority of trees in two maternity sites located on the WMNF are within 0.5 mile of a large wetland complex (Sasse 1995).

Northern long-eared bats hibernate in caves, mines, or rock crevices. They may begin hibernation as early as August and it may last for 8-9 months in northern latitudes. Bats leave their hibernacula sometime in March in the northern portions of the eastern United States (USDA Forest Service 2006b). There are no known hibernacula within or adjacent to the project area.

Foraging habitat generally consists of mature forest upland habitats, although water and riparian habitats (vernal pools, streams, etc.) are sometimes considered important. Several studies indicate an apparent preference for northern long- eared bats to forage under closed canopy conditions or very near the edge, with little activity occurring into the open fields and clearcuts.

Summer surveys conducted in the project area in 2014 identified all eight species of bats known to occur on the White Mountain National Forest (brown bat, northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed myotis, silver-haired bat, Tri- colored Bat, big brown bat, red bat, and hoary bat). Eight northern long-eared bat calls (and two more probable northern long-eared bat calls) were verified at five of the 33 points surveyed. Habitat at the detection points included a small stream surrounded by beech, birch, and aspen, a forest road surrounded by mature northern hardwoods, a permanent wildlife opening surrounded by northern hardwoods and scattered pine, mature northern hardwoods, and a natural gap surrounded by red oak and beech. Northern long-eared bats were also detected at two locations just outside the project area.

86 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Acoustic survey results indicate that a low number of northern long-eared bats are likely roosting and foraging during the non-hibernation season in the project area, and that the detected bats were likely travelling between a foraging and roost site. Bats will usually forage within one mile of a roost site (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Individual roost sites could occur across the landscape, with males known to be flexible in roost tree section and may choose smaller trees.

Maternity colonies are an important summer habitat feature and may encompass a complex of trees with a primary roost tree, used by several individuals with young over a period of years (Sease and Prout 2015a). Research and survey data indicate that maternity sites are likely located within one mile of large wetland complex. Using WMNF survey data, existing habitat conditions, and the best available science related to habitat requirements, seven potential northern long- eared bats maternity colony areas were identified in or within one mile of the project area. Although it is unlikely that all are occupied by northern long-eared bats, they were all evaluated in this analysis. Effects to foraging habitat and roosting habitat for males and non-reproductive females are not evaluated because these habitats are not limiting.

The primary limiting factor for bats, including northern long-eared bats, is white nose syndrome (USFWS 2013, USDA Forest Service 2014b) which has been detected in hibernacula in Maine and New Hampshire and has killed millions of bats in the eastern United States and Canada (Perry 2013). While there are no known hibernacula in the project area, white nose syndrome has been detected in known hibernacula approximately 25 miles from the project area.

Small-whorled Pogonia Small-whorled Pogonia occurs primarily in mid-successional stands of mixed deciduous or mixedwood forests, although some populations are in relatively young or mature forests. Most populations in New England occur at low elevations (less than 1,500 feet) on moderate slopes. Small-whorled Pogonia generally occupies sites with sparse to moderate ground cover and a relatively open understory canopy. Many sites occur on soils with hardpans within a few feet of the surface.

Extensive field surveys and historic records covering nearly all proposed harvest units and many surrounding stands confirmed the presence of one population of Small-whorled Pogonia and additional potential habitat in the project area. There are no other known occurrences of this species in the project area, cumulative effects analysis area, and adjacent local landscape. Most of the forest in the project area consists either of inappropriate natural community, forest type, or soil conditions for the species or of more mature forest than the mid-successional forest conditions associated with most of the viable populations of this species in northern New England.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 87 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Woodland Bats – Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Bat, Tri- colored Bat The life histories, habitat requirements, and occupied and unoccupied habitat for woodland bats are summarized in the Biological Evaluation located in the project record. Surveys conducted by Krusic et al. (1996) indicate that woodland bats on the WMNF prefer hardwood forests over softwood forests and often forage along forest edges, trails, and water bodies. Surveys in 2012 and 2014 detected these bats in the project area. The forest types and rock features that occur across the project area provide habitat for woodland bats. Small wetlands, ponds, vernal pools, a few larger lakes, openings, roads, and trails may provide foraging habitat and flyway travel corridors for woodland bats.

Based on the results from the bat surveys and habitat characteristics, it is assumed that all three species may forage or roost across most of the project area during the non-hibernation season. As with northern long-eared bat discussed above, these bats are limited by white-nose syndrome (USDA Forest Service 2012b) and populations have likely been greatly reduced.

Northern Bog Lemming The life history, habitat requirements, occurrences, and limiting factors for Northern Bog Lemming are described in the Biological Evaluation for the White Mountain National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Northern Bog Lemming has been found in moist mixed and coniferous forest, sphagnum bogs, and alpine sedge meadows at elevations ranging from approximately 1300 to 4500 feet.

Potential habitat in the project area includes mixedwood, some spruce-fir, and hemlock areas with dense ground cover near seeps, vernal pools, riparian habitat around ponds, wetlands, and riparian areas along perennial and intermittent streams. Bog lemmings would most likely occur in a block of contiguous habitat rather than in scattered wetland depressions. Despite some habitat features resembling potential bog lemming habitat in the project area, the likelihood of occurrence is very low as there are only two historic and one existing occurrences of Northern Bog Lemming on the WMNF. No Northern Bog Lemmings have been documented in or near the project area. Habitat for this species is stable and any other potential limiting factors are unknown.

American Peregrine Falcon The life history, habitat requirements, occurrences, and limiting factors for American peregrine falcon are described in the Biological Evaluation for the Revised White Mountain National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Peregrine falcons nest on high cliffs or ledges often overlooking riparian habitats. Birds are the major food item taken by peregrine falcons. Falcons require an area with abundant prey and often nest on cliffs overlooking riparian habitat. An active eyrie site occurs adjacent to the project area. The peregrine falcon pair

88 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment could forage over the project area although they likely forage most often over the Crooked River floodplain and openings adjacent to their eyrie.

The most likely limiting factors and threats on the White Mountain National Forest that could be managed include potential human disturbance of nest sites from rock climbers and predation of young and eggs. Brown’s Ameletus Mayfly and Third Ameletus Mayfly These mayflies range from southeastern Canada to the northeastern United States Brown’s ameletus has been found in cold, well-oxygenated, fast-moving headwater streams with a cobble/gravel/sand substrate where the drainage is less than 10 square miles. Recent surveys of some streams on the WMNF found Brown’s ameletus occur primarily in first order streams in April and early May. Eggs would likely hatch in early spring.

Third ameletus mayfly has been found to inhabit larger rivers, in first through fourth order streams with a boulder/cobble/sand substrate. This mayfly likes a relatively high pH and cold streams, but not as cold as the Brown’s Ameletus mayfly does.

The population trends of both species are unknown. Limiting factors may include alteration of stream or riparian habitat that would increase water temperature and/or a change in the pH.

Neither of the mayflies has been recorded in any of the drainages in the project area, although potential habitat for Brown’s ameletus occurs in the upper headwater streams and for third ameletus mayfly in second order and larger perennial streams. Major perennial streams in the project area include Great Brook, Beaver Brook, Hannah Brook, Goodwin Brook, Meadow Brook, and Bartlett Brook and all of the associated tributaries.

Bailey’s Sedge The life history, habitat requirements, occurrences, and limiting factors for Bailey’s sedge are described in the Biological Evaluation for the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bailey’s sedge occurs primarily in calcium-rich or circumneutral (nearly neutral, with a pH between 6.5 and 7.5) wet meadows, fens, wet swamp woods, pond, lake, and stream shores, swales, mixed woods, and along roadsides and ditches (USDA Forest Service 2003b). It is most often found in open sites that are disturbed such as ditches and openings influenced by calcium-rich substrate.

This species is rare on the WMNF and no populations of this species were detected during botanical surveys conducted at various times of the year in project area. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the project area but without calcium-enriched or circumneutral conditions, which is rare.

The only known limiting factor for this species could be disturbance to occurrences in managed areas such as roads, permanent wildlife openings, landings, and timber harvest units.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 89 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Clustered Sedge Clustered sedge occurs in open canopy areas of dry barrens, rocky summits, and in oak-pine forests. The WMNF is at the center of its range and has three documented occurrences, all in New Hampshire. Suitable habitat occurs in the project area in the areas proposed for prescribed fire; however there are no documented occurrences of this plant in the project area.

Threats to this species include genetic isolation due to small populations, invasive species, trampling, and fire suppression that could lead to detrimental canopy shading (USDA Forest Service. 2002c).

Autumn Coralroot The distribution, life history, and habitat requirements for Autumn Coralroot are described in the Species Data Collection Form for this species that was developed during the Forest Plan revision effort (USDA Forest Service 2005f). Autumn Coralroot is an orchid at the northern and eastern edge of it range in New Hampshire with no known occurrences in Maine. It is found in a variety of typically mesic forested upland habitats. It is non-showy with no foliage leaves, and does not appear above-ground every year so it can easily be missed during surveys, even if they are conducted in the fall.

This species was recently discovered in a stand that had been harvested in the last 10 years on the southern edge of the White Mountain National Forest. Botanical surveys found no occurrences in or near the project area, although it could occur in most forest habitats and generally co-occurs with nodding pogonia which does occur in the project area.

There is low probability of this species occurring in the project area because it is considered extremely rare in northern New England and the project area is beyond the known range on the WMNF. This species easily colonizes disturbed sites and could be impacted by road work and timber harvesting.

Northern Adder’s Tongue The distribution, life history, and habitat requirements for northern adder’s tongue are described in the Species Data Collection Form for this species that was developed during the Forest Plan revision effort (USDA Forest Service 2005g). The range of northern adder’s tongue extends from Nova Scotia, south and west to North Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Manitoba. The WMNF is considered central to its range in New England. This plant occurs in a variety of early-successional, seasonally moist to wet habitats, including open fens, bogs, pastures, old fields, grassy shores, wet thickets, cedar and hardwood swamps, floodplain woods, wet swales, damp sand, roadside ditches, borrow pits. It prefers moderate to high light levels, and natural or human-caused disturbance is often necessary to maintain suitable open habitat.

This plant has been detected in two locations on the WMNF in old log landings that are now managed as wildlife openings. Suitable habitat occurs in the project area, however no detections resulted from botanical surveys.

90 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment American Ginseng The distribution, life history, and habitat requirements for American ginseng are described in the Species Data Collection Form for this species that was developed during the Forest Plan revision effort (USDA Forest Service 2002d). Northern New England is the northern edge of this species’ range. Occurrences are concentrated in or around the WMNF.

This species is found in shady northern hardwood forest on a wide range of sites, but most often under sugar maple in rich or semi-rich hardwood forests. It requires adequate moisture, but does not inhabit wet hollows or swamps. Plants usually occur under a closed canopy sometimes on slopes and ravines. It prefers high tree density and an open to moderately shrubby understory.

Several occurrences of this species were identified during surveys of suitable habitat and locations of past know populations in the project area.

Limiting factors include limited suitable habitat, clearing of forest habitats, trampling, grazing by deer and moose, digging of its roots for commercial sale, the small population sizes of most populations, and climate change.

Nodding Pogonia The life history, habitat requirements, occurrences, and limiting factors for Nodding Pogonia are described in a Conservation Assessment, species assessment, and the Biological Evaluation for the Forest Plan (Ramsetter 2001, USDA Forest Service 2002e, USDA Forest Service 2005a). Nodding Pogonia is documented in Ontario, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, and some limited areas in between. Northern New England is the northeastern edge of this species’ range. The WMNF supports the most northern occurrences of this species.

In New England, Nodding Pogonia grows primarily on hills and mountain slopes below 900 feet in elevation, in moist, beech-dominated woods in terrain-formed leaf litter pockets and adjacent to downed beech logs. Appropriate light, moisture, soil temperature, and mycorrhizal and saprophytic relationships are important to this species. It is associated with American beech. There is typically little to no understory or other herbaceous species growing in these areas. Nodding Pogonia prefers filtered light from a canopy closure of 70-80 percent.

The plant is ephemeral, with eruption, flowering and fruiting occurring within one or two months in late summer. Plants may not appear every year, and entire populations may fluctuate from hundreds to single stems from year to year (Ramstetter 2001). Nodding Pogonia may occasionally grow in clumps of more than a hundred stems in a square foot.

Surveys from 2007-2014 identified previously known and new populations in and adjacent to the project area. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of the action alternatives.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 91 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Analysis Area and Timeframe Direct and Indirect Effects: The analysis area is about 2,500 acres, comprised of the stands proposed for harvest and the area of all other proposed activities. The analysis timeframe is up to 15 years to encompass active operations because this is when species would most likely be affected by the proposed activities.

Cumulative Effects: The analysis area totals about 29,000 acres including the project area, Albany North HMU, and surrounding national forest system and private lands. This area is appropriate to measure overall contributions to the WMNF habitat objectives at a landscape level and also covers the home ranges of evaluated wildlife and plant species, habitat connectivity, and travel and migration corridors. The analysis timeframe is ten years in the past and ten years in the future to encompass active operations and reasonably foreseeable actions.

The analysis area for the northern long-eared bat is slightly different based on biology and current science. An analysis of potential maternity sites in this area determined the cumulative effects analysis area for northern long-eared bat. Potential northern long-eared bat maternity habitat was delineated within one mile of the project area. Based on this analysis, seven maternity sites were defined within one mile of the project area. It was determined that only four would be included in the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Any activities occurring in the three other maternity areas do not overlap in time and space with the proposed activities in the Albany South project area, meaning any activities in these areas would not affect the bats or suitability of maternity sites.(see occupied and unoccupied habitat for northern long-eared bat analysis).

The analysis timeframe for cumulative effects to northern long-eared bats is 2010 when white-nosed syndrome was confirmed on the WMNF through the life of the project, which may be seven to ten years when individuals would most likely be affected.

Northern Long-eared Bat

Effects Determination Alternative 1 would have no effect on northern long-eared bat. Implementation of Alternatives 2-5 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern long- eared bat. There is no federally designated or proposed critical habitat for this species so there would be no effect on critical habitat.

Rationale 1. Approximately 140 acres of harvest could occur during the non-hibernation season between June and October when bats would be present, with 31 of those acres treated with a clearcut prescription. However all of these acres are in the portion of the project area east of Kneeland Pond where no northern long-eared bats were detected. All other proposed harvests would occur during the winter season (approximately December 15 – March 15). Therefore proposed timber harvest activities would have no direct effects on northern long-eared bats.

92 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment 2. Trees would be felled after August 1 and before April 1 for road construction, reconstruction, landing construction, a watershed project along an old road and trail bed, campsite construction, and skid trail construction for Alternatives 2-5, except for the small area east of Kneeland Pond where no northern long-eared bats were detected during acoustic surveys. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to bats. Bats may still be present in the project area until October 31 in the Kneeland Pond area but reproduction would be over, bats would be flying, and temperatures would be over 50° F. It would be much more likely that a roosting bat could escape from a tree that was being felled after August 1. Additionally, not many trees would be cut from these activities. 3. Bats would be most susceptible to prescribed fire during the spring and summer as their fat reserves would be low after emerging from hibernation, temperatures could be below 50° F so it would take more time for them to arouse to escape from a roost tree, and after June 15 young would unable to escape from a maternity tree. The proposed early spring prescribed fire on Albany Mountain would have no effect on northern long-eared bats under Alternative 2, 4, and 5 as no northern long-eared bats were detected on Albany Mountain. The Albany Mountain prescribed fire is dropped under Alternative 3. Northern long-eared bats were detected near the proposed Cecil Mountain prescribed fire. A design feature would limit the Cecil Mountain prescribed fire to after August 1. This would mitigate the potential direct effect to northern long-eared bats when they are most vulnerable during early spring and the non-volant season. Bats may still be present in the project area until October 31 but reproduction would be over, bats would be flying, and temperatures would be over 50° F. After August 1st, it is assumed a northern long-eared bat could readily escape from a tree that was affected by a prescribed fire so it is unlikely there would be any direct effect at this time of the year 4. No more than 20 percent of the suitable habitat in the four potential maternity sites in the project area would be disturbed by tree felling or prescribed fire. These actions should not disrupt an active maternity colony (Silvis et al 2014). 5. Harvesting may create travel corridors and small open areas for foraging. Prescribed fire may increase insect abundance and increase the number of snags in an area. 6. Any activity going on in the maternity sites outside the project area (Broken Bridge Pond, Kneeland Pond, and Bradley Pond) does not overlap in time and space with the Albany South project, therefore they are not part of the cumulative effects analysis area. 7. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24-26 and 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well-distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for northern long-eared bats. 8. Potential roost trees are not considered limiting on the WMNF.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 93 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

9. White-nose syndrome is the greatest threat to this woodland bat species. It is expected that effects from white-nose syndrome (e.g., continued losses of previously unexposed individuals, reduced reproductive success of surviving individuals, etc.) may persist in the project area, regardless of any actions in the Albany South project area.

Small-whorled Pogonia

Effects Determination The No Action and Alternative 3 would have no effect on Small-whorled Pogonia. Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 may affect but would not likely adversely affect Small-whorled Pogonia.

Rationale 1. Three new localities for Small-whorled Pogonia were identified in the general vicinity of the historic population during surveys. The Small-whorled Pogonia plants at the historic location in the project area were not located despite concerted surveys. 2. There would be no harvesting activities or connected actions near the historic and extant subpopulations under the No Action alternative and Alternative 3. 3. Potential effects resulting from the Modified Proposed Action and Alternatives 4 and 5 on known Small-whorled Pogonia individuals would be minimized. The largest subpopulation is protected in a large no-harvest reserve area; and the two small populations are buffered by a no-cut distance in combination with specifically planned harvesting in a larger buffer zone. This would ensure that there is minimal or no increased light or canopy openings affecting Small-whorled Pogonia plants. 4. Potential for direct effects to unidentified plants that may exist in the area around the largest subpopulation reserve area, the two smaller subpopulations, or the historic subpopulation would be minimal due to winter harvest under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 5. Botanical surveys are conducted on all lands considered for any vegetation management projects. Surveys were conducted on habitat deemed suitable for Small-whorled Pogonia during the timeframe this species was identifiable in the field.

Woodland Bats – Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Bat, Tri- colored Bat

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Bat, or Tri-colored Bat. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact individuals, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for any of the 3 species.

94 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Rationale 1. Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Bat, and Tri-colored Bat may be present in the project area between March 31 and October 31. 2. Harvesting trees should have minimal impacts on summer roosting habitat for Eastern Small-footed Myotis, as recent literature indicates that they roost under rocks, hillsides and open ridges, in cracks and crevices in rocky outcrops and on talus slopes, as well as in buildings (USDA Forest Service 2005a, Appendix G, pages 224-227, Veilleux 2005, 2006, 2007). 3. The period of risk is during the non-hibernation season when tree removal and prescribed fire would occur (April 1 through October 31) with the greatest potential for effects during the early spring and summer season after bats emerge from hibernation and are raising young (April 1 through July 31). 4. The potential exists that little brown bats and tri-colored bats could be roosting in trees selected for removal or during a prescribed fire during the non-hibernation season. However the potential for a bat to be a in a roost tree during these activities is small considering the relatively few individuals recorded in areas and the small percentage of habitat being harvested or having prescribed fire in the non-hibernation season. 5. Potential roost trees are not limited on the WMNF. 6. Creating openings and maintaining roads and trails can enhance or maintain foraging habitat for these species. 7. Proposed activities on adjacent private lands may cause some effects to Little Brown Bat and Tri-colored Bat that occupy the project area. 8. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24 to 26, 30 to 32, and 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that high quality summer habitat is maintained for eastern small-footed myotis, little brown bat, and tri-colored bat to find adequate food, cover, roost sites, water, and other needs to survive and successfully reproduce on the Forest. 9. White-nose syndrome is the greatest threat to these woodland bat species. It is expected that effects from white-nose syndrome may persist over the next ten years.

Northern Bog Lemming

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on northern bog lemming. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact individual northern bog lemmings, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 95 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Rationale 1. Northern bog lemmings are extremely rare in New England. The likelihood of an individual occurring in the project area or cumulative effects analysis area is considered low. 2. Identifiable riparian habitat or wet areas are usually protected minimizing the risk of disturbing an individual northern bog lemming or associated habitat USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 2, pages 24 - 26, 30-32). 3. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for northern bog lemming. 4. State guidelines (Maine Department of Conservation 2010) provide sustainable management recommendations to private landowners managing their lands for timber. These guidelines should provide protection for wetlands on private lands for habitat that might be used by northern bog lemming. 5. Northern bog lemmings have persisted on the Forest over time despite habitat altering activities on the landscape (USDA Forest Service 2005a, Appendix G, Page 233). This seems to indicate that the level of activities that have occurred on the Forest and adjacent private lands have not had an adverse effect on occupancy of northern bog lemming over time.

American Peregrine Falcon

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on American peregrine falcon. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may have a beneficial impact on individual peregrine falcons by diversifying the prey base in the area.

Rationale 1. There is an active eyrie site adjacent to the project area. 2. Following guidelines recommended by MDIFW to avoid any harvest within 75 feet of the eyrie and to limit harvest between March 15 and August 15 within 0.25 miles of the eyrie site would minimize any disturbance of this pair during the nesting season. 3. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 33 to 34) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest may increase availability of different types of prey for this species over time and ensure that a suitable prey base is available for falcons should they occupy the cliff sites in the future. Some types of harvest on private land also might diversify the prey base for this species. 4. Occupied eyries have increased on or near actively managed forest lands in Maine and have successfully fledged young.

96 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Brown’s Ameletus Mayfly and Third Ameletus Mayfly

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Ameletus browni or Ameletus tertius. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact individual Ameletus browni and Ameletus tertius but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. Ameletus tertius may occur in larger perennial streams in the project area. Ameletus browni would occur in the colder, faster moving headwater streams in the project area. 2. Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 2, pages 24 to 26, 30 to 32) and meeting or exceeding State of Maine BMPs (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 2, page 29) protect perennial streams from increases in temperature, sedimentation, and changes in pH and aluminum. This is accomplished by maintaining a 25-foot no harvest buffer, a wider Riparian Management Zone with limited harvest, and following appropriate soil and water conservation measures. 3. The State of Maine BMPs (Maine Department of Conservation 2010) provide guidelines to private landowners to protect wetlands.

Bailey’s Sedge

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Bailey’s sedge. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 may impact undiscovered individual Bailey’s sedge plants, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. There are two records of Bailey’s sedge on the Forest; one historic and one current. Neither of these locations is in the project area. The likelihood of this species occurring in the project area is low, particularly due to the apparent scarcity of appropriate calcium-rich habitats and its rarity in Maine. Plant surveys that occurred at various times of the year did not identify this species in the project area. 2. Activities in the cumulative effects analysis area that may have negatively affected Bailey’s Sedge by displacing individuals, but which may also benefit the species by maintaining disturbed habitats, which it favors, include: Past, present, and future timber harvests; road and landing construction and reconstruction; installation and removal of temporary crossings and culverts; watershed projects; and maintenance of existing roads, trails, and recreational facilities in the cumulative effects analysis area. 3. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20-21, Chapter 2, Pages 24 to 26, 30 to 32) and meeting or exceeding State of Maine BMPs serve to maintain a diversity of habitat and protection of riparian areas and wetlands. Roadside ditches,

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 97 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

log landings, and wildlife openings would continue to provide potential suitable habitat for this species. 4. The State of Maine BMPs provide guidelines to private landowners to protect riparian habitats (Maine Department of Conservation 2010).

Clustered Sedge

Effects Determination Based on review of the best available science, the No Action alternative would have no impact on clustered sedge. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 may impact clustered sedge and its habitat, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. Potential habitat for this species lies outside of all the proposed harvest units and transportation system. 2. Prescribed fire to maintain oak-pine habitats may increase habitat suitability in the project area. 3. If prescribed fire opens up rocky summits and outcrops, an increase in recreational use could occur, resulting in degradation of suitable habitat for this species.

Autumn Coralroot

Effects Determination The No Action alternative would have no impact on autumn coralroot. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact undiscovered individual plants, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. The WMNF is on the northern edge of the range for autumn coralroot and the Albany South project area may be outside of its range. 2. Autumn coralroot is rare, despite apparently extensive habitat, so the potential for it to occur in the project area is low. 3. Heavy equipment use in the snow free season in suitable habitat could impact individuals. 4. This species is tolerant of disturbance and has been recorded in an area with selective harvest. 5. This species would likely tolerate under-burning, and would continue to have suitable habitat, because it can tolerate some disturbance and the canopy closure would remain the same as pre-burn conditions. 6. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats across the Forest, which should maintain adequate habitat for autumn coralroot (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 1, pages 20 to 21, Chapter 2, pages 33 -36).

98 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Northern Adder’s Tongue

Effects Determination The No Action Alternative would have no impact on northern adder’s tongue. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact undiscovered individual northern adder’s tongue plants, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. Suitable habitat exists in multiple locations in the project area, primarily along overgrown skid trails, wildlife openings, log landings, and portions of the margins of Forest roads. This species has never been documented in the project area previously and new populations weren’t discovered during project area plant surveys (unpublished WMNF data, MNAP 2011). 2. Roadside ditches, log landings, and permanent wildlife openings would continue to provide suitable habitat for this species.

American Ginseng

Effects Determination Based on review of the best available science, the No Action alternative would have no impact on American ginseng. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact individual American ginseng plants, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale 1. American ginseng is known to occur in the Albany South HMU. 2. Harvest units are designed to avoid all known American Ginseng populations. If additional plants are discovered during harvest operations, additional protective measures would be implemented. 3. It is possible that undiscovered individuals could be affected, but the potential is low. Ginseng was not discovered in other areas with suitable habitat when botanical surveys were conducted. 4. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to maintain a diversity of habitats and protection of highly enriched and wet areas would be followed (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Chapter 2, pages 12-13, 19)

Nodding Pogonia

Effects Determination Observations over a 13-year period on a WMNF population suggest that selective harvesting had no positive or negative effect on a known population of nodding pogonia (USDA Forest Service 2010b), although additional research and analysis is needed to understand light and other conditions favored by this species. Plants may respond favorably to canopy openings in the short-term if other conditions are suitable. However, the effects of timber harvest on light availability, leaf litter

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 99 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

and soil characteristics, understory growth, and response of nodding pogonia itself are unknown.

The No Action alternative would have no impact on nodding pogonia. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact undiscovered individual plants, or those in the vicinity of long-term monitoring plots subjected to single-tree winter harvest, but these effects are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. The large majority of plants and populations in the project area are excluded from harvest units as reserve areas.

Rationale 1. The project area was surveyed by qualified botanists (unpublished WMNF data). Known and new populations were identified across the landscape within larger areas identified as potential habitat. Nodding pogonia was not documented in many of the areas considered suitable habitat. 2. No harvesting would occur over mapped populations of nodding pogonia under any of the action alternatives in established reserve areas, which include the large majority of individuals and populations within the project area. A minority portion of one of the nodding pogonia subpopulations occurs within a planned single tree winter harvest area. Long term monitoring would be initiated in this area prior to implementation (treatment and control plots will be established). Regardless of effects in the treatment area, no effect on population viability is expected due to the small proportion of population area involved. Monitoring results over a 13 year period at a nodding pogonia population in New Hampshire on the WMNF, shows no negative effects on this species compared to control areas. Although these results are encouraging, more information is needed about the habitat requirements of this species, and the effects of timber harvest, including the potential benefits of increased light. The treatment and monitoring efforts at Albany South are expected to yield useful data to help guide long-term conservation efforts for the species. 3. Harvesting would occur over potential habitat; however botanical surveys did not reveal any nodding pogonia in these areas. It is unlikely that any individual plants would be impacted. Suitable habitat would continue to exist in the project area upon completion of harvest activities (in both harvested and un-harvested areas)

100 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Vegetation

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Vegetation Report (Bumps 2015) located in the project record. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on the health and productivity of forested stands in the project area. In addition, the analysis determines the degree to which the proposed activities accomplish HMU and silvicultural objectives as described in Chapter 1, and ensures that the actions and effects are consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for vegetation management. Please refer to the Purpose and Need for Action section in Chapter 1 for a discussion of the project’s objectives and Forest Plan direction for vegetation management. Background The rationale for applying silvicultural treatments on the White Mountain National Forest is based largely on classic research conducted by Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and the Northeastern Research Station. Much of the research is documented in the Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (Leak et al. 1987), Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwoods in the Northeast (Leak et al. 2014), A Silvicultural Guide for Spruce-Fir in the Northeast (Frank and Bjorkbom 1973), Managing Eastern Hemlock: A Preliminary Guide (Lancaster 1985), The Ecology and Silviculture of Oaks (Johnson et al. 2002), Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised) (Safford 1983), and the North Central Region Aspen Managers Guide (web access, March 4, 2016). The proposed timber harvests apply Forest Plan direction, the relevant scientific findings in the above publications, consultations with professional foresters, public input, and the site-specific data and information gathered in the project area.

Table 30. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to vegetation Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Acres by treatment types Forest Health and Forest Stands which enhance forest health, See Background section Productivity productivity, and resiliency. above for silvicultural sources related to forest Estimated timber volume health, productivity, and Forest Stands Forest Products harvested and made forest products. available to local markets.

Effects Indicators and Measures Vegetation objectives for this project are to improve forest health, productivity, and diversity to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives, provide a sustained yield of high quality forest products, and create stand conditions that are more resistant and resilient to natural disturbances such as insects and disease. See table 21 in the Wildlife section in this chapter for habitat indicators. Table 30 below displays

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 101 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

the indicators and measures used to determine the effects related to forest health, productivity, resiliency, and forest products. Existing Conditions

Forest Health and Productivity Please refer to Chapter 1 and to the Wildlife section above in this chapter for a summary of the existing vegetative conditions in the project area, including forest cover types, age classes, and the assessment of forest health and productivity that contributed to the need for the vegetation treatments proposed in this project.

Abiotic and Biotic Factors All forest stands proposed for treatment are influenced by abiotic and biotic factors common to forests in northern New England. The proposed silvicultural methods discussed below can be used to address factors that are unfavorable to forest health and productivity. Generally, stands become healthier and more productive when trees harmed or damaged by abiotic agents (ice, snow, wind throw, drought, or mechanical damage) or biotic agents (insects or diseases) are removed, and healthy, vigorous trees are retained. Management considerations given to abiotic and biotic factors encountered in the units proposed for harvest are discussed below.

Ice storm and Mechanical Damage Damage from a large and long ice storm in 1997-1998 is evident today across most of the proposed harvest units in the form of reduced crown sizes and trees affected by wood-destroying fungi that infected trees after limbs and stems broke under the weight of the ice (Shortle et al. 2014). The ice storm left damaged and dying trees across the project area and diminished the overall health and productivity of the affected units.

Mechanical damage occurs when logging equipment or log-skidding tears the outer bark of standing trees while moving through a harvest unit. Trees damaged by past harvesting are evident in some of the proposed harvest units. Although skidding wounds degrade the butt log and reduce its value (Nyland 1989), most wounds are found on bumper trees along the network of skid trails that would be used again, limiting new damage.

Insects and Disease Insects and disease may attack all age classes of balsam fir (Frank and Bjorkbom 1973). Over-mature balsam fir occurs in many of the proposed harvest units and is showing signs of rot and infection by pathogens such as bore holes in tree trunks, butt rot, and defoliating crowns, all indications of weakened trees and suppressed tree growth. Because balsam fir is shallow-rooted, weakened trees are more susceptible to wind damage and wind throw, both of which is evident in some of the proposed units

Most of the beech trees in all of the proposed harvest units suffer from beech bark disease (Nectria ditissima), a disease that reduces the quality and quantity of

102 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment beech sawlogs and reduces beechnut production, limiting its contributions as a wildlife food source (Smallidge and Nyland 2009).

Many of the over-mature aspen trees in the proposed harvest units show signs of a fungus commonly called conk rot which appears in the upper bole of the tree at the base of limbs. The lower stems of these trees may still be sawlog quality logs and would be harvested at this time to salvage the economic value and promote healthy regeneration.

The crooked and multiple stems of white pine in the proposed harvest units are evidence of infection by white pine blister rust and white pine weevil. This infection reduces merchantable volume and lumber grade. Damage by these vectors is reduced when there is a balance of sufficient shade to reduce weevil survival and adequate sunlight to maintain tree growth (Katovich and Mielke 1993). The 40-50 percent crown closure left after the proposed shelterwood seed cuts would achieve this balance.

Hemlock wooly adelgid and emerald ash borer are two invasive pests that do not currently occur in the project area but are close enough to threaten the future health and productivity of forested stands in the project area. Hemlock wooly adelgid has the potential to remove hemlock as a major ecological component of eastern forests, thereby diminishing the many valuable contributions of hemlock in ecosystem functions such as clean water and wildlife habitat. The Maine Forest Service (2014) predicts that hemlock wooly adelgid may be established in the project area within 5-10 years. Emerald ash borer has killed millions of ash trees in forest, riparian, and urban settings and it appears increasingly likely that it could functionally extirpate ash and produce devastating economic and ecological impacts (Herms and McCullough 2014). The nearest reported location of emerald ash borer is 55 miles to the southwest in Gilmanton, NH (New Hampshire DRED, 2015). Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5 (also referred to as the action alternatives).

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on vegetation, also referred to as timber resources for this analysis, is MA 2.1 lands within compartments 329-337 of the Albany South HMU. The analysis area encompasses 11,761 acres of which 78 percent are closed-canopy, mature forests of even-aged and uneven-aged stands. The amount of closed and open canopy helps describe the structural diversity (Rowse 2015). This area was chosen because these lands are suitable for timber harvest and any noticeable direct and indirect effects on timber resources would be in and near harvested stands. The timeframe for analysis would be three years after harvest at which the WMNF would likely certify successful regeneration of the units. Under the National Forest Management Act, the units must be certified at five years after harvest; the WMNF sets the goal at three

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 103 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

years to allow time to for regeneration actions if needed to fully stock the units by the five year requirement.

Alternative 1- No Action

Forest Health and Productivity, and Forest Products

Timber Harvest With no timber harvest treatments, all forest stands in the project area would continue to grow and mature with no opportunity to enhance forest health, growth, and productivity. No forest products would be available to local markets. Habitat management goals for this HMU would not be accomplished. Some trees would die from natural forces related to size, competition, or age stress and be replaced by similar or more shade-tolerant trees. Forest succession would eventually reach the climax vegetation type, shifting from paper birch, red maple, white and red pine, red oak, ash, and aspen, to stands dominated by beech, red and sugar maple, and spruce. Natural disturbances such as wind, rain, and ice events would influence succession by temporarily providing smaller forest openings encouraging establishment of less shade-tolerant species.

Older trees would die out and the remaining, healthy trees would grow larger. As shorter-lived species (aspen, paper birch, balsam fir) grow older they become more susceptible to ice damage, wind throw, forest insects, and diseases. Over time these agents contribute to tree mortality that may occur in small pockets or over larger areas. Overall, productivity may decline because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone.

Dominant and co-dominant red oak and white pine would continue to control site conditions, however without periodic disturbance and silvicultural treatments to reduce competition, there would be too much shade for oak and pine regeneration and for seedlings to become established in the midstory, rather seedlings would stagnate in the understory for years and eventually die out. The indirect effect of taking no action would be a continuing conversion of oak and pine stands to northern hardwood stands.

Untreated stands dominated by small-diameter beech would likely become infected with beech bark disease and incur early mortality. Once infected trees die, the disease is perpetuated through root sprouts, leading to unhealthy and unproductive stands. Prolific sprouting creates dense stand conditions that crowd out other species from regenerating and thus there would be a loss of species and age-class diversity (i.e. oak-pine and mixedwoods) as the stands gradually convert to northern hardwood stands dominated by beech.

With no commercial timber harvest implemented under this alternative, no forest products would be made available for local markets and wood products manufacturers. No revenue would be generated from the sale of timber (see the Socioeconomics section in this chapter). The need to provide a sustained yield of forest products from national forest lands would not be accomplished.

104 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Prescribed Fire Red pine and oak-pine communities atop Albany and Cecil Mountains are slowly changing in species composition to include more spruce-fir and northern hardwoods. This progression would continue without the proposed prescribed burning.

Fuels Reduction, Watershed Restoration, Recreation, and Transportation Trees that would have been removed or pruned as part of fuels reduction abutting private lands would continue to grow, providing fuel that could intensify fire behavior along the national forest boundary in the event of a wildfire. No trees would be cut or vegetation disturbed for new road construction or reconstruction, trail relocations, campsite development and improvements, or watershed restoration work.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 31 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to vegetation. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to vegetation follows the table.

Table 31. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to vegetation, by action alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Forest Health and Productivity (acres harvested) Clearcut with Reserves 212 160 212 212 Patch Cuts 42 19 27 42 Seed Tree Seed Cut with 94 94 94 94 Reserves Shelterwood Seed Cut 99 70 99 99 Commercial Thinning 138 138 138 138 188 acres cut Group Selection within 1,255 unit 144 of 962 188 of 1,255 188 of 1,255 acres Single Tree Selection 493 46 288 493 Improvement Cut 32 0 0 32

Release Treatment 577 446 559 577

Prescribed Fire 212 72 212 212 1,298 acres cut Total Acres Treated within 2,365 unit 672 of 1,489 1,046 of 2,113 1,298 of 2,365 acres Forest Products (estimated million board feet harvested) to be made available to local markets 7.5 4.6 6.7 7.5

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 105 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Health and Productivity

Timber Harvest One of the goals of MA 2.1 lands as allocated in the Forest Plan is to provide high quality sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis. This is accomplished by maintaining a healthy, vigorous forest through forest management. The timber harvest methods proposed in this project can influence the species composition of forest stands to improve diversity and enhance the quality of timber products. The effects of timber harvest on the health and productivity on forest stands is measured by the acres proposed for each method, as displayed in table 31 above.

In addition to the achieving HMU objectives for wildlife habitat, the timber harvest prescriptions for the proposed units are designed to address existing conditions that are adversely affecting tree growth, health, diversity, and productivity. It is important to note that not every damaged, low quality, suppressed, or otherwise stressed tree would be removed; many would be left in every unit, including clearcuts with reserves, to play their role in ecosystem functions by providing a source of dead and down wood for habitat, soil conservation, and other benefits. The number and location of trees removed would be based on the silvicultural needs of each species on each site. The goal is to improve the health and vigor of forested stands, and how that is achieved varies by species and specific conditions in each unit.

Even-Aged Management Clearcut, patch cut (clearcuts less than 10 acres in size), shelterwood, and seed tree methods would regenerate even-aged northern hardwood stands in the project area. These regeneration methods focus on shifting forest health from mature or damaged timber with increasing mortality to young, fast-growing forbs, grasses, and seedlings with little mortality and increased productivity.

The discussions below cite the units proposed for treatment under Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action. Please refer to Appendix C to see which of the cited units are also proposed for treatment under Alternatives 3-5.

Clearcut Units: Clearcutting is the optimal method for replacing mature, damaged stands with healthy stands of regeneration-age trees. It is best applied to stands with at least 50-60 percent mature and defective timber (Leak et al. 2014), and creates conditions where sunlight reaches the forest floor causing hardwood seeds to germinate and seedlings to grow rapidly. Monitoring of past clearcut harvest units on similar sites has shown rapid establishment of hardwood and softwood regeneration with the same species mix found in pre-cut mature forests within three to five years.

Units 51, 56, 73, 112, 115, 116, and 119 have substantial aspen. Clearcutting and patch clearcutting are the optimum methods for creating the open conditions aspen requires to regenerate and remain a component of the forest mosaic into the future. These conditions stimulate root suckering which is a major source of reproduction for aspen (Perala 1977).

106 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Units 35, 68, 95, 113, and 117 are generally of poor quality, affected by ice damage, and have declining growth rates. Clearcutting would promote northern hardwood regeneration while salvaging timber value and promoting new stands of vigorous growing trees.

A direct effect of clearcutting in northern hardwood is the promotion of stump sprouts in species such as aspen and red maple. According to a study on four sites in New England, stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings began in the first growing season after harvest. Within five years after cutting, young, dense stands were established on all four sites (Pierce et al. 1993).

Figure 7. Unit 69 is proposed for patch cut and release treatment to encourage northern hardwood regeneration

Patch Cut Units: Units 3, 69, and 122 are proposed for patch cuts to promote northern hardwood regeneration and enhance feeding opportunities for deer and moose by creating browse. Patch cuts are an optimum method for producing a wide variety of vegetation for browse. Figure 7 is a photo of a northern hardwood stand proposed for patch cut. An additional patch cut in Unit 118 would take advantage of the stump sprouting characteristics of red oak and would release existing oak regeneration in an attempt to perpetuate the species (Hibbs and Bentley 1983).

Changes in micro-climate conditions in the perimeter of stands adjacent to even- aged regeneration cuts (i.e. increased sunlight, lower humidly, and increased evapotranspiration) would occur. Trees in this perimeter area may see an increased growth rate due to these micro-climate changes.

Commercial Thin Units: Units 42, 52, 54, and 77 are heavily-stocked, pole- to small sawtimber-sized even-aged stands that include suppressed, defective, and declining trees. Commercial thinning to remove about one-third of the trees would create space and light for seeds to germinate and for young trees to grow while growth of the larger trees would be maintained or improved. Generally, the poorer quality trees would be harvested, leaving a stand of well-spaced dominant

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 107 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

and co-dominant trees with an understory of tree regeneration and other woody plants. Commercial thinning favors the more shade-tolerant plants and trees and over time, the stands would return to full stocking.

Shelterwood and Seed Tree Seed Cut Units: Units 43, 48, 88, 99, 100, and 125 are proposed for shelterwood harvests. Seed tree harvests are proposed in units 53, 55, and 123. Both treatments would create growing conditions for species that are moderately intolerant of shade. Low quality and mature softwood and northern hardwood trees would be harvested while white pine and oak of good form and quality would be retained. By removing approximately 50-60 percent of shelterwood stands and 60-70 percent of seed tree stands, additional sunlight would accelerate growth on existing young pine, oak, spruce and fir saplings and seedlings, allowing them to move into the midstory. In summer units, new oak and pine seedlings would also become established due to disturbance of the leaf litter and exposure of bare mineral soil. Stands would still remain in a high- canopy forested condition.

Units 53 and 55 are proposed for seed tree cuts followed by prescribed fire to create conditions favorable for red oak. Fire exclusion for many decades has caused a silvicultural problem in regenerating oak stands in the east (Van Lear et al. 2000). Red oak relies on advance regeneration to take advantage of gaps in canopy created by wind throw, fire, or logging. The harvest in these units would increase light in the understory, improving conditions for oak establishment and regeneration while the prescribed fire would kill or reduce the vigor of competing species.

Uneven-aged Management Uneven-aged stands consist of or develop at least three age classes with a high canopy over most of the stand. Harvesting occurs at somewhat regular intervals so that the stand structure is maintained over time. It is essential that new age classes are produced at nearly every entry (Leak et al. 2014). This project proposes and analyzes the first of what may be multiple entries to promote uneven-aged stands of three or more age classes. Stand improvements with removal of defective, low-vigor or low-value trees (while at the same time providing increased growing space for trees in the residual stand) help perpetuate a stand through limiting the amount of mortality while at the same time maximizing productivity.

Group Selection: The group selection method proposed in units 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 47, 49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71,72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 114, 120, 121, and 124 would create small openings to release existing regeneration-age or young softwoods and release and regenerate intermediate shade tolerant hardwood species. Groups would be one- tenth to two acres in size and would remove approximately 10-20 percent of the stand. Group placement would be favored adjacent to existing softwood/mixedwood advanced regeneration to promote growth on these young trees, and in areas of poor quality trees to promote northern hardwood regeneration. Group selection would be used to maintain smaller aspen populations that may occur in the units. Non-commercial treatment would follow

108 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment in selected stands to remove undesirable saplings to release regeneration-age softwoods and hardwoods.

Single Tree Selection Units: Units 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 41, 44, 45, 46, 70, 81, 82, and 110 are proposed for single tree selection harvests. Individual trees of all size classes would be removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand to create or maintain a multi-age structure to promote growth of remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration. Figure 8 is a photo of a mixedwood stand proposed for single tree selection. Single trees of lower quality, damaged, diseased, or less desirable species would be removed. For example, trees affected by ice storm damage and insects and disease would be removed while healthy trees would be left to advance a quality stand for future management considerations. Overall, individual tree selection improves the health and vigor of the residual stand, increasing growth rates on selected quality sawtimber trees.

Figure 8. Single tree selection would help maintain the mixedwood forest in unit 110

Improvement Cut Units: Improvement cuts in units 8, 16, and 17 would remove the less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve the composition and quality. Basal area would be reduced to 70-80 square feet by removing low quality trees, less desirable species, and trees crowding potential high-value stems. By maintaining 25-35 square feet of the residual basal area in sawtimber-sized trees (where possible), board-foot growth would be at its best (Leak et al. 1987).

Indirect effects of the above harvest methods may include increased risk of wind throw in the partially cut stands, and to trees adjacent to clearcuts, patch cuts, and group selection areas. Trees exposed to the wind on wet sites are susceptible to wind throw until crowns expand to fill the canopy and the roots become wind firm. Some residual tree damage would occur from harvesting operations, but would be minimized by the use of bumper trees, existing skid trails, and advance planning for new skid trails. Trees damaged from harvest operations are more susceptible to mortality due to the potential introduction of insects or disease.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 109 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Release Treatments The release treatments proposed on 577 acres would remove vegetation and species that may interfere with the establishment of desirable tree species such as white pine, hemlock, aspen, red oak, and other softwood and northern hardwood species. A portion of the dense midstory (mostly beech and red maple saplings) would be removed from harvested areas to provide “free to grow” conditions for regeneration-age and young oak, sugar maple, white pine and softwoods. These treatments would occur from May to September after harvesting operations have been completed. One or more release treatments per stand may be needed to achieve desired conditions.

Abiotic and Biotic Factors Many of the treatments described above would remove trees that were damaged in the ice storm and are less-vigorous due to reduced crown sizes, or have suffered subsequent infection by rot and pathogens. In addition, removal of damaged and diseased trees affected by the insects and disease as described above in the Existing Condition section would improve overall health and productivity in the treated units by removing vectors from the site and opening up space that would promote regeneration and benefit healthy residual trees. In the case of beech, some diseased trees would be removed and disease-resistant beech trees would be retained for the propagation of genetically resistant offspring. This would increase the level of resistance in the forest and lead to a healthier beech population in the future (Burns and Houston 1987, Leak 2006). For aspen affected by conk rot, the trees with sawlog quality in the lower stems would be harvested to obtain the value for forest products and local markets, and regeneration by root suckers would occur while the root system is still vigorous. White pine weevil would be diminished by shelterwood harvests, leaving the residual trees to maintain or improve growth.

The proposed harvests are designed to create or maintain the right conditions for forested stands and individual trees to thrive. Improved health and vigor would enhance the forest’s ability to resist infection by pathogens, including the advancing hemlock wooly adelgid and emerald ash borer.

Operating Seasons Summer harvest would provide habitat for herbaceous species that require disturbance such as clearcuts. Many plants are adapted to such openings and survive or quickly re-colonize these areas after operations (Whitman and Hagan 2000). Direct sunlight would promote sun-tolerant species and eliminate species that favor shade.

Summer harvest may damage understory trees where logging equipment makes repeated passes, whereas winter harvest over a snow pack reduces such damage.

Regardless of operating season, potential damage to vegetation would be minimized by using existing skid trails where possible, and locating new trails in advance of operations to limit the area affected by logging equipment. All skid trails would be located, developed, and used in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Maine’s best management practices. See the project design features related to skid trails in Appendix B.

110 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Prescribed Fire The goals and effects related to prescribed fire and the need to promote oak and pine communities on Albany and Cecil Mountains are discussed in detail in the Wildlife and Prescribed Fire sections of this chapter.

The prescribed fire proposed for units 53 and 55 under Alternatives 2-5 would provide the periodic disturbance needed to regenerate and maintain the existing oak and oak-pine habitat types. Burning in the spring or fall following harvest operations would reduce the understory shade and remove accumulated leaf litter and logging slash from the ground. A spring burn would also help to control white pine cone beetle larvae incubating in dead cones on the forest floor. The prescribed burn would be timed to take advantage of a good white pine cone or acorn year so a maximum amount of seeds/acorns would be available to regenerate. Several low intensity fires may need to be applied to the site. Similar burns in other locations on the WMNF have proved effective at reducing the overstory and preparing a seedbed while minimizing damage to mature white pine and oak with low mortality (less than 20 percent) in the mature red oak and white pine (Spradlin and Spradlin 2006; USDA Forest Service 2004). Some damage and crown scorch would be expected. Mortality of trees stressed by insect, disease, or damage may be increased as a result of prescribed burning.

Watershed Restoration The removal and use of scattered trees for watershed restoration would produce similar effects as individual tree selection harvest but on a smaller scale. The forested areas would remain mature forests while additional sunlight would encourage regeneration and promote a multi-age riparian zone along these areas. As mature trees die out, younger trees would be present to take their place and provide future channel stability. The residual canopy cover would meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Culvert removals would occur within the travel way of existing roadbeds and would likely not involve the removal of any vegetation. No adverse effects to forest health are expected from these activities under any action alternative. The cut trees would be used on site and would not provide forest products for local markets.

Recreation Improvements While campsite closures would benefit vegetation at the closed sites by reducing damage from soil compaction, firewood collection, and tree carving and allowing the area to revegetate over time, these same damaging effects would likely occur at the new campsites proposed under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. No effects to vegetation would be expected as a result of the snowmobile trail proposals other than beneficial revegetation on the decommissioned trail segments.

Transportation Vegetation would be trimmed or removed to some degree in all road work proposals except decommissioning, which will promote revegetation on the closed segments. Landing use would require removal of vegetation to open existing landings and construct new ones. All vegetation from existing landings

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 111 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

and proposed new landings would be removed. No adverse effects to forest health are expected from these activities under any action alternative.

Forest Products Although the amount varies, Alternatives 2-5 would each provide forest products to local markets and wood products manufacturers. The estimated volume of timber harvested is shown in table 31. In addition to this volume, the proposed treatments are designed to improve or maintain forest health and productivity and therefore ensure a sustained yield of forest products into the future. Revenue associated with the sale of the estimated volume is discussed in the Socioeconomics section in this chapter.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects on timber resources encompasses national forest lands in the Albany North and South HMUs (21,785 acres) and adjacent private lands bounded by Route 5/35 to the east and Route 5 and West Stoneham Road to the south (8,328 acres). This area was chosen because it evaluates this project’s contribution to the broader WMNF habitat objectives; it considers land newly acquired by the Forest Service that was recently harvested by the former landowner; and it considers activities on adjacent private lands. The analysis period for cumulative effects is ten years past and ten years into the future from planned harvests because even-aged stands are considered in the regeneration phase of growth after harvest for ten years, and the amount of regeneration age class is a measure of habitat and forest diversity.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. For vegetation, only projects that include timber harvesting for the purposes of forest management were included in the analysis for cumulative effects to vegetation. Incidental tree removal that occurs when implementing non-forest management projects would have no measureable effect on forest health and productivity, or the availability of forest products to local markets, and therefore are not discussed further in this section.

The following data regarding timber harvests in the cumulative effects area was collected from national forest databases, roadside assessments, town office records, private land owners, and inspection of aerial photos taken every decade from the 1950s to the present. In addition, information was gathered through inquiries to the Maine Forest Service. • In the past ten years in the cumulative effects area, 1,760 acres of intermediate harvest and 151 acres even-aged harvest occurred on national forest and the Maine Forest Service was notified of 1,630 acres of harvest on private lands. Harvest methods on private lands were similar to individual tree selection and commercial thinning as used on national forest land. All harvested land has remained forested up to this point in time. • Of the 1,630 acres of private harvest initiated in the last decade, it is likely that some amount of harvesting is still taking place.

112 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • There are 620 acres of intermediate harvest and 77 acres of even-aged harvest currently ongoing on national forest lands in the cumulative effects area. • There are 304 acres of intermediate harvest and 3 acres of even-aged harvest expected to occur in the next several years on national forest lands in the cumulative effects area. • Planned timber harvest in the next 10 years following the sale of private land parcels (1,345 acres) would include thinning, limited patch cuts, two miles of road construction, and 60 miles of skid trail use. • Additional private timber harvest (712 acres) scattered throughout the analysis area.

Alternatives 2-5 When the acres above are considered along with those proposed in Alternatives 2-5, lands in the analysis area would remain predominantly forested with a range of age classes and a diverse composition of tree and herbaceous species. The cumulative timber harvests would contribute to the mix of even- and uneven- aged conditions and reductions in high risk, low quality, and mature conditions. There would be an increase of softwoods (spruce-fir) and hemlock in mixedwood and softwood stands and an increase of oak and pine seedlings in stands with a component of these species due to ground scarification and non-commercial treatments. Herbaceous understories would respond favorably to regeneration and group selection harvests and prescribed burning activities.

The cumulative effects area would remain in a vegetative/forested condition with diverse timber types, stand structure, and age classes spaced across the landscape.

The cumulative effects of timber harvesting in the analysis area would benefit the overall health, productivity, and resiliency of forested stands as described for direct and indirect effects above. In addition, forest products would be made available to local markets from both national forest and private lands.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100. Appendix H includes a summary of the predicted effects of climate change on northeastern forests and tree species that currently occur in the project area.

It is difficult to directly measure the response of long-lived organisms such as trees to changing climate. To address this challenge, scientists forecast changes in habitat conditions and then project how tree species are likely to adjust to these new conditions. Current modeling studies project that the dominant tree species in the region are likely to undergo dramatic range shifts as forests slowly disassemble and reassemble in response to changes in suitable habitat over the next 100 years. Projections suggest that suitable habitat for spruce-fir forests may virtually disappear from the Northeast in the next 100 years, and that habitat for the northern hardwood trees that currently dominate the region is likely to be

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 113 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

replaced by conditions better suited to oak forests. While there is clear evidence that our forest trees can migrate with changing climate, past rates of migration have been slow. Most studies suggest that the historical rates of species movement are too slow to keep up with current and future climate change. This mismatch between relatively rapid changes in climate and the slower rate at which tree species migrate complicates the picture of how forests might adapt to climate change in the future. Scientists expect that forest change will lag behind suitable habitat change, and there will be significant differences between the modeled and actual future forest composition. For example, while the habitat for oak and hickory forests is projected to increase greatly with climate change, most oaks and hickories presently have difficulty regenerating. Consequently, it is projected that oak and hickories may take centuries to expand their ranges (Rustad et al. 2012).

A review of the most recent climate change literature summarized in Appendix H indicates that the dominant tree species in the region are likely to undergo dramatic range shifts as forests slowly disassemble and reassemble in response to changes in suitable habitat over the next 100 years. Projections suggest that suitable habitat for spruce-fir forests may virtually disappear from the Northeast in the next 100 years, and that habitat for the northern hardwood trees that currently dominate the region is likely to be replaced by conditions better suited to oak forests. There is no documentation to suggest that such effects will be observed within the next ten years. By managing vegetation to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of forest products, silvicultural treatment would improve forest resiliency to better withstand stressors such as climate change. Proposed harvests, thinnings, and diversification of stand age and structure will enhance the ability of forests to adapt to climate change and its effects (Saxby et al. 2013). Therefore, no detrimental cumulative effects from climate change on vegetation are expected.

114 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Prescribed Fire and Fuels

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Prescribed Fire and Fuels Report (O’Brien 2015) and the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Air Quality Report (O’Brien 2015) located in the project record. These analyses evaluate two distinct project objectives related to fire and fuels as described in Chapter 1:

1. Use of prescribed fire to perpetuate oak and pine communities by removing competing vegetation and preparing the forest floor to promote regeneration. 2. Reducing forest fuels to limit wildfire severity and spread in the wildland- urban interface where structures exist on private property adjacent to the national forest. In addition, this analysis ensures that the actions and effects are consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for fire and fuels management. Effects Indicators and Measures Table 32 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects to oak-pine natural communities and the wildland-urban interface, which are the relevant resource elements studied in this analysis.

Table 32. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to prescribed fire and fuels Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Treated acres with light Reintroduction of fire to Forest Plan, 1-18 and 1-20. and duff outcomes Natural communities natural oak and pine favorable to oak and pine USDA Forest Service 2004, communities regeneration Silvics of North America Treated acres with Maine Forest Service, 2013 Wildland-urban removal of ladder and Fuels reduction Community Wildfire interface ground fuels out of hazard Protection Plan zone.

Existing Conditions Additional information about the existing conditions that initiated the proposed prescribed fire and fuels reduction actions are described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action, and in the Wildlife and Vegetation sections in this chapter.

Oak-pine Communities Oak-pine ridge top communities occur on Albany Mountain and Cecil Mountain, and various other ridges in the project area. They are adjacent to oak and northern hardwood communities that occupy the lower slopes. The last known fire on Albany Mountain occurred in the mid-1980s and was suppressed by town and Forest Service firefighters. The last landscape-level fire occurred around 1900, burning approximately 750 acres (US Forest Service 1917). Fire suppression has

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 115 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

allowed beech and spruce-fir to dominate the understory and midstory in the red pine community on Albany Mountain (figure 9). Cecil Mountain is adjacent to some of the original homesteads that made up the community of North Stoneham. It can be surmised that both grazing and agricultural fire were practiced by local farmers in the proposed treatment areas (Carlson 2013), and that Cecil Mountain’s oak-pine communities were likely created through a combination of old pastures reverting to forest, as well as natural and human- caused fire. The area is currently typed as red oak.

Figure 9. Incursion of spruce-fir regeneration in the red pine community on Albany Mountain

Fuels Reduction The wildland-urban interface associated with this project is identified in the 2013 Stoneham Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which concluded that there is “inadequate defensible space and flammable vegetation inside defensible space areas” (MFS 2013). Figure 10 shows a home just outside the national forest boundary which would benefit from the proposed fuels reduction proposal. As noted in Chapter 1, there are approximately 20 structures within this proximity to the forest boundary, mostly near the Hut Road and in the Birch Avenue area northwest of Keewaydin Lake. The proposed activities would create defensible space by removing hazardous fuels within 300 feet of the national forest/private land boundary in the vicinity of the private structures. This work would be conducted in areas adjacent to private land where the landowners have implemented Firewise principles on their land.

116 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 10. A home in the wildland-urban interface adjacent to the project area

Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects of prescribed fire are the proposed burn units that encompass the oak and pine forest types proposed for treatment, and a five mile radius around the burn units to account for potential effects to air quality. Five miles is a standard measurement when analyzing smoke plumes and smoke dispersion in predominantly backing type fires (Lunsford 1989). The timeframe for the analysis is 15 years to allow time for retreatment if needed and for oak and pine seedlings and saplings to become established.

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for fuels reduction in the wildland-urban interface includes the area treated and the private land extending 300 feet outside the national forest boundary near the treated area. The analysis timeframe would be 15 years following treatment because forest fuels may become re-established in that period.

Alternative 1- No Action

Oak-pine Communities With no disturbance created by prescribed fire, existing duff and vegetative conditions will continue to impede oak and pine regeneration. The oak-pine communities will continue to transition from fire-adapted species of red pine, white pine, red oak, blueberry, and huckleberry to fire intolerant species such as red spruce and northern hardwoods. If a human-caused wildfire should occur in this area, Forest Service policy requires it to be suppressed. In the event of a naturally-occurring fire, it could be monitored instead of immediately suppressing it unless public safety and other factors were a concern. Oak-pine communities on Albany and Cecil Mountains may be diminished if prescribed fire is not used to perpetuate those communities. The fire regime in these stands

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 117 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

would likely shift to infrequent high-intensity wildfire, resulting in high mortality of pine, oak, and other species during those fires.

Fuels Reduction Fuels in the hazard zone near the national forest/private land boundary would accumulate and could contribute to fire intensity and spread in the event of wildfire. Homeowners participating in the Maine Firewise program will not have the benefit of the three zones of fire protection for their residences as prescribed by Firewise principles.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 33 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects related to prescribed fire and fuels. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to oak-pine communities and fuels follows the table. Additional information about fire effects to natural communities is in the Wildlife and Vegetation sections in this chapter.

Table 33. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to prescribed fire and fuels, by action alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Indicator Measure 2 3 4 5 Reintroduction of Treated acres with light and fire to natural oak duff outcomes favorable to 212 74 212 212 and pine oak and pine regeneration* communities Treated acres with removal Fuels reduction of ladder and ground fuels 10 10 10 10 out of hazard zone. *may require up to three treatments over a 15-year period

Direct and Indirect Effects

Oak-pine Communities The existing dead and down ground fuels (twigs, branches, pine and spruce needles, etc.) would carry the fire through the unit and be consumed. Spruce and fir in the understory up to six feet will be girdled and killed by the fire. Dead stems on heath shrubs and grasses will be burned off but this will not result in mortality of the plant. The majority of the mature red pine, white pine, and red oak will survive the fire because the age and thickness of bark will protect them, however some isolated pockets of mortality would occur. The desired outcome to promote oak and pine regeneration after burning would be an average overall duff layer between one and three inches and average understory light levels above 35 percent (USDA Forest Service 2004). Indirect effects to the red pine community will be a flush of growth in the heath shrubs and grasses the following growing season. Red pine, white pine and oak seedlings may take several years to develop; intervals between good seed crops average between three and seven years (USDA Forest Service 2004). Mortality of the competing

118 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment overstory and midstory species such as red spruce, northern hardwoods will provide openings in the canopy that will encourage seedling growth. Prescribed fire may not be used in units 53 and 55 on Cecil Mountain if adequate seed beds were prepared (duff layer reduced to allow for seedlings to become established) through the timber harvest operations.

Alternative 3 would result in the same effects as Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 but on fewer acres because the red pine woodland on Albany Mountain would not be treated.

Fuels Reduction Under Alternatives 2-5, surface and ladder fuels in the hazard zone would be removed. Treatments would be coordinated with the abutting landowner. The effect would be to enhance defensible space for adjacent landowners who have applied Firewise principles on their land. Fewer hazardous fuels enhances defensible space around private structures, with a corresponding reduction in the risk of property loss in the event of a wildfire.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area and timeframe for cumulative effects is the same as described for direct and indirect effects for Alternatives 2-5 above.

The projects listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects of prescribed fire are the permanent wildlife openings that may be maintained by fire (although mowing and hand-brushing may be used as well) and additional prescribed fire units. The Four Ponds project plans to burn a total of 20-180 acres in the next five years and the Forestwide Wildlife Opening Maintenance project plans to burn 60 acres in the next five years. The cumulative beneficial effects of perpetuating fire-adapted communities such as red oak and red pine by creating seedbeds and reducing competition to promote the establishment of seedlings would be increased where those objectives are identified for other burn units in the White Mountain National Forest. Because each prescribed fire activity would require implementation of site-specific burn plans and project design features (Appendix B) to reduce potential effects, smoke generated from each prescribed fire would be short-term, infrequent (3-5 year return intervals), and would rarely, if ever, overlap with other fire activities. Prescribed fires would be ignited only under conditions that would minimize haze and not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards as described in the Air Quality section.

Beneficial cumulative effects of fuels reduction would occur if the landowners with structures in the analysis area implement and maintain FireWise principals and techniques to create defensible space around their residences and structures. Adequate fuels reduction and clearing on private land is an essential complement to the fuels reduction on national forest system lands, and necessary to meet the objectives to reduce the spread, intensity, and harm of potential future wildfires.

Air Quality The potential for adverse effects to human health and visibility in Class I airsheds from smoke generated by the proposed prescribed fire treatments was analyzed in

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 119 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Air Quality Report (O’Brien 2015) located in the project record. The analysis was conducted to ensure that the proposed burns are planned and would be implemented to meet the standards mandated by the following:

• National and state policies implementing the Clean Air Act. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s o National Ambient Air Quality Standards o Maine and New Hampshire State Air Quality Implementation Plans o Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire The potential adverse effects of the proposed prescribed fire treatments would be mitigated by the project design features listed in Appendix B that would reduce emissions and haze. In particular, the site-specific burn plans developed for each site would require smoke management techniques and the proper wind, weather, and fuel conditions to ensure rapid dispersal of smoke away from population centers.

Air quality indicators and thresholds most relevant to the proposed prescribed fire include particulate matter emissions less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5); ozone levels of 6 parts per million (8 hour average); and carbon monoxide levels of 9 parts per million (8 hour average). Baseline levels of these indicators in the analysis area are low. Alternatives 2-5 would temporarily increase amounts of particulates and pollutants but would not cause nonattainment of federal or state regulations. Smoke may be seen in the immediate area for several days after ignition but not in concentrations that would adversely affect public health. The Class 1 airshed nearest to the project area is 17 miles to the west and visibility there would not be measurably degraded.

Prescribed fire treatments are planned in the adjacent Four Ponds project area and nearby wildlife openings. The proximity of these projects with the proposed burns would require coordination to ensure that smoke is managed and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not exceeded by burning large units simultaneously. These requirements are project design features listed in Appendix B.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100.

Climate and site conditions – light levels and duff thickness -- are important factors in the maintenance of oak-pine communities into the future. The increases in temperature and precipitation expected through 2035 are not predicted to be detrimental to the establishment or maintenance of oak-pine communities ((Kunkel et al. 2013). The report Changing Climate, Changing Forests: The Impacts of Climate Change on Forests of the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada (Rustad et al. 2012) indicates that climate change over the next

120 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment 100-200 years will favor oak-pine forests in the project area. The report studies three climate scenarios, all of which conclude that weather patterns will be favorable overall for oak-pine communities; however the report also indicates that weather will not be the sole factor in oak-pine communities continuing or becoming the dominate tree species in the northeast. Factors such as disturbance regimes and site conditions such as those proposed in this project will be important factors in establishment of the oak forests.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 121 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Water Resources

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Water Resources Report (Johnson 2015) located in the project record. Background This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on water resources in the project area and in the larger 12-digit hydrologic unit (HUC12) watersheds containing the project area. A map of streams and subwatersheds analyzed in this report is included in Appendix G – Water Resources Maps. The analysis also ensures consistency with the following Forest Plan’s goals for water resources:

• Surface waters on the White Mountain National Forest are considered “outstanding resource waters,” and water quality is maintained or improved to protect existing and designated instream water uses such as aquatic life (pp. 1-17 and 1-18); • The Forest Service will manage streams at proper functioning condition to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality (p. 1-18). Public concerns about water quality, adequate riparian buffers, and mapped streams are also addressed in this analysis.

Stream Mapping Many wetlands and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams in the project area were not mapped on existing USGS topographic maps or as part of the National Hydrography Dataset, and flow regimes were incorrect on some that were mapped. The Forest Hydrologist and other trained personnel walked the project area to update and correct maps with accurate stream and wetland locations and information, in particular in those areas that could be affected by the proposed activities. Perennial streams included in this analysis are shown on maps in Appendix G. Locations of other streams are in the project record.

Perennial streams were identified if stream flow persisted during the driest time of year, or, at other times, by secondary indicators such as presence of fish, upstream springs or seeps, vegetation type, and other indicators. Since intermittent and ephemeral streams can be difficult to distinguish without frequent observation, many ephemeral streams are likely mapped as intermittent streams. Upstream areas without defined, continuous channels or mineral soil or bedrock exposure were considered “ephemeral flow areas” in accordance with Maine best management practices (MFS 2010).

The flow regime and site-specific conditions define the minimum level of protection required to avoid long-term effects to water resources. If stream flow regimes or channel locations are found to differ based on field observations by qualified personnel, stream reclassification and any appropriate protection

122 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment measures would be applied during project implementation to protect water quality and comply with the Forest Plan, applicable laws, and State best management practices (see Appendix B - Design Features).

Effects Indicators and Measures Table 34 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects to water quantity and water quality, which are the relevant resource elements studied in this analysis.

Table 34. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to water resources Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Stream flow does not Basal area removed does substantially increase or Water quantity not exceed 25 percent of a Hornbeck et al. 1993 decrease due to management watershed activities Percent of watershed with mineral soil disturbance (comparative)* Aust and Blinn 2004 Concentration of surface Water quantity runoff is minimized best management practices Stafford et al. 1996, Croke and for drainage are considered Hairsine 2006, MFS 2010 and incorporated into proposal (qualitative) Change in runoff and peak Water quantity and Percentage of a watershed flows; sediment and nutrient Elliot and Vose 2005 water quality burned (comparative)* effects MFS 2012 Channel capacity, shape and Number of stream crossings Water quantity and 2005 Forest Plan, Water velocity; sediment and Capacity of stream crossings water quality Resources, Stream Crossings phosphorus inputs to withstand high flows G-3 (p. 2-31) Impervious cover does not Change in runoff and peak Center for Watershed Water quantity and exceed 10 percent of flows; sediment, nutrient, Protection 2003; water quality cumulative effects area dissolved oxygen effects watersheds Morse and Kahl 2003 Basal area removed does Siemion et al. 2011; Wang et not exceed 20 percent of a Chemical changes (pH, al. 2006; Baldigo et al. 2005; aluminum, nitrate) are below watershed Water quality Lawrence and Driscoll, 1988 thresholds harmful to aquatic No more than 15 percent of 2005 Forest Plan Vegetation life and human uses a watershed harvested with Guideline G-1 (p. 2-29) even age regeneration Length/area of soil 2005 Forest Plan Riparian and Sediment loads/ total disturbance within 100 feet Water quality Aquatic Habitat Guidelines 5, phosphorus of stream or pond 6 and 7, (p. 2-25) (comparative)* best management practices for sedimentation and/or spill Water quality effects are MFS 2010; 2005 Forest Plan, prevention are incorporated Water quality limited to temporary, short- Water Resources, Soil and into proposal where ground term changes Water Conservation S-2 disturbance and/or chemical use occurs(qualitative) *comparative indicators do not have a defined threshold based on literature, so analysis focuses on comparisons among alternatives, including the no action alternative, and outcomes of similar activities in other areas

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 123 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Existing Conditions Watershed conditions related to the need for action are described in Chapter 1.

The project area is located in the following HUC12 watersheds:

• The Kezar Lake watershed drains into the Saco River just east of the New Hampshire state border in Maine. • The Songo Pond-Crooked River watershed drains into Sebago Lake. Perennial streams in the project area include Great Brook, Beaver Brook, Goodwin Brook, Hannah Brook, Bartlett Brook, Meadow Brook, Albany Brook, Willard Brook, and unnamed streams. The Crooked River is adjacent to and immediately downstream from the east side of the project area. Additional water bodies in the project area include Virginia Lake, Number 8 Pond, Lombard Pond, Kneeland Pond, Round Pond, and Crocker Pond; and unnamed wetlands, seeps, and vernal pools. Kezar Lake and Kewaydin Lake are major water bodies immediately downstream from the project area. Many unnamed perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams exist in the project area, some of which were newly mapped as part of this analysis.

Surface water intakes for two municipalities are downstream from the analysis area and there are no public water supply wells in the project area (MDEP 2014).

Water Quantity and Watershed Condition Increases in water quantity can affect the proper functioning of watersheds by concentrating or changing the direction of flow, intercepting surface or ground water, forming new channels, or increasing sedimentation. Water quantity in streams is directly related to annual precipitation rates but may be influenced by human alterations such as stream crossings (culverts, bridges, and fords) on roads and trails, and by changing vegetative conditions and evapotranspiration rates in the watershed. Some of the 24 stream crossings in the project area are undersized culverts as noted in Chapter 1. Virginia Lake has a dam on the outlet, as do Kezar Lake and Kewaydin Lake downstream from the project area.

The Kezar Lake and Songo Pond-Upper Crooked River subwatersheds are classified by the Forest Service as Properly Functioning (Class I). Sources of nonpoint source pollution occur on private land in the upper portion of the Crooked River watershed (Williams 2012). The Conservation Plan for the Kezar River, Kezar Lake, and Cold River watersheds identify a spectrum of threats to proper functioning including residential development, new and existing roads, invasive species, recreational vehicles and practices, point source pollution, sedimentation, poor forest harvest practices, and nutrient runoff.

Water Quality Basic water quality data and water samples collected from 2011-2014 in and near the project area indicate low baseline pH and high total aluminum concentrations, which are typical across the WMNF (Hornbeck et al. 2001). This may be due to naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of these watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids, and human-caused acid deposition effects.

124 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Sampled streams averaged low turbidity (suspended sediment), with higher values during high flow periods. Based on observation of bed material, sedimentation is generally limited to the area near soil disturbances.

The Crooked River and its tributaries and minor tributaries to the Saco River in the project area have been assessed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection as having water quality sufficient to support some designated uses, however all freshwaters in Maine are affected by mercury from acid deposition and are impaired for fish consumption. Otherwise, these waters appear to meet state water quality standards to support aquatic life such as fish and macroinvertebrates (MDEP 2012). The State of Maine designates tributaries to the Saco River in the project area as Class A waters, Crooked River and its tributaries as Class AA waters, and waters on the White Mountain National Forest as outstanding natural resources. These designations require that water quality be maintained under state antidegradation provisions (State of Maine 2009b).

Virginia Lake and wetlands greater than 10 acres in the towns of Stoneham and Lovell are protected under Maine Forest Service rules. These measures include preservation of shoreline integrity, shade retention within a 250 foot buffer, and standards for skid trails, landings, roads, and stream crossings. Water bodies with greater than 300-acre drainage are subject to similar standards under MFS rules, though the shade retention zone is 75 feet. A map of buffer zones associated with Maine Forest Service rules was generated by the State of Maine and is included in the project record. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to water resources encompasses the Great Brook and Kewaydin Lake watersheds, and tributaries to Crooked River in the project area (Appendix G). This area was chosen because it includes all streams draining the project area. The analysis period for direct and indirect effects is 10 years in the past and 20 years in the future. Water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management and temporary disturbance would subside within 10 years of implementation (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000). Project implementation is expected to occur over approximately ten years.

Alternative 1- No Action

Water Quantity Current trends in water quantity in the project area would continue and be influenced by natural events, precipitation levels, and any management actions not related to this project. Without the benefit of the proposed restoration actions and application of best management practices, hydrology in the project area would remain affected by channelized flow in roads, trails, and ditches. Wetland

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 125 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

hydrology along some existing roads and trail segments would remain altered. The existing 24 stream crossings and their individual capacity to withstand high flows would remain the same. No culverts would be removed or replaced to improve hydrologic function of channels and wetlands. Stream reaches that are currently unstable due to undersized culverts would remain unstable and would likely lead to road washouts, which are already known to occur in some locations. Adverse effects to water would continue in disturbed areas. Road maintenance in the project area would continue and may disturb soil and affect water resources; however use of best management practices would reduce or eliminate adverse effects.

Water Quality Current trends in water quality would continue. Ongoing management activities would protect water quality and existing uses with Maine best management practices, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and site-specific Soil and Water Conservation Practices.

Soil disturbance within 100 feet of streams and ponds would continue with road and trail maintenance, camping in riparian areas, and other areas impacted by past and present activity. Riparian camping along Great Brook, dispersed camping in wildlife openings, and camping on the shore of Virginia Lake could be an ongoing source of sediment, nutrients, and bacteria, and not in compliance with Forest Plan guidance and Maine best management practices, although the level of impact would likely remain within water quality standards. Effects on water quality from nutrient and bacteria levels from human uses in the project area would continue.

Water quality in short stream reaches near undersized stream crossings would continue to be affected by localized erosion and sedimentation.

Table 35. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to water resources, by alternative Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Highest percent of basal area removed in 18 11 18 18 any watershed (percent) Potential acres with mineral soil disturbance and percent of analysis area disturbed 145/0.9 98/0.61 125/0.77 146/0.9 (acres/percent) Highest percent of prescribed fire in any 17 3 17 17 watershed Number of permanent stream crossings in 21 21 21 21 the project area Number of temporary stream crossings (rehabilitated after project operations) in the 46 19 39 46 project area Acres of potential soil disturbance within 14 8 12 14 100 feet of waterbodies

126 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Alternatives 2-5 Table 35 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to water resources. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to water resources follows the table.

Direct and Indirect Effects Water Quantity

Timber Harvest Changes in vegetation from timber harvesting, mechanical fuel reduction, and release treatments can alter evapotranspiration rates and stream flow. Research indicates that measurable increases in annual water yield may occur when basal area in the watershed is reduced by 25 percent or more in a 10-year period (Hornbeck et al. 1993). The greatest amount of basal area proposed for removal in any watershed is 18 percent under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 (in Beaver Brook Tributary 8), and 11 percent under Alternative 3 (in Lombard Brook and Albany Brook Tributary 9). These values are conservative estimates because additional basal area would be retained with implementation of design features to protect scenery. Based on this analysis and best available science, any localized increase in water tables and headwater stream flow would be virtually undetectable in the main stem of first order or larger perennial streams. Increases would occur primarily during low flow periods and would dissipate within about 3 - 5 years due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al. 1993). Therefore, no detrimental direct or indirect effect on water quantity or channel function is expected from vegetation management under any action alternative. A map of subwatersheds used in analysis is in Appendix G and detailed calculations are in the project record.

Prescribed Fire The highest percentage of a watershed proposed for prescribed fire is 17 percent in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, (in the Meadow Brook Headwaters watershed) and 3 percent in Alternative 3 (in the Beaver Brook watershed). Prescribed fire is not proposed in all watersheds.

In contrast to wildfire, prescribed fire typically has minimal or no effect on hydrologic processes like canopy interception, infiltration, runoff, and evapotranspiration because the canopy remains relatively undisturbed and much live vegetation remains in place (Baker 1988). Based on published studies of partially burned watersheds, any change in water quantity would be expected to be highly localized and abate in 1- 2 years as vegetation regrows (Edwards and Troendle 2012). Potential effects include locally wetter conditions in the burn unit or small amounts of overland flow that are dispersed by vegetation or litter layers before reaching a water body. There would be little or no measurable effect on infiltration or overland flow because prescribed fire in the WMNF typically leaves much of the forest floor intact (USDA Forest Service 2010). Burning only part of a watershed further reduces the likelihood of hydrologic effects (Elliot and Vose 2005).

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 127 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

A small direct effect of prescribed burning on hydrology would be withdrawal of surface water for fire suppression. This would be limited, temporary, would not occur during drought or low flow, and would affect no more than 5 percent of mean annual flow under any alternative.

Overall, there would be no detrimental effect on water quantity or channel function from prescribed fire under any action alternative.

Watershed Restoration This work would occur in the Great Brook, Beaver Brook, and Virginia Lake watersheds. There would be a direct beneficial effect on water quantity in one tributary to Virginia Lake where the stream has been diverted into a ditch and the proposed culvert work would result in maintaining summer low flows and returning high flows to the original, stable channel.

Removal of existing culverts as proposed in the action alternatives would restore free-flowing, stable stream channels or wetland drainages. Existing alterations in channel shape, and in some cases, diversion of high flows down roads or ditches, would be remedied. This would bring sites closer to the free-flowing condition specified for Class AA waters in the Crooked River watershed. This beneficial effect would be slightly smaller under Alternative 3, in which two culverts in the inventoried roadless area along Great Brook would not be removed.

Replacing undersized culverts as proposed in all action alternatives would improve channel function by increasing the capacity of the crossing to accommodate high flows. Properly sized and constructed stream crossings allow channel-forming flows and flood flows to pass unimpeded and prevent years of scouring and changes in channel shape (University of New Hampshire 2009).

Rehabilitation of approximately 1,800 feet of legacy road or skid trail beds would occur in the Beaver Brook, Virginia Lake, and Kewaydin Lake Tributary 1 watersheds. Water bars or cut trees placed at specified intervals would disperse water onto vegetated ground and promote infiltration of water into the soil instead of the current artificial concentration of overland flow. Where natural stream channels cross these corridors, channel function would improve by disconnecting these channels from the road or trail bed. The reduction in basal area from use of cut trees would not be enough to exceed the 25 percent basal area removal threshold in any watershed.

Altogether, this work would increase overall mineral soil disturbance by less than 2 acres for all alternatives. Because the need for action is to apply best management practices for drainages where they were not previously applied, any adverse effects would be minimal and offset by the beneficial effects resulting from the repair and improvements made to watershed function.

Recreation Improvements The proposed campsite closures at Virginia Lake and along Great Brook (Alternatives 2-5) and the construction of new sites on the east side of the Hut Road (Alternatives 2, 4, 5) would have minimal effect on water quantity since flows are not being withdrawn or diverted. Tree removal for campsite

128 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment construction would not cause a watershed to exceed the 25 percent basal area removal threshold and soil disturbance (estimated to be about 0.1 acres) would be mitigated by best management practices and project design features. Channel function in Great Brook would improve as the former campsites revegetate and improve dissipation of flood flows and soil infiltration.

Decommissioning the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail segment east of Lombard Pond would retain all trees and disturb the minimum area of ground needed to remove crossing structures and install proper drainage features. The new route would move the trail farther from streams, ponds, and wetlands, improving compliance with best management practices and Forest Plan guidance. The existing trail bridge over Lombard Brook is undersized and located on a bend, resulting in minor deposition and scour. This crossing would be improved to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for stream crossings and would thus better accommodate expected flows. Overall, trail relocation and decommissioning would improve hydrology by reducing the number of stream crossings and the number of disturbed corridors that may intercept flow.

Transportation Transportation proposals include construction and use of new roads, landings, and skid trails; reconstruction and maintenance of existing roads; and decommissioning of existing roads and trails. The associated potential mineral soil disturbance, is greatest under Alternatives 2 and 5, least under Alternative 3, and intermediate under Alternative 4. All action alternatives would disturb 0.9 percent or less of the 25 square mile analysis area. This includes activity in currently disturbed areas that would improve hydrologic function in the long term, and no detrimental effect on water quantity or channel function would be expected related to overall level of disturbance under any action alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 5 would use 35 landings (16 new), Alternative 3 would use 24 landings (12 new), and Alternative 4 would use 27 landings (12 new). Location, construction, and use of new and existing landings would adhere to project design features, best management practices, and Forest Plan guidance to protect water resources (Appendix B). Landings in the WMNF typically revegetate and normal hydrologic function returns within a few years after project closeout (See soil resources report; Donnelly et al. 1991; USDA Forest Service 2013). Because of the landing locations, reuse of previously disturbed areas, and temporary nature of disturbance, no direct or indirect effects on water quantity would occur under any alternative as a result of the proposed landings.

Research indicates that roads and some skid trails could affect water quantity if they change the direction of flow, intercept surface or ground water, or concentrate flow in ditches (Gucinski et al. 2001). Existing roads and skid trails would be improved to meet standards before use so no effects to hydrology would occur. Location and construction of new roads and skid trails would include design features, best management practices, and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to minimize effects on hydrology (Appendix B) with slope limits, waterbaring, cross drainage to disperse water to vegetated areas, and stream buffers. These practices reduce concentration of flow, formation of gullies, and effects to riparian areas. New road segments proposed in the Beaver Brook

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 129 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

watershed (0.3 miles) would follow ridges, have adequate drainage, and would avoid steep slopes and riparian areas. New roads in the Goodwin Brook watershed (less than 0.2 miles) would connect existing road segments on dry, well-drained ground. In the Meadow Brook-Kewaydin Lake watershed, proposed roads (1.0 miles) are located outside riparian buffers except at crossings, allow for adequate drainage, and follow a combination of ridgelines and contours.

Based on literature and project monitoring, hydrologic effects due to skid trail construction, which accounts for most of the acreage disturbed, would be minimal and would dissipate within a few years as skid trails revegetate (Crook and Hairsine 2006; USDA Forest Service 2010).

The number of permanent stream crossings in the project area would decrease from the existing 24 to 21 under Alternatives 2-5. New stream crossings, including the new crossing on Beaver Brook if it’s needed, would be located, designed, and constructed to accommodate expected flood flows and minimize disturbance in the riparian area. Replacements or permanent crossings would accommodate flood flows in accordance with Forest Plan guidance, so overall, the ability of crossing locations to accommodate high flows would increase. No temporary crossings currently exist in the project area; however 46 would be used in Alternatives 2 and 5, 39 in Alternative 4, and 19 in Alternative 3. Temporary crossings of perennial streams would be designed to accommodate flood flows with a 4 percent or greater chance of occurrence (the 25-year flow; see Forest Plan Water Resource, Stream Crossings G-5), but could temporarily restrict passage of the flood waters if a rare event occurs. Other temporary crossings would be implemented in accordance with applicable state BMPs. Monitoring of temporary crossing sites on recent WMNF timber sales has found close-out was consistent with BMPs and no permanent hydrologic alteration occurred (USDA Forest Service 2013; USDA Forest Service 2014a).

All new roads proposed in this project would be closed or converted to winter trails after use, drainage structures would be pulled or maintained, and road beds would revegetate by the end of the analysis period, recovering a degree of normal hydrologic function. Minor, localized changes in hydrology would be expected where cut and fill or ditch construction interrupts the direction of ephemeral flows for a short distance. This effect is small enough in extent and severity that it would not be expected to yield a measurable change in the flows of intermittent or perennial streams.

Road maintenance on existing roads would maintain or upgrade drainage features therefore no negative effect on hydrology would occur. Reconstruction may involve minor relocations and drainage improvements which would benefit hydrology by allowing more streams to flow freely in their original channels. Road decommissioning would have no effect or a slight positive effect on channel function as the areas revegetate.

These actions would increase consistency with Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-7, Water Resources (Soil and Water Conservation Practices) S-1, S-5, G-1 and G-3, and Maine best management practices on the existing transportation system.

130 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Water Quality

Timber Harvest Research, site-specific conditions, proposed buffers, and other design features indicate that adverse effects to water chemistry would not occur if basal area removal in a watershed is restricted to 20 percent or less. Because the maximum removal in any watershed in any alternative would be 18 percent, no adverse effects to water chemistry would occur as a result of the proposed timber harvest. Beaver Brook Tributary 8, which has the highest removal at 18 percent, would be treated mostly with selective cutting which would reduce effects as compared to an equal amount of clearcutting. The proposed timber harvest is also consistent with Forest Plan Vegetation Guideline G-1 which limits even-age treatments in a watershed.

At smaller scales such as intermittent streams, changes in water chemistry such as an increase in nitrate or dissolved base cation concentrations could occur, but would be far below thresholds for negative effects and would abate within a few seasons as vegetation regrows (Brown and Binkley 1993, Clinton 2011, Martin et al. 2000). The additional basal area retention for scenery protection discussed above would reduce potential effects even further. Based on the best available science and the extent and type of the proposed timber harvest, no detrimental direct or indirect effect on water chemistry would occur as a result of the proposed timber harvest.

Riparian buffers are effective in preventing sediment and associated pollutants from reaching streams as a result of timber harvest (Clinton 2011, Chase et al. 1995, Binkley and Brown 1993). Table 36 summarizes the minimum buffer widths planned for streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, seeps, and vernal pools in the project area. Relatively continuous canopy cover would be retained for at least 100 feet on either side of first and second order streams, and the forest floor would be protected from soil-disturbing activity for 50 feet or more, with this distance increasing with slope (2005 Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-1, G-2, G-5 and G-6). Site-specific protection for intermittent streams would follow Maine best management practices (MFS 2010) for minimizing soil disturbance and maintaining bank stability to prevent sedimentation. In addition to buffers, all streams would be protected by implementation of Forest Plan Guideline G-15 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Forest Plan, p. 2-26), which prohibits harvest of bank-stabilizing trees, as well as Maine best management practices and design features developed to address site-specific conditions. During project planning, wetlands, springs, ponds, and vernal pools have been identified for protection in accordance with design features, best management practices, and Forest Plan guidance. Ponds and vernal pools have a 100-foot riparian management zone, and water bodies greater than 10 acres receive additional protection under Maine shoreland standards.

See table 36 for a summary of site-specific riparian management, Appendix B for detailed design features to be implemented to protect water resources, and Appendix G for maps of water resources in the analysis area.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 131 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 36. Riparian management descriptions for water body types in the project area Stream reach Stream order Minimum buffer width 300 feet: 25-foot no cut, plus 275-foot Great Brook below the confluence of Willard Brook 3 uneven-age management Mapped perennial streams: Great Brook, Beaver Brook, Goodwin Brook, Hannah Brook, Bartlett 100 feet: 25-foot no cut, plus 75-foot 1 or 2 Brook, Meadow Brook, Albany Brook, and Lombard uneven-age management Brook Previously unmapped perennial streams*: Beaver Brook Tributary 5, Beaver Brook Tributary 1, Beaver Brook Tributary 8, Great Brook Tributary 2, Great 100 feet: 25-foot no cut, plus 75-foot 1 Brook Tributary 3, Meadow Brook Tributary 4, uneven-age management Meadow Brook Tributary 1 where specified in design features 75 feet: uneven-age management Other previously unmapped perennial streams 1 only** 100 feet: No even-age regeneration Intermittent streams in units 3, 32, 56, 69, 115, and 0 treatments shall occur within 100 feet 116 of bank. 25 to 165 feet filter area meeting Other intermittent streams 0 Maine best management practices; leave bank-stabilizing vegetation. 100 feet uneven-age management Virginia Lake, Number 8 Pond, Lombard Pond, N/A only and comply with Maine shoreland Kneeland Pond protection. 100 feet uneven-age management Other ponds, lakes, identified natural vernal pools N/A only. No ground disturbance except at approved crossings with proper Other identified wetlands, springs, ephemeral flow N/A mitigation; comply with Maine areas shoreland protection for wetlands greater than 10 acres *”Previously unmapped perennial streams” are streams mapped during this analysis that do not appear on the USGS maps or in the national hydrology dataset.

The riparian management descriptions noted in table 36 are consistent with recommendations in the scientific literature for protection of water quality (Aust and Blinn 2004, Lee et al. 2004, Wilkerson et al. 2010). Soil disturbance within 100 feet of streams or ponds would be negligible due to the nature of proposed treatments and project design features (Appendix B). Forest monitoring indicates that sediment may move within units, but is unlikely to reach water bodies due to the forest floor, microtopography, and regenerating vegetation (Croke and Hairsine 2006, Stuart and Edwards 2006; USDA Forest Service 2010). A review of ten years of water monitoring data did not find sediment or turbidity concerns in WMNF watersheds with similar types of activity (USDA Forest Service 2010). Therefore, no detrimental direct or indirect effect to water quality from sedimentation is expected from timber management activities proposed in any action alternative.

The fuels reduction proposal to remove ladder fuels (limited live vegetation) and the proposed release treatments would not cause soil disturbance or changes in basal area or water chemistry; therefore no effects would occur to water quality.

132 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Prescribed Fire The proposed light intensity prescribed fire on Albany and Cecil Mountains would not exceed 17 percent of the area of any watershed under any alternative. The burns would occur high in the watersheds on well-drained soils. About 1,400 feet of headwater streams occur in the planned burn area on Albany Mountain, and no streams occur in the Cecil Mountain burn area. No fire line would be constructed in riparian areas.

Research (Richter et al. 1982, Elliot, Vose 2005, Beche et al. 2005 ) and WMNF monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2010, USDA Forest Service 2011, USDA Forest Service 2012) indicate that prescribed fire that burns just part of a watershed, retains much of the forest floor, and includes riparian buffers would cause no detectable change in sediment or nutrients in streams. The burn units are designed with all of those parameters; therefore, no detrimental effect on water quality would be expected under any alternative.

Watershed Restoration Work would occur in and near stream channels with heavy equipment, and all actions would adhere to best management practices, state regulations, and Forest Service policies required to protect water quality (USDA Forest Service 2012, MDEP 2003). Approximately 1.2 acres would be disturbed in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 and 1.0 acres in Alternative 3. All alternatives would result in short-term increases in sedimentation and turbidity; however measures such as working at low flows, temporarily diverting flow out of work areas, using sediment barriers, establishing vegetation, and others would minimize changes in turbidity and observable sedimentation (USDA Forest Service 2012) and keep these short-term effects below the Forest Plan standard (S-2) for Water Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Figure 11 illustrates an example of waterbarring in a decommissioned road segment.

Figure 11. Water bar added to a decommissioned legacy road in 2012, within two weeks of completion

Restoration actions on old roads and trails would disturb soil at the site of waterbarring or other drainage work, with very low levels of sediment reaching the stream during operations. Because these features would be designed to drain over undisturbed forest floor, the need for action to disperse flow onto vegetated ground would be met and direct or indirect adverse effects on water quality due

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 133 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

to sediment would not occur. This work would improve consistency with Forest Plan guidance for soil and water resource protection and Maine best management practices.

The risk of water quality effects from chemicals associated with equipment use would be reduced or eliminated by using best management practices during project operations

The long-term objectives discussed in the need for action section in Chapter 1 would be met by all alternatives. The integrity of roads, trails, and stream channels would be restored and protected; current levels and sources of erosion and sedimentation would be reduced or eliminated; reduced potential for washouts would allow for continued access; and barriers to aquatic species would be eliminated.

Recreation Improvements The proposed campsite closures at Virginia Lake and along Great Brook (Alternatives 2-5) and the construction of new sites on the east side of the Hut Road (Alternatives 2, 4, 5) would reduce human use and ongoing disturbance at existing sites within 100 feet of the water. There would be a small, beneficial effect on water quality by reducing the likelihood that nutrients, bacteria, or fuel, or sediment generated by human uses would reach the water.

No decommissioning actions on the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail segment east of Lombard Pond would occur within 100 feet of streams or ponds, aside from structure removal and any stabilization needed at the Lombard Brook crossing. One intermittent stream crossing would be eliminated by moving the snowmobile trail upslope and onto a road corridor. The existing bridge crossing on Lombard Brook would be improved to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for stream crossings (Forest Plan p. 2-31), reducing sediment inputs from scour at this site.

Transportation There is a low risk of changes in water chemistry from vehicle fluid leaks or use of vehicles near water resources. New roads and landings are excluded from riparian areas (except for stream crossings) and design features, best management practices, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects during construction would be implemented. Random sampling of 110 harvest areas in Maine found just one instance of chemical spillage (minor dripping) and no instances of chemicals reaching a water body (MFS 2012). The risk of direct or indirect effects on water chemistry from roads and landings proposals is minimal. Chemical effects from these proposals would be indistinguishable from background levels.

Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin and Hornbeck 1994) and are related to the area of disturbance (Gucinski et al. 2001). Alternatives 2-5 would add 2.4 to 6.5 acres of soil disturbance within 100 feet of water bodies. There would be an additional 6.0 to 7.1 acres of rehabilitation and decommissioning with the potential for short-term disturbance but also a beneficial long-term

134 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment reduction in sediment mobilization. The largest difference between alternatives is primarily a result of less road maintenance and skid trail use in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Design features would exclude new landings within 100 feet of perennial streams or, if landings extend into this zone, additional measures would be implemented as needed to avoid sedimentation and meet Forest Plan guidelines (Forest Plan 2005, p. 2-25). These measures may include restricting fuel storage and transfer areas, keeping landings off slopes leading directly to stream banks, and erosion control measures such as silt fence, hay bales, and slash filters. The existing and proposed log landing locations are in well-drained, gently sloping areas unlikely to cause sediment to break through filter areas. Maine best management practices would prevent landings from extending into specified filter areas or directing concentrated runoff into a water body. As illustrated in figure 12, White Mountain National Forest monitoring indicates that with careful site selection and application of best management practices, sedimentation was prevented and the sites revegetated within a few years (USDA Forest Service 2013, USDA Forest Service 2012, USDA Forest Service 2011, USDA Forest Service 2010). The most recent state evaluation of landings and haul roads on timber harvests in Maine supports this conclusion, with only one out of 110 sites having a landing or haul road in a filter area with measurable sedimentation (MFS 2012).

Figure 12. Landing in White Mountain National Forest timber harvest area, six years after use with application of best management practices

Stream crossings on new road construction would disturb a total of up to one- quarter acre, depending on the alternative. No other new road segments are proposed within 100 feet of water bodies, in wetlands, or along ephemeral drainages that rapidly transport sediment. Winter use of the new road segments would further minimize soil disturbance and sedimentation. Sediment effects from these road segments are expected to be indistinguishable from background levels.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 135 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternatives 2-5 would implement 4-5 acres of road reconstruction and maintenance within 100 feet of water bodies, with the most planned for the road on the east side of Virginia Lake. Risk would be reduced in this area with a design feature for additional erosion control measures. While short-term sediment input is expected, the resulting improved surfaces and drainage would reduce sediment movement (NCASI 2000).

Skid trails account for the greatest amount of potential soil disturbance in this project with 1-5 acres of disturbance within 100 feet of water bodies. Skid trails would avoid stream or pond management zones except at stream crossings. Although not planned, if site conditions require skidding in a stream or pond management zone, Forest Service personnel would approve the location and assign additional sediment control measures to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan and Maine best management practices such as water bars, ditches with cross drainage, erosion barriers, properly-sized stream crossings, and slope limitations. These would prevent water from draining down skid trails and carrying sediment to streams. Figure 13 depicts regrowth of vegetation one year after use.

Figure 13. A skid trail in a White Mountain National Forest timber harvest area, one year after use with application of best management practices

Approximately 175 feet of an existing skid trail may fall within 50 feet of an intermittent tributary to Virginia Lake because of ledge features upslope; this location has been approved for use based on its elevation above the brook, short length in the stream management zone, and ability to mitigate effects with best management practices. Skid roads and trails would revegetate within 2 to 3 years of use and have no more than a temporary impact. The anticipated skid trail system appears to meet and generally exceed Forest Plan guidance for skid trail location. Because of application of Forest Plan guidelines and State best management practices, direct and indirect effects on sedimentation due to skid trails would be negligible in all areas except stream crossings under all action alternatives. Skid trail monitoring in recent years has not found sediment from skid trails reaching streams, with the exception of stream crossings as discussed below (USDA Forest Service 2013).

136 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Three permanent stream crossings would be eliminated in this project, 10-12 temporary crossings would be used on haul roads, and skid trails would use 2 - 11 crossings on perennial streams and 7 - 23 crossings on intermittent streams. Stream crossing approaches and structures have higher potential to increase sedimentation than do other road segments. Estimated increases in sedimentation rates for Alternatives 2-5 would be 0.25 kilograms/hectare compared to 0.1 kilograms/hectare in the existing condition. This is an imperceptible difference relative to reported background sediment yields of 40-150 kilograms/hectare/year in New England (Martin et al. 2000) or the natural rates of 6-141 kilograms/hectare/year in uncut forested watersheds studied at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (Martin and Hornbeck 1994).

Most crossings in the project area are on winter-use roads and skid trails. New or replacement crossing structures on perennial streams would be designed to pass bankfull flows, expected flood flows, sediment, and wood loads in accordance with Forest Plan Guidelines (p. 2-31). Temporary crossing structures would adhere to Forest Plan direction, Maine best management practices, and design features (Appendix B) to protect bank stability and minimize sedimentation. Stream banks would be restored after project operations.

Since sedimentation risk increases with the number of crossings, Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the greatest risk, followed by Alternatives 4 and 3, respectively, however, the immeasurable, short-term sediment inputs would remain well within the normal range of variability under any alternative.

Given the additional design features in place, direct and indirect effects on sedimentation from all transportation activities would not exceed scattered instances of trace sediment input and rare cases of measurable sediment input on a temporary basis. An increase in short-term, localized sediment inputs may occur under any alternative, but activities such as road maintenance and reconstruction would decrease long-term sediment inputs. This would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, which allows effects of limited extent and duration that do not permanently degrade water quality if all appropriate measures have been taken to minimize effects. The difference among alternatives is negligible compared to background levels of sediment transport.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects encompasses the Kezar Lake and Songo Pond- Upper Crooked River watersheds, totaling about 100 square miles. This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effects of activities in other parts of the Kezar Lake, Kewaydin Lake, and Crooked River watersheds along with the proposed activities, including portions of the Four Ponds project located just to the north of this project, and timber harvests on private lands to the south of the project area. Effects of project activities would be masked by dilution further downstream. The analysis timeframe for cumulative effects is 10 years in the past and 20 years into the future, because water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management would be expected to subside in this period due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000). This project proposes changes to infrastructure that have a longer lifetime than 20 years, but trends should become apparent within ten years of implementation.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 137 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

The analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that have similar actions or effects include:

• Four Ponds Integrated Resource Management Project. • Patte Mill Brook Road maintenance and reconstruction. • Broken Bridge Pond dam repair. • Great Brook Watershed Restoration. • Ongoing road and trail maintenance, including relocations and bridge/culvert replacements. • Permanent wildlife opening maintenance. • Past timber harvest on private lands (452 acres). • Planned timber harvest following the sale of private land parcels (1,345 acres) to include thinning, limited patch cuts, 2 miles of road construction, and 60 miles of skid trail use. • Additional private timber harvest (712 acres) scattered throughout the analysis area.

Where specific timber harvest treatment information is not available, high estimates of intensity and disturbance were used to conduct a conservative analysis of cumulative effects. Where specific information about particular effects indicators is unknown (such as number of stream crossings, and area of soil disturbance near water), the alternatives are compared qualitatively based on projected changes in the analyses area.

Alternatives 2-5

Water Quantity and Water Quality

Timber Harvest The cumulative effects analysis for water resources evaluated basal area removal from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvests listed above. To be conservative, harvest on private land assumed 100 percent basal area removal unless more specific information was obtained from the landowner.

Cumulatively, basal area removal would average 4 percent in the Kezar Lake watershed and 5 percent in the Upper Crooked watershed. These rates are far below the 25 percent threshold for water quantity effects and the 20 percent threshold for water quality effects. In addition, with just 4 percent of the analysis area in regeneration harvest conditions, the Forest Plan threshold limiting regeneration harvests in first and second order watersheds to 15 percent over five years would be met. Given that timber harvest in the analysis area would be below thresholds for effects, even using conservative values, no detectable cumulative effect from basal area removal on water quantity would occur at the watershed scale.

138 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment No cumulative effects on water quality from sediment as a result of timber harvest and release treatments or mechanical fuel reduction would occur because implementation of Maine best management practices (applicable on private and national forest system lands), Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and additional site-specific design features would minimize soil disturbance within 100 feet of water bodies. Research and monitoring indicates that harvest units are a very minor sediment source on managed forest lands.

Prescribed Fire No cumulative effects on water quality or quantity related to prescribed fire are expected, since no detrimental direct or indirect effects are anticipated under any action alternative.

Watershed Restoration No cumulative effects to water quantity would occur since no water withdrawal is planned for watershed restoration activities. Cumulative effects to channel function would be beneficial as a result of the additional restoration activities, road work, and trail relocations included in other projects in the analysis area. No detrimental cumulative effects on water chemistry are expected from these activities because Forest Plan guidance, Maine best management practices, and proper planning and usage would minimize chemical spills or releases near water. Any sediment inputs would be temporary, localized, and below water quality protection standards. Cumulative benefits would occur as banks are stabilized and erosion reduced from the projects in the analysis area. Sediment reductions may be evident at the first or second order watershed scale as discussed in the direct and indirect sections above, but are unlikely to be detectable at the larger watershed scale.

Recreation Improvements and Transportation No detrimental cumulative effects on water quantity or quality would occur because these projects are designed to reduce existing effects to water resources, and protect against new effects. There would be small, beneficial effects on channel function and water quality and no effect on overall water quantity due to improved compliance with best management practices.

Impervious cover affects water quantity by increasing runoff and peak flows, and may also change water chemistry, particularly if the watershed exceeds 10 percent impervious cover (Center for Watershed Protection 2003, Morse and Kahl 2003). Considering all projects and the existing condition, total impervious cover in the cumulative effects analysis area would average 2 percent, which is far below the 10 percent threshold. No cumulative effects on water quantity or quality are expected as a result of this indicator.

No adverse effects to water quality from sediment or turbidity would occur as a result of recreation or transportation projects. A high estimate of ground disturbance would average 2.5 percent of the cumulative effects area, which is a small increase over the existing 2.3 percent. While disturbance such as road maintenance, building construction or renovation, agriculture, timber harvest, and recreation in and near water would occur on private land, the small increase

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 139 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

would not cause detrimental effects to water quality in the analysis area. Since disturbance within 100 feet of streams and water bodies in the project area would result in temporary, localized sediment input or reduced sediment input, such effects would not overlap sufficiently in time and space with other activities to have an adverse cumulative effect on downstream water bodies

Sediment sources on both national forest system lands and private lands are a known concern and are being addressed and mitigated by local organizations. Sediment and associated nutrient inputs have not reached detrimental levels in downstream water bodies, as evidenced by the low phosphorus levels and high clarity of Kezar Lake relative to other water bodies (FBEA 2012) as well as the Class AA status of the Crooked River. The potential for sedimentation is declining as protective measures required by the State and the Forest Plan are updated and made more effective than past measures in past forest management projects. Research and monitoring results translate to improved project designs including riparian buffers, location of roads, landings, and skid trails away from water, and appropriate operating seasons. These measures are consistent with the Kezar River, Kezar Lake and Cold River Conservation Plan strategies to “ensure that all timber harvesting within the watersheds be conducted according to Best Management Practices” and “guarantee that logging roads and skid trails are well-built and provide adequate drainage while minimizing erosion” (Ward and Duffy 2008). The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are similar in scope and nature to other projects completed on similar watersheds in the White Mountain National Forest, and water quality monitoring has not identified detrimental effects related to sediment or associated nutrients in downstream lakes or rivers, including public water supplies, as discussed in monitoring reports (USDA Forest Service 2010; USDA Forest Service 2012; USDA Forest Service 2014a). The lack of sediment or nutrient impairments in waters draining the White Mountain National Forest is further evidence that recent management has not had a detrimental effect on these measures of water quality (MDEP 2012, NHDES 2012).

Though there are numerous stream crossings in the cumulative effects analysis area with unknown effects, the effects of this project are unlikely to overlap in time or space with effects of other crossings sufficiently to have a detrimental impact on water quality or quantity. Therefore, no effect or a beneficial effect on channel function and sediment would occur in the long term.

Climate Change and Large-Scale Disturbance

Alternative 1 See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountain region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100. A summary of climate change trends related to water quality and quantity (Johnson and Cate (2014) is in the project record and incorporated by reference in the following discussion.

Climate trends over the past century include warming temperatures, fewer snow- cover days, and reduced snowpack that would indicate lower peak flow, a trend that is expected to continue (Campbell et al. 2011, Rustad et al. 2012). Data in

140 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment this region since 1970 indicate a trend toward higher annual precipitation, and more frequent heavy rainfall events.

Climate change effects to water resources during the analysis timeframe would be small and subject to annual variability of climate patterns. Water quality could be affected by acidification during storm events, though acidity may be lower during snowmelt (Rustad et al. 2012). Without taking the proposed actions to correct undersized crossings and erosion, potential high flows from heavy rain events could impair channel function and increase streambank instability, risk of washouts, and sedimentation. Existing drainage features could be ineffective with high flows and cause streams to form on roads and trails. These effects would be unlikely to cause water quality impairment within the next twenty years, but would be part of a trend toward increasing sediment mobilization during more frequent, intense storms.

Alternatives 2-5 Warming temperatures and fewer snow-cover days will shorten the period of suitable conditions for winter timber harvest and snowmobiling. Project operations would be adjusted as needed to occur only during suitable frozen or dry ground conditions, and the proposed changes to snowmobile trails would reduce erosion and sedimentation during marginal snow cover and high flow conditions.

The proposed activities would not measurably increase streamflow or runoff and are located and designed to minimize sedimentation from intense rain events. The short-term, localized sedimentation expected during project implementation would not increase due to the slightly higher frequency of intense rain events expected from climate change. While climate change may reduce snowpack and summer flows in the analysis area, the potential slight increases in water quantity resulting from the project’s basal area removal, although not measurable, may offset any reduced flows caused by climate change during the analysis timeframe.

Overall, no detrimental cumulative effects from climate change on water resources are expected.

Summary of Environmental Effects to Water Resources Table 37 summarizes the effects to water resources based on the resource indicators. None of the proposed activities would exceed the thresholds where adverse effects may occur. Where thresholds are not identified, application of best management practices, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines ensure that all effects would be within acceptable and required limits for resource protection.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 141 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 37. Summary of effects on water quantity and water quality Resource Resource Indicator Measure Effects on Resource Element Element Stream flow does not Basal area removed does All action alternatives are below substantially increase or Water quantity not exceed 25 percent of a threshold; no more than temporary, decrease due to watershed localized effects. management activities 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent of analysis area watersheds disturbed by action Percent of watershed with alternatives, compared to less than 0.1 mineral soil disturbance percent in no action. (comparative)* Best management practices are Concentration of surface Best management Water quantity adequately considered in proposed runoff is minimized practices for drainage are project; no measurable detrimental effect considered and to water quantity; beneficial effect of best incorporated into proposal management practices implementation (qualitative) for watershed restoration relative to no action. Change in runoff and No more than 17 percent burned; much Water quantity Percentage of a watershed peak flows; sediment and less (3 percent) in Alternative 3. Only and water quality burned (comparative)* nutrient effects temporary localized effects. Permanent crossings decrease from 24 (no action) to 21 (action alternatives) Number of stream 19 to 46 temporary crossings in action alternatives only; may have short term, Channel capacity, shape crossings Water quantity localized effects. and velocity; sediment and water quality Capacity of stream and phosphorus inputs crossings to withstand high Long-term beneficial effect due to fewer flows and larger permanent crossings. Minor, temporary effects possible during rare storm events (

142 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Generally, the effects to water resources under each alternative are directly related to the extent of the proposed activities - greatest under Alternatives 2 and 5, intermediate for Alternative 4, and least under Alternatives 3. Since basal area removal is greatest under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, localized effects in some watersheds would be greater than in Alternative 3. These may include temporarily wetter conditions and changes in water chemistry in small drainages that would not violate water quality standards. The locations, area, and light intensity of prescribed fire would have no effect on water quantity and quality.

Under all action alternatives, the watershed restoration work would lead to long- term improvements in channel function and reduced sedimentation over the existing condition. Alternatives 2 and 5 would disturb the greatest amount of soil but the area is less than 1 percent of the analysis area and would have no measurable effects to water resources. All action alternatives would have the same number of permanent stream crossings, and under all alternatives additional benefits and minimum effects to water quantity and quality would accrue from stream crossing replacements and application of best management practices for the approaches in the riparian areas.

The recreation improvement actions are intended in part to address existing conditions and concerns with effects to water resources from camping along water bodies and snowmobile travel in wet areas. The actions will therefore serve to protect water quality over time.

The amount of disturbed area, locations selected, and application of best management practices for work on roads, skid trails, and landings would prevent detrimental changes in water quantity or quality. Riparian area protections would also prevent sedimentation. Some localized, trace sediment may reach streams in association with ground- disturbing work, but this would be within allowable disturbance limits and would not permanently degrade water quality.

No effects to water resources would occur as a result of the fuels reduction activities (removing ladder fuels near the national forest boundary).

Examination of conditions and actions in the wider cumulative effects analysis area during the timeframe where effects would be evident, including timber harvest on private lands, indicate that no measurable cumulative effects to water resources would occur.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 143 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Report (Prout 2015) located in the project record. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on riparian and aquatic habitat and ensures consistency with the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines for protection of riparian and aquatic habitats.

Effects Indicators and Measures Relevant resource indicators studied in this analysis include the following:

1. Stream temperature is an important environmental variable which affects the growth, reproductive, abundance, and landscape distribution of fish. Natural daily changes in stream temperature may affect the behavior of individual fish, but land use changes may affect seasonal or annual growth, reproduction, or abundance of fish populations. White Mountain National Forest analyses use the average July temperatures when designating stream thermal class: coldwater streams average less than 18ºC; coolwater streams average between 18-21ºC; and warmwater streams average greater than 21ºC. 2. Stream connectivity refers to the ability of a stream to move water, organisms, stream sediments, and in-stream wood freely within the natural capacity of the stream network. The occurrence of both man-made (culverts and dams) and natural barriers (waterfalls, beaver dams, landslides) influence stream connectivity within a watershed. Barriers or constricted channels at stream crossings can degrade habitat above and below the crossing by limiting the movement of woody debris, sediment, and migration patterns, and also by eroding roads and water quality, stream habitat, and aquatic life (Flanagan 2005). 3. In-stream habitat quality and productivity is most influenced in the White Mountains by the risk of aluminum toxicity from episodic acidification; excessive sedimentation from roads associated with logging activity or large natural floods; and the status of in-stream large woody debris and pool habitat area. Table 38 displays these indicators and the measures used to determine the effects to thermal class, connectivity, and fish habitat.

144 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 38. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to riparian and aquatic habitat Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Eaton etal.1995; Magee Stream thermal class: Number of perennial Loss of coldwater 2006; Hartman and Cox coldwater, coolwater, streams changing thermal streams 2008; Lyons etal. 2009; warmwater class Beauchene etal. 2014 Barriers to movement Number of stream of fish, aquatic life, and crossings acting as fish Stream connectivity Flanagan 2005; Gowan and in-stream sediments barriers improved or Fausch 1996. and wood. eliminated Siemion et al. 2011; Wang Number of watersheds et al. 2006; Baldigo et al. Degradation of stream In-stream fish habitat where greater than 20 2005; Lawrence and fish habitat conditions quality and productivity percent basal area is Driscoll, 1988 removed 2005 Forest Plan Vegetation Guideline G-1 (p. 2-29) MFS 2012 Number of temporary perennial and intermittent 2005 Forest Plan, Water Resources, Stream stream crossings needed Crossings G-3 (p. 2-31) Number of undersized culverts improved or Flanagan 2005 removed *Coldwater streams average less than 18ºc in July; coolwater average between 18-21ºc.

Existing Conditions

Stream Thermal Class Wild populations of brook trout are the dominant fish and aquatic vertebrate species in the project area, thriving in all perennial streams. Adult landlocked salmon from Kezar Lake migrate into Great Brook in the fall to spawn, and young salmon may be found in lower Great Brook as a result. None of the streams are stocked by fisheries management agencies or groups.

Most of the streams in the project area are coldwater streams, although some reaches may approach coolwater status in warmer years depending on summer weather patterns from year to year. July temperatures in Great Brook average 16- 18°C. Fish sampling in Great Brook just downstream of Red Rock Brook confirms the presence of only one fish species, wild eastern brook trout, and the population is typical of a moderately productive coldwater stream in the White Mountains. Further downstream, just above the mouth of Willard Brook, fish sampling confirms a healthy moderately productive wild brook trout population.

While coolwater streams can provide quality habitat for eastern brook trout, they generally have a variety of other species not found in colder temperatures. It appears that these other species may not be able to access many stream reaches in the project area, probably due to steep bedrock and waterfalls that prevent the movement of smaller species higher up into the watersheds. Therefore some stream habitats in the project area could exceed the coldwater stream threshold, but still provide quality habitat for only brook trout.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 145 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Stream Connectivity Overall stream connectivity is very high in the project area, although many of the watersheds are isolated from each other due to natural features. Streams are naturally fragmented by lakes, waterfalls, beaver dams, and steep ledge features.

Several undersized culverts that create barriers to some sizes of fish during certain flows occur on:

• National forest roads crossing tributaries to Crocker Pond and Round Pond; these culverts are planned for upgrade when the road is reconstructed as decided in the Four Pounds Integrated Resource Management Project. • Town or private roads crossing Beaver Brook near the national forest boundary, Bartlett Brook between Keewaydin Lake and Virginia Lake, and Meadow Brook (Birch Avenue crossing). Given the low slope of both the streams and the culverts at these locations, adult fish certainly can move through these at lower flows. None of the culverts on national forest roads create fish barriers on Great Brook, Beaver Brook, Goodwin Brook, Hannah Brook, or Meadow Brook. Permanent stream crossings on national forest lands on these brooks are either bridges or are culverts on very small tributary streams which provide little or no fish habitat. In general, many national forest roads used for forest management are closed after harvesting is complete in the area and culverts are removed until needed for future management; however in some instances culverts are still in place over very small streams for snowmobile trails or other uses. Most of these are located on the Goodwin Brook Road (FR722) in the Beaver Brook watershed. Although these culverts are not serving as fish barriers because there is no suitable upstream habitat, they are altering stream connectivity in terms of sediment transfer.

Even with many natural barriers to fish movement, brook trout are found in all major streams in the project area, including in Great Brook above the bedrock ledge above the mouth of Red Rock Brook; and above several large ledges or waterfalls above the mouth of Willard Brook and Dwyer’s Falls near the national forest boundary. Spawning adult landlocked salmon have been observed as far upstream as Dwyer’s Falls in 2012, but not above the first small waterfall below the mouth of Beaver Brook in years of lower stream flows (Stantec 2012). Brook trout are also found in Hannah Brook, Goodwin Brook, and Meadow Brook which all flow into lakes and also in isolated reaches of Great Brook. Connectivity is unaffected by culverts in these drainages.

In-stream Fish Habitat Quality and Productivity

Eastern Brook Trout Wild eastern brook trout dominate the perennial streams in the project area with populations in Great Brook, Beaver Brook, Goodwin Brook, Hannah Brook, Meadow Brook, and Albany Brook, and as noted above, these populations are somewhat fragmented by natural features like waterfalls and lakes. Habitat conditions are typical of the White Mountains except in upper Great Brook where an intensive habitat restoration project added many downed trees in an effort to

146 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment increase pool habitat and fish cover for wild brook trout. Most of the restored area is located upstream of the activities proposed in this project.

Habitat conditions found within streams of the project area provide suitable habitat to sustain populations of wild brook trout, however are considered to be of average quality for the White Mountains. The amount of quality pool habitat and woody debris appear to increase the density and abundance of all age classes of brook trout in the White Mountains. Pool habitat quality seems to be limited by a lack of localized scouring (around downed wood or boulders) rather than by excessive sediment that reduces pool depth. This generally results in high quality habitat utilized by smaller fish rather than deep pool habitats preferred by larger fish. Based on both stream habitat surveys and field observations, streams within in the project area are typical of brook trout streams of similar sizes and slopes in the White Mountains, overall trout productivity is most influenced the availability of deep pool habitat and numbers of larger fish using this habitat.

Habitat conditions are also influenced by water quantity and quality. Sampling of brook trout within Great Brook has shown that both number and size of fish can vary widely from year to year, despite a lack of any major human-caused land disturbance in several decades. Numbers of young trout born and surviving in a given year fluctuated dramatically in Great Brook from 1994 to 2010. Floods, droughts, or episodic acid conditions all may influence brook trout populations in combination with physical habitat conditions. The ability of the brook trout to spawn at both a young age and small size allows White Mountain populations to endure catastrophic events such as droughts and floods that can reduce growth or increase mortality. High water velocities, lower pH, stream bank failures, high sediment loads, all may occur during floods, and low pool availability during droughts, all are natural events that shape brook trout populations in time within the project area. Despite these influences through time, if streams remain flowing, cold, with a pH above 5.3, and mobility not highly constrained by barriers, the age structure and the population size may change through time, but populations are highly sustainable.

Kezar Lake Landlocked Atlantic Salmon Great Brook is also known for its late fall run of spawning landlocked Atlantic salmon. The brook flows into Kezar Lake which is a low productivity coldwater and coolwater fishery with relatively light fishing pressure. It has the capacity to grow some larger salmon and is managed by the state to promote fewer but larger salmon. The lake is stocked with young salmon raised in a fish hatchery, and there is evidence of successful natural reproduction in Great Brook.

The abundance of smelt as the primary prey of landlocked salmon strongly influences the number and size of salmon in Kezar Lake. Other predators such as lake trout compete for this prey, and the state ceased stocking lake trout in 2001 in an effort to reduce competition for smelt and increase the average size of salmon. Fish surveys since 2008 indicate increases in a wild population of lake trout with poor growth conditions, possibly indicating a stressed prey base and increased competition for food between lake trout and salmon in the lake. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reduced the stocking rate of salmon in an effort to prevent further reductions in individual fish growth rates.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 147 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Productivity and forage conditions in the lake require that coldwater predator populations be maintained at relatively low levels to ensure consistent and reasonably good fisheries in terms of size and quality (MDIFW 2012).

Anecdotally, public perceptions suggest that past land uses have degraded Kezar Lake and its salmon fishery, and some publics see the spawning of salmon in Great Brook in the late fall as an indicator of existing ecosystem health and high environmental quality of the area. However, the health of the adult salmon fishery in Kezar Lake is greatly influenced by the complex and invisible interaction of the densities of salmon and lake trout, and their prey, the smelt. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife recently compiled and interpreted historical creel survey, stocking, and prey data which provides an explanation of changes in the Kezar Lake fishery over time, much of it based on changes in fish stocking and the prey base (Pellerin 2012). Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on riparian and aquatic habitats includes Great Brook and all land east of Great Brook from the mouth of Red Rock Brook to Kezar Lake, the Beaver Brook watershed, the Virginia Lake watershed (includes Hannah and Goodwin Brooks), the Meadow Brook watershed, Bartlett Brook, and Albany Brook watersheds, as well as Kezar Lake. This area was chosen because it includes the major perennial streams draining the project area as well as the adult habitat (Kezar Lake) of landlocked salmon which spawn in Great Brook. The analysis period is 10 years in the past and 20 years in the future because the temporary soils disturbance and effects to the forest canopy would subside within 10 years of implementation (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000) and also because the project could be implemented over a 10- year period.

Alternative 1- No Action

Stream Thermal Class The forest canopy along and over streams within the National Forest would continue to be protected by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Openings created by natural tree fall would not change stream thermal classes, however extreme weather events could cause changes in some reaches. Headwater streams would most likely remain as coldwater habitats.

Stream Connectivity Stream connectivity in the project area would remain high, with the existing natural and man-made constraints (undersized culverts) remaining. The undersized culverts on town roads adjacent to the national forest would likely remain but would likely be passable by adult fish in average summer stream

148 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment flows. Intermittent streams, primarily in the Beaver Brook watershed, may continue to have connectivity issues, resulting in localized sedimentation to intermittent stream channels.

In-stream Fish Habitat Quality and Productivity Aquatic habitat and productivity would be similar to conditions over the last ten years, impacted by localized random bank erosion, tree falls, and changes in aquatic life abundance as downed wood recruitment continues to occur. Some localized sedimentation would continue from Goodwin Brook Road due to existing undersized culverts and from natural bank slumps such as the one on Beaver Brook. Land use changes on private lands in the downstream ends of watersheds may increase sedimentation effects on habitats and stream productivity. No changes in aluminum mobility would occur, assuming current air quality regulations do not change.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 39 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to riparian and aquatic habitat. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to riparian and aquatic habitat follows the table.

Table 39. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to riparian and aquatic habitat, by action alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Resource Indicator Measure 2 3 4 5 Stream Thermal Class: Number of perennial coldwater, coolwater, streams changing thermal 0 0 0 0 warmwater class* Number of stream crossings Stream connectivity acting as fish barriers 1 0 1 1 improved or eliminated Number of watersheds In-stream fish habitat where greater than 20 0 0 0 0 quality and productivity percent basal area is removed Number of temporary perennial and intermittent 46 19 39 46 stream crossings needed Number of undersized culverts improved or 12 10 12 12 removed *Coldwater streams average less than 18ºc in July; coolwater average between 18-21ºc.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Stream Thermal Class No changes in perennial stream thermal class on any reach would occur as a result of the proposed timber harvests. Wilkerson et al. (2006) showed that stream temperatures in western Maine may increase approximately 1-4°C after

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 149 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

clearcutting with no buffers or clearcutting with a partially cut 35-foot buffer. Streams with partial cuts to the stream edge and clearcuts with 75-foot partially- harvested buffers did not show statistical significant increases in stream temperatures. The Albany South project is designed with more restrictive harvesting and buffers than Wilkerson’s study, so no measurable changes in stream temperatures are expected. The application of Forest Plan standards guidelines and project design features (Appendix B) to protect water resources, riparian zones, and aquatic habitat would restrict removal canopy shade along streams, and there would be no measurable impact on stream temperatures, especially since tree removal would not occur within 25 feet of a perennial stream except in crossing locations.

Forest Plan direction allows for group harvests in riparian management zones of up to one acre beyond a 25-foot no cut buffer, however additional protection is provided in this project as follows (see Appendix B):

• Group selection cuts will not occur within 50’ of all mapped perennial streams in the Beaver Brook and Meadow Brook watersheds, as well as the following unmapped perennial streams: Beaver Brook Tributary 5 in unit 47 and Beaver Brook Tributary 1 in unit 49. Single tree selection may still occur outside of the 25’ no cut zone. The purpose of extending the additional 25’ buffer of group cuts in these two watersheds is because they have average July water temperatures approaching the coldwater/coolwater thermal class. By extending the buffer for group cuts, the potential for any small increases in summer water temperatures that approach the coolwater threshold are avoided.

Landings, road construction, and temporary stream crossings associated with vegetation management, as well as campsite management actions, snowmobile trail relocation, watershed improvements, and prescribed burning would not change the thermal class of any stream reach within the project area. Adhering to Forest Plan guidelines, Maine best management practices, and project design features would limit the size and location of openings within the riparian forest canopy. The best available science suggests that the small area of riparian forest altered by these activities would not cause substantial increases in water temperatures; therefore these activities would not alter the stream thermal class of perennial streams in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Stream Connectivity Alternatives 2-5 will not have a meaningful change on the existing high degree of stream connectivity in the project area. Connectivity is mostly controlled by the mix of wetlands, lakes, and streams which create natural thermal barriers to aquatic organisms across the landscape. Passage of young brook trout in Beaver Brook would be improved if the decision is made to work cooperatively with the landowner to reconstruct the road crossing which currently has an undersized culvert. The culvert is not a barrier to adult trout under most normal flows, but placement of a bridge would improve passage of younger fish and also improve more efficient transport of sediments and woody debris. Improvement of this crossing would have some minimal benefit to fish population health due to increased fish passage, but more benefit to the movement of wood and sediments through the brook.

150 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment While there is a range in the number of stream crossings needed for timber harvesting between the alternatives, the effect of stream connectivity is minimal for all alternatives. The use of temporary bridge crossings over perennial streams would result in no negative effects to stream connectivity under any alternative. All action alternatives make small improvements in the connectivity of intermittent streams due to the removal of old culverts after project implementation is complete.

In-stream Fish Habitat Quality and Productivity While there are differences by alternative in the amount of land disturbed, roads constructed, temporary stream crossings needed, and landings used, the potential for sediment delivery to streams and effects to fish habitat would be minimized and dispersed across the landscape over different time periods. The best available science indicates that sedimentation of the magnitude and duration potentially occurring in any alternative could locally effect fish growth, fish egg survival, and stream invertebrate production, but the free movement of fish and other aquatic life would allow areas to quickly re-colonize. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 propose more timber harvesting and use of temporary stream crossings than Alternative 3, and therefore would affect more streams with potential sedimentation, mostly associated with the stream crossings. The proper location and closeout of stream crossings and use of more bridges than culverts on perennial streams would minimize sedimentation in all action alternatives. Runoff would not increase from tree harvesting in any watershed therefore preventing any indirect effects of bank erosion and channel instability that could degrade instream habitats.

Sediment yields from the transportation system associated with vegetation management are expected to be within the normal range of variability in each watershed under any of the alternatives (see water resources section). Therefore implementation of any action alternative would have only minor and localized effects to fish habitat and productivity and not have any detrimental effects to brook trout populations or landlocked salmon reproduction in any drainage. Application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and project design features, combined with focused oversight of harvest operations and road work by Forest Service staff, would reduce the potential for long-term sedimentation effects. Only minor and short-term effects would occur.

Sedimentation to Great Brook under any alternative would be minor given the location of harvesting, the low number of stream crossings, and the application of protective measures for all proposed activities (Appendix B). Effects to landlocked salmon spawning habitat would be unlikely in all alternatives because stream crossings are so far removed from spawning habitat in the lower portions of Great Brook (below Dwyer’s Falls).

The watershed improvements proposed under Alternatives 2-5 would eliminate localized chronic sedimentation from old road stream crossings, resulting in a net reduction in long-term sedimentation. Benefits to brook trout populations would be difficult to measure due to the small and isolated sources of sediment compared to the overall available habitat in the Beaver Brook watershed.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 151 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Removal of forest products from the project area is not likely to cause increased acidity or the mobilization of aluminum, known to be toxic to fish, as discussed in the water resources section of this chapter. None of the watersheds will exceed a removal of 20 percent basal area in any alternative, therefore no detrimental direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected due to timber management, road management, prescribed burning, recreation management, or watershed improvements in any of the alternatives, combined with the prior effects from acid deposition.

With no perennial stream catchment proposed for more than 20 percent removal of basal area, there would be no or minimal effects to aquatic insect communities (Kreutzweiser et al. 2005) so negative effects to brook trout growth rates or populations is highly unlikely. This is especially true for brook trout in New England which are dependent on terrestrial insects for growth during the summer months (Sotiropoulos et al., 2006).

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design features would protect riparian stand structure thereby ensuring future woody debris inputs that would continue the long-term trend of increased stream habitat complexity.

No direct or indirect adverse effects on habitat quality or productivity would occur from the proposed watershed improvements, recreation improvements, prescribed fire, or fuels reduction because they are either designed to protect water resources and aquatic habitat, and/or they include the application of the protective measures described in Appendix B. Small local benefits to riparian forest may occur along Great Brook from the campsite relocation.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects is the same as for the direct and indirect effects, except that the entire Great Brook watershed would be included. This area was chosen because many lakes and ponds naturally fragment the project area from other fisheries in the larger watersheds, therefore there is little relationship between other brook trout streams in the larger watersheds that are separated by lakes that serve as thermal barriers. The headwaters of Great Brook and Willard Brook are upstream of the project area but are not fragmented by lakes and ponds. The analysis period for cumulative effects is also 10 years in the past and 20 years into the future to include the time after implementation when effects would subside.

The analysis evaluated the following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects to aquatic habitat and productivity when added to the direct and indirect effects of the Albany South project as described above:

• Four Ponds Integrated Resource Management Project. • 1400 feet of snowmobile trail relocation in the vicinity of Lombard Pond. • Large woody material was added to more than two miles of Great Brook and its tributaries.

152 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • Timber harvest has occurred on approximately 452 acres of non-National Forest land in the cumulative effects area. • Management activities in the next 20 years include ongoing road maintenance, ongoing invasive plant eradication, and ongoing maintenance of trails. Approximately 75 acres of permanent wildlife opening are maintained through mowing, hand brushing, or prescribed burning on an ongoing basis. • A snowmobile bridge replacement is proposed in the Willard Brook watershed for implementation in 2015. • Timber harvest from a single land sale is expected to occur on 1,345 acres abutting national forest lands. Treatments include thinning, with limited patch cuts possible. Approximately two miles of road construction and 60 miles of skid trail use are estimated in association with this project.

Stream Thermal Class, Stream Connectivity, and In-stream Fish Habitat Quality and Productivity Given that there are either no direct or indirect effects on these stream features, or only small minor effects that are well-distributed through time and space, there would be no measurable cumulative effects on stream thermal class and connectivity resulting from the additional actions considered in this analysis (listed above). Also, the predicted potential sedimentation effects on in-stream fish habitat quality due to sedimentation in any one stream, in one year, would be localized and undetectable in three-five years after timber sale closeout.

There could be changes to instream habitat from both past and future timber harvesting on private lands in the analysis area from sedimentation at stream crossings. These areas are isolated to the lower reaches of Great Brook and Beaver Brook, and any sediment input would be highly localized with minimal effects to brook trout populations and spawning landlocked salmon. Thermal class in stream reaches on private land may see shifts from coldwater to coolwater thermal classes if landowners change land use along the lower reaches of Albany Brook, Beaver Brook, and Great Brook in the next 20 years. However, the application of Maine best management practices during land management activities would likely preclude changes in thermal class in the cumulative effects analysis area.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100.

Model projections of air temperature increases due to climate change could translate into an increase of 1.7 ºC in average stream temperature by the year 2035 (Prout 2010), with Meadow Brook, Red Rock Brook, and Great Brook (below Red Rock Brook) potentially transitioning to coolwater thermal classes. Under the action alternatives, brook trout populations would likely be sustained under this climate change scenario because they commonly occur in coolwater stream reaches. Other fish species may increase in abundance in these streams if

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 153 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

their upstream movements are not impeded by natural barriers such as several fall features on Great Brook. The lower distributions of brook trout populations in Meadow Brook and Great Brook may become stressed in years with extreme drought and high air temperatures and cause population distributions to shift upstream. If the no action alternative is implemented, there is no increased risk of streams changing to warmer thermal classes in the next 20 years due to climate change trends.

If riparian areas are clearcut on private lands and climate change trends realized, thermal class in the lower portions of these watersheds could shift. However, there is sufficient habitat on upstream stream reaches within these watersheds on national forest lands to ensure sustained brook trout populations.

If the worst case scenarios for climate change are realized in the next 20 years, it may have some negative effects on wild landlocked salmon spawning success in lower Great Brook. While this may be of concern to local publics as a decrease in environmental quality, ultimately the numbers of salmon in the Kezar Lake fishery will be more sustainably managed by Maine Inland Fisheries biologists who control salmon stocking rates into Kezar Lake.

154 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Soils

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Soil Resource Report (Colter 2015) located in the project record. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on soils and also ensures consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for soils management and requirements for meeting soil quality standards.

Effects Indicators and Measures Soil productivity is defined as the inherent capacity of the soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or sequences of plant communities (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Productive soils help support a healthy and growing forest.

Changes in soil productivity that may result from the proposed activities are measured in this analysis by the potential for erosion, compaction, and changes in nutrient cycling. Erosion would be a concern where project operations expose mineral soil, compaction could occur where machinery operates directly on wet soils, and nutrient cycling changes could occur from loss of biomass from timber harvesting. Table 40 displays these indicators and measures used to determine the effects to soil productivity in the project area.

Table 40. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soils Resource Resource Indicator Measure Source Element Acres of potential USDA-Forest Service Soil Productivity Soil displacement (erosion) sheeting, rilling, and Manual, Supplement R9RO gullying 2550-2012-1 USDA-Forest Service Acres of increased bulk Soil compaction Manual, Supplement R9RO density 2550-2012-1 USDA-Forest Service Acres of lost soil litter and Soil nutrient cycling Manual, Supplement R9RO biomass accumulation 2550-2012-1

Existing Conditions Soils in the project area are common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately-well drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes. These soils are supporting roads, trails, and campsites as well as growth of northern hardwood and softwood forests. These ecological land types inform management decisions to minimize soil disturbance from timber harvesting and recreation activity.

Soil Erosion and Compaction Although this area has a long history of timber harvesting and other human activity, field surveys of the proposed harvest units indicate little existing erosion

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 155 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

and compaction, no deep soil slumps, and no detrimental soil effects that restrict vegetative growth (Colter 2014). The most substantive existing sources of erosion in the project area are those proposed for rehabilitation to protect water resources. Ongoing soil displacement occurs with regular maintenance of roads and trails on national forest and private lands in the project area.

Soil Nutrient Cycling This analysis focuses on soil calcium because loss of soil calcium raises concerns about possible changes in forest health (dieback or decline), productivity, and forest species composition (FEIS, p 3-7). Soil calcium has been depleted from the project area as a result of acid deposition combined with past land uses that removed whole trees from the project area, however there is currently minimal nutrient loss in the proposed harvest units (Colter 2014). Studies show recovery of soils and streams from acid deposition (FEIS 3-26), and whole-tree removal has largely been replaced by conventional, bole-only harvests (leaving tops and limbs on site). This practice has retained approximately 35 percent of the calcium contained in tree biomass. Past timber harvests have successfully regenerated on a variety of soils, aspects, and topographic positions which is an important step in sustaining biomass, soil nutrient cycling, and long-term soil productivity. Successful regeneration is also consistent with silvicultural expectations outlined in the Forest Plan, and supports the view that acid deposition is not currently affecting the project area.

Existing roads and campsites represent areas with lost soil productivity. See the transportation and recreation sections for the extent of those facilities. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The project area comprise the analysis area for direct and indirect effects related to erosion, compaction, and soil nutrient cycling. Total acreage varies by alternative. Soil productivity is a site-specific characteristic; changes in one unit would not extend to an adjacent stand or other areas across a watershed. The timeframe of 10 years past implementation of this project. This timeframe considers effects of the implementation and soils recovery time for this project, and considers other foreseeable soil-disturbing activities. Evidence of erosion, compaction and soil nutrient cycling beyond the timeframe would imply that the soil is not recovering as expected, and effects from this and future activities could be cumulative.

Alternative 1- No Action No increases in erosion or compaction would occur as a result of this project. There would be no changes in biomass accumulation such as removal of trees that could impair soil nutrient cycling. The current sources of erosion would continue since the watershed restoration actions would not occur. Soil

156 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment displacement from ongoing road and trail maintenance would continue. Trends in acid deposition would continue to affect soil calcium to some degree.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 41 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to soil productivity. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to soil productivity follows the table.

Effects to soil productivity may be characterized as non-detrimental or detrimental:

• Non-detrimental effects are those that may temporarily increase erosion and compaction and impair nutrient cycling to some degree, but not eliminate the overall capacity of the soil to support vegetative growth if best management practices and soil and water design features are implemented. For example, skid trails could increase compaction but may be non-detrimental to soil productivity. • Detrimental effects occur when soil productivity is lost until some point in the future when it is restored through rehabilitation actions. For example, road construction would cause detrimental effects to soil productivity.

Table 41. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to soil productivity by action alternative Indicator/Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Non-detrimental soil displacement (erosion) 106.8 67.1 91.7 107.3 (acres of potential sheeting, rilling, and gullying) Non-detrimental soil compaction (acres of increased bulk 105.6 66.1 90.5 106.1 density) Detrimental impaired soil nutrient cycling 3.2 1.9 3.2 3.7 (acres of lost soil litter and biomass accumulation) Restored soil productivity through watershed restoration actions and decommissioning of 11.2 10.3 10.3 11.2 roads, trails, and campsites (acres)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Soil Displacement (Erosion), Compaction, and Nutrient Cycling Forest Service soil quality standards are designed to allow non-detrimental soil disturbance (exposure of mineral soil, compaction, and nutrient cycling) and provide the context to determine how potential soil property changes may affect

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 157 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

ecosystem composition, processes, and function (productivity) (USDA Forest Service Manual, Supplement R9RO 2550-2012-1).

The values in table 41 display the temporary increases in non-detrimental soil erosion and compaction in the analysis area that would follow implementation of the proposed timber harvesting in the action alternatives. The acres of erosion equate to 4.5 percent or less of the analysis areas for each alternative. The acres of compaction also equate to 4.5 percent or less of the analysis areas for each alternative. Timber harvesting under all action alternatives would remove available calcium through tree bole removal, with the most removal from clearcuts, followed by other even-aged treatments then uneven-aged harvests and thinning. Alternatives 2 and 5 would remove the most available soil calcium then Alternatives 4 and 3 in descending order, however none of the alternatives would cause detrimental impaired soil nutrient cycling effects with the proposed timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2005b FEIS, p 3-20).

Indirect effects of the proposed activities on soil productivity are related to the rate and success of revegetation of skid trails, log landings, watershed restoration sites, and road and trail decommissioning. With winter harvesting, log landings and skid trails would recover from compaction two to three years after operations cease (Donnelly et al. 1991; Holman et al. 1978, NCASI, 2004). All disturbed sites revegetate rapidly due to the rainfall, abundant seed sources, and favorable seedbeds common on the WMNF.

Monitoring results from past projects indicate that implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and project design features (Appendix B) would ensure that no detrimental effects to soil productivity would result from the proposed activities with the exception of road and campsite construction as discussed below.

The acres of disturbance to soil nutrient cycling shown on table 41 represent the soil that sits directly below the proposed new roads and campsites. These areas would have detrimental effects to soil productivity and would not produce plants and other microorganisms that allow the soil to cycle nutrients. The acres of lost nutrient cycling equate to 0.2 percent or less of the analysis area for each action alternative. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the road or camping use continues. This detrimental soil disturbance is within the thresholds allowed in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-29 to 3-36).

This project would also restore soil productivity on up to 11.2 acres as a result of the proposed watershed restoration and road, trail, and campsite decommissioning activities (table 41). The restored acres include rehabilitated areas where erosion, compaction, and impaired nutrient cycling are improved.

The remaining proposed activities -- road maintenance, snowmobile trail construction, log landing use, and prescribed fire would affect soil productivity as follows:

• Road and trail maintenance may cause short-term soil displacement, but overall reduces sediment losses (NCASI 2000). Road resurfacing and

158 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment replacing culverts would help prevent future soil erosion problems (Moll et al. 1997). • The short segment of new snowmobile trail proposed under Alternative 3 would be located on a skid trail and would result in short-term reduction of soil productivity during construction activities. Following Forest Plan direction and best management practices related to surface erosion control on trails, timing the construction activities, and controlling drainage would effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. No detrimental soil displacement (erosion), soil compaction, or impaired soil nutrient cycling would occur. • The existing log landings proposed for use are well-placed on gentle terrain. The new landings would be carefully sited to protect resources as required by Forest Plan standards and guidelines, use of best management practices, and implementation of project design features (Appendix B). Use of log landings will have focused Forest Service oversight to prevent long-term soil erosion effects caused by truck traffic and skidder operations on the landing. Landings will have close-out actions that would prevent detrimental soil erosion, compaction, and soil nutrient cycling effects. • Prescribed fire would eliminate some surface soil organic matter, however monitoring of past prescribed fires on the WMNF indicates that fires managed for low-intensity such as is proposed in this project do not get hot enough to burn off all of the surface organic material. The remaining organic matter protects against changes in rainfall infiltration rates, and mineral soil aggregation would not be changed, even after multiple burns. Fire control lines that expose mineral soil would be constructed using minimum impact techniques with no erosion expected. Overall, prescribed fire would have no detrimental erosion, compaction, or soil nutrient cycling effects.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects of soil erosion and compaction on soil productivity is the Kezar Lake and the Songo Pond watershed totaling 64,185 acres. Most of this area (73 percent) is privately-owned. This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effect of activities in other parts of the Kezar Lake, Kewaydin Lake, and Crooked River watersheds including portions of the Four Ponds project within the same HUC12 watershed as this proposal. This watershed scale is not so large that it spatially dilutes the cumulative effects on soil displacement (erosion) and soil compaction, nor is it so small that it fails to identify and consider current and potential use on both national forest and private lands. The analysis timeframe extends from the last timber sale in the project area (1982) to 10 years past implementation of this project. This timeframe considers effects still evident today from past soil disturbing activity and includes the implementation and soils recovery time for this project, and considers other foreseeable soil-disturbing activities. Evidence of erosion and compaction beyond the timeframe would imply that the soil is not recovering as expected, and effects from this and future activities could be cumulative.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 159 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

The analysis area for cumulative effects related to soil nutrient cycling is the same as noted above for direct and indirect effects – the areas proposed for timber harvest – because effects to soil nutrients from the proposed actions will not extend outside the units. The timeframe for this analysis extends from harvesting and associated activities in the early 1900s to ten years into the future which is the reasonable planning horizon for a future harvest in the analysis area. Early and future harvesting is considered because land use may affect soil nutrients, including soil calcium (Hornbeck 1990).

The analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects to soil productivity of this Albany South project. Projects that have similar actions or effects include:

• Ongoing maintenance of permanent wildlife openings through prescribed fire or mechanical methods, road maintenance, ongoing invasive plant eradication, and ongoing maintenance of trails and backcountry campsites. • Snowmobile trail bridge replacement in the Willard Brook watershed. • Timber harvest and associated road work and skid trail use from a single land sale is expected to occur on 1,345 acres abutting national forest lands. • The Four Ponds Integrated Resource Management Project, with relevant actions such as landing use, gravel pits, road construction, road maintenance, skid trails, snowmobile relocations, campsite improvements, and replacement of the Broken Bridge dam.

The projects above would add approximately 1,418 acres of soil disturbance in the cumulative effects analysis area. Of that, approximately 5 acres would be disturbed by new road construction and therefore would result in detrimental effects to soil productivity.

The cumulative soil disturbance from the above actions in the analysis area, when added to the Albany South proposals, would result in 2.5 percent or less of the analysis area disturbed. Actions on national forest lands would include application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Maine best management practices, and project design features. Actions on private lands should include the use of Maine best management practices to limit soil disturbance.

Additional reduction in soil productivity could occur from residential development in the analysis area, with impacts varying by the amount of clearing, excavation, landscaping, and erosion control applied at each site.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of climate change models, trends, and effects on resources related to this analysis.

Any changes to soil productivity as a result of climate change would likely be small and influenced by short-term climate patterns which produce year-to-year variability. The climate change trends over the next 85 years include fewer days

160 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment of snow cover, more frequent large rain events, a greater proportion of precipitation falling as rain, and a slight overall increase in annual precipitation.

Climate change may alter biogeochemical cycling (the movement of elements through the soils, plants, water, and the atmosphere) with potentially profound effects on forest productivity, water quality, and other ecosystem services. Studies related to the availability of important nutrients indicate that water quality may decrease even as net primary productivity increases. Less snow cover could exacerbate soil cation imbalances already caused by acidic deposition, and have widespread implications for forest health here in the northeast.

Relevant to this project and future similar actions and effects to soil productivity, warming temperatures and fewer days of snow cover would reduce the period of time with suitable conditions for winter timber harvest and snowmobiling. Shortened harvest seasons would not change the requirement for frozen-ground conditions during operations, and soil and water protections would be implemented. Monitoring past winter harvests on the WMNF indicates that soil and water conservation best management practices have been applied, any temporary disturbance is consistent with Forest Plan guidance, and soil quality has not been degraded by forestry activities (see USDA Forest Service 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010a). Snowmobilers would also have to adhere to adequate snow- cover requirements and adjust to shortened seasons.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 161 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Recreation

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Recreation Resources Report (Preisendorfer 2015) located in the project record. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on recreation resources and also ensures consistency with the Forest Plan’s goals and objectives for recreation in the project area.

Effects Indicators and Measures The effects indicators used in this analysis were assigned to evaluate consistency with management direction, to address public concerns, and to determine how well the alternatives address the purpose and need for recreation improvements as described in Chapter 1.

Table 42 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects the proposed activities would have on a range of recreation opportunities, experiences and management relevant to this project.

Table 42. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to recreation Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Management actions Changes in ROS Recreation Opportunity visible from hiking and classifications due to Forest Plan Spectrum snowmobile trails, noise, project activities and traffic Prohibition against Public management of development on Reduction in development Conservation easement Virginia Lake area accordance with the conservation easement Changes in the type of Recreation experience at Forest Plan, Conservation Dispersed recreation recreation opportunities at Virginia Lake easement the Virginia Lake beach Recreation experience Changes in camping Dispersed recreation Forest Plan along Great Brook opportunities Improved riding and Snowmobile riding Snowmobile trail Forest Plan, Best reduced miles of intensive experience conditions Management Practices grooming

Existing Conditions Recreation opportunities in the project area include use of forest roads and trails for walking, mountain biking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, driving for pleasure, and access for fishing hunting, swimming, canoeing, wildlife-watching, and other dispersed recreational pursuits. Fishing is most popular at Virginia Lake and Great Brook, and hunters seek out whitetail deer, black bear, moose and small game. Overall use is low when compared to other areas of the White Mountain National Forest, however local and regional visitors value the area for its scenic beauty, quiet setting, and variety of recreational opportunities.

162 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Public access roads include state, town, and national forest system roads. The north end of the project area includes portions of the 2001 Caribou-Speckled Mountain inventoried roadless area and Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 roadless area inventoried for Forest Plan revision in 2005. The Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness borders the project area to the north.

Trails The project area has been managed for multiple land uses for more than 100 years, including timber management. Currently, some hiking and snowmobile trails are located on segments of roads and old skid trails that were originally constructed for forest management activities.

Hiking: Approximately 14 miles of hiking trails traverse the project area. All of these trails receive low use in the summer and fall, and little or no use in the winter and spring.

Snowmobiling: Approximately 16 miles of snowmobile trails are in the project area. Some trails have been closed or unmaintained in recent years due to access or use concerns. The remaining trails receive low weekday and moderate to high weekend use during the snowmobile season. The Stoneham State Trail traverses the project area from east to west and links to Interconnected Trail System (ITS) 80 with local networks in all directions. All trails connect to and use parts of national forest system roads which have been used concurrently with trucking, meaning they are periodically plowed for access and trucking for timber harvest while they remain open for snowmobiling. This is called dual use.

Camping Crocker Pond is a seasonal developed campground located in the northeast corner of the project area. There are seven campsites with and fire rings, picnic tables, a vault toilet, potable water, and trash collection. A fee is charged and use is highest on weekends.

Dispersed camping is allowed throughout the project area except within one- quarter mile of Crocker Pond Campground and the trailheads for the Miles Notch, Great Brook, Albany Brook, and Albany Mountain trails. Most dispersed camping occurs along Great Brook and the beach area on the south end of Virginia Lake, although this area has been closed to camping and fires under a Forest Closure Order since 2013. The expanding clearing and resource impacts at the beach, and the information kiosk installed by the Forest Service in an attempt to manage the impacts, have put continued public ownership of the area at risk because the terms of the conservation easement prohibits such development within 1,700 feet of the shoreline.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The Forest Service uses a tool called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to define and allocate a mix of recreation opportunities across the landscape based on activity, setting, and experience opportunities. The project area includes the following ROS classes:

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 163 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Roaded natural (2,119 acres): the setting appears natural; resource modifications and use are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Evidence of other users is prevalent with low to moderate interaction between users. Facilities are designed and constructed for conventional motorized use. Proposed activities in this ROS class vary by alternative but may include some amount of all proposed actions.

Semi-primitive motorized (3,903 acres): the setting is moderate-to-large, natural or appears natural, with low concentrations of users but evidence of other users is likely. Management, controls, and restrictions may be present but subtle, and motorized use is permitted. Proposed activities in this ROS class vary by alternative but may include road construction and decommissioning.

Semi-primitive non-motorized (1,416 acres): the setting is moderate-to-large, natural or appears natural, with evidence of other users likely but interaction between users is low. Management, controls, and restrictions may be present but subtle, and motorized use is prohibited. Proposed activities in this ROS class vary by alternative but may include the overnight camping closure and rehabilitation at Virginia Lake and the prescribed fire treatment on Albany Mountain. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the project area because effects would be limited to the facilities and experiences in close proximity to the proposed activities. The analysis timeframe is the duration of project implementation, up to 15 years (to include up to three applications of prescribed fire), because effects would cease once the proposed actions cease. The analysis timeframe is extended for effects to scenery which may be evident to visitors for up to ten years after timber harvest after which they quickly revert to a naturally- appearing forest cover (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p 3-447).

Alternative 1- No Action While current recreation opportunities and ROS classes would not change under Alternative 1, changes would occur as a result of not addressing current concerns. Dispersed camping would continue in an unmanaged fashion along the Hut Road with continued impacts that are summarized in Chapter 1 and discussed in the soils and water resources sections in this chapter. The illegal overnight use at Virginia Lake would likely continue because access to the site would not be changed. The existing resource impacts and presence of the small kiosk and parking area could be violations of the conservation easement and puts public ownership at risk. These threats would not be resolved under this alternative.

The current trail system would be retained as is and regular maintenance would continue in the current fashion. The section of the Stoneham State Trail in

164 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment proximity to Lombard Pond would continue to suffer from a poor alignment and require intensive grooming to maintain safe riding conditions. The Old State Cutoff Trail would continue to remain on the trail system but not be used.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 43 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to recreation. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to recreation follows the table.

Table 43. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to recreation, by alternative Indicator/Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Management actions visible from hiking and snowmobile trails, noise, and Changes in ROS class due to traffic in each ROS class are consistent with the settings, recreational project activities activities, and experiences intended for each class. No changes to ROS class would be necessary as a result of this project. Closing the beach to overnight camping and closing the spur road to public motorized use will eliminate the current and potential future level of Compliance with the Virginia development which would violate the conservation easement’s prohibition of Lake conservation easement development within 1,700 feet of the shore. All alternatives remove the risk of losing public ownership of this land.

Changes in recreation Permanent Forest Closure Order – no overnight camping. opportunities at the Virginia Lake beach No public motorized access on FR 308A. Permanent Permanent Permanent Forest Closure Forest Closure Forest Closure Permanent Order* on four Order on four Order on four Forest Closure existing sites existing sites existing sites Order* on four along Great along Great along Great existing sites Changes in dispersed camping Brook. Brook.* Brook.* opportunities at Great Brook along Great Three new sites Brook. Three new sites Three new sites constructed constructed constructed No new sites across FR 4 in across FR 4 in across FR 4 in constructed. the vicinity of the the vicinity of the the vicinity of the closed sites. closed sites. closed sites. Miles of snowmobile trail decommissioned and relocated 0.98 0.86 0.98 0.98 to drier, more stable ground and reduction in intensive grooming Total miles of snowmobile trail 1.62 1.50 1.62 1.62 decommissioned * Campsites closed, rehabilitated, and protected with Forest Protection Area put in place with relocated Great Brook Trail trailhead.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Hiking Trails Under Alternatives 2 and 5, nearly one mile of the Great Brook trail would be affected by timber harvest as it travels on a road prism either through or adjacent to units proposed for individual tree selection or improvement cuts. Five landings, most existing, would be located within 200 feet of the trail and the trail itself would be used as a haul route. Just over one mile of the Miles Notch trail

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 165 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

would be affected by timber harvest as it travels through or adjacent to units proposed for individual tree selection. Nearly one mile of the Albany Notch trail would be affected by timber harvest as it travels through three units proposed for group selection, and one landing would be located near the south end of the trail. Noise and visual intrusions from harvest operations may be observed by hikers but all harvest and timber haul would occur in winter when foot travel is low. The hiking experience would recover greatly within three year after project operations as the trails revegetate, and the harvests would be largely unnoticeable within a decade because of their relative positions on the landscape, the use of partial harvest methods, and the rapid growth of vegetation.

The Albany Mountain prescribed fire area includes the entire 0.4 mile section of the Albany Mountain Spur which would be closed for safety for a short period (1- 2 days) during the burn period. This short closure would occur each time the site is burned (up to three times over a 15-year period). Hikers in other parts of the project area may view or smell smoke during the prescribed fire operations and the evidence of fire would be noticeable along the Albany Mountain Spur although this effect would be minimal during spring burns when hiking use is low, and higher if the area is burned in the fall. Rapid revegetation would obscure the evidence of fire in between prescribed fire operations.

Under Alternatives 3, direct and indirect effects to hiking trails would be greatly reduced because there would be no harvesting along the Great Brook, Miles Notch, and Albany Mountain trails, and no prescribed fire on Albany Mountain so effects from fire are eliminated also.

Under Alternative 4, direct and indirect effects to hiking trails would be reduced from those predicted under Alternative 2 and 5 because no timber harvest would occur along FR 4, therefore effects to the Great Brook trail would be eliminated, and effects to the Miles Notch trail would be reduced.

Snowmobile Trails Under Alternatives 2 and 5, relocating the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail away from wet and muddy areas would improve the riding experience, safety, and possibly extend the season while eliminating the need for intensive grooming in the wet spots. Dual use with logging vehicles would occur on most snowmobile trails in the project area during timber operations, although conflicts would be reduced and safety improved because timber hauling would not occur on weekends or federal holidays when riding use is highest, not all trails would be affected in the same years, and there are trail options to bypass the timber harvest areas. Trails may be closed for a short time for safety. Public notification of logging operations would occur with signs in the project area and posts on the WMNF website.

As with hiking trails, the snowmobile trails travel through or near many proposed harvest units and landings. Harvest methods vary but all would temporarily affect the riding experience during operations but overall the effects would be minimized by terrain features, the units’ positions on the landscape, rapid revegetation along the trails, and a 50-foot slash disposal zone along the trails. In many locations the uneven stand boundaries along the trails would leave uncut

166 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment trees between the unit boundaries and the trail corridor to further mute the visual effects.

Alternative 5 would impact snowmobilers slightly more than the other alternatives because timber from western units would be hauled a greater distance along roads managed for dual use. The sequence and duration of timber operations would influence the effects, however use of the West Stoneham Trail as an alternative to the Stoneham State Trail will provide a route with fewer direct impacts.

Under Alternative 3, fewer harvest units would be adjacent to the Stoneham State trail than under Alternatives 2 and 5. While visual effects to riders would be less, there would also be more need for intensive grooming because several trail segments would be reconstructed as dual use roads which require less trail maintenance (eliminated in this alternative would be reconstruction of FR 4, FR 3346, FR 2018E, FR 3326, and FR 3326A). The greatest effect would be on the section of the Stoneham State Trail that coincides with FR 2018E, FR 3326, and FR 3326A because this section of trail provides a connection to the relocated portion of the Stoneham State Trail that continues east to the junction with the Keewaydin Spur Trail.

Under Alternative 4, fewer harvest units and landings would affect the experience on the Stoneham State trail as compared to Alternatives 2 and 5. Maintenance would be slightly more intense without the reconstruction of FR 4.

Decommissioning the Old State Cutoff Snowmobile Trail will have no effect to existing riding experiences because the trail has not been maintained or used regularly in recent years, and no changes are planned on the ground.

Camping Alternatives 2-5 would initiate permanent closures to prohibit overnight camping at the beach area on Virginia Lake and at the four rehabilitated sites on the bank of Great Brook. For Virginia Lake, a permanent Forest Closure Order would replace the temporary closure that has been in place since July 2013. The Great Brook sites would be closed when the Great Brook Trail trailhead is formally relocated from its current location on FR 4 to the bridge and gate on FR 4 just north of the campsites. All trailheads on the WMNF are designated Forest Protection Areas which prohibit camping and fires within one-quarter mile of trailheads, except in sites designated by the Forest Service. This new Forest Protection Area associated with the relocated trailhead would protect the rehabilitated sites from further impacts, allow camping in the new sites across the road (see below), and also allow continued use of the site known as the swimming hole which is just outside the one-quarter mile protected zone to the south.

All alternatives except Alternative 3 would construct replacement campsites across the road from Great Brook in the same vicinity as the closed campsites, and all action alternatives would eliminate dispersed overnight camping at the Virginia Lake beach area. Overall, the effects to dispersed camping opportunities would therefore be greatest under Alternative 3 due to reduced opportunities for

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 167 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

camping along Great Brook, and less under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 which would construct campsites across the road from Great Brook. Dispersed camping opportunities would remain throughout the project area outside of areas with Forest Closure Orders.

While campers at Crocker Pond Campground and others dispersed across the project area would hear and see harvest operations and associated traffic, most of the project work would occur in the winter when little if any camping occurs, so direct effects of intrusive noise and sights would be minimal.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas classified as Roaded Natural have evidence of past management actions such as timber harvest. The proposed activities would result in landscape modifications that are moderately evident but harmonize with the environment. Project design features would minimize the effects on recreation opportunities. The actions associated with the actin alternatives are consistent with the recreation experiences currently provided in these areas and no changes to the ROS class will result.

Proximity to roads is a key criteria for areas classified as Semi-primitive Motorized. The action alternatives would result in a net decrease of 1.19 miles of system roads in this ROS class in the project area, which would decrease inconsistencies with this ROS class and increase the natural-appearing qualities of the landscape. The variety of silvicultural prescriptions and the associated project design features would assist in harmonizing landscape modifications with the environment during and immediately following harvest activities. As noted above, evidence of harvests would be largely unnoticeable within a decade after harvest. In many locations the uneven stand boundaries along trails would leave uncut trees between units and the trail corridor, further muting the visual effects to visitors. The proposed actions are consistent with the required characteristics of this classification, and therefore no change in ROS class would be needed.

Only the proposed camping closure and site rehabilitation at Virginia Lake and the prescribed fire on Albany Mountain would occur in the Semi-Primitive Non- motorized ROS class. These actions are consistent with the required characteristics of this classification, and therefore no change in ROS class would be needed

Other Recreation Activities Under Alternatives 2 and 5, the sights and sounds of traffic and harvest activity would affect visitors engaging in biking, skiing, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, fishing, swimming, or driving for pleasure, and access to certain areas could be limited during harvest operations. Because timber harvest operations and road use would be winter-only in all but the most eastern proposed units, the effects to visitors would in other seasons would be limited to the visual effects evident after active operations. The effects to recreation in the eastern proposed units would be minor because no developed recreation resources (trails, campsites, etc.) exist.

168 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Quality hunting experiences could be reduced if project operations including timber harvest and prescribed fire temporarily displace animals, however most hunting seasons set by the State of Maine for most species would not overlap with the season of harvest (winter) prescribed in the vast majority of the project area. With only 142 acres proposed for harvest in seasons other than winter, effects to hunters would be minimal. Hunting may improve for a decade after harvest as browse for game species improves.

Prescribed fire would have the same effects on other recreation experiences as described above for trails, however the effects would be less because snowshoeing, skiing, swimming, fishing, and driving for pleasure occur at very low levels if at all in the spring when prescribed fire is commonly conducted. Fall burns on Cecil Mountain would have the potential to affect dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting while ignitions are taking place but the anticipated fire effects are expected to have a more lasting beneficial effect on wildlife habitat and thus in hunting opportunities.

Alternative 3 would have the least overall adverse effects to recreation experiences in the project area because the extent of the proposed actions which could cause intrusive noise, sights, and access issues would be less than those described for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Alternative 4 would have slightly more adverse effects but less than Alternatives 2 and 5.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to recreation is the project area and private lands bounded on the east by Maine Route 5/35, the north by segments of the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness, Albany Mountain, and the Caribou- Speckled inventoried roadless area, the west by Miles Knob and the Hut Road, and the south by private lands and nearby Town of Stoneham, Route 5 and Keewaydin Lake. This area includes all of the proposed actions and captures the entire range of recreation opportunities in the southeastern part of the White Mountain National Forest. The analysis timeframe is ten years in the past and 10 years after the completion of the project activities, at which time scenery modifications would no longer be obvious.

The analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that have similar actions or effects to recreation include timber harvest, maintenance of wildlife openings, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, trail relocation, dam reconstruction and road construction.

Hiking and Snowmobile Trails As more snowmobile trails are relocated onto dual use roads, the trail system as a whole becomes more stable, better-drained, requires less maintenance, and the riding season may be extended as a result. Trail maintenance will be ongoing and continue to address site-specific needs, especially at water crossings.

Trail decommissioning, relocating, and constructing are monitored cumulatively forest-wide to ensure consistency with the Forest Plan objective allowing a net

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 169 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

increase of up to 20 miles of new snowmobile trails and up to 25 miles of new hiking trails. These increases are allowed over the life of the Forest Plan (15-20 years). This project results in a net decrease of trail miles of almost 0.5 miles and therefore is consistent with the Forest Plan objective.

Camping The planned expansion of Crocker Pond Campground as part of the Four Ponds Integrated Resource management Project will add camping options in the project area.

Other Recreation Activities and ROS Classification The recurring maintenance of the permit wildlife openings will contribute to the diversity of wildlife habitat and thus wildlife-related recreation will be maintained or enhanced.

Climate Change

See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100.

The predicted changes in the region’s climate have the potential to affect recreation opportunities in the project area, most notably by decreasing the days with reliable snow cover for snowmobiling by approximately half by 2050. Those trails that are poorly located in terms of solar exposure and proximity to wet areas will be most at risk of shortened seasons. Relocating the Stoneham State Snowmobile Trail will help address this issue by putting the trail in a location that doesn’t require intensive grooming to address perpetually wet areas.

As riding seasons shorten or are eliminated due to lack of snow, use for snow- based recreation may increase at the higher elevations of the White Mountains. Relocating trails to forest roads and replacing stream crossings with structures designed to handle higher flows will lower maintenance needs and improve sightlines and safety; these characteristics better support higher use.

Though the seasons for certain recreation activities may be shortened or lengthened, there is no indication that demand for the recreation opportunities in the project area would be reduced or altered as a result of climate change. People would continue to visit the WMNF in all seasons to enjoy hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, pleasure driving, and winter sports.

Changes to fish and wildlife populations as a result of climate change could reduce or change hunting opportunities. Moose are of concern as noted in Appendix H and climate change could reduce moose populations to a point where the state issues fewer moose licenses.

170 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Roadless

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Inventoried Roadless Area Report (Preisendorfer 2015) located in the project record. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on the roadless character of the 2005 Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 Forest Plan inventory area. Background This analysis focuses on the lands identified during the 2005 Forest Plan revision as meeting the baseline criteria of size and condition to be considered for potential wilderness study or recommendation. These lands were not recommended for wilderness study or designation at that time and now comprise the 3,987-acre Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area. Management area allocations are MA 2.1 (2,773 acres of general forest management) and MA 6.2 (1,214 acres of semi-primitive non-motorized). Approximately 200 acres of these lands are included in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventoried roadless area which lies partly in but mostly to the northwest of the project area. No activities are proposed in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventoried roadless area. Figure 14 displays the inventoried roadless areas in relation to the project area.

Figure 14. Inventoried roadless areas in relation to the project area

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 171 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 44. Legend for figure 14 Legend element Description Orange line Project area boundary Stippled area Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 Inventoried Roadless Area (2005 Forest Plan inventory) Crosshatch area 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Inventoried Roadless Area Black lines Forest roads Yellow lines Hiking trails

Effects Indicators and Measures The analysis evaluates the effects of the proposed activities on the potential for inventoried roadless areas to remain in the inventory, and on their wilderness characteristics.

The analysis first considered whether the proposed activities would alter the roadless area characteristics enough to preclude the Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area’s inclusion in future roadless area inventories. This is measured using Forest Service criteria for roadless areas; five of the eight criteria apply to this project and are displayed in table 45 below.

Secondly, the analysis evaluated the effects of the proposed activities on the wilderness characteristics of the Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area. This is measured using Forest Service wilderness capability characteristics; three of the five characteristics apply to this project and are displayed in table 45.

The roadless inventory criteria and the wilderness capability characteristic are found in the Forest Service’s Land Management Planning Handbook (FSH 1909.12), Chapter 70 Wilderness, sections 71 and 72.1.

172 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 45. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to roadless inventory criteria and wilderness characteristics Resource Element Criteria and Characteristics Measure Criterion 1 - The land is regaining a Acres of harvest* natural, untrammeled appearance. Miles of road construction Criterion 2 - Improvements in the area are being affected by the forces of nature Miles of road construction or rather than humans and are disappearing reconstruction or muted. Criterion 4 - The location of the area is Applicable Inventoried conducive to the perpetuation of Roadless Area criteria wilderness values. Consider the Acres of harvest* Land Management Planning relationship of the area to sources of Miles of road construction or Handbook (FSH 1909.12), noise, air and water pollution, as well as reconstruction Chapter 70 Wilderness, unsightly conditions that would have an sections 71 effect on the wilderness experience. Criterion 5 - The area contains no more Miles of existing road than one-half mile of forest road under Miles of road construction Forest Service jurisdiction for each 1,000 Miles of road decommissioning acres. Net miles road/1000 acres Criterion 7 - Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within the Acres of harvest in last 10 years past ten years. Characteristic 1 - Natural integrity and appearance Addressed by describing the effects a project may have on natural processes in the inventoried roadless area, the extent of modification that will occur in the inventoried roadless area (e.g. length of roads built, facilities constructed), and Applicable wilderness how apparent impacts will be to the visitors in the short and long-term. capability characteristics Characteristic 2 - Undeveloped condition Land Management Planning Measured by reviewing the number of structures, amount of road and facility Handbook (FSH 1909.12), construction, and other evidence of human use and occupation. Chapter 70 Wilderness, sections 72.1 Characteristic 3 - Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation Addressed by describing how project activities might affect the size of the area, the number and type of primitive recreation opportunities available, the opportunity to experience natural quiet, and the addition or absence of facilities. *Acres of harvest includes two numbers. The first number includes only the acres that would actually be cut in group units. The second number includes the entire perimeter of group units, even though 80 percent of those units will not be harvested in this project.

Existing Conditions Access to the Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area is primarily via roads and trails off Maine Route 5 in Stoneham. The area includes a total of 1.63 miles of improved roads which is a road density of 0.41 mile per 1,000 acres. Common recreation uses include snowmobiling, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Approximately four miles of hiking trails and 0.32 miles of snowmobile trails cross the inventoried roadless area. The Stoneham State Snowmobile trail forms much of the eastern and southern boundaries, and the Great Brook and Albany Brook trails are immediately adjacent to the west and east respectively. There are no developed or backcountry recreation facilities in this inventoried roadless area.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 173 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

This area appears natural from a distance and the effects of past management activities are not obvious to the casual observer. Up close, the network of old logging roads, current roads, and other evidence of past land uses are apparent. Visitors may experience noise and visual intrusions from nearby highways, towns, and timber operations. Additional information on the condition of this inventoried roadless area is available in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on roadless and wilderness characteristics is the Caribou-Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area. This area is appropriate because the expected effects would not extend into any other inventoried roadless area. The timeframe for this analysis covers ten years in the past to evaluate potential effects to the roadless inventory criteria regarding harvest within a ten-year period, the complete implementation timeframe (expected to be up to 15 years for prescribed fire activities), and ten years into the future after implementation ceases because after ten years even the most obvious timber harvests quickly revert to a naturally-appearing forest cover (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-447).

Alternative 1- No Action Under this alternative, the land would continue to regain a natural, untrammeled appearance (criterion 1, characteristic 1). The forces of nature would continue to dominate and human improvements would continue to disappear or decline except for existing trails and roads (criterion 2; characteristic 2). No new sources of noise, air and water pollution, or unsightly conditions would be created that would affect the wilderness experience (criterion 4, characteristic 3). Recreation opportunities in the area, and the size of the area, would remain the same (characteristic 3). No new roads would be constructed (criterion 5) and no new timber harvest would occur (criterion 7).

Alternatives 2-5 Table 46 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to the Caribou- Speckled Mountain 2 inventoried roadless area. The effects to wilderness characteristics use these measures as well as qualitative assessments. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects follows the table.

174 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 46. Summary of direct and indirect effects on roadless inventory criteria Roadless Inventory Measures Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Criteria Acres of harvest in the 0 616/738 0 370/510 616/738 inventory area (net/gross)* 1. Natural appearance Miles of road construction 0 0.36 0 0.19 0.36 in the inventory area Miles of road construction 2. Improvements affected or reconstruction in the 0 1.02 0 0.66 1.02 by nature and muted inventory area Acres of harvest 0 616/738 0 370/510 616/738 (net/gross) 4. Location conducive to wilderness values Miles of road construction or reconstruction in the 0 1.02 0 0.66 1.02 inventory area Miles of existing road in 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 5. Less than or equal to the inventory area one-half mile of forest Miles of road construction road per 1,000 acres Miles of road 0 0.36 0 0.19 0.36 (1.99 miles = maximum decommission 0 0.59 0 0 0.59 allowable density) Net miles of road per 1000 0.41 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.35 acres in the inventory area 7. Less than or equal to 20 Acres of harvest in last 10 percent harvest in last 10 0 0 0 0 0 years in the inventory area years (20% = 797 acres) *Acres of harvest includes two numbers. The first number includes only the acres that would actually be cut, and the second number includes the entire perimeter of group units, even though 80 percent or more of those units would not be harvested in this project.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Criteria 1 and 7, Characteristic 1: The skid trails, stumps, and openings resulting from 616 acres of timber harvest and 0.36 miles of new road construction would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance in a small part of the inventoried roadless area. The proposed harvests would occur on 15.5 percent of the inventoried roadless area which is below the maximum threshold of 20 percent harvest in the last 10 years. The greatest impact on appearance would be from the three proposed clearcuts totaling 52 acres; however the visual effects of all harvests would be temporary and largely unnoticeable within a decade as the areas revegetate rapidly, and design features would be implemented to reduce visual effects (Appendix B). Road construction would have a more long-term effect on the appearance of the area, but the new construction would be offset by 0.59 mile of road decommissioning so the overall modification would be low. New roads would be winding, tree-lined dirt roads and closed to vehicle use after operations, and so visual effects of new roads would affect only visitors using the roads for non-motorized recreation. The remainder of the inventoried roadless area outside the immediate harvest areas would retain a natural, untrammeled appearance.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 175 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Criterion 2: Road construction and reconstruction (1.02 miles) would not substantially alter the generally undeveloped condition of the area. Existing improvements (roads and trails) would continue to be maintained according to Forest Service standards to prevent resource damage and support recreational opportunities appropriate for each management area.

Criterion 4: A short-term increase in noise and truck traffic from project operations would occur. Modern chainsaws, skidders, excavators, and other equipment used for timber harvest and road construction have noise levels of 90 to 110 decibels when measured close to the source (Beckley 2010; de Hoop and Lalonde 2003.). Project activities would be detectable for approximately one mile from the source, after which the noise becomes equal to or less than the average ambient level of 40 decibels found forest cover typical of the area (Harrison et al. 1980). These impacts would last for the duration of the project during active operations.

When harvesting operations are complete, the only noise, air pollution, and other effects to potential wilderness values in the inventoried roadless area would be those that currently exist, such as the short section of the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail in the southwest corner, or those that originate outside the area. Some harvest units would be visible from trails but effects would be minimized by design features such as slash removal and buffers near trails. As noted above, visual impacts from new roads would affect only those using the roads for non- motorized recreation.

Criterion 5: The new construction and road decommissioning proposed under this alternative would reduce the existing miles of improved road density from 0.41 miles per 1,000 acres to 0.35 mile per 1,000 acres, well below the allowable density of 1.99 miles per 1000 acres.

Characteristic 2: Proposed construction of 0.36 miles of forest road would result in a long-term improvement in the area but would not substantially alter the generally undeveloped condition of the inventoried roadless area. No other long- term improvements such as structures or facilities would be constructed under this alternative.

Characteristic 3: The limited amount of harvest and road construction proposed in this alternative would not affect the size of the inventoried roadless area in future inventories. No trails would be closed except possibly for temporary closure of the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail during road or timber harvest operations. Three new campsites would be constructed just inside the southwest boundary of the area but these would be constructed to a low development level with no built infrastructure present. The availability and challenge of recreation opportunities in the inventoried roadless area would remain essentially the same during and after project implementation.

The degree of solitude available in and near the project area may be temporarily impacted by motorized equipment used for harvest and road work, tree-felling, and transient air pollution. These impacts will last only as long as project operations.

176 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Overall, Alternative 2 would have only limited, short-term impacts on the appearance of the inventoried roadless area and visitor experience. None of the proposed activities would result in a permanent change in the condition of the area, its potential to be included in future inventories, or its future eligibility as potential wilderness. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would have no effect on roadless criteria 1, 2, 5, and 7, and wilderness characteristics 1 and 2 because no proposed activities would occur in the inventoried roadless area. Activities proposed outside the area might be seen or heard by visitors to the inventoried roadless area as described under Alternative 2, criterion 4 and characteristic 3. Overall, Alternative 3 would not affect the appearance of the inventoried roadless area and would have minimal effects on visitor experience. None of the proposed activities would result in a change in the condition of the area, its potential to be included in future inventories, or its future eligibility as potential wilderness. Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Criteria 1 and 7, Characteristic 1: This alternative proposes fewer acres of harvest and fewer miles of road construction and reconstruction than Alternatives 2 and 5 (table 46). The proposed harvests (including 52 acres of clearcuts in three units) would occur on 9.3 percent of the inventoried roadless area, which is below the maximum threshold of 20 percent harvest in the last 10 years. New road mileage (0.19 miles) would not be offset by road decommissioning in this alternative but modification to the appearance of the area would remain low.

Criterion 2. This alternative proposes 0.66 miles of road construction and reconstruction in the inventoried roadless area; this work would not substantially alter the generally undeveloped condition of area.

Criterion 4. The effects to wilderness values from the proposed road and timber harvests would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 but to a lesser extent because fewer acres and miles are proposed.

Criterion 5: The new construction proposed under this alternative would increase the road density to 0.46 miles per 1000 acres. Because there is no proposed road decommissioning to offset this increase, the road density for Alternative 4 would be the highest of all action alternatives but still below the maximum threshold of one-half mile per 1,000 acres.

Characteristic 2: The effects to this characteristic would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 except to a slightly lesser extent because fewer miles of road construction are proposed.

Characteristic 3: The effects to this characteristic would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 except no temporary closure of the Stoneham State Snowmobile trail would occur.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 177 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 5 would have the same effects as those described under Alternative 2 except for criterion 4 and characteristic 3. Noise from truck traffic on the southern boundary of the area would occur for a longer period of time due to the different timber hauling strategy required in Alternative 5. Visitors within one mile of the road would be affected as described in alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on roadless and wilderness is the Caribou-2 inventoried roadless area. This is the same as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects and the rationale for using this area is the same. One exception to this analysis area is when determining the cumulative acoustic effects as the sound of activities outside the area may affect visitors within a mile of their source. This extends the analysis area for sources of noise to include those lands within one mile of the Caibou-2. The temporal scope for the analysis is also the same as for direct and indirect effects. This allows consideration of the additive effect of foreseeable activities on the appearance of the inventoried roadless area and visitor experience.

The analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities (Appendix F) that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that have the potential to affect the roadless inventory criteria and wilderness characteristics include ongoing road and trail maintenance within the Caribou-2 as well as noise- producing on-going and future activities within a mile of the area’s boundary.

However, ongoing road and trail maintenance would have little or no measurable effect on the roadless inventory criteria and wilderness characteristics evaluated in this analysis. Noise and vehicle use would add incidental effects to the visitor experience. There may be noise from timber harvest and other management activities originating outside the inventoried roadless area, but this would be temporary and short-term. These minor cumulative effects on the inventoried roadless area would not compromise the ability of the area to meet Forest Service inventory criteria. Roadless area values and vegetation management activities have coexisted in this area previously without precluding its inclusion in the most recent roadless inventory. None of the potential effects would be permanent or change the area’s inclusion in future inventories or eligibility as potential wilderness.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100.

The predicted changes in the region’s climate have the potential for effects on a number of resources as detailed in other sections of this environmental assessment but there are no effects expected under any alternative on the area’s

178 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment ability to meet Forest Service inventory criteria nor on its ability to be considered for future wilderness designation.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 179 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Transportation

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Transportation Report (Bumps 2015) located in the project record. Background This analysis evaluates the potential effects related to the national forest transportation system. As noted in Chapter 1, Alternatives 4 and 5 were developed to specifically address public issues about road safety. The concern for damage to town roads was voiced by Town of Stoneham officials and residents of the Hut Road. The Forest Service changed much of the proposed season of operations to winter harvest to address this concern. Stoneham Town roads proposed for winter use include the Hut Road, Virginia Lake Road, and Birch Avenue.

In addition to addressing these concerns, this analysis evaluated changes to the national forest transportation system that were recommended in the roads analysis conducted for this project in 2014. The purpose of that analysis was to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of national forest system lands (36 CFR 212.5). The proposals to add or decommission road segments to the transportation system are based on the recommendations found in roads analysis.

Effects Indicators and Measures Table 47 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects to public safety, road damage, and future access needs, which are the relevant resource elements studied in this analysis.

Table 47. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to Transportation Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Loadsb per day by season Maine Forest Service; Potential road damage Log truck traffic by road (increase from Oxford County existing) McGinnis 2015 a Trips per day by season, Maine DOT 2012 Public safety Log truck traffic road, and truck type (increase from existing) Town of Stoneham Net change in national Miles of road Roads Analysis for the Access for current or forest transportation decommissioned and Albany South Integrated future managementc system miles added to the system Resource Project a- One trip is defined as a logging truck using state, town, and forest roads to arrive at any particular landing empty and departing that landing loaded with forest products destined for a mill. b- One load is defined as a logging truck departing a landing loaded with forest products destined for a mill using state, town, and forest roads. c- Minimum transportation system recommended by the roads analysis conducted for this project.

180 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Existing Conditions Table 48 displays the mileage of the road types in the project area.

Table 48. Summary of existing transportation analysis area roads Category Mileage Forest Service managed roads 20.3 Unauthorized routes on National Forest System lands 3.5 State, County, Town, and Private Roads 22.0 TOTAL 45.8

As noted in Chapter 1, Forest Service managed roads are those currently included in the national forest transportation system and are maintained and used according to their assigned maintenance levels. These are also known as classified and system roads. Motorized travel on the majority of these roads in the project area is restricted to times when access is needed for management activities. The remaining road segments in the project area are open to public and administrative use. Open and closed roads are not currently suitable for logging truck traffic and will require maintenance or reconstruction prior to the start of logging operations.

Unauthorized routes are historic roads located on national forest lands that were built for forest management, some prior to national forest ownership, that currently are not included in the national forest transportation system. These are also known as unclassified and non-system roads. They are not managed or maintained for vehicle use at this time.

State, county, town, and private roads included in this analysis are segments of those that access national forest lands and are proposed for use in this project as follows:

• Maine State Routes 5 and 35 • Birch Avenue • Virginia Lake Road • West Stoneham Road • Hut Road The Forest Service’s last logging traffic in the project area was on FR 4 and the Hut Road in 1983. Timber harvest occurred on more than 1000 acres of private lands in the analysis area in the past 10 years (MFS 2014) and most likely trucked on state, county, town, and private roads. No safety concerns related to harvest on private lands that trucked on the Hut Road as recently as 2011 were reported (MFS 2014; Cummings 2014). State Routes 5 and 35 and the West Stoneham Road (located in the Towns of Lovell and Stoneham) are open to heavy truck use year round while the Stoneham town roads of Birch Avenue, Virginia Lake Road, and Hut Road are restricted during the spring of the year.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 181 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Approximate average annual daily traffic counts on state roads near the project area are as follows (MDOT 2012):

• 970 vehicles per day on State Route 5 south of the project area. • 1,350 vehicles per day on State Route 5/35 east of the project area. • 1,180 vehicles per day on State Route 5/35 in the area of the Songo Pond Road intersection. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for transportation includes the project area and an expanded area totaling 19,217 acres that includes the roads expected to be used for hauling forest products from the project area. The timeframe used for this analysis covers 30 years in the past and five years in the future after the first timber harvesting would occur. Thirty years past accounts for road construction and log truck traffic last conducted in this area of the White Mountain National Forest and five years into the future is the reasonable expected time period for the proposed harvest activities to occur.

Alternative 1- No Action This alternative would address the issues related to safety and road conditions (see Chapter 1) because there would be no potential adverse effects to public safety or road conditions associated with this project. Trends in private land timber harvest and associated truck traffic are expected to continue and could contribute to safety concerns and road damage. The current amounts, types and patterns of traffic in the roads analysis area would remain the same as described in the existing condition above. The number of trips and loads per day by season by road (from ongoing private and Forest Service harvest and trucking activities) would also remain consistent with the existing condition.

No unauthorized roads would be added to the Forest transportation system, and no existing roads would be decommissioned to implement changes associated with the minimum road system. Road drainage and other improvements associated with vegetation treatment access and with best management practices and project design features would not occur.

Occasional road maintenance to FR 4 would continue. Maintenance and repairs on roads that are also trails would continue. Other than FR 4, Forest Service roads not associated with trails would receive little if any road maintenance.

In general, the road system in the project area would not be changed to be better managed in accordance with the Forest Plan and identified minimum road system. Environmental effects from seasonal and extreme weather events would continue to degrade the road system, unchecked without the proposed

182 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment maintenance, reconstruction, and construction performed as part of periodic vegetation management access.

Table 49. Proposed timber haul routes and jurisdictions, by alternative Haul Route Jurisdiction Route # (FR = national forest system road) (excluding national forest system roads) FR 4 and FR 722 to the Hut Road to West Uses 1.15 miles of Stoneham roads prior to reaching the HR1 Stoneham Road to State Route 5 state-maintained West Stoneham Road. FR 308 and FR 308A to Virginia Lake Uses 1.36 miles of Stoneham roads prior to reaching state- HR2 Road to Birch Avenue to State Route 5 maintained State Route 5. Uses either 1.10 miles of Albany Township roads east to FR 2018 to FR 320 to FR 18 to FR 7 HR3 State Route 5, or 1.31 miles of Albany Township roads and toward State Route 5/35 or State Route 2 3.71 miles of Bethel roads north to State Route 2. Uses no town roads (FR 88 branches off state-maintained HR4 FR 88 to State Route 5 State Route 5/35.

Table 50. Potential increase in truckload traffic in loads and trips per day by haul route, truck type, season, and alternative Haul Route (HR) Alt. 2 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 5 and Vehicle Type Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter HR1- FR 4, FR 722, Hut Road Tractor-trailer traffic 0 4.4 (8.8)a 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 (1.8)b Triaxle traffic 0 6.7 (13.4) 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 (2.8)b HR2- FR 308, Virginia Lake

Road, Birch Avenue Tractor-trailer traffic 0 0.8 (1.6) 0 2.8 (5.6) 0 4.4 (8.8) 0 5.2 (10.4) 6.5 Triaxle traffic 0 1.2 (2.4) 0 4.2 (8.4) 0 0 7.9 (15.8) (13.0) HR3- FR 320, FR 18, FR 7 Tractor-trailer traffic 0 2.3 (4.6) 0 1.5 (3.0) 0 2.3 (4.6) 0 2.3 (4.6) Triaxle traffic 0 3.4 (6.8) 0 2.3 (4.6) 0 3.4 (6.8) 0 3.4 (6.8) HR4- FR 88 Tractor-trailer traffic 0.4 (0.8) 0 0.4 (0.8) 0 0.4 (0.8) 0 0.4 (0.8) 0 Triaxle traffic 0.7 (1.4) 0 0.7 (1.4) 0 0.7 (1.4) 0 0.7 (1.4) 0 a -Trips per day are listed in parentheses. b -Use of HR1 for Alternative 5 is limited to the section of the Hut Road north of the Beaver Brook Road. S-turn portions of the Hut Road are not used by logging truck traffic in this alternative.

Table 51. Changes to the national forest transportation system, by alternative Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Road decommissioning (miles) 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.3 Road additions (miles) 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.7 Net change in national forest system roads (miles) -0.8 -0.9 -0.4 -0.6

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 183 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 2

Table 49 lists the four haul routes and jurisdictions analyzed in this project as likely to be used for logging truck traffic. Table 50 displays the truck loads and trips per day that would occur under each alternative for each potential haul route. Although a majority of trucking for Forest Service timber sales is done with tractor-trailer style logging trucks, smaller triaxle trucks may be used as part of design features on certain haul routes and are included in the analysis. Table 51 summarizes the changes made to the national transportation system by alternative.

A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to transportation follows the tables.

Direct and Indirect Effects The amount of traffic each road within the analysis area currently receives would increase as result of Alternative 2.

Road Condition Season of use, road condition, and truck weight affect the degree of potential damage to roads by log truck traffic. Inspection of the current road condition of the Hut Road indicated that winter haul would be appropriate to reduce the potential for road damage, and the initial proposal of summer haul for log truck traffic was changed to winter use (see Appendix E). Overall, monitoring of past Forest Service timber sales indicates that winter haul has no effect on the condition of secondary roads. As a local example, recent winter timber haul using tractor-trailer and triaxle trucks from the adjacent Four Ponds project area occurred on the Patte Mill Road (which has similar characteristics and conditions as the Hut Road), with no damage or complaints of damage to Oxford County (McGinnis 2015). Timber harvested from the central portion of the project area is expected to be hauled on this road during the winter months.

State vehicle weight restrictions are designed to limit road damage. Logging trucks used in this project would adhere to Maine commercial vehicle laws which vary by truck size: triaxle log trucks are restricted to a lower weight limit than tractor-trailer trucks. Timber sale contracts implementing this project would require that the maximum haul loads for any logging truck traffic shall not exceed the State legal load limit, unless otherwise posted.

A project design feature would be implemented that requires coordination with Town of Stoneham officials to eliminate potential road damage on town roads (Hut Road, Virginia Lake Road, and Birch Avenue), which could include use of the lighter triaxle trucks if needed to protect road conditions.

Public Safety The amount of traffic each road in the analysis area currently receives would increase as result of Alternative 2, however, at no time during any day of any one season would tractor-trailer or triaxle traffic heading through the Town of Stoneham village or on State Route 5 in the vicinity of Songo Pond Road

184 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment increase more than two percent of the annual average daily traffic for either of those locations, as measured by Maine Department of Transportation in 2012 (Maine DOT 2012).

Safe road use is measured in this analysis by the number of trips and loads per day by season, by road, and by the expected logging truck traffic on the secondary roads proposed for road use as noted in table 49 and table 50. Effects to public safety would be in direct proportion to the number of logging trucks using any one road at any given time.

One or more of the following safe-travel options would be implemented in coordination with Town of Stoneham officials to reduce or eliminate adverse effects to public safety caused by log truck traffic on town roads:

1. Road use restrictions. At a minimum the Forest Service is expected to restrict, as it has in the past, logging truck traffic from operating on weekends and holidays. Additional restrictions could include restricting logging truck traffic to a period of time during the day when traffic is at a minimum. 2. Truck type restrictions. Use of shorter triaxle trucks to reduce unsafe encounters between logging trucks and oncoming traffic, especially on several sharp, winding corners on the Hut Road. Triaxle log trucks were used on the Hut Road in 2011 and in the 1980s with no reported safety concerns (Cummings 2014). The number of trips per day would increase if truck type is switched from tractor-trailer to triaxle (table 50) and would increase the amount of delays experienced by local traffic. 3. Speed limits could be reduced to a speed at which oncoming traffic has ample reaction time if encountering logging truck traffic. 4. Traffic lights, flag persons, or escort vehicles can be used to control roads or segments of roads where safety is a concern. Traffic flow would be controlled to one direction, avoiding situations where a logging truck may encounter a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Local traffic would experience delays under this option. 5. Re-route log trucks. Alternatives 4 and 5 redirect log truck traffic to avoid use of the S-turns on the Hut Road to address the safety issue raised by several residents of the Hut Road. Logging traffic would use FR 722 north to FR 308, then south to Virginia Lake Road and Birch Avenue out to State Route 5. Effects to public safety from increased logging truck traffic would be unlikely at State Routes 5 and 35 due to the low increase in traffic counts (less than two percent) near the analysis area, and the fact that the small increase would be difficult to distinguish from the passenger car, truck, and heavy truck traffic currently using these state roads.

Access for Current or Future Management The following proposed access would occur and changes would be made to achieve the minimum national forest transportation system identified for the project:

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 185 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

• 10.99 miles of new and existing roads would be used for access and forest product removal. • 4.30 miles of existing roads would be decommissioned and removed from the system, either through ground work to close and rehabilitate existing roads (2.39 miles), or through database adjustments to bring the Forest Service database in line with the roads as they exist on the ground (1.91 miles). • 3.50 miles of roads would be added to the system: 2.17 miles of unauthorized roads and, if all new construction occurs, 1.33 miles of new roads would be added. These roads would be added as maintenance level 1 roads. • Alternative 2 results in a net loss of 0.80 miles of roads in the national forest transportation system.

Proposed Road Work See Appendix D for the detailed proposed road work.

Access to proposed timber harvest units would require road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance using heavy equipment to clear vegetation, construct a suitable road template, create ditches, place culverts, build or expand landings, install bridge panels, and place roadbed materials where needed. Heavy equipment would be transported to work sites using the same local roads as logging truck traffic, with most construction activities occurring during the driest weather conditions under the guidance of the Forest Service to ensure minimum resource (including roads) damage. Early estimates for the gravel materials needed to be trucked to each Haul Route (see table 49) include 28 dump truck loads of material for HR1, 10 for HR2, 7 for HR3 and 4 for HR4. The amount of materials needed to build roads have been estimated from road building activities from past timber sales and take into consideration winter road construction which uses as much local material as possible to build suitable roads. Effects from transporting equipment and materials during summer months on local roads are comparable to the use of these roads by the town roads crews performing annual road maintenance, repairing storm damage and/or landowners along those roads that hire excavating contractors to make improvements to their property. Road construction activities would increase the potential for road damage and elevate the concern for public safety in much the same manner as the town and private construction activities: a familiar-sized vehicle use of these roads over a short amount of time.

Roadside vegetation may be lost due to clearing and grubbing activities associated with road construction. Signage would be used on roads and trails in the area to notify traffic, snowmobilers and hikers of logging truck traffic during timber sale activities. Timber sale operations may include gates at key locations to restrict roads to administrative use only.

Access roads to prescribed fire units would be maintained to the minimal level necessary for equipment and personnel to access the units by trucks, all-terrain vehicles, and by foot.

186 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment The proposed culvert removal and replacement for watershed restoration would stabilize roads and reduce possible flooding, road washouts, sedimentation, and repairs, therefore maintaining reliable access for future management needs.

Dual use of log truck traffic and snowmobiles may occur on all or portions of roads FRs 4, FR 3346, FR 722, FR 3329, FR 57, FR 3326, FR 2018E, FR 2018, FR 2018C, FR 320A and FR 320. Snowmobile traffic on the Stoneham State trail/FR 722 may be rerouted to West Stoneham trail/ FR 308B during times of harvest and trucking activity.

The short stretch of FR 57 that is shared with the Albany Notch Trail would be decommissioned after timber harvest. Recent improvements to this trail would be protected during implementation. Signs to alert traffic of harvesting and trucking would be posted along FR 4, a portion of which is shared by the Great Brook Trail. Logging truck traffic may not be allowed on weekends and holidays.

Signs to alert traffic of harvesting and trucking would be posted in the areas where recreation traffic occurs, and logging truck traffic may not be allowed on weekends and holidays.

FR 308A would be closed to vehicle traffic after timber harvest. Large rocks and/or a berm will be placed near the junction of FR 308 and FR 308A to provide parking for 1-2 vehicles and foot traffic access to the beach.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects The amount of traffic each road within the analysis area currently receives would increase as result of this Alternative.

Road Condition and Public Safety are the same as described under Alternative 2.

Access for Current or Future Management The following proposed access would occur and changes would be made to achieve the minimum national forest transportation system identified for the project:

• 8.14 miles of new and existing roads would be used for access and forest product removal. • New construction of road segments 3346A and 3326A would not occur because of their location in the inventoried roadless area. • Harvest units along road FR 722 are proposed to be trucked to the east and then south along roads FR 722, FR 3350, new construction FR 3321A, FR 3321, FR 308, and Birch Avenue. If a road use agreement is formed allowing the use of FR 722, harvest units may be trucked to the southwest along FR 722 and Hut Road. • 3.89 miles of existing roads would be decommissioned and removed from the system, either through ground work to close and rehabilitate existing roads (1.98 miles), or through database adjustments to bring the Forest

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 187 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Service database in line with the roads as they exist on the ground (1.91 miles). • 2.99 miles of roads would be added to the system: 2.17 miles of unauthorized roads and, if all new construction occurs, 0.82 miles of new roads would be added. These roads would be added as maintenance level 1 roads. • Alternative 3 results in a net loss of 0.90 miles of roads in the national forest transportation system.

Proposed Road Work The effects under Alternative 3 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 except as follows:

Dual use of log truck traffic and snowmobiles may occur on all or portions of roads FR 722, FR 3329, FR 57, FR 3326, FR 2018, FR 2018C, FR 320A and FR 320.

Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Except for FR 4, the amount of traffic each road within the analysis area currently receives would increase as a result of this alternative.

Road Condition and Public Safety are the same as described under Alternative 2.

Access for Current or Future Management The following proposed access would occur and changes would be made to achieve the minimum national forest transportation system identified for the project:

• 9.25 miles of new and existing roads would be used for access and forest product removal. • New construction of road segment 3346A would not be feasible for the amount of land and timber accessed in the Beaver Brook area. Timber harvest here would instead be skidded to FR 722 to the west. • Harvest units along FR 722 and the west side of Beaver Brook are proposed to be trucked to the east and then south along FR 722, 3350, new construction FR 3321A, FR 3321, FR 308, and Birch Avenue. • 3.89 miles of existing roads would be decommissioned and removed from the system, either through ground work to close and rehabilitate existing roads (1.98 miles), or through database adjustments to bring the Forest Service database in line with the roads as they exist on the ground (1.91 miles). • 3.50 miles of roads would be added to the system: 2.17 miles of unauthorized roads and, if all new construction occurs, 1.33 miles of new roads would be added. These roads would be added as maintenance level 1 roads. • Alternative 4 results in a net loss of 0.39 miles of roads in the national forest transportation system.

188 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Road Work The effects under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 except as follows:

• Dual use may occur during trucking activities on all or portions of roads FR 722, FR 3329, FR 57, FR 3326, FR 2018E, FR 2018, FR 2018C, FR 320A and FR 320.

Alternative 5 Direct and Indirect Effects Except for FR 4, the amount of traffic each road within the analysis area currently receives would increase as result of this alternative.

Road Condition and Public Safety are the same as described under Alternative 2.

Access for Current or Future Management The following proposed access would occur and changes would be made to achieve the minimum national forest transportation system identified for the project:

• 11.15 miles of new and existing roads would be used for access and forest product removal. • New construction of road segment 3346A would not occur if a road use agreement is formed with a new abutting landowner in this area, allowing the use of FR 722. • 4.30 miles of existing roads would be decommissioned and removed from the system, either through ground work to close and rehabilitate existing roads (2.39 miles), or through database adjustments to bring the Forest Service database in line with the roads as they exist on the ground (1.91 miles). • 3.67 miles of roads would be added to the system: 2.17 miles of unauthorized roads and, if all new construction occurs, 1.50 miles of new roads would be added. These roads would be added as maintenance level 1 roads. • Alternative 4 results in a net loss of 0.63 miles of roads in the national forest transportation system.

Proposed Road Work The effects under Alternative 5 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area and timeframe for cumulative effects is the same as those described under direct and indirect effects above.

This analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 189 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that have similar actions or effects relevant to transportation include:

1. Road maintenance: The only Forest Service road currently being maintained in the project area FR 4 (Hut Road), with occasional grading and mowing of roadside vegetation over the past several years (personal communication, R. Alimi 2014). Similar maintenance can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future. 2. Stoneham town roads in the analysis area were field verified by the Stoneham Road Agent. Oxford County manages the eastern portion of the Patte Mill Road at the northeast portion of the project, and the West Stoneham Road in Lovell and Stoneham is maintained by the State. Ordinary maintenance activities – past, present and foreseeable – that occur on local roads include patching, grading, ditching, and snowplowing. Uncommon maintenance performed would include repair of damage caused by severe weather. 3. Round Pond Road (FR 320) will be reconstructed to a winter standard to accommodate logging truck traffic associated with the Four Ponds project and would be used by this project as well. Mosquito Pond Road (FR 765) will be reconstructed to a winter standard for the Bell Mountain timber sale 2014-2015. It is not proposed for use in this project. 4. Timber harvest on private lands (past, present and reasonably foreseeable future) would use private, local, and state roads in the analysis area to accommodate logging truck traffic. Road maintenance may occur on the Beaver Brook Road (a private road over which the Forest Service holds a right-of-way) on the east side of the Hut Road. Reconstruction of this road segment is proposed as part of this project. For local roads, logging truck traffic from Forest Service and private timber harvest is expected to be similar to traffic from private harvests throughout the area that have used local roads in the past. Effects to forest and local roads are consistent with those seen from past Forest Service harvests that have complied with state and local traffic laws and load limits. The number of trips and loads per day will increase temporarily on local roads for the life of each private or Forest Service timber sale harvest in a manner that is consistent with historical harvest and trucking activities in the area.

Climate Change Local assessments of climate change have recorded several trends that point to a warming trend in this region summarized in Appendix H. Of all the trends being studied, it is likely that none has more impact to transportation systems across the region, including White Mountain National Forest roads, than extreme precipitation events. There are three categories of extreme precipitation events:

1. greater than one inch in 24 hours, 2. greater than 4 inches in 48 hours, and 3. wettest day of the year.

190 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment There has been a substantial increasing trend in the number of category 1 events seen at weather stations in Berlin and Pinkham Notch, New Hampshire (CSNE 2014). These same stations also recorded an increasing trend in category 2 events. “It is clear that northern New Hampshire can expect to see more extreme precipitation events in the future…” (CSNE 2014), similar to Tropical Storm Irene that struck the WMNF in August 2011 and brought more than 10 inches of rain in the span of a couple hours, causing whole sections of roads to be washed away and bridge abutments to be undermined (USDA Forest Service 2012). Although it cannot be expected that road work proposed for this project will fully withstand events similar to Tropical Storm Irene, the experience gained in recovering from Tropical Storm Irene and the implementation of this project, forest roads would be updated to a better standard of construction and improved resiliency to extreme precipitation events.

Overall, no detrimental cumulative effects from climate change on the transportation network are expected.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 191 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Scenery

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis approach, analysis results, and effects conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Scenery Management Report (Allen 2015), and Scenery Analysis on the WMNF Process (Allen 2013) located in the project record.

Background This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed timber harvest and prescribed fire treatments to scenery as viewed from selected viewpoints in and near the project area. This analysis also ensures that the proposed activities are consistent with Forest Plan goals, standards, and guidelines for scenery management.

Three stationary and superior viewpoints were selected for detailed analysis for this project:

1. The peak of Speckled Mountain facing east. 2. Virginia Lake facing north. 3. Keewaydin Lake dam facing north-northwest.

These viewpoints provide different perspectives and the broadest range of direct views of the project area and beyond and represent the areas of highest visitor use by the general public, recreationists, and tourists.

It is important to note that due to public concerns about potential effects to scenery as viewed from Kezar Lake, field studies and computer imaging modeling were performed from the town beach, Middle Bay, and Back Bay (both bays accessible only by watercraft). The results indicated that very little if any of the proposed regeneration harvests would be visible due to foreground vegetation shadowing the units, distance, the viewing angle, and climatic conditions common to the area. Considering that project design features would reduce or eliminate any potential effects to scenery from the lake, these viewpoints were not selected for further detailed study. Effects Indicators and Measures Table 52 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects to scenery as measured by the visible acres of treated areas, which is the relevant resource element studied in this analysis.

In most cases, visible acres would be less than the total acres treated due to natural screening by topography, leading edge vegetation, and patches of reserve areas. Visible acres are also influenced by elevation of the viewpoint, and slope position and aspect of the treated area.

192 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 52. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to scenery Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source

Forest Plan Standards and Clearcut and patchcut Guidelines for Scenery Created openings Visible treated acres of units visible from analyzed Management. (clearcut or patch cut) created openings viewpoints. Scenery Analysis on the WMNF Process

Existing Conditions The project area includes and is surrounded by a variety of terrain and vegetation that offers forest visitors a mosaic of color, form, and texture. Softwood trees cover the higher elevations and extend to the lower elevations to mix with hardwoods. Common visual features include granite outcrops, ponds, lakes, low meadows, and meadow-like openings created by past agricultural activities and timber harvest.

On the whole the viewed area appears blended and continuous, but upon close inspection it contains many outlines, traces, texture, and color changes and shadows of past openings. The mosaic of color and vegetative texture stems from the underlying geology, soils, and human activities. More recent clearcuts are noticeable on the landscape, while older harvests may not be evident to the casual observer.

Speckled Mountain is an elevated superior viewpoint (figure 15) that affords both middleground, more intense views, as well as the wider perspective and deeper more distant views to the east, encompassing the project area and beyond. Most of the project acre is visible with exception of some sections hidden by the terrain.

The Virginia Lake viewpoint (figure 16) is a very popular day use site. It peers up the lake and is back-dropped to the north, west, and east by the hillsides and mountain slopes of Pine Mountain., Peter Mountain, and Red Rock Mountain.

The Keewaydin Lake dam viewpoint (figure 17) is part of a popular day use site on State Route 5 with parking. The viewshed is north-northwest over Keewaydin Lake and is back-dropped by Rattlesnake Mountain, Albany Mountain, and Pine Mountain.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 193 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 15. Speckled Mountain viewpoint looking east toward the project area

Figure 16. Virginia Lake viewpoint looking north toward the project area

Figure 17. Keewaydin Lake dam viewpoint looking north-northwest toward the project area

194 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the portion of the project area visible from the viewpoints as well as the extended viewed area beyond the project area. This area is appropriate because these zones provide broad views into the project area as seen by the most visitors. The timeframe for effects is 30 years into the future, which would allow all of the harvested openings to fully restock, develop a full canopy of vegetation, and reach a height with enough spread and density to allow the shadow and textural differences to begin to blend with the adjacent surroundings as seen from a typical viewing distance by the casual observer.

Alternative 1- No Action No new openings would be created by this project, however scenery would be influenced by ongoing natural events and disturbances. Unmanaged forest stands would change in character with tree mortality caused by high densities, storms, insects and disease, fire, or other factors. Changes in scenery across the landscape could include small openings and changes to shadow, color, and texture.

Alternatives 2-5 Direct and Indirect Effects Table 53 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to scenery. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to scenery follows the table.

Table 53. Visible treated acres of proposed clearcuts and patchcuts contributing to scenery effects, by alternative Alternatives 2 and 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Viewpoint # Treated Visible # Treated Visible Treated Visible # Units Units Acres Acres Units Acres Acres Acres Acres Speckled 9 193 69 7 148 51 8 171 61 Mountain

Virginia Lake 1 9 4 0 0 0 1 9 4

Keewaydin 1 7 2 0 0 0 1 7 2 Lake Dam

The effects to scenery vary by season, context, and distance. This analysis was conducted assuming leaves were present in the forest canopy because leaf-on periods have the highest visitation. In the winter, openings created by the proposed harvests would be highlighted by snow or more evident due to lack of

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 195 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

canopy leaves until tree regeneration develops sufficient canopy to begin blending with the surrounding landscape.

The context of effects refers to whether timber harvest occurs in areas where created openings are more common, such as lower elevations where farming, timber harvest, and other land uses typically occur, or at higher elevations and on hillsides where historical land uses are less common. From the Speckled Mountain viewpoint, clearcuts and patch cuts at lower elevations might appear to be forested meadows and would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings typical of this area. Larger or clumped together clearcuts and patch cuts on the hillsides would have a less natural appearance and would initially attract the observer’s attention, but would gradually fade over time and become less defined.

At lower elevations such as the valley bottom, openings created by clearcuts and patchcuts would begin to blend into the mosaic of colors and textures and historic openings after five years of seedling growth, while larger visible openings would take 10 or more years to begin to blend into the landscape. Larger visible openings located higher on the hillsides would appear unnatural and would be noticeable to casual observers for 15 years or more after harvest; at that point the openings would blend with the surroundings to all but the keenest observers. Distant openings would fade sooner than those closer to the viewpoint. Approximately half of units visible under the action alternatives would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings typical of the area and would eventually add to the visual diversity of the scenery while following landscape contours and remaining mostly in context.

The viewing distance at which created openings begin to blend with the adjacent surroundings depends on the viewpoint, topography, season, and weather conditions. In this project area, openings beyond four miles from the viewpoints are of less visual concern than those closer to the viewpoints.

The difference in effects to scenery between the four action alternatives is directly related to the proposed number of clearcuts and patchcuts, the acres treated, and the visible acres from the three viewpoints. Table 53 displays these values for each viewpoint, by alternative. Figure 18 through figure 20 display the model images for visible acres under Alternatives 2 and 5 which would have the greatest visual effects of the four action alternatives.

Effects of overall proposed treatments by alternative:

• Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the greatest number of units and treated acres seen from the viewpoints and would result in the most total visible acreage of the action alternatives. • Alternative 4 proposes one less unit and fewer treated acres seen from the viewpoints than Alternatives 2 and 5, and would result in slightly less total visible acreage. • Alternative 3 proposes the least number of units and treated acres seen from the viewpoints and would result in the least total visible acreage of the action alternatives. Changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest would

196 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment be noticeable but the intensity of effects would be less due to fewer visible acres and geographic separation between openings, allowing visual effects to blend in years sooner than under Alternatives 2, 5 and 4. This will be noticeable to the greatest extent in the northwestern half of the project area, where a majority of clearcuts and patchcuts are eliminated under Alternative 3.

Effects to scenery from each viewpoint:

• Views from Speckled Mountain would be most affected by Alternatives 2 and 5, followed by Alternatives 4 and 3, respectively. Units 73 and 95 as viewed from Speckled Mountain would be particularly visible due to their angle of repose, elevation on the slope, and proximity to other proposed openings. Units 3, 51, and 56 are within 4 miles of the viewpoint and therefore have greater potential to be seen than more distant units. • Views from Virginia Lake would be most affected by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, however this effect is only a fraction of one unit in the viewshed, Unit 68. This unit is within 4 miles of the viewpoint which increases its potential visibility. Alternative 3 has no units visible from these viewpoints so there would be effects to scenery. • Views from the Keewaydin Lake dam would be most affected by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, however this effect is also only a fraction of one unit in the viewshed, Unit 69. This unit is within 4 miles of the viewpoint which increases its potential visibility. Alternative 3 has no units visible from these viewpoints so there would be effects to scenery.

Figure 18. Model image of visible acres from Speckled Mountain under Alternatives 2 and 5

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 197 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Figure 19. Model image of visible acres from Virginia Lake under Alternatives 2 and 5

Figure 20. Model image of visible acres from Keewaydin Lake dam under Alternatives 2 and 5

The effects of the proposed prescribed fire treatments from the viewpoints would be minimal because surface fires would not affect the tree canopy, texture, and color of brush or snow. The burn units may show visible differences in color, texture, and lighting compared to unburned surrounding areas for the first 3-5 years after burning, especially during spring and fall when leaves and snow are absent. After a few years, regeneration of ground cover would begin to cover the blackened surfaces and the visual impacts would begin to fade.

Forest Plan guidelines for scenery management in MA 2.1 lands provide parameters to protect scenery when proposing timber harvest such as the clearcuts and patchcuts proposed in this project. The design of this project was revised and design features developed as needed to stay within these parameters (see Appendix B and Appendix E of this document and the Scenery Management Report in the project record). Each of the action alternatives is consistent with the scenery management guidelines for projects located on MA 2.1 lands as found in

198 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan (Guidelines 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 on pages 3-6 through 3- 8).

Cumulative Effects The Forest Plan refers to regeneration management treatments such as clearcuts and patch cuts over a 30 year period. The analysis area for cumulative effects are the viewsheds from each viewpoint and the timeframe is from 30 years past to 30 years in the future.

This analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that have similar actions or effects include those in the viewsheds that implemented or currently propose clearcuts or patchcuts.

No future harvests are currently proposed in the analysis area on Forest Service managed public lands. There will be harvest activity on private lands but they are outside of the management responsibility and authority of the Forest Service. Culturally and historically this activity is in character and context with the land in this area.

• Past timber harvest on private lands (452 acres). • Planned timber harvest following the sale of private land parcels (1,345 acres) to include thinning, limited patch cuts, two miles of road construction, and 60 miles of skid trail use. • Additional private timber harvest (712 acres) scattered throughout the analysis area. Some of the openings created by clearcuts implemented in the project area over the past 30 years are still visible from the viewpoints. Larger openings from past harvests are less evident when viewed from distances of over three miles. Although the visibility of these openings has faded over time, they could be highlighted by proposed harvest activities. The combination could potentially attract more attention from visitors and further detract from scenic quality due to perceived unnatural appearances of treated areas. This cumulative effect would diminish within approximately 10-15 years (based upon distances) as vegetation regenerates and new openings become less obvious and the older ones, even less obvious.

The area encompassed by the three viewsheds contains approximately 35,419 acres. The combined area that is visible from the three viewpoints is approximately 11,922 acres. The greatest amount of clearcuts and patch clearcut treatments proposed within the combined viewshed by this project totals 256 acres; or approximately 2 percent of the visible viewshed, or less than 1 percent of the total viewshed boundary. The amount of visible stands in this viewshed treated with clearcuts and patch clearcuts within the past 30 years is low and in combination with the proposed, would not surpass the nine percent threshold for cumulative effects as directed in the Forest Plan for scenery management.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 199 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Where specific timber harvest treatment information is not available, high estimates of intensity and disturbance were used to conduct a conservative analysis of cumulative effects.

The only difference in cumulative effects among the action alternatives is related to the intensity of proposed harvest activity.

No visible past or proposed future burns effecting the upper bowls or canopy occur within the analysis area; so no cumulative effects from that activity would be anticipated under any alternative.

Climate Change See Appendix H for a summary of past and projected climate trends for the northeastern United States including the White Mountains region of New Hampshire and Maine through the year 2100.

As the environment evolves with changes of the climate over time, the resulting evolution of the flora in the region would not result in a drastic or possibly even any noticeable difference to the scenery of the WMNF in general. Differences may eventually be noticed in mass of color, shading, or texture as species change in dominance. However the canopy would remain intact barring any catastrophic events and the overall perceived landscape would not be much, if any different.

200 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Non-native Invasive Species

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Non-native Invasive Plants Report (Mattrick and Sperduto 2015) located in the project record.

Background This analysis evaluates the risk of non-native invasive plant species of being introduced or spread in the project area as a result of the proposed activities. The analysis also ensures consistency with the Forest Plans and law, regulation, and policy related to non-native invasive plant species.

Non-native invasive species (NNIS) pose a serious threat to plant and animal community health and diversity. They often lack natural controls and can out-compete and eventually replace more sensitive native species. They may also reduce habitat and food for wildlife, alter soil structure and chemistry, alter fire regimes and plant succession, serve as reservoirs for pathogens, and hybridize with natives to compromise local genetic diversity. Once NNIS become established, they are extremely difficult to eradicate, and the resulting change in community plant composition can alter ecosystem dynamics and functions over time.

Risk of transporting and spreading NNIS to or from the project area increases with any management activity that requires the use of heavy equipment brought in from off-site, disturbs the soil, or increases sunlight exposure to the ground. It is understandable therefore that NNIS have been observed along roads and in developed areas. Roads and skid trails are often sites of soil disturbance and they also serve as corridors for the dispersal of invasive plants through the spread of seed propagules (such as seeds or vegetative fragments) that attach to vehicles; the resulting infestations can spread into the adjacent forest. Riparian areas are also at risk for NNIS infestations because they are generally areas with high levels of light, nutrients, and regular disturbance from flooding and scouring. Stream networks also facilitate spread of NNIS across the landscape. Effects Indicators and Measures Table 54 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the risk of introduction or spread of NNIS as a result of the proposed activities.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 201 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 54. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to non-native invasive plan Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Executive Order 13112 Use of heavy equipment Forest Service Manual Risk of introduction of new Non-native invasive brought in from off-site. 2080.44.6, FSM 2081.03 populations into the plant species Soil disturbance. project area, or spread of Forest Service Manual populations existing infestations. Increases sunlight 2080.44.6, FSM 2081.03 exposure to the ground. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

Existing Conditions The Forest Service worked with the New England Wild Flower Society from 2001-2004 to identify NNIS populations in or near the White Mountain National Forest. This data is updated annually and was used in conjunction with site- specific field surveys to evaluate the presence or likelihood of NNIS spreading to the project area and the environmental consequences of their potential establishment.

There were no known NNIS is the project area prior to field surveys conducted for this project. Surveys identified ten small plant infestations: five scattered locations of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), one barberry site also has autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), one location of Oriental bittersweet, three locations of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and a scattering of coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) and helleborine (Epipactis helleborine). The latter two species are not particularly problematic on the WMNF and are not actively controlled at this time. It is possible that additional undetected NNIS populations occur in the project area. Anecdotal and informal observations indicate that the level of infestation in this rural location is extremely low but at a minimum Japanese knotweed is established along stream courses and roadsides in the area. It is also highly likely a variety of invasive plants occur on private lands both in cultivation or escaped from home landscapes near the project area. These may include burning bush, Oriental bittersweet, Norway maple, Morrow’s honeysuckle, and Japanese barberry, among others. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants is the Albany South project area, because this is where vehicles and equipment associated with the proposed project actions would access and operate on the ground. These vehicles and equipment, as well as gravel, seed, and mulch brought into the project area from off-site are the most likely entry for non-native invasive species. Newly created openings, parking areas, roads, and log landings are also potential entry sites. The analysis timeframe is from 2001-2026, to

202 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment capture initial invasives species inventory time frame on the Forest (2001-2004), and extending ten years into the future, the point at which natural revegetation will have greatly reduced the potential for new infestations to become established.

Alternative 1- No Action The ongoing use and management of openings, roads, and trails may promote the spread NNIS. Existing infestations would receive control treatments as approved in the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service 2007), however if not eradicated these infestations would likely persist, spread, and continue to compete with native species for space, sunlight, water, and nutrients.

There would be a slightly reduced risk of introduction of new NNIS plants into the project area due to the lack of project activities (road building, timber harvest, trail construction, etc.). The reduction of risk over the action alternatives would be minimal because the action alternatives would have little effect on NNIS due to the implementation of project design features, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and timber sale contract provisions that would reduce or eliminate the risk of spread or new introductions of NNIS in the project area.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 55 displays the qualitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to non-native invasive plants. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to non- native invasive plants follows the table.

Table 55. Qualitative assessment of direct and indirect effects related to non-native invasive plants, by alternative Measures Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Use of heavy equipment brought in from off-site. Soil disturbance. Minor and manageable effects, with low risk of introduction and spread of NNIS. Increased sunlight exposure to the ground.

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are most often associated with propagules or plant parts lodged in equipment being transported to the site, or use of fill and seed mixes that contain NNIS propagules or plant parts. This could occur during most of the activities proposed in this project. These direct effects are typically mitigated through the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS (USDA Forest Service. 2005a, pages 2-11-12). Potential effects are greatest during 1-2 years after the activity takes place when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites, and decrease dramatically in subsequent years.

Indirect effects are most often associated with propagules and plant parts being moved by wildlife, wind, or human activity once project activities have ceased.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 203 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

The indirect effects of NNIS are greatest when ground-disturbing activity is combined with large areas of substantial canopy removal. This would occur primarily with even-aged regeneration harvests and new log landing construction. Foot and vehicle traffic on the proposed relocated trail and constructed and reconstructed roadways provide new migration routes for NNIS via tire and footwear treads. These actions may allow for the introduction of new species infestations into previously un-infested locations.

Use of fill or gravel could introduce NNIS propagules, however the risk is slight given the implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS, project design features, and contract clauses related to equipment inspection and cleaning. All infestations on national forest system lands have or will undergo active control efforts prior to project implementation in accordance with the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment and its associated prioritization strategy (USDA Forest Service 2007). It is unlikely that project activities will cause the dispersal of propagules or the creation of new NNIS infestations in the project area or in the surrounding analysis area.

It is unlikely that existing infestations on nearby private lands would be exacerbated by the proposed project given the near absence of invasive species.

In summary, due to the minor levels of infestation in the project area overall, direct and indirect effects would be minor and manageable in all action alternatives. The risk assessment conducted for this project indicates a low risk of introduction and spread of NNIS. This is expected due to the mitigation and infestation prevention measures afforded by the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, including treatment of known infestation sites prior to project implementation to control potential for expansion.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects are the lands within the Albany South HMU and the adjacent public and private land in the Towns of Lovell, Stoneham, and Mason and Albany Townships. The analysis timeframe is from 2001-2026, which captures the initial invasives species inventory time frame on the Forest (2001-2004), and extending ten years into the future, the point at which natural revegetation will have greatly reduced the potential for new infestations to become established.. This considers temporary ground-disturbing activity by project activities because anything over ten years would have re-established a canopy or revegetated areas of soil disturbance making it highly unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.

Two-thirds of the invasive plant occurrences located during the forest-wide inventory ending in 2004 were on private land, and almost half of all occurrences were intentionally planted (USDA Forest Service, 2005b pages 3-154 and 3-155). In addition to the known occurrences of NNIS in the project area noted above in the Existing Conditions section, there are a few known locations of NNIS in the cumulative effects analysis area off of national forest system lands. It is suspected that as-yet undetected infestations occur because of the extent of developed and rural-agricultural settings adjacent to the national forest. As such,

204 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment it’s more likely that additional introductions or spread would result from activities on private lands than on national forest system lands. The rate of spread of non-native invasive plants would be approximately three percent per year (on the low end of the national rate range) given the climate and landscape condition of the analysis area and the comparably low level of current infestation. At this rate with no control measures, these infestations would increase by roughly 50 percent in ten years. Because there are no known control projects conducted or planned on non-federal lands in the analysis area, it is certain that acreage of infestations would likely grow rapidly.

Since 2007, roughly three acres of NNIS control has occurred on national forest system lands in the analysis area. It is anticipated that this extent of treatment will remain static or decrease in the next ten years based on ongoing control efforts on the White Mountain National Forest and associated eradication of existing populations.

On national forest system lands, reasonably foreseeable management actions in the analysis area over the next ten years include ongoing wildlife opening and orchard maintenance, road maintenance, ongoing maintenance of hiking and snowmobile trails, continued recreational uses, and ongoing NNIS treatment. Most activities would require the application of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines which dramatically reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of introducing or spreading NNIS. Roads and skid trail trails associated with timber management activities may open up new travel routes for mountain bikes, hikers and horseback riding, thereby increasing the potential for NNIS migration. These risks would continue once measures to mitigate any direct and indirect effects of the project cease.

The cumulative effects of the Albany South project would be nearly identical under all action alternatives. Alternative 3 has a slightly reduced contribution to cumulative effects due to reduced total acreage of harvest. Cumulative effects under the action alternatives likely would be measurable, but cannot be accurately quantified due to the percentage of private land holdings within the analysis area. The same types of activities that may have caused past invasions on private land will likely continue to spread NNIS.

Climate Change Climate change may have some effects on the distribution and abundance of native plants and NNIS over the longer term at regional and local scales. Ecosystems, and their constituent native and non-native species, are likely to have different and unique responses to changing climate variables and to climate- related ecosystem dynamics, such as disturbance magnitude and frequency (Simmons 2015; Burgiel and Hall 2014). As such, some climate-induced changes are expected to favor invasive species, however, given the complexity of climatic variables, other important ecological variables, and unique species biology, it is not possible to isolate climate-related effects at a local scale with the current level of knowledge. For example, although several invasive plant species appear to be spreading northward (Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, Mehrhoff et al. 2012), the expansions are best explained by mechanical transport by human and wildlife activity along roadways and in disturbed, fragmented landscapes, rather

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 205 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

than correlation with climate change per say. At this time, based upon the recent literature review, available data, and project surveys there do not appear to be any effects to NNIS from climate change, especially within the cumulative effects analysis timeframe. Regardless of mechanisms of predicted future expansions of invasive species, experts agree on primary response strategies: prevention; early detection/rapid response; and control and management within constraints of available resources. These strategies form the basis of the non-native invasive species control program on the White Mountain National Forest.

206 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Socioeconomics

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Socioeconomics Report (Jaworski 2015) located in the project record.

Public scoping identified social concerns related to traffic volume and road condition, recreation access and opportunities, and private property values. The transportation and recreation specialist reports address the first two. The socioeconomic specialist report evaluates how the alternatives may affect private property adjacent to the project area.

The Forest Plan does not specify goals, objectives, or management directions specific to social and economic outcomes. However, the Plan recognizes the role of the WMNF in contributing to local economic activity. Additionally, forest management seeks “to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer” (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 1-3 and 1-17).

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on low-income and minority populations. Effects Indicators and Measures Table 56 displays the indicators and measures used to determine the effects of the proposed activities on quality of life, environmental justice, and economic efficiency, which are the relevant resource elements studied in this analysis. These indicators are used to address public concerns raised during the analysis and to ensure consistency with law, regulation, and policy related to social and economic effects.

Table 56. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to socioeconomics Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source OMB Circular A-94, FSM Economic benefit Economic efficiency Net present value 1971.3 Disproportionate and adverse effects to low- Qualitative Environmental justice Executive Order 12898 income and/or minority evaluation populations Cavailhès et al. 2009 Changes in property Quality of life Property values Kim and Johnson 2002 values Willis and Garrod 1993 See the transportation section for effects related to log Quality of life Truck traffic truck traffic. Recreation access and See the recreation section in this chapter for effects to Quality of life opportunities recreational access and opportunities.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 207 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Existing Conditions Table 57 displays the socioeconomic conditions related to the indicators used in this analysis.

Table 57. Socioeconomic indicators and measures for the existing condition for project-area communities Towns of Lovell and Stoneham; Resource Element Indicator Measure South Oxford County Unincorporated Towns Truck traffic and Quality of life recreation access See Transportation and Recreation sections in this chapter. and opportunities Environmental Low income Share of population living 6-10 percent justice population below the poverty line Share of population Environmental Minority population identifying other than 0-2 percent justice “white alone”

Quality of Life and Environmental Justice

Population The following population information is from American Community Survey, 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2012).

Oxford County is home to 57,814 people with a median age of 44 years. Approximately 97 percent of the population identifies as white alone and less than 1 percent of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino. Median household income is $41,434 and approximately 14.5 percent of people live in poverty.

Stoneham is home to 195 people with a median age of 59 years. Approximately 96 percent of the residents identify as white alone and 2 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. Median household income is $55,833 and approximately six percent of people live in poverty. These data suggest that Stoneham is home to many retirees, who are relatively affluent compared to the county overall.

Lovell is home to approximately 1,006 people with a median age of 48 years. Approximately 98 percent of the residents identify as white alone and one percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. Median household income is $57,961 and approximately 10 percent of people live in poverty. As with Stoneham, residents of Lovell are, on average, older and more affluent than residents of the county overall.

South Oxford, which includes the unincorporated towns, is home to approximately 509 people with a median age of 48 years. All census-takers identified as white alone and no one identified as Hispanic or Latino. Median household income is $49,583 and approximately seven percent of people live in poverty. Consistent with the other two communities in the project area, residents are older and more affluent than residents of the county overall.

208 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment The communities in the vicinity of the project area have similar shares of minority residents compared to Oxford County overall. All of the communities have lower poverty rates than the county. The shares of minority and low-income individuals in the nearby communities are substantially lower than the national shares (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Therefore, environmental justice communities have not been identified in the project area.

Public Comments Commenters were concerned that timber harvesting would adversely affect private property, and therefore, the municipal tax base, by reducing property values that are based on scenic views, in particular from Kezar Lake and State Route 5. The economic benefit of the project was also called into question by one commenter who argued that timber harvests in the project area are “money-losing propositions.”

A number of commenters expressed concern that truck traffic on roads in and adjacent to the project area would pose a threat to public safety and affect the rural character of their communities, and in turn affect local prosperity which is believed to be dependent on beauty and quiet. Quality of life concerns noted in public comments were also related to potential road damage from log truck traffic with the concern that access to homes would be hampered by damaged roads for the duration of the project if road repairs and maintenance are deferred until the end of operations.

Additional concerns that could be related to quality of life were connected to the recreation proposals for camping along Great Brook and at Virginia Lake. While support was expressed for relocating the campsites at Great Brook, the proposal to permanently close the beach area at Virginia Lake to overnight camping, and to eliminate public motorized access on FR 308A were met with both support and opposition. Opponents felt that the local residents were good stewards of the site and that closing the access road would limit the opportunity to visit the beach area for many people and families. Supporters agreed that the current use and impacts violate the terms of the conservation easement that informs management of the lake shore and should be changed to comply. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area encompasses the towns of Lovell and Stoneham and the unincorporated territory of South Oxford (which includes Albany Township and Mason Township). Individuals who reside in these communities are most likely to be affected by the Albany South project. The analysis area for effects to property values are the private lands adjacent to the project area, as research indicates those properties could be affected by the proposed harvests (see analysis below for more details). The analysis timeframe extends from present

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 209 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

through project completion because the social and economic consequences are expected to occur within this period.

Alternative 1- No Action The cost of project planning and environmental analysis would be approximately $569,000 under all alternatives. The no action alternative would not generate revenue. Therefore, the net present value of the no action alternative is $- 569,000. The no action alternative would not change the existing quality of life and or environmental justice because no activities would be implemented.

Alternatives 2-5 Table 58 displays the values for quantitative measures of environmental effects used in this analysis when evaluating direct and indirect effects to socioeconomics. A summary of the analysis and results with conclusions about effects to Socioeconomics follows the table.

Table 58. Quantitative values for measures of direct and indirect effects to socioeconomics, by alternative Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Economic efficiency - $-536,000 $-605,000 $-492,000 $-485,000 net present value

Clearcuts and patch Lowest potential Lower potential Quality of Life - cuts may decrease effect to property effect than Same as change in property adjacent private values among alternatives 2 and Alternative 2 values (qualitative) property values action alternatives 5

Environmental justice No effects to low-income or minority communities.

Direct and Indirect Effects Economic Efficiency This economic efficiency analysis follows guidance from OMB Circular A-94 and the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1971.3). Net present value is calculated using predicted stumpage receipts from timber harvest and the estimated costs to plan, prepare, and implement timber sales and connected actions such as road work. The findings for net present value noted in table 58 suggest that this project would cost more to implement than it would produce in benefits. However, the economic efficiency analysis considers only monetary costs and benefits, and the economic accounting should be considered in conjunction with ecosystem services, benefits, and effects. These non-market benefits and costs associated with the project are reflected in the purpose and need discussions and natural resource sections documented in Chapters 1 and 3. In other words, the economic efficiency analysis and results for all alternatives should be viewed as a partial measure of project costs and benefits.

The federal government makes reimbursements to communities for revenue generated on national forest system lands, including timber harvest. Under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act Reauthorization and Amendment of 2008, Oxford County has opted to receive annual payments

210 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment that do not fluctuate with national forest revenues. Annual payments are calculated without regard to current timber sales and other receipts collected on the White Mountain National Forest, and therefore the amount does not change among the alternatives. Quality of Life Environmental amenities affect home values, and proximity to forest land typically increases property values (Willis and Garrod 1993). Kim and Johnson (2002) find that while mature and tall stands positively contribute to property values, views of clear-cuts have a negative effect on property values. However, only properties within approximately 230 feet of the harvests would be expected to experience any effect to property values (Cavailhès et al. 2009), and only during the timeframe prior to revegetation of the sites.

There are approximately nineteen structures within 300 feet of the forest boundary, as determined using the structures identified in the fuels reduction proposal for this project. Assuming they are all residences (although some may actually be outbuildings of some sort), the extent of effects to residential property values is as follows:

• Alternatives 2 and 5 would harvest the most acres of clearcuts and patch cuts, with a total of 254 acres in 16 units. Of these, six units are adjacent to private property. Currently four structures are within about 300 feet of clearcuts or patchcuts: two structures may view unit 56 (clearcuts); one structure may view unit 73 (patchcut): and one structure may view unit 95 (clearcut). • Alternative 3 would harvest the fewest acres of clearcuts and patchcuts with a total of 179 acres in 11 units. Of these, five units are adjacent to private property. Currently, three structures are within about 300 feet of clearcuts or patchcuts: two structures may view unit 56 (clearcuts) and one structure may view unit 73 (patchcut). • Alternative 4 would harvest the second most acres of clearcuts and patchcuts with a total of 239 acres in 15 units. Of these, five units are adjacent to private property. Currently, four structures are within about 300 feet of clearcuts or patchcuts: two structures may view unit 56 (clearcuts); one structure may view unit 73 (patchcut); and one structure may view unit 95 (clearcut).

The values of these properties may be affected during the period of time these harvests are visible. A decrease in property values may adversely affect current owners who wish to sell their properties. It would also lower taxes paid to the municipality.

There is no evidence in the scientific literature that property values would decline if clearcuts or patchcuts are viewed from more distant properties. Please see the scenery management section in this chapter and the scenery management report in the project record for detailed discussion and model results related to scenery effects from viewpoints in and near the project area, including Kezar Lake.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 211 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Changes in truck traffic and recreation opportunities and access may also affect quality of life. These changes are evaluated in the transportation and recreation specialist reports, respectively.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area and timeframe for cumulative effects are the same as identified for Direct and Indirect Effects above.

This analysis evaluated the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. Projects that could have similar effects within the analysis area include the planned timber harvest on private lands adjacent to and near the project area. Adjacent harvests may cause cumulative effects related to property value changes. Nearby clear-cuts may increase both the number of homes affected and the magnitude of the effect.

None of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities would affect economic efficiency, because none of the activities would affect the costs or revenues associated with the Albany South Project.

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to environmental justice, there would be no environmental justice cumulative effects.

Cumulative effects related to quality of life resulting from recreation and transportation management are addressed in the relevant specialist reports and summarized on those sections in this chapter.

212 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Wilderness

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Wilderness Report (Preisendorfer 2015) and the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Air Quality Report (O’Brien 2015) located in the project record.

Background This analysis evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed activities on the character of the 11,233-acre Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness which is located northwest of the project area, with a short section boundary shared with the project area. The Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness was designated by Congress in the Maine Wilderness Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-401), and is part of the National Wilderness Preservation System created by the Wilderness Act of 1964.

This analysis responds to public concerns related to potential effects to the Wilderness, including the request for a buffer around the Wilderness area to protect wilderness values. However, the Maine Wilderness Act specifically prohibits buffers in Section 6 titled “Prohibition of Buffer Zones,” stating, “Congress does not intend that the designation of a wilderness area in the State of Maine lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard from within the wilderness area shall not, of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilderness area.” Although management actions may occur up to the wilderness boundary, it is important to understand how those actions may affect wilderness character. The effects indicators evaluated in this analysis are described in table 59.

Table 59. Wilderness characteristics and measures used to assess effects to wilderness Resource Resource Indicator Measure Element Level of pollutants that degrade air quality and air quality related values such as plants, Criterion 3 - Natural: animals, soil, and water inside the Wilderness Wilderness ecological systems are wilderness. character substantially free from the effect of modern Developments that degrade the free-flowing civilization. condition of streams. Non-native species that alter the composition of natural plant and animal communities. Criterion 4 - Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of Number of actions that affect the primitive recreation: recreation opportunities inside the Superior opportunities exist for visitors who wilderness. want to experience isolation from the sights Number of actions and the magnitude of and sounds of civilization or who want to those actions that intrude on the natural engage in self-reliant, challenging, non- sights and sounds inside the wilderness. motorized, non-mechanized recreational activities.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 213 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Effects Indicators and Measures The characteristics used to measure effects to wilderness are found in the Forest Service’s Land Management Planning Handbook (FSH 1909.12), Chapter 70 Wilderness, section 72.1. Two of the five wilderness characteristics (Criterion 3 and 4) apply to this project and are displayed in table 59. These qualities are tied to the definition of wilderness as articulated in the Wilderness Act. Existing Conditions The Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness encompasses most of the peaks over 2000 feet in elevation between Maine State Route 113 and State Route 5, with Caribou Mountain and Speckled Mountain at its core. The open-summited Caribou Mountain is flanked by two smaller peaks and together this landform is separated from the southern portion of the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness by Haystack Notch. An east-west chain of peaks dominated by Speckled Mountain is south of the notch. This chain of wilderness peaks is separated from the lower peaks outside the wilderness boundary to the east by Miles Notch, which forms the southeastern corner of the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness.

Prior to wilderness designation, the land that currently comprises the Caribou- Speckled Mountain Wilderness was subject to historical uses typical of the area as evidenced by old roads, trails, cultural artifacts, forest structure, and species composition. Timber harvest occurred at the lower elevations, and a fire lookout tower operated on Speckled Mountain with an access road and phone line winding to the peak. Tent platforms and a trail network maintained to high standards served recreationists. Many remnants of these past uses were removed upon designation, and the wilderness management in place today prohibits development beyond minimum-standard trail facilities. Streams are free-flowing, with no restrictive developments. Hiking access is primarily via trails that depart from Maine State Route 113 on the west side, although lesser-used trailheads to the east and south provide access as well, and offer the experience of fewer encounters with other visitors.

Air quality on the White Mountain National Forest is monitored regularly at several stations and data is also collected by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Existing emissions or air pollution in the local airshed is mostly related to regional and industrial sources. Local pollution such as vehicle emissions and dust from roads is minor. Woodstoves contribute particulates and carbon monoxide to the air during the winter, while occasional large wildfires in Canada or the Lake States contribute particulates during spring and summer. Overall, baseline indicators for air quality in the area are low and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As mentioned above, no buffer exists around the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness, so visitors may experience sights and sounds of activities occurring outside the wilderness boundary at any given time. While some of the wilderness boundary abuts land administratively designated as MA 6.3 (Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation), the majority of abutting land is designated as MA

214 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment 2.1 (General Forest Management) and other lands are privately owned. As a result, road maintenance, vehicle travel, equipment use, a variety of management actions, snowmobile use, and trail-grooming are some of the sights and sounds common in the surrounding forest. Environmental Consequences All effects conclusions incorporate the applicable project design features in Appendix B, which are part of Alternatives 2-5, also referred to as the action alternatives.

Analysis Area and Timeframe The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on wilderness is limited to the portions of the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness where wilderness visitors may experience the sights and sounds of project implementation, or where air quality may be affected by the proposed actions. For prescribed fire, the area affected would be within five miles of the burn units, which is a standard measurement when analyzing smoke plumes and smoke dispersion in predominantly backing-type fires (Lunsford 1989). For the remaining proposed activities, the affected area would be within one mile of project operations because machinery noise would decrease to ambient forest levels beyond one mile (Harrison et al. 1980). Any visual effects of the proposed activities are analyzed in the scenery section of Chapter 3 where the summit of Speckled Mountain is used as a superior viewpoint. The analysis timeframe is up to 15 years to accommodate implementation of all proposed actions because effects would cease once the proposed activities are completed.

Alternative 1- No Action With no action, the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness would continue to regain a natural, untrammeled appearance and function. The forces of nature would continue to dominate and human improvements would continue to disappear or decline except for existing trails and their associated infrastructure. Alternative 1 would not create additional sources of noise or air pollution, non- native species, or unsightly conditions that would have an effect on the wilderness experience (Criterion 3). The area’s outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation would remain the same (Criterion 4).

Alternatives 2-5 Direct and Indirect Effects Increases in emissions from prescribed fire within five miles of the Wilderness and from machinery and vehicles very near the Wilderness boundary would decrease air quality temporarily during operations, but air quality standards required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act would continue to be met. There would be no degradation of plants, animals, soil, and water inside the Wilderness. Streams would continue to be free-flowing. The risk of introduction or spread of non-native species is low within the project area and at the operation sites, and with no shared migration networks between the

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 215 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

project area and the Wilderness, there is little or no risk to the current composition of native plant or animal communities in the Wilderness. The long- term ecological processes or natural communities in the Wilderness would not be altered by project activities.

These alternatives would not change or limit the primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities in the Wilderness. However, the opportunity for solitude and natural quiet within one mile of project activities would be adversely affected by machinery and vehicle noise during project operations. Please see the Inventoried Roadless Areas section in this chapter and the specialists’ reports in the project record for a discussion of noise effects associated with machinery and vehicles. Overall, noise from project operations would be detectable for approximately one mile from the source, after which the noise becomes equal to or less than the average ambient level of 40 decibels found forest cover typical of the area (Harrison et al. 1980). Noise would be further buffered by vegetation, wind, or topography (Smith, Claflin, and Kuskie, 2015). The noise effects would occur periodically for up to 10 years and could occur during any season, depending on the activity.

All timber harvest and log truck traffic within one mile of the Wilderness would occur in the winter when visitor use in the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness is lowest, however road work, watershed restoration, recreation actions, and fuel reduction would likely occur in summer and fall when visitor use is higher. The opportunity for solitude would decrease at those places and times in the Wilderness that are not already impacted by the sounds of snowmobile use and maintenance of the trail network (grooming in winter, maintenance with motorized equipment during the snow-free season) adjacent to the wilderness boundary.

The Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness does not meet the criteria for Class 1 airshed designation however haze reduction and smoke management techniques required by the site-specific burn plans would result in rapid dispersal of smoke and result in only minimal and short-term effects on the Wilderness.

The effects of this project are limited in area and duration, and all existing opportunities for solitude near the project area would be restored at the end of project operations (Criterion 4).

While all of the action alternatives would result in the short-term and limited effects described above, the degree of potential effects to wilderness characteristics is related to the extent of proposed activities and the proximity to the Wilderness boundary. Alternatives 2, 5, and 4 propose the most activities, respectively, and activities would occur closest to the Wilderness boundary as compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 3 proposes the least activities by excluding the prescribed fire on Albany Mountain and all activities in the inventoried roadless area which abuts the southwest corner of the Wilderness, therefore the potential to adversely affect wilderness characteristics is the least for Alternative 3.

216 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Cumulative Effects The analysis area and timeframe for cumulative effects is the same as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects and the rationale for using this area is the same. The analysis evaluated the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities listed in Appendix F that could contribute to cumulative effects when added to the direct and indirect effects of this Albany South project. The past was not considered because no activities from Appendix F have lasting effects in the analysis area.

Projects that have similar actions or effects to wilderness character in the analysis area include management actions inside the wilderness boundary and outside the wilderness boundary where the direct and indirect effects described above are initiated. Inside the boundary this includes only ongoing trail maintenance throughout the analysis timeframe. Only a small section of the Red Rock Trail is located in the analysis area and maintenance activities do not produce noise that can be detected at a distance as motorized equipment including chainsaws are prohibited. Visitors may have their solitude impacted if they encounter the trail crew while they are on the trail (usually limited to one day/year) maintaining the trail to a minimal standard so that primitive recreation opportunities exist and unacceptable resource concerns do not arise from unmanaged recreation. Maintenance of trails outside wilderness but within a mile of the Caribou- Speckled Mountain Wilderness boundary may include noise production from chainsaws, trail groomers and other motorized equipment but these impacts are short-term and cease at the end of operations.

The other activities that take place outside the wilderness but have effects within the analysis area are those associated with prescribed fire. Seven permanent wildlife openings may be maintained by fire though mowing and hand-brushing are also tools that may be used to accomplish the same objectives. Three prescribed fire units are also within five miles of the analysis area. The smoke generated from each prescribed fire activity is short-term, infrequent (3-5 year return intervals), and would rarely, if ever, overlap with other fire activities (limited availability of fire management resources means the same crew is generally needed for each burn).

The impacts from the various alternatives on wilderness character have been described in the preceding section and these impacts are all temporary in nature and confined to a limited area. They will cease upon the completion of project activities and will not have a lasting effect on the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness. Under no alternative would the combination of proposed activities and ongoing or reasonably foreeable future actions cause a lasting effect on wilderness character. The Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness would continue to meet the definition of wilderness and the primary objective of wilderness character preservation will continue to be met.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 217 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Heritage

The following discussion incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Heritage Resources Report (Ruhan 2015), the Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report (Ruhan 2014a) and in the letter of concurrence from the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (State of Maine 2014) located in the project record.

Effects Indicators and Measures Heritage sites (also referred to as cultural resources) in the project area would be protected with reserve areas and other project design features as described in Appendix B, therefore there would be no direct effects. Table 60 displays the indicator and measure used to determine the potential indirect effects to heritage sites in the project area.

Table 60. Resource indicator and measure for assessing indirect effects to heritage resources Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Source Cultural Resources Removal of vegetation Number of sites with Reconnaissance Report, Heritage sites near sites adjacent to increased exposure to Maine Historic Preservation roads or trails. vandalism. Commission letter

Existing Conditions A total of 66 heritage sites are in or near the project area. Most are historic sites while 11 are prehistoric sites. The historic sites include the remains of farms, homes, lodges, a school house, mills, a dam, cemeteries, a developed spring, several stone drainage structures, and others. The prehistoric sites are small lithic scatters and one quarry. Environmental Consequences The analysis area for effects to heritage resources is the project area because sites beyond the project area could not be affected by project activities. The analysis timeframe is up to 2 years after project operations are completed because vegetation would reestablish in that period and afford screening to heritage sites.

Alternative 1- No Action With no action, there would be no vegetative changes or exposure that could affect heritage sites. Sites would continue to be protected as other management actions such as routine road and trail maintenance occur in the project area.

218 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Alternatives 2-5 Indirect Effects Indirect effects could result from activities that remove vegetation near heritage sites adjacent to roads or trails where implementing a 50-foot protective reserve area may not be possible. The number of sites with increased exposure after project activities would be highest under Alternatives 1 and 5 (13 historic sites) and lowest under Alternatives 3 and 4 (11 historic sites).

Cumulative Effects No additional past, present, ongoing, or reasonably foreseeable future management actions would occur that could contribute to cumulative indirect effects to heritage resources in the project area.

Climate Change With no direct effects from this project, the project will not reduce or increase the risks of climate change affecting cultural resources during project work or within one to two years after project implementation. Please see Appendix H for more information related to climate change and heritage resources.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 219 Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Consistency and Compliance with Regulatory Framework

The project design – meaning the proposed activities, the extent (miles, acres, number) of the activities, and where they are located – adheres to management area direction provided by the Forest Plan and incorporates guidance from the State of Maine related to best management practices, wildlife habitat, natural areas, and other areas of natural resource management.

This section summarizes whether or not the environmental effects of the project meet the outcomes required by relevant laws, regulations, policies, and Forest Plan direction for each resource area. A partial list of the regulatory framework follows, with additional components noted in the individual resource specialists’ reports in the project record.

• Endangered Species Act • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • National Historic Preservation Act • Wilderness Act • Roadless Area Conservation Rule • Invasive Species, EO 13112 of February 3, 1999 • Migratory Birds, EO 12962 of January 10, 2001 • Environmental Justice, EO 12898 of February 11, 1994 • Maine and New Hampshire State Air Quality Implementation Plans • State of Maine and local traffic laws and load limits • Maine Forest Service Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality • Maine Forest Service Rules, Chapter 21: Statewide Standards for Timber Harvesting and Related Activities in Shoreland Areas • Town of Stoneham Community Wildfire Protection Plan • White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan • U.S. Forest Service regulations, policies, rules, manuals, and handbook direction Alternative 1 – No Action As noted in the individual resource reports, Alternative 1 would comply with the applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and be consistent with Forest Plan direction, except in the following instances:

220 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment 1. Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with Forest Plan desired conditions and other management direction for the resource areas identified in the Purpose and Need for Action section in Chapter 1. No progress would be made on the management goals, objectives, and desired conditions for habitat diversity, silviculture and forest health, watershed function, recreation management, fuels management, and transportation planning. 2. Alternative 1 does not comply with the conservation easement surrounding Virginia Lake. Alternatives 2-5 – Action Alternatives As noted in the individual resource reports, Alternatives 2-5 would comply with the applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and be consistent with Forest Plan direction, except in the following instance:

1. Vegetation management guideline G-5 (Forest Plan p. 2-30) states, “Where exposure of mineral soil is expected, skid trails should generally be located on grades of less than 20 percent, with only short steeper pitches.” Given that slopes in the project area can be up to 35 percent, there may be instances where skids trails will need to be on grades exceeding 20 percent for more than a short pitch. If so, those skid trails would not be consistent with this guideline. Detrimental effects to soil productivity would be avoided in the project area, even if skid trails used in summer units are inconsistent with the guideline, if the soil and water project design features listed in Appendix B are followed.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 221

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, Coordination, and References US Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Katherine Stuart (retired), District Ranger and Responsible Official, Androscoggin Ranger District Justin Preisendorfer, Acting District Ranger and Responsible Official; Assistant District Ranger for Recreation; Androscoggin Ranger District Pat Nasta, Environmental Coordinator and Interdisciplinary Team Leader, TEAMS Enterprise Unit Kenneth J. Allen, RLA, Forest Landscape Architect Stephen Bumps, Forester, Androscoggin Ranger District Robert A. Colter, Forest Soils Scientist and Ecologist Craig Comstock, GIS Specialist, TEAMS Enterprise Unit Delilah Jaworski, Social Scientist, TEAMS Enterprise Unit Sheela Johnson, Forest Hydrologist Chris O’Brien, WMNF Fire Technician Mark Prout, Forest Fisheries Biologist Lesley A. Rowse, Wildlife Biologist, Androscoggin Ranger District Jonathan F. Ruhan, Archeologist Daniel Sperduto, Forest Botanist K. Rogers Simmons, Jr., Forest Natural Resources Staff Officer Kristen Whisennand, Technical Writer-Editor, TEAMS Enterprise Unit US Forest Service Supporting Specialists Stacy Lemieux, Forest Planner and NEPA Coordinator Kori Marchowsky, former Interdisciplinary Team Leader Christopher Mattrick, former Forest Botanist Dan O’Toole, Archaeological Technician Leighlan Prout, Forest Wildlife Program Leader Jeffrey J. Williams, Assistant District Ranger for Forest Management and Silviculturist, Androscoggin Ranger District Reginald Gilbert, Timber Sale Administrator, Androscoggin Ranger District Other Agencies Consulted J.N. Leith Smith, Maine Historic Preservation Commission Cory Stearns, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Maine Department of Conservation Maine Forest Service Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission Don Cameron, Maine Natural Areas Program Wende Mahaney, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Town of Stoneham Town of Lovell

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 223 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

References Cited

Alimi, Richard (Assistant Ranger, Saco Ranger District). Personal communication via email to Stephen Bumps, Forester, Androscoggin Ranger District, March 25, 2014

Aust, W. and C.R. Blinn. 2004. Forestry best management practices for timber harvesting and site preparation in the Eastern United States: an overview of water quality and productivity research during the past 20 years (1982-2002).

Baker, M.B. 1988. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. Effects of Fire In Management of Southwestern Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ, November 14-17, 1988, pp.31-42.

Baldigo, B.P., P.S. Murdoch and D.A. Burns. 2005. Stream Acidification and mortality of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in response to timber harvest in Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1168-1183.

Beckley, Bob. 2010. Preventing noise-induced hearing loss. Tech Tip 1067–2321P–MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 16 p.)

Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin 29(5):729-740.

Burns B. and D.R. Houston. 1987. Managing Beech Bark Disease: Evaluating Defects and Reducing Losses. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 4(1987).

Calhoun, A. J. K. and P. deMaynadier. 2004. Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No. 6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Campbell, J.L., Driscoll, C.T., Pourmokhtarian, A. and K. Hayhoe. 2011. Streamflow responses to past and projected future changes in climate at the Hubbard Brook Experimental forest, New Hampshire, United States. Water Resources Research, 47, W02514.

Carlson. 2013. Synopsis of prescribed fire in New England. Internet: self.

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. 142 pp.

Chase, V., Deming, L.S. and F. Latawiec. 1995. Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Audubon Society of New Hampshire. 80 pp.

Climate Solutions New England (CSNE). The Sustainability Institute. 2014. Climate Change in Northern New Hampshire. Past, Present, and Future. University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH.77pp.

Clinton, B.D. 2011. Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 979-988.

Colter, Robert A. 2014. Albany South Integrated Vegetative Management Project Soil Assessment. White Mountain National Forest. Campton, N.H. 03223.

224 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Costello, C. A., M. Yamasaki, P. J. Pekins, W. B. Leak, and C. D. Neefus. 2000. Songbird response to group selection harvests and clearcuts in a New Hampshire northern hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 127:41-54.

Croke, J.C and P.B. Hairsine. 2006. Sediment delivery in managed forests: a review. Environmental Reviews 14:59-87.

Cummings, Albert (abutter). 2014. Personal communication via phone to Stephen Bumps, Forester, Androscoggin Ranger District, November 24, 2014.

de Hoop, Cornelis F. and Lalonde, Neil J. 2003. Some Measured Levels of Noise Produced by Logging Equipment in 1998. Working Paper #58. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.

DeGraaf, R. M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 482pp.

DeGraaf, R. M., M. Yamasaki., W. B. Leak, and A. M. Lester. 2006. Technical Guide to Forest Wildlife Management in New England. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH. 305pp.

DeMaynadier, P. G. and M. L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology: 340-352.

Dickinson, M. B., J. C. Norris, A. S. Bova, R. L. Kremens, V. Young, and M. J. Lacki. 2010. Effects of wildland fire smoke on a tree-roosting bat: integrating a plume model, field measurements, and mammalian dose-response relationships. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 40:2187-2203.

Donnelly, J.R., J. B. Shane and H.W. Yawney. 1991. Harvesting Causes Only Minor Changes in Physical Properties of an Upland Vermont Soil. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 8, No. 1. pp.33- 35.

Edwards, P.A. and C.A. Troendle. 2012. Water Yield and Hydrology, in Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Eastern United States. Lafayette, R.; Brooks, M. T.; Potyondy, J. P.; Audin, L.; Krieger, S. L.; Trettin, C.C., Eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-161. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, pp 229-281.

Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial Effects of Prescribed Fire on Quality of Soil Solution and Streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29(1): 5-15.

Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2006. Fire effects on water quality: a synthesis of response regulating factors among contrasting ecosystems. Second Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, May 16-18, 2006. USDA SRS Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory.

F. B. Environmental Associates (FBEA). 2012. Great Brook Monitoring Fall 2012. Unpublished data.

Fay S., W. B. Leak, M. Yamasaki, J. W. Hornbeck, and R. S. Smith. 1994. The Deadwood Report. Unpublished Report. White Mountain NF, Laconia, NH

Flanagan, S.A. 2005. Woody debris transport at road-stream crossings. Stream Notes. October, 2005. Stream Systems Technology Center. Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 225 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

Flatebo, G, C. R. Foss, S. K. Pelletier. 1999. Biodiversity in the Forests of Maine. C. A. Elliott, ed. UMCE Bull. #7417. University of Maine

Four Ponds Integrated Resource Management Project Final Environmental Assessment. Townships of Albany and Mason, Oxford County, ME. Unpublished document, Androscoggin Ranger District, Gorham, NH. March 2010.

Frank, Robert M., Bjorkbom, John C. 1973. A silvicultural guide for spruce-fir in the Northeast. Gen Tech. Rep. NE-6. Broomhall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 29p.

Fuller, T. K. and S. DeStefano. 2003. Relative importance of early-successional forests and shrubland habitats to mammals in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185(75- 79).

Gucinski, Hermann, M.J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer and M. H. Brookes, Editors. 2001. "Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information." USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW- GTR-509. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr509.pdf

Harrison, Robin T & Clark, Roger N & Stankey, George H. & United States. Forest Service & Equipment Development Center (San Dimas, Calif.) et al. 1980. Predicting impact of noise on recreationists. Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Equipment Development Center ; Washington, D.C. : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, San Dimas, Calif

Herms, Daniel A.; McCullough, Deborah G. 2014. Emerald Ash Borer Invasion of North America: History, Biology, Ecology, Impacts, and Management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59: 13-30.

Hibbs, David A.; Bentley, William R. 1983. A Management Guide for Oak in New England. Storrs, CT: Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut.

Holman, Gregory T., Fred B. Knight, and Roland A. Struchtemeyer. 1978. The Effects Of Mechanized Harvesting On Soil Conditions In The Spruce-Fir Region Of North-Central Maine. Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station University of Main at Orono. Bulletin 751.

Hornbeck, J.W., C.T. Smith, C.Wayne. Martin, L.M. Tritton, and R.S. Pierce. 1990. Effects of Intensive Harvest on Nutrient Capitals of Three Forest Types in New England. Forest Ecology and Management 30: 55-64.

Hornbeck, J.W., M.B. Adams, E.S. Corbett, E.S. Verry, J.A. Lynch. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology 150(1993):323-344.

Hornbeck, J.W., M.M. Alexander, C. Eager, J.Y. Carlson, R.B. Smith. 2001. Database for Chemical Contents of Streams on the White Mountain National Forest. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE-282. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/3757.

Hunt, P. D., M. B. Watkins, and R. W. Suomala. 2011. The State of New Hampshire Birds – A Conservation Guide. New Hampshire Audubon, Concord, NH. 36pp.

226 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Johnson, J. B., J. W. Edwards, W. Mark Ford, and J. Edward Gates. 2009. Roost tree selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian Mountain hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258:233-242.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2009. The ecology and silviculture of oaks. 2nd Edition. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, CAB International. 580p.

Johnson, S and E. Cate. 2014. Overview of Possible Effects of Climate Change to Water Resources in the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. Revised May 2, 2014.

Johnson, S. 2015. Albany South Field Notes.

Johnson, S and E. Cate. 2014. Overview of Possible Effects of Climate Change to Water Resources in the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. Revised May 2, 2014.

Katovich, Steven; Mielke, Manfred E. 1993. HOW to Manage Eastern White Pine to Minimize Damage from Blister Rust and White Pine Weevil. NA-FR-01-93. [Radnor, PA]: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Area State & Private Forestry

King, D. I. and R. M. DeGraaf. 2004. Effects of group-selection opening size on the distribution and reproductive success of an early successional shrubland bird. Forest Ecology and Management. 190:179-185.

King, D. R. M. DeGraaf, and C. R. Griffin. 1998. Edge-related nest predation in clearcut and group cut stands. Conservation Biology 12(6):1412-1415.

King, D. R. M. DeGraaf, and C. R. Griffin. 2001. Productivity of early-successional birds in clearcuts and group cuts in eastern deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2):345-350.

Kreutzweiser, D.P., S.S. Capell, and K.P. Good, 2005. Macroinvertebrate community responses to selection logging in riparian and upland areas of headwater catchments in a northern hardwood forest. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc.: 24(1):208–222.

Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631.

Kunkel, K. E., Stevens, L. E., Stevens, S. E., Sun, L., Janssen, E., Wuebbles, D., Dobson, J. G. (2013). Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment: Part 1, Climate of the Northeast US, NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service.

Lacki, M. J., D. R. Cox, L. E. Dodd, and M. B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of Northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to prescribed fires in eastern Kentucky forest. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1165- 1175.

Lawrence, G.B. and C.T. Driscoll. 1988. Aluminum Chemistry Downstream of a Whole-Tree-Harvested Watershed. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 22. Pg 1293-1299.

Leak, William B. 2006. Fifty-year impacts of the beech bark disease in the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):141-143.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 227 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

Leak, William B.; Solomon, Dale S.; DeBald, Paul S. 1987. Silvicultural Guide for northern hardwood types in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-603. Broomhall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 36p.

Leak, William B.; Yamasaki, Mariko; Holleran, Robbo. 2014. Silvicultural guide for northern hardwoods in the northeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-132. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 46 p.

Lee, P., Smyth, C. and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 70:165-180.

Lunsford, J. A. (1989). Technical Publication R8-TP 11. Forest Service.

Maine Department of Conservation (MDOC). 2010. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Forest Service, Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2012. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.state.me.us/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2012/report-final.pdf

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2010. Guidelines for Wildlife: Managing deer wintering areas in northern, western, and eastern Maine. http://www.maine.gov/ifw/pdfs/reports/wildlife_management/DWA_Guidelines_2.4.10.pdf

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2011. Maine’s game plan for deer, A plan to increase Maine’s northern, eastern, and western deer herd. www.mefishwildlife.com

Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2012. Traffic Volume Counts 2012 Annual Report. 396pp.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2010. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Department of Conservation. 92 pp. Accessible at: http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/bmp_manual.htm.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2012. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2010-2011. Forest Policy and Management Division, November 2012. 42pp.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2013. Wildland-Urban Interface Communities At Risk Community Wildfire Protection Plan Stoneham, Me. Augusta: Maine Forest Service.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2014. Harvest Notifications, 2005-2013 for Lovell, Stoneham and Albany TWP.

Maine Forest Service (MFS). N.D. Maine Firewise website (accessed 3/24/2016) http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mfs/forest_protection/firewise/index.html

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2008. Results of Natural Community Surveys of the White Mountain Natural Surveys of the White Mountain National Forest in Maine. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine. Department of Conservation.

Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2011. Copy of Biotic database for White Mountain National Forest. Provided by Maine Natural Area Program, Augusta, Maine .

228 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Martin, C.W. and J.W. Hornbeck. 1994. Logging in New England need not cause sedimentation of streams. North. J. Appl. For. 11(l):17-23.

Martin, C.W., J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, and D.C. Buso, 2000. Impacts of Intensive Harvesting on Hydrology and Nutrient Dynamics of Northern Hardwood Forests. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 19-29.

Matthews, S. N., L. R. Iverson, A. M. Prasad, and M. P. Peters. 2011. Changes in potential habitat of 147 North American breeding bird species in response to redistribution of trees and climate following predicted climate change. Ecography 34: 933-945.

McGinnis, Richard (Road Agent, Oxford County, ME, Retired). Personal communication via phone to Stephen Bumps, Forester, Androscoggin Ranger District, April 17, 2015.

Moll, J., R. Copstead, and D.K. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program.

Morse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. Accessed November 30, 2009 at: http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/outreach/pdfs/Stream%20Digest.pdf.

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations. Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2004. Effects of Heavy Equipment on Physical Properties of Soils and on Long-Term Productivity: A Review of Literature and Current Research. Technical Bulletin No. 887. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 2012. 2012 List of Impaired Waters that Require a TMDL. Accessed August 18, 2014 at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/swqa/2012/index.htm.

New Hampshire Department of Resources & Economic Development. 2015. Emerald Ash Borer Management Zones (Map).

Nyland, Ralph D. 1989. Logging Damage. In: Clark, F. Bryan, tech. ed.; Hutchinson, Jay G., ed. Central Hardwood Notes. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: Note 8.02.

O’Brien, Chris. 2015. Albany South Integrated Resource Project Air Quality Report.

Pellerin, J. 2012. Winter Creel Census 2011-12, Kezar Lake. Lake Fishery Investigation, Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Perala, Donald A. 1977. Manager's handbook for aspen in the north central States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-36, 30 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Pierce, R.S, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, C.T. Smith, C.A. Federer and H.W. Yawney. 1993. Whole tree clearcutting in New England: manager's guide to impacts on soils, streams, and regeneration. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-172

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 229 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

Prout, M.W. 2010. Climate Change and Aquatic Habitats. White Mountain National Forest White Paper. 4p.

Ramstetter, J. 2001. Triphora trianthophora (Swartz) Rydb. (Three-birds Orchid) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA

Reay, R. S. 1999. Management of Eastern Hemlock for deer wintering areas. Pages 144-147 in McManus, K A., K. S. Shields, and D. R. Souto. Eds. Proceedings: Symposium of sustainable management of hemlock ecosystems in eastern North America. June 22-24, 1999. Durham, NH. Gen. Tech. Rep. 267. Newtown Square, PA. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 237pp.

Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Science, 215:661-663.

Rowse L. and Sperduto, D. 2015. Biological Evaluation of the Proposed Albany South Integrated Resource Project, Albany and Mason Townships and Towns of Lovell and Stoneham, Maine on Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed and Regional Forester Sensitive Species. USDA Forest Service, Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, NH.

Rowse, L. 2009. Wildlife Report and Summary of Biological Evaluation for Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species and for the Four Ponds Integrated Resource Project in Albany and Mason Townships, Oxford County, Maine. USDA Forest Service, Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest, 300 Glen Road, Gorham, New Hampshire 03581.

Rowse, L. 2015. Albany South Habitat Management Unit (HMU) Rationale. Unpublished document, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, NH.

Rustad, L., J. Campbell, J. S. Dukes, T. Huntington, K. F. Lambert, J. Mohan, and N. Rodenhouse. 2012. Changing climate, Changing Forests: The impacts of climate change on forests of the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada. Ge. Tech. Rep. NRS-99. Newton Square, PA, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 48pp.

Safford, L. O. and R. D. Jacobs. 1983. Paper Birch. Pages 145-147 in Silvicultural systems for the Major Forest Types of the United States. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook NO. 445. Washington D. C.

Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural guide for paper birch in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-535. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1983. 29 p.

Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54pp. and Appendices.

Sasse, D. B. and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest in Bats and Forest Symposium, October 19-21, 1995, Barclay, R. M. R. and R. M. Brigham (eds). British Columbia, Canada Res. Br., B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Work. Pap. 23/1996

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

230 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Saxby, Tracey; Griswold, Marcus; Wicks, Caroline, eds. 2013. Helping your woodland adapt to climate change. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. 15 p.

Schlossberg, S. and D. I King. 2007. Ecology and management of scrub-shrub birds in New England: A Comprehensive Review. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Resource Inventory and Assessment Division. 120pp.

Sease, J. and L. Prout. 2015a. Biological assessment for ongoing project activities with determinations of no effect or may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the northern long-eared bat on the Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forest. 120pp. Unpublished document, March 2, 2015 White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

Shortle, Walter C.; Smith, Kevin T.; Dudzik, Kenneth R. 2014. Tree survival 15 years after the ice storm of January 1998. Res. Pap. NRS-25. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 4 p.

Siemion, J., Burns, D.A., Murdoch, P.S. and R.H. Germain. 2011. The relation of harvesting intensity to changes in soil, soil water, and stream chemistry in a northern hardwood forest, Catskill Mountains, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1510-1519.

Silvis, A., W.M. Ford, E.R. Britzke and J.B. Johnson. 2014. Association, roost use and simulated disruption of Myotis septentrionalis maternity colonies. Behavioral Processes 103:283–290.

Smallidge, P. J. and R. D. Nyland. 2009. Woodland guidelines for the control and management of American beech. Cornell University Cooperative Extension Forest Connect Fact Sheet. P. Smallidge, ed. 6pgs.

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF) and New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands (DRED). 2010. Good Forestry in the Granite State. The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, NH.

Sotiropoulos, J.C., K.H. Nislow, and M.R. Ross. 2006. Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, microhabitat selection and diet under low summer stream flows.

Sperduto, D. D., & Nichols, W. F. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. Concord: The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau.

Spradlin, B. and C. Spradlin. 2006. White Mountain National Forest FIREMON 2006 Data Collection Data Summary Tables. White Mountain National Forest. 8pp.

Stafford, C., Leathers, M. and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry-Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. CFRU Information Report 38. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, Orono, Maine.

Stantech, 2012. Summary of 2-Day Salmonid Spawner and Habitat Survey in the Great Brook Watershed. Memo, 8 pgs.

State of Maine. 2009b. Classification of Maine Waters. Maine Revised Statutes, Title 38, Waters and Navigation, Chapter 3: Protection and Improvement of Watershed, Subchapter 1: Environmental Protection Board, Article 4-A: Water Classification Program, Section 464. Accessed May 9, 2014 at: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38sec464.html.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 231 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

Stuart, G.W. and P.J. Edwards. 2006. Concepts about Forests and Water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(1):11-19.

Thompson III, F. R., R. M. DeGraaf, and M. K. Trani. 2001. Conservation of woody, early-successional habitats, and wildlife in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):413-424.

University of New Hampshire. 2009. New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines. Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.unh.edu/erg/stream_restoration/nh_stream_crossing_guidelines_unh_web_rev_2.pdf.

US Forest Service. (1917). Lands of the Jonathan Bartlett Estate (95 and 95a). US Forest Service.

United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40, Chapter V, Part 1502, Section 1502.14, Alternatives including the proposed action.

United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40, Chapter V, Part 1502, Section 1502.20, Tiering.

USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM), Supplement R9RO 2550-2012-1 – Soil Management.

USDA Forest Service Handbook (FSH), 1909.15. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Chapter 40 – Environmental Assessments and Related Documents. September 2010. 9pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1978. A program for fish and wildlife management on the White Mountain National Forest of New Hampshire. Appendix II Known Deer/moose yards White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished WMNF report.

USDA Forest Service. 2002a (revised 2007). White Mountain National Forest, Ecological Approach Reference Document, 13pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Species data collection form – clustered sedge (Carex cumulata). Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH

USDA Forest Service. 2002d. Species data collection form – American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2002e. Species data collection form – Three-birds orchid or Nodding Pogonia (Triphora trianthopora). Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Species data collection form – Bailey’s sedge (Carex baileyi). Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Silvics of North America. US Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Laconia, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Forest Plan Revision. Rationale for Development of Rare and Unique Species Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. Laconia, New Hampshire.

232 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service. 2005f. Species data collection form – Autumn coralroot (Corallorhiza odontorhiza) Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2005g. Species data collection form – Northern Adder’s Tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum) Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

USDA Forest Service 2006b. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment. WMNF. Laconia, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. White Mountain National Forest, Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document, 17pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Monitoring and evaluation report. White Mountain National Forest. Campton, NH. 42pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2009. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 54 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Triphora trianthophora monitoring at Dirty Gut. White Mountain National Forest. Saco Ranger District, Conway, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation report. White Mountain National Forest. Campton, NH. 49pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. White Mountain National Forest Management Plan. Monitoring Report. Campton, NH. 38pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Monitoring and evaluation report. White Mountain National Forest. Campton, NH. 42pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Eastern regional forester’s sensitive species list and eastern region proposed threatened, or endangered taxa. USDA Forest Service Endangered Species Program, Region 9. Milwaukee, WI.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2012. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 38 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2013. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Northern long-eared bat species data summary. Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. 42pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2002-2015. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Ruffed Grouse and Turkey Surveys. Unpublished data. White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, NH.

USFWS. 2013. Proposed Rule. 12-Month finding on a petition to list the Eastern small-footed bat and the Northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species. Listing the Northern long-eared bat as endangered. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 191. October 21, 2013.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 233 Chapter 4 – Preparers, Consultation, Coordination and References Cited

Van Lear, D.H.; Brose, P.H.; Keyser, P.D. 2000. Using Prescribed Fire to Regenerate Oaks. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-274. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 129 p.

Veilleux, J. P. 2005. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH. 28pp.

Veilleux, J. P. 2006. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH 17pp.

Veilleux, J. P. 2007. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH 23pp.

Wang, X., D.A. Burns, R.D. Yanai, R.D. Briggs, and R.H. Germain. 2006. Changes in stream chemistry and nutrient export following a partial harvest in the Catskill Mountains, New York, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 223: 103-112.

Ward and Duffy. 2008. Conservation Plan for the Kezar River, Kezar Lake, and Cold River Watersheds. Report for the Greater Lovell Land Trust, Lovell, Maine. August, 2008.

Whitman, A., A. Cutko, P. deMaynadier, S. Walker, B. Vickery, S. Stockwell, and R. Houston. 2014. Climate change and biodiversity in Maine: Vulnerability of habitats and priority species. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME

Whitman, Andrew A. and Hagan, John M. 2000. Herbaceous plant communities in upland and riparian forest remnants in western Maine. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 14 Maine St., Suite 404 Brunswick, ME 04011.

Wilkerson, E., J.M. Hagan, D. Siegel, A.A. Whitman. 2006. The Effectiveness of Different Buffer Widths for Protecting Headwater Stream Temperature in Maine. Forest Science 52(3), pp. 221-231.

Williams, B. 2012. Crooked River Watershed Survey. Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District. 27 pp.

234 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Alternative Maps2

Because of their size, these maps are packaged separately. Alternative 2

Map 1. Alternative 2 overview map of proposed road and trail actions Map 2. Alternative 2 overview map of proposed vegetation treatments Alternative 3

Map 3. Alternative 3 overview map of proposed road and trail actions Map 4. Alternative 3 overview map of proposed vegetation treatments Alternative 4

Map 5. Alternative 4 overview map of proposed road and trail actions Map 6. Alternative 4 overview map of proposed vegetation treatments Alternative 5

Map 7. Alternative 5 overview map of proposed road and trail actions Map 8. Alternative 5 overview map of proposed vegetation treatments

2 The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Please be aware that the data may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 235

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project design features are part of the action alternatives and are intended to minimize or avoid potential adverse environmental and social effects. They are the best practices used when forest management activities are implemented. Design features are applied in this project for the following resource areas:

• Air Quality • Scenery

• Heritage • Soils

• Non-Native Invasive • Transportation Species

• Prescribed Fire and Fuels • Water Resources, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat

• Recreation and Inventoried • Wildlife and Plants Roadless Areas

The use and effectiveness of project design features is based on and tiers to law, regulation, policy, current science, contract provisions, and professional experience. The following documents provide the basis for most of the applicable design features to be applied in this project:

1. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005a Chapters 2 and 3). 2. Maine Forest Service (MFS). 2010. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Department of Conservation. 3. USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 4. Maine Forest Service Rules, Chapter 21: Statewide Standards for Timber Harvesting and Related Activities in Shoreland Areas.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 237 Appendix B – Project Design Features

5. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Considerations for activities AqEco-2; Rec-3 & 4; Road-2- 4; Road 6-10; Veg 2-4 and 6-7. 6. Contracts for activities not directly implemented by Forest Service personnel, require regular oversight in the field by Forest Service timber sale administrators or contracting officer’s representatives to ensure consistency with Forest Plan standards project design features, and guidelines and best management practices, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Air Quality Use weather and smoke management forecasts to predict smoke impacts. Forest Plan p. 1-4 and Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Coordinate with other agencies engaged in nearby prescribed fire activities to ensure Implementation Guide p. 36; Forest Service Manual 5140 NAAQS are not exceeded. Hazardous Fuels and Prescribed Fire 5142.8. Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Postpone burns during pollution alerts or stagnant conditions. Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011). Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Burn on days when smoke will disperse rapidly. Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011). Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Burn when wind direction will take smoke away from critical smoke sensitive areas. Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011). Notify Maine Forest Service and Stoneham Fire Chief during annual operating meetings prior to the prescribed burn season. Notify the Maine Forest Service and Stoneham Fire Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Chief on prescribed fire day by telephone. Notify nearby residents and public prior to the Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011) p. prescribed fire season by media announcement in area newspapers and signs at 5. recreational display boards. Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Use a test fire to ensure smoke behavior predictions are accurate. Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011). Managing Smoke At the Wildland Urban Interface Wade and Use backing fires when possible to reduce emissions. Mobley, p. 3. Aggressively mop up along roads. Specialist-developed Monitor particulate levels during prescribed burns visually or with a particulate monitor. Basic Smoke Management Practices. USDA Natural Resources Discontinue burning if overall visibility is reduced to less than 3 miles and/or Air Quality Conservation Service and Forest Service Technical Note (2011). Index exceeds 151 in the wildland-urban interface.

238 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Heritage To the extent possible, a 50’ reserve area is established and flagged in the field around each identified cultural site (activity areas such as a logging camp or homestead) located in proposed project activity areas. In the case of heritage sites that abut road Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as areas proposed for reconstruction, flagged trees present along the road side may be cut Amended, and 36CFR part 800.4(d)(1) and part 800.16(i); Forest and the flag line replaced with a flagged stake line. The plastic ribbon flagging marks the Plan, G-1, p. 1-6. exterior of the site; no proposed project work is to take place within cultural site boundaries, and no equipment will enter cultural site boundaries for any reason. If cultural features are discovered during project implementation, work in the area will Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as stop and the Forest Archaeologist willed be called to assess the situation and design Amended, and 36CFR part 800.4(d)(1) and part 800.16(i); Forest appropriate protection measures in consultation with the Maine State Historic Plan, G-1, p. 1-6. Preservation Officer. Road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in areas near stone walls will take measures to avoid damaging the walls, such as directional tree falling away from the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as walls, and protection of the walls during road work. Existing breaches may be reused Amended, and 36CFR part 800.4(d)(1) and part 800.16(i); Forest and if an additional wall crossing is necessary it will occur perpendicular to the current Plan, G-1, p. 1-6. wall and planned in conjunction with Forest Archaeologist input and approval. Additional protection is needed at Site No. 2-178 “Antlers Gate”. Protection measures will include barriers to control vehicular traffic through the gate and prevent vehicular Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as contact with the gate structure, avoiding any adverse effect. The specific nature of traffic Amended, and 36CFR part 800.4(d)(1) and part 800.16(i); Forest controls and barriers will be designed closer to implementation and with Forest Plan, G-1, p. 1-6. Archaeologist input and approval. Non-Native Invasive Species Any heavy equipment must be visibly free of seeds and plant parts prior to entering the project area. Cleaning should take place off-Forest unless an on-Forest cleaning site Forest Plan Non-Native Invasive Species Standard S-6. has been approved by a forest officer in advance. Before ground disturbance begins, control small infestations of weeds already existing in the project area. This will be undertaken under the Forest wide NNIS Control WMNF Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project EA, 2007 Environmental Assessment and its associated prioritization strategy. Whenever possible conduct project activities working from areas of no or lesser Specialist-developed. infestation to areas of heavier infestation. Gravel and fill must come from weed-free sources. The WMNF will be available to work with owners of local gravel sources to identify weed-free borrow material in their pits. Forest Plan Non-Native Invasive Species Standard S-4. The entire pit or fill area need not be identified as weed-free; material may be used that is not likely to contain invasive plants or seeds. Minimize soil disturbance to no more than needed to meet project objectives. Use Forest Plan Non-Native Invasive Species Standard S-5. certified weed-free mulch and seed when available locally at a reasonable cost.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 239 Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Prescribed Fire and Fuels Prescribed fire would be applied preferentially in the spring just before or during leaf expansion to reduce competing vegetation. Prescribed fire may be applied in the fall as Brose et al 2014; Fan 2008 necessary, to reduce the litter layer. Timing of the initial and subsequent prescribed fire may be varied by resource specialists if needed. Minimum impact suppression techniques would be used to prepare prescribed fire Forest Plan guideline G-2, p. 2-33. containment lines. Prescribed burn plans will be reviewed by a Forest Service Silviculturist and Forest Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Guide p. Botanist to ensure that the project is planned in a manner to support the unit’s resource 19. and management goals. Recreation and Inventoried Roadless Area Forest Plan 2-29; Bennett, Karen P. editor. 2010. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Skidder crossing of trails should be minimized and perpendicular to trail corridors. Practices for New Hampshire (second edition). University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, N.H. Retain a 20-foot vegetative buffer along hiking trails adjacent to clearcuts and overstory Forest Plan 2-29; Bennett 2010 removal units. Individual tree marking within approximately 100 feet from hiking trails should be marked Forest Plan, p. 2-29; Specialist-developed based on experience with on the opposite side of the tree to reduce marking paint visibility. similar projects on the White Mountain National Forest. Place caution or closure signs along trails and at trailheads during active timber harvest Bennett 2010 operations. Provide for dual use of the Stoneham State Snowmobile Trail if used as a haul route Bennett 2010 during harvest. Hauling on any trail within the project area would be restricted to weekdays only and Specialist developed based on experience with similar projects on would be prohibited on weekends and federally recognized holidays. the White Mountain National Forest Logging slash within 50 feet of a maintenance level 3 road, hiking trail, or snowmobile trail should be treated or removed. Slash may be treated or removed at a greater Forest Plan, p. 2-30 distance when necessary to protect resource values. Scenery For stands that exceed the guidelines for Scenic Integrity Objectives, design features such as larger, coordinated reserve areas and/or adjustments to stand boundaries would Specialist-developed. be employed to reduce seen acres. The Forest Landscape Architect may be consulted on stand and reserve area layout. Logging slash within 50 feet of a maintenance level 3 road, a trail, or private property should be treated or removed. Slash may be treated or removed at a greater distance Forest Plan, Vegetation Management Guideline G-8 when necessary to protect resource values.

240 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Soils Where exposure of mineral soil is expected, skid trails should generally be located on Forest Plan, Vegetation Management Practices, G-5, p 2-30; grades of less than 20 percent, with only short steeper pitches. Limiting locations for skid Oregon State University Ext. 1983; MFS 2010. trails (pitch) insures that the potential for erosion is reduced. To limit the area subject to soil compaction, log landings would be the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements of the equipment, the quantity and type of forest Oregon State University Ext. 1983; MFS 2010; Martin 1988. products, and safety. This limitation of the size of the landing minimizes the area on which soil disturbance and compaction would occur. Upon completion of operations at a landing, the area of disturbance would be bladed and stabilized as needed to prevent erosion before the site can revegetate and to MFS 2010 accelerate recovery from temporary soil compaction. Even though these surfaces are nearly flat, this action insures that runoff from the landing would not erode soils. The operating period of timber sale activities are limited to specific season of harvest and/or ground conditions specified in the timber sale contract to minimize adverse soil and water environmental effects. This would be monitored by the Timber Sale Martin 1988 Administrator (Martin 1988). This insures that erosion and compaction would be minimized, and would be contained within the immediate area, and no long term soil productivity effects would occur. Skidding patterns are designed to fit the terrain to control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in a manner that would minimize erosion and sedimentation. This preventative practice would be achieved by minimizing the length of skid trails, locating the skid trails in advance, adding drainage features such as Oregon State University Ext. 1983; MFS 2010; Martin 1988. waterbars, and designing skid trails to cross streams at right angles. This would be implemented by the Timber Sale Administrator. These measures work because they control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion and sedimentation. Harvested trees may be skidded whole to landings; some tops and limbs would be scattered on landings and skid trails (where needed) to reduce compaction and erosion during and after operations, during snow-free season and otherwise as needed; and Forest Plan, Vegetation Management, G-5, p 2-30 and Water remaining tops and limbs would be returned and scattered on all harvested stands to Resources, S-1, p 2-30; Oregon State University Ext. 1983; Martin retain soil nutrients. This design feature works because placing logging slash in the skid 1988; Poff 1996. trails reduces compaction. Slash collected on the skid trail would cushion the effects of compaction. To minimize compaction, operate on a cushion of slash, or over snow. A surface layer of two inches or greater would provide protection from compaction.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 241 Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Upon completion of harvesting operations, skid trails would be closed and bare ground seeded as needed in areas where soil erosion potential occur. The Timber Sale Administrator would designate the areas of disturbed soils that must be treated and monitor effectiveness of the treatment. Water-barring and seeding needed sections of MFS 2010 skid trails has proven to work on the White Mountain National Forest, and in other places implementing Maine BMPs (see NCASI 2000 Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations). Transportation Consult with local road officials to determine necessary measures to minimize damage Specialist-developed to Town roads by project logging truck traffic. Consult with local road officials to determine necessary measures to provide safety to all Specialist-developed traffic during harvesting and trucking operations. Water Resources, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Uneven-aged silvicultural practices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) along all perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and vernal pools. Cuts should be designed to maintain continuous forest canopy for the protection and maintenance of water quality, dead wood recruitment, hydrologic function, wildlife habitat, and scenic values. Group selection cuts in RMZs should be limited to less than one acre in size. Exceptions may apply in areas deemed important for maintaining beaver colonies. In the absence of on-the-ground riparian mapping, width of RMZs should be defined as in Table 2-01. Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-2, p. 2-25, pp. 2-24 and 2-25.

242 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Tree cutting and harvest should not occur within 25 feet of the bank of mapped perennial streams, the high water mark of a pond, or a identified natural vernal pool, unless prescribed to benefit hydrological or ecological function of the associated stream, pond, or riparian area. Exceptions to this include tree removals needed to clear a designated stream crossing, maintaining an existing road or previously cleared skid road that cannot Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-1, pp. 2-24-25. be relocated, or protecting human safety or infrastructure. Trees (greater than 4 inch diameter breast height cut or moved in this zone should be placed in a fashion that benefits riparian functions or aquatic habitats when possible. Mapped perennial streams include those identified as perennial on USGS topographic maps at the 1:24,000 scale. Intermittent and ephemeral streams should not be permanently filled or relocated because of skidding operations. Sites where temporary water diversions or channel fill is Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-9, p. 2-25. necessary will be functionally restored after project completion. Trees that directly provide structure to the streambanks and channels of intermittent Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-15, p. 2-26. streams should be retained. New skid roads, classified roads, trails, and walk-in campsites should not be located within the stream or pond management zone, which is a minimum of 50 feet in width. The width of the zone increases 20 feet in width with each increase of 10 percent in side Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat G-5, p. 2-25. slope. If any of the above need to be located within the zone, additional measures to minimize sedimentation should be taken. Temporary stream crossings shall be constructed only at approved locations. New timber log landings, developed campsites, and permanent facilities should not be located within 100 feet of a perennial stream or the high water mark of a pond. If they Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-6, p. 2-25. need to be located within 100 feet, additional measures to prevent direct runoff into surface waters and to minimize sedimentation should be taken. Existing roads, facilities, campsites, or trails within 100 feet of perennial streams or ponds should be considered for relocation as part of normal project planning, except Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-7, p. 2-25. when doing so would result in greater overall impact to the land or water resource. Known springs should be protected from human impact. Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-8, p. 2-25. Naturally occurring vernal pools identified during project planning should not be altered Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-11, p. 2-26. as a result of skidding or construction activities. State of Maine and State of New Hampshire Best Management Practices must be met Forest Plan, Vegetation Management S-4, p. 2-29. or exceeded. No more than 15 percent of the area of watersheds of first and second order perennial Forest Plan, Vegetation Management G-1, p. 2-29. streams should be treated with even-age regeneration methods in a five year period. Effective, proven methods (e.g., silt fencing) to reduce concentrated runoff and erosion Forest Plan, Water Resources S-3, p. 2-30. from construction activities must be used. Where used, sediment traps must be maintained until disturbed sites and/or cut and fill Forest Plan, Water Resources S-4, p. 2-30. slopes are stabilized.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 243 Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale New or reconstructed features (e.g., ditches and water bars) intended to capture runoff water should be designed to drain into areas suitable for trapping sediment and not Forest Plan, Water Resources G-1, p. 2-31. directly into streams, wetlands or vernal pools. Fords must not be used on perennial streams, except on a temporary basis during construction, unless approved for administrative use at designated locations with Forest Plan, Water Resources S-6, p. 2-30. appropriate mitigations. Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge Forest Plan, Water Resources S-5, p. 2-31. unimpeded. Intermittent and perennial streams shall have filter areas at least as wide as those specified by Maine Best Management Practices. Within this zone, appropriate BMPs MFS 2010, p. 22. described in this manual shall be applied to protect the integrity of soil and water. Treat ephemeral flow areas draining into water bodies as part of the filter area for that water body. Minimize exposing soil within these ephemeral flow areas, and stabilize MFS 2010, p. 23. exposed soil if it occurs. Locate roads, landings and skid trails to minimize the number of stream crossings MFS 2010, p. 38. needed and maximize the harvest area accessed by each crossing. Minimize disturbance to the stream banks, channel and streambed during installation, MFS 2010, p. 42. use and removal of stream crossings. Stabilize stream crossing approaches with brush or similar materials, before and during MFS 2010, p. 42. operations. Maintain approaches in a stable condition through close out. Trail grades approaching stream crossings shall be broken and surface water dispersed so it will not reach the water course. Silt fencing, hay bale erosion checks or water State of NH 2004, p. 19. diversions shall be used to prevent soil from skid trails from entering streams and other surface waters. When closing out a stream crossing, remove temporary structures from the stream, leave brush in place on approaches and banks, and stabilize exposed soil in approaches MFS 2010, p. 51. to the riparian area using brush, weed-free seed or weed-free mulch and seed.

244 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale In addition to the designated RMZ for first order streams, the following previously unmapped perennial streams shall have no cutting within 25 feet of the bank (see maps in Water Resources Report). Beaver Brook Tributary 5 in unit 47 Beaver Brook Tributary 1 in unit 49 Beaver Brook Tributary 8 in units 23 and 30 Great Brook Tributary 2 in units 11 and 9 Specialist-developed Great Brook Tributary 3 in unit 13 Meadow Brook Tributary 4 in units 92 and 94 Meadow Brook Tributary 1 in unit 92 The purpose of the additional no-cut zone is to provide a continuous supply of woody material to streams with quality fish habitat and (for Great Brook Tributaries 2 and 3) to avoid operation on steep banks. The following site-specific design features are prescribed for intermittent streams: No even-age regeneration treatments shall occur within 100 feet of intermittent streams in units 3, 56, 69, 115 and 116. Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-9 p. 2-25.MFS 2010, Intermittent streams shall have filter areas at least as wide as those specified by Maine p. 22. Best Management Practices (MFS 2010, p. 22). Within this zone, appropriate BMPs described in the BMP manual shall be applied to protect the integrity of soil and water. If additional streams, wetlands or other water bodies are located or found to have a different flow regime (i.e. intermittent or perennial), design features will be applied to comply with the Forest Plan, Maine BMPs, MFS standards for timber harvest in Specialist- developed shoreland, and any additional site-specific protection deemed necessary by a watershed specialist. Landings near units 13, 49, and 92 are located near the 100-foot stream management zone of perennial streams. The 100 foot buffer will be delineated on the ground to prevent extension of the landing into this zone. If a landing must be within 100 feet of the Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-6. stream it must be reviewed by a soil or water specialist during implementation to ensure that all necessary soil and water conservation practices have been applied. During maintenance of portions of FR 308 east of Virginia Lake, additional measures to prevent sedimentation such as sediment traps on cross drain inlets, silt fence, or similar sediment barriers downslope from disturbed soil, and seed/mulch or rock lining of Forest Plan Water Resources S-1 and S-3. ditches and road cuts must be in place until the disturbed area is stabilized with permanent vegetation. This design feature is intended to facilitate compliance with Water Resources S-1 and S-3 in the Forest Plan at a sensitive location.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 245 Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Ground-disturbing activity for watershed restoration projects, campsite relocation and road or trail decommissioning will be done during appropriate seasons and conditions to This design feature is intended to meet Forest Service National prevent excessive erosion and sedimentation. Temporary and permanent erosion Core Best Management Practices AqEco-2, Rec-3 and Road-6. control will be used on disturbed areas in accordance with State BMPs until the ground has stabilized. Group selection cuts will not occur within 50 feet of all mapped perennial streams in the Beaver Brook and Meadow Brook watersheds, as well as the following unmapped perennial streams: Beaver Brook Tributary 5 in unit 47 and Beaver Brook Tributary 1 in unit 49. Single tree selection may still occur outside of the 25’ no cut zone. The purpose Specialist-developed of extending the additional 25-foot buffer of group cuts in these two watersheds is because they have average July water temperatures approaching the coldwater/coolwater thermal class Wildlife and Plants Should any listed species be found prior to or during implementation, mitigations would Forest Plan, Rare and Unique Species, p. 1-8. occur to protect these species. Where possible, reserve small hemlock inclusions that are within other forest habitat types especially adjacent to streams. Exceptions may include hazardous trees and trees Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33. located where parts of skid trails or landings cannot be moved because of land features. To maintain hard mast component as a food source for wildlife, where possible, beech trees with abundant bear claw marks or having clumps of branches in the crown should not be marked for cutting unless the tree is expected to die in the near future. Favor trees that have recent bear claw marks. Trees that are reserved should be managed to maintain healthy crowns to improve mast production. Exceptions may include hazardous Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33 trees, trees located where parts of skid trails or landings cannot be moved because of land features, and trees with greater than 75 percent crown damage since there is a high probability they will die in the near future. In areas with heavy concentration of bear trees, patches of habitat will be reserved to minimize damage to the trees. To minimize disturbance to bats in early spring and the non-volant season (April 1 to Albany South Integrated Resource Project Biological Evaluation August 1), the Cecil Mountain prescribed fire will occur after July 31. Tree felling for clearing road right-of-ways for new road construction, road re- construction, landing, or campsite construction, and watershed restoration to restore old road and trail beds would occur after July 31 and before April 1 to minimize any disturbance to pregnant bats emerging in the spring or during the maternity season Albany South Integrated Resource Project Biological Evaluation when young are non-volant. Actual construction or re-construction of the roads, construction of landings and new campsites as well as moving felled logs from a site would not be seasonally restricted as other work besides tree felling would not disturb roosting bats.

246 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale To maintain and enhance hemlock and spruce-fir habitat, try to minimize skid trail widths to protect existing softwood regeneration, and minimize the amount of light entering the Forest Plan, Wildlife, S-1, p. 2-33. stand. Reserve most remnant oak trees retained during the last harvest in Unit 10 as wildlife Forest Plan, Wildlife, S-2, p. 2-35. trees. Consult with District Biologist during stand layout for this unit. In addition to following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for naturally occurring vernal pools follow the intent of Forestry Habitat Management Guidelines for Vernal Pool Wildlife (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004) which apply to vernal pools with two or more Forest Plan, Glossary Administrative Correction 11, Wildlife, G-1, G- indicator species: wood frog (Rana sylvatica), spotted salamander (Ambystoma 2, G-11, G-12, pp. 2-24-26; Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004 maculatum), blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale), and four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) or greater than 20 egg masses. Provide protection for peregrine falcon eyrie that occurs in the project area as recommended by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “Activity within ¼ mile of the cliffs and ledges be avoided between March 15 and August 15, including MDIFW, 8/15/2013 Maine Natural Areas Program letter. timber harvest, and that no timber harvest occur within 75 feet of the cliffs and ledges at other times of the year. (Compartment 330/Stands 003A (Unit 117), 008A (Unit 119), 019A (Unit 118). For deer wintering areas in the Project Area follow intent of Deer Wintering Area guidelines recommended by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to protect primary (crown closure > 70 percent of cedar, hemlock, spruce, fir that are 35 MDIFW 08/15/2013 letter and field review notes 10/30/2013. feet or taller) and secondary cover (crown closure > 50 percent of cedar, hemlock, spruce, fir that are 35 feet or taller) (8/15/2013 letter in Project File) as well as allowing for new areas of winter cover to develop. Reserve dense hemlock inclusion in Compartment Unit 8 that provides winter cover for Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33. white-tailed deer. Consult with District Biologist during stand layout. Within Beaver Brook Deer Wintering Area, reserve dense hemlock inclusions in the western edge of Units 31, 37 and 46 as provides a component of primary cover in the Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33. Beaver Brook Deer wintering Area. Consult with District Biologist during stand layout. Within Beaver Brook Deer Wintering Area, only place groups along the eastern edge of the hemlock inclusion in Unit 31 adjacent to Beaver Brook. Consult with the District Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33. Biologist during stand layout. In historic deer wintering areas maintain a component of balsam fir in the stand as it is a Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p. 34; MDIFW 2010, pp. 4-5. favored source of browse for deer in wintering areas. Use small groups in Unit 49 to maintain cover value and increase softwood regeneration in understory. Retain sprouting hardwoods where neededto minimize hardwood Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p. 2-33. competition in groups. Consult Forest Service Silviculturalist and district biologist during layout.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 247 Appendix B – Project Design Features

Project Design Feature Source/Rationale Follow guidance provided by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for MDIFW 08/15/2013 letter in project file Inland Waterfowl and Wading Bird areas in the project area. As needed, the Forest Botanist and/or Maine Natural Areas botanist will delineate rare plant locations and associated reserve area boundaries adjacent to harvest units. The Forest Botanist will also coordinate with WMNF staff during layout on skid road locations MNAP 8/15/2013 letter; and Specialist-developed. and in areas where single tree selection corresponds to stands with nodding pogonia, including the location of monitoring plots. Consult with District Biologist prior to stand layout to protect active raptor nest in Forest Plan, Wildlife, G-3, p 2-33. Compartment 337. A 100’ no harvest buffer will be established to protect TES plant populations in Compartment 337. Forest Botanist will be consulted to provide adequate crown closure Albany South Integrated Resource Project Biological Evaluation for an additional 150’ for both plant locations In stands with potential nodding pogonia habitat, retain at least 25 percent of the pre-cut stand basal area in mature beech, with preference to retain mature trees with little or no Ramstetter 2001, p. 6. Nectria canker infestation.

248 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives

Table 61 displays the forest type, treatment objective, acres, harvest method, season of operation, and acres for each unit by alternative. See Appendix A-Maps for unit locations.

See Chapter 1 for descriptions of harvest methods.

Table Key Harvest Method CC Clearcut (>10 acres) PC Patchcut (2-10 acres) STC Seed Tree Seed Cut SWS Shelterwood Seed Cut CT Commercial Thinning IC Improvement Cut ST Single Tree Selection Group Selection -- stand acreage is followed by actual treated acres in parenthesis: 24(4) The first number represents the total acres GS within the unit boundary. The number in parenthesis represents the acres actually harvested within the unit.

Operating Season: Operations could begin early or extend beyond the normal season if ground conditions allow (i.e., ground is dry or frozen).

S Summer W Winter

Table 61. Unit details and treatment objectives by alternative Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Maintain northern 1 ST No W 14 0 0 14 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 2 ST No W 17 0 0 17 Hardwood hardwood Northern hardwood Northern 3 regeneration PC Yes W 15 0 0 15 Hardwood (three 5 ac patches)

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 249 Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Maintain northern 4 ST No W 8 0 0 8 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 5 Hardwood/Red ST No W 18 0 0 18 hardwood/red oak Oak Red Oak/White Maintain red 6 ST No W 5 0 0 5 Pine oak/white pine Northern Maintain northern 7 Hardwood/Red ST No W 20 0 0 20 hardwood/red oak Oak White Maintain white 8 Pine/Eastern pine/eastern IC No W 26 0 0 26 Hemlock hemlock Northern Maintain northern 9 ST No W 25 0 0 25 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 9 ST No W 22 0 0 22 Hardwood hardwood 10 Red Oak Maintain red oak ST No W 15 0 0 15 10 Red Oak Maintain red oak ST No W 2 0 0 2 Northern Maintain northern 11 Hardwood/Red ST No W 10 0 0 10 hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 12 ST No W 29 0 0 29 Hardwood hardwood Red Oak/White Maintain red 13 ST No W 21 0 0 21 Pine oak/white pine Northern Maintain northern 16 IC No W 3 0 0 3 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 17 IC No W 3 0 0 3 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 21 ST No W 6 0 6 6 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 22 ST No W 1 0 1 1 Hardwood hardwood

250 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Maintain northern 23 ST No W 49 0 49 49 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 24 GS Yes W 33(5) 7(1) 33(5) 33(5) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 25 GS Yes W 17(3) 0 17(3) 17(3) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 26 ST No W 16 6 16 16 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 26 ST Yes W 1 1 1 1 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 27 ST No W 10 0 10 10 Hardwood hardwood Maintain 28 Mixedwood ST No W 6 0 6 6 mixedwood Northern Maintain northern 29 ST No W 5 0 5 5 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 29 ST No W 1 0 1 1 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 30 Hardwood/Eastern hardwood/eastern ST No W 8 0 8 8 Hemlock hemlock Northern Maintain northern 31 GS Yes W 28(4) 28(4) 28(4) 28(4) Hardwood hardwood Northern Northern 32 hardwood GS Yes W 16(2) 16(2) 16(2) 16(2) Hardwood regeneration Red Oak/White Maintain red 33 GS Yes W 24(4) 24(4) 24(4) 24(4) Pine oak/white pine Northern Northern 35 Hardwood/Red hardwood/red oak CC Yes W 20 0 20 20 Oak regeneration Northern Maintain northern 36 ST No W 47 0 47 47 Hardwood hardwood

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 251 Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Maintain northern 37 Hardwood/Eastern hardwood/eastern ST No W 15 0 15 15 Hemlock hemlock Northern Maintain northern 38 Hardwood/Red GS Yes W 17(3) 17(3) 17(3) 17(3) hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 39 GS Yes W 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 40 Hardwood/Red GS Yes W 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 41 ST No W 22 0 22 22 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 42 CT No W 58 58 58 58 Hardwood hardwood Convert to Red Oak/White 43 northern SWS No W 19 0 19 19 Pine hardwood Northern Maintain northern 44 ST No W 10 0 10 10 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 45 ST No W 23 0 23 23 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 46 ST No W 20 0 20 20 Hardwood hardwood Northern Manage for 47 GS Yes W 6(1) 6(1) 6(1) 6(1) Hardwood softwood White Maintain white 48 Pine/Eastern pine/eastern SWS Yes W 10 0 10 10 Hemlock hemlock Northern Manage for 49 Hardwood GS Yes W 51(8) 51(8) 51(8) 51(8) eastern hemlock /Eastern Hemlock Northern Manage for 50 GS Yes W 22(3) 22(3) 22(3) 22(3) Hardwood softwood Northern Aspen 51 CC Yes W 22 22 22 22 Hardwood regeneration

252 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Maintain northern 52 CT No W 44 44 44 44 Hardwood hardwood STC With Manage for red 53 Red Oak prescribed Yes W 14 14 14 14 oak fire Northern Maintain northern 54 CT No W 13 13 13 13 Hardwood hardwood STC With Manage for red 55 Red Oak prescribed Yes W 34 34 34 34 oak fire Northern Aspen 56 CC Yes W 30 30 30 30 Hardwood regeneration Northern Maintain northern 59 GS Yes W 74(11) 74(11) 74(11) 74(11) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 60 Hardwood/Red GS Yes W 18(3) 18(3) 18(3) 18(3) hardwood/red oak Oak Maintain 61 Mixedwood GS Yes W 43(6) 43(6) 43(6) 43(6) mixedwood Maintain 62 Mixedwood GS Yes W 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) mixedwood Northern Maintain northern 63 Hardwood/Red GS Yes W 19(3) 19(3) 19(3) 19(3) hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 64 Hardwood/Red GS Yes W 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 65 GS Yes W 18(3) 18(3) 18(3) 18(3) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 66 GS Yes W 18(3) 0 18(3) 18(3) Hardwood hardwood Maintain 67 Mixedwood GS Yes W 32(5) 0 32(5) 32(5) mixedwood Northern 68 Mixedwood hardwood PC Yes W 9 0 9 9 regeneration

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 253 Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Northern 69 hardwood PC Yes W 7 0 7 7 Hardwood regeneration Northern Maintain northern 70 ST Yes W 8 0 8 8 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 71 GS Yes W 8(1) 8(1) 8(1) 8(1) Hardwood hardwood Convert to 72 Mixedwood GS Yes W 32(5) 32(5) 32(5) 32(5) softwood Northern Aspen 73 PC Yes W 8 8 8 8 Hardwood regeneration Maintain hemlock 74 Eastern Hemlock GS Yes W 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) 13(2) type Northern Maintain northern 75 GS Yes W 23(3) 23(3) 23(3) 23(3) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain Aspen 76 GS Yes W 14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 14(2) Hardwood Component Northern Maintain northern 77 CT No W 23 23 23 23 Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 78 GS Yes W 35(5) 35(5) 35(5) 35(5) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 79 Hardwood Red GS Yes W 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) hardwood/red oak Oak Northern Maintain northern 80 GS Yes W 21(3) 21(3) 21(3) 21(3) Hardwood hardwood Maintain Eastern White White 81 Pine/Eastern ST No W 12 12 12 12 Pine/Eastern Hemlock Hemlock Maintain red Red Oak/White 82 oak/white pine ST No W 13 13 13 13 Pine type Convert to 83 Mixedwood GS Yes W 7(1) 7(1) 7(1) 7(1) hemlock

254 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Convert to 84 Mixedwood GS Yes W 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) spruce/fir Northern Convert to 85 GS Yes W 9(1) 9(1) 9(1) 9(1) Hardwood softwood Northern Maintain northern 86 GS Yes W 35(5) 35(5) 35(5) 35(5) Hardwood hardwood Maintain 87 Mixedwood GS Yes W 23(4) 23(4) 23(4) 23(4) mixedwood Northern Convert to red 88 SWS Yes W 22 22 22 22 Hardwood oak Red Pine/Red Maintain red 89 GS Yes W 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) Oak pine/red oak Northern Maintain northern 090 GS Yes W 26(4) 12(2) 26(4) 26(4) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 091 GS Yes W 24(4) 5(1) 24(4) 24(4) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 092 GS Yes W 118(18) 0 118(18) 118(18) Hardwood hardwood Maintain 093 Mixedwood GS Yes W 6(1) 0 6(1) 6(1) mixedwood Northern Maintain northern 094 GS Yes W 13(2) 0 13(2) 13(2) Hardwood hardwood Northern Northern 095 hardwood CC Yes W 23 0 23 23 Hardwood regeneration Northern Maintain northern 096 GS Yes W 21(3) 0 21(3) 21(3) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 097 GS No W 5(1) 0 5(1) 5(1) Hardwood hardwood Northern Maintain northern 098 GS No W 4(1) 0 4(1) 4(1) Hardwood hardwood Northern Manage for 099 SWS No W 7 7 7 7 Hardwood young hardwood Manage for red 100 Mixedwood SWS No W 38 38 38 38 oak

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 255 Appendix C – Unit Details and Treatment Objectives

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Maintain 101 Mixedwood GS Yes W 28(4) 28(4) 28(4) 28(4) mixedwood Northern Northern 102 hardwood GS Yes W 23(4) 23(4) 23(4) 23(4) Hardwood regeneration Convert to 103 Mixedwood hemlock/white GS Yes W 17(3) 17(3) 17(3) 17(3) pine Northern Manage for 104 GS Yes W 10(1) 10(1) 10(1) 10(1) Hardwood mixedwood Northern Manage for 105 GS Yes W 16(2) 16(2) 16(2) 16(2) Hardwood mixedwood Maintain 106 Mixedwood GS Yes W 24(4) 24(4) 24(4) 24(4) mixedwood Maintain 107 Mixedwood GS Yes W 20(3)` 20(3)` 20(3)` 20(3)` mixedwood Maintain 108 Mixedwood GS Yes W 12(2) 12(2) 12(2) 12(2) mixedwood Maintain 109 Mixedwood GS Yes W 55(8) 55(8) 55(8) 55(8) mixedwood Maintain 110 Mixedwood ST No W 15 15 15 15 mixedwood Maintain northern Northern hardwood, 111 GS Yes W 10(1) 10(1) 10(1) 10(1) Hardwood increase aspen component Northern Aspen 112 CC Yes W 13 13 13 13 Hardwood regeneration Northern Northern 113 hardwood CC Yes W 15 15 15 15 Hardwood regeneration Northern Maintain northern 114 GS Yes W 27(4) 27(4) 27(4) 27(4) Hardwood hardwood Northern Aspen 115 CC Yes W 30 30 30 30 Hardwood regeneration

256 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatment Harvest Release Operating Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Unit Forest Type Objective Method Treatment Season 2 (Acres) 3 (Acres) 4 (Acres) 5 (Acres) Northern Aspen 116 CC Yes W 29 29 29 29 Hardwood regeneration Northern Northern 117 hardwood PC Yes SW 9 9 9 9 Hardwood regeneration Manage for red 118 Mixedwood PC Yes SW 3 3 3 3 oak Aspen 119 Aspen CC Yes SW 11 11 11 11 regeneration Maintain 120 Mixedwood GS Yes SW 12(2) 12(2) 12(2) 12(2) mixedwood Manage for red 121 Red Oak GS Yes SW 43(6) 43(6) 43(6) 43(6) oak Northern Northern 122 hardwood PC Yes SW 8 8 8 8 Hardwood regeneration Manage for red 123 Red Oak oak and white STC Yes SW 46 46 46 46 pine Northern Maintain northern 124 GS Yes SW 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) Hardwood hardwood Red Oak/White Maintain red 125 SWS No SW 3 3 3 3 Pine oak/white pine 2,365 1,489 2,113 2,365 Total (1,298) (672) (1,046) (1,298)

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 257

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix D – Roads and Transportation System Details

All of the roads proposed for road work are managed and constructed to standards for administrative use only, except for FR 4 (Hut Road), which is managed and constructed to allow public motorized use on the portion of road south of the gate and bridge located at Great Brook.

Note: several roads are broken down by individual segments where proposed road work differs; see maps in Appendix A for locations.

Table 62. Proposed road work by alternative Road Proposed Proposed Condition and Comments Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Number Road Action Miles Bypass of current road location with access concerns. Not New 3346A 0.17 o x* o* o x constructed if access concerns Construction resolved. Winter use. Bypass of current road location with access concerns at FR New 722A 0.12 o x x x x 308B. Improved alignment for Construction access to 3347. Winter use. Connects 3321 to 3350 if New 3321A 0.17 o o x x x needed. Winter use. Construction Bypass of current road location New 3326A with access concerns at FR 57. 0.19 o x o x x Construction Winter use. Bypass of current road location New 2018E with access concerns at FR 57. 0.32 o x o x x Construction Winter use. Bypass of current road location New 320A with access concerns at FR 57. 0.53 o x x x x Construction Winter use. Access concerns from end of 4 Town Road to FS Boundary. Reconstruction 1.13 o x o o x Summer or winter use. 88 Summer use Reconstruction 0.88 o x x x x 308 Winter use Reconstruction 1.43 o x x x x Winter use, closed to public post- 308A Reconstruction 0.64 o x x x x harvest. 320A Winter use Reconstruction 0.14 o x x x x Winter use, includes ROW 722 Reconstruction 3.21 o x x, 2.80 x, 2.80 x segment 2018 Winter use Reconstruction 0.32 o x x x x 2018C Winter use Reconstruction 0.11 o x x x x Winter use in conjunction 3321 Reconstruction 0.14 o x x x x w/3321A & 3350

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 259 Appendix D – Roads and Transportation System Details

Road Proposed Proposed Condition and Comments Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Number Road Action Miles Winter use in conjunction 3326 Reconstruction 0.13 o x o x x w/3326A & 2018E 3328 Winter use Reconstruction 0.47 o x o x x 3329 Winter use Reconstruction 0.32 o x x x x 3346 Winter use Reconstruction 0.19 o x o o x 3347 Winter use Reconstruction 0.39 o x x x x Winter use in conjunction with 3350 Reconstruction 0.15 o x x x x 3321A System road. No access across private section of Birch Avenue - road segment not needed. 57 Decommission 0.16 o x x x x Groundwork required as part of timber harvest closeout or trail maintenance. System road. Road segment crosses Hannah and Goodwin Brooks. Area can be accessed by 308B Decommission 0.49 o x x x x FR 308 and 308B. Groundwork required as part of timber harvest closeout. System road. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 721 Decommission 0.67 o x x x x management. Database adjustment. Unclassified. No expectation of access across private Win Brown Road - road segment not needed 2018 for future vegetation Decommission 0.41 o x x x x management. Groundwork required as part of timber harvest closeout. Unauthorized. No expectation of access across Win Brown Road. 2018A Decommission 0.14 o x x x x Groundwork required as part of timber harvest closeout. Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 2018B management. Groundwork Decommission 0.12 o x x x x required as part of timber harvest closeout. Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 2018C management. Groundwork Decommission 0.27 o x x x x required as part of timber harvest closeout. Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 2018D management. Groundwork Decommission 0.12 o x x x x required as part of timber harvest closeout.

260 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Road Proposed Proposed Condition and Comments Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Number Road Action Miles Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation management. Use driveway 3324 Decommission 0.41 o x o o x length access from FR 4. Groundwork required as part of timber harvest closeout. Unclassified. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 3327 Decommission 0.21 o x x x x management. Database adjustment. Unclassified. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 3329 Decommission 0.89 o x x x x management. Database adjustment. Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 3338 Decommission 0.14 o x x x x management. Database adjustment. Unauthorized. Road segment not needed for future vegetation 3347 management. Groundwork Decommission 0.27 o x x x x required as part of timber harvest closeout. x = included in alternative; o = not included in alternative.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 261

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix E – Changes From the Scoped Action

After the Purpose and Need for Action was developed as described in Chapter 1, the next step was to identify the proposed activities that would make progress toward addressing the needs. This process is iterative and the proposals evolve as information is gained in any number of ways: field visits, literature reviews, public involvement, agency and tribal consultation, changing management direction (such as species being listed or delisted under the Endangered Species Act), changed ground conditions due to natural events, economic or operational feasibility, and through the interdisciplinary process that brings resource specialists together to examine and revise the proposed activities as needed to protect resources and comply with the relevant laws, regulations, and policies. As one example, in this project, our hydrologist analyzed the early harvest proposals and found that we needed to retain additional basal area to comply with water resources policies, so we dropped some harvest from the proposal. Another example is the widening of some stream buffers based on site-specific conditions and information provided by the public.

This appendix identifies changes made to the proposed action that was documented in the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Scoping Report, July 2013, and reviewed by the public. The modifications made during the subsequent planning process are recorded below in the text and in table 63. See Chapter 2, Alternative 2, for the description of the modified proposed action as currently proposed. Treatment Units

Adjusted boundaries of 31 units for the following reasons:

• Incorporate buffer guidance from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Inland Waterfowl and Wading Habitat and the National Wetlands Inventory. Widened unit buffers near Kneeland Pond and along wetlands located north of Virginia Lake and Kewaydin Lake. Widened stream buffers along specific segments (See Appendix B). • Add reserve areas to avoid impacts threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and habitat.

Dropped a total of 10 units for the following reasons:

• Ensure the project would remain below the Forest Plan basal area removal thresholds to protect water resources. • Address concerns about salmon habitat, soil erosion, and logging feasibility by eliminating the need to skid across Great Brook. • Road work and landings that were proposed to support the dropped timber harvest were dropped or revised as needed.

Changed the silvicultural prescriptions for a total of 14 units for the following reasons:

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 263 Appendix E – Changes From the Scoped Action

• Change from even-aged management (commercial thinning) to uneven-aged management (single tree selection) in habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. • Change from clearcut to group selection in habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. • Change from seed tree seed cut to shelterwood seed tree cut to lessen the potential visual impact from the Keewaydin Lake dam.

Changed season of harvest to “winter harvest only” on a total of 35 units and their associated haul roads for the following reasons:

• Avoid potential impacts to habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. • Reduce potential damage to the Hut Road from log trucks.

Prescribed fire: dropped the proposal to use prescribed fire on Isaiah Mountain to avoid impacts to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and habitat. Also, the proposed burn on Albany Mountain was incorrectly scoped as 158 acres and is now corrected to the actual size of the unit, which is 138 acres. Watershed Improvement

After further field investigations, the number of culverts to be removed or replaced increased from 7 to 12, and about 300 feet of old road was added to the 1,500 feet to be stabilized, for a total of 1,800 feet. Recreation Improvements

The proposal to relocate the Albany Notch trailhead and construct a segment of new trail has been dropped because it’s not a critical need at this time. The need to ensure parking and public access to the trail may change in the future and the proposal will be re-visited at that time.

The original proposal to discourage use and rehabilitate campsites along Great Brook was changed to add construction of new campsites on the east side of the Hut Road, away from the brook.

Relocating the Great Brook trailhead to the bridge/gate area north of its current location on FR 4 is now proposed. This area is currently used by the public as the trailhead, and is noted in trail guides as the trailhead. Formally relocating the trailhead will also put in place a Forest Protection Area that prohibits camping and fires within one-quarter mile of a trailhead unless in a campsite designated by the Forest Service, and by doing so the campsites proposed for closure along Great Brook will be protected from further impacts.

264 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 63. Timber harvest treatment unit changes after the 2013 public scoping period Unit # Change from Scoped Proposed Action Resource Concerns Addressed Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree 001 selection Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 002 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only 003 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 004 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 005 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 006 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 007 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only 008 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition Break into 2 stands; adjust unit boundary Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 009 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only

Break into 2 stands; adjust unit boundary Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 010 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only

Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 011 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 012 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Change harvest method from commercial thin to single tree Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 013 selection Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only 014 Dropped unit Salmon habitat, soil erosion, and treatment feasibility 015 Dropped unit Salmon habitat, soil erosion, and treatment feasibility 016 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 017 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 018 Dropped unit Hydrology basal area removal thresholds 018 Dropped unit Salmon habitat, soil erosion, and treatment feasibility 019 Dropped unit Salmon habitat, soil erosion, and treatment feasibility 020 Dropped unit Salmon habitat, soil erosion, and treatment feasibility

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 265 Appendix E – Changes From the Scoped Action

Unit # Change from Scoped Proposed Action Resource Concerns Addressed 022 Acreage reduced by 5 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 023 Acreage reduced by 21 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 026 Acreage reduced by 1 acre Maine Inland Waterfowl and Wading Habitat buffer 027 Acreage reduced by 7 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 028 Acreage reduced by 2 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat Stand split: create 1 acre stand 029 Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat Acreage reduced by less than 1 acre 030 Acreage reduced by 5 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 032 Change prescription from clearcut to group selection Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 034 Dropped unit Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 037 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 038 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 039 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 040 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 041 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 042 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 043 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 044 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 045 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 046 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 047 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 048 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 049 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 050 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 051 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 053 Add post-harvest site preparation using prescribed fire if Promote red oak regeneration needed. 054 Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition Change operating season from summer/winter to winter only Hut Road condition 055 Add post-harvest site preparation using prescribed fire if Promote red oak regeneration needed. 056 Acreage reduced by 1 acre Hydrology BA removal thresholds 057 Dropped unit Hydrology BA removal thresholds 058 Dropped unit Hydrology BA removal thresholds 066 Acreage reduced by 6 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 069 Acreage reduced by 2 acres Maine Inland Waterfowl and Wading Habitat buffer 070 Acreage reduced by 8 acres Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 081 National Wetlands Inventory National Wetlands Inventory 083 Acreage reduced by less than 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 084 Acreage reduced by 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 085 Acreage reduced by less than 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 088 Change from seed tree seed cut to shelterwood seed cut Visibility from Keewaydin Lake Dam viewpoint

266 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Unit # Change from Scoped Proposed Action Resource Concerns Addressed 099 Acreage reduced by less than 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 100 Acreage reduced by 4 acres National Wetlands Inventory buffer 101 Acreage reduced by less than 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 102 Acreage reduced by 2 acres Maine Inland Waterfowl and Wading Habitat buffer 102 Change prescription from clearcut to group selection Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 103 Acreage reduced by 4 acres National Wetlands Inventory buffer 104 Acreage reduced by 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer 117 Acreage reduced by 1 acre Threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat 121 Acreage reduced by 1 acre National Wetlands Inventory buffer

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 267

Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Table 64 displays the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the analysis of cumulative effects for this project. Forest Service projects were compiled from the White Mountain National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions and knowledge of additional project planning by local managers. Information about projects on private land was compiled through landowner contacts, Maine state data, and observation.

See individual resource sections in Chapter 3 for the predicted cumulative effects associated with these projects.

Use the Map ID number in the first column to locate individual projects on the map (figure 21) which follows this table.

Table 64. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered for cumulative effects Map ID Activity Acres Date Comments Timeframe 1 timber harvest - private 17 2011 Private timber harvest on Hut Road. past 2 timber harvest - private 5 2011 Private timber harvest on Hut Road. past 3 timber harvest - private 300 2014 Private timber harvest on Enid Melrose Road. past 4 timber harvest - private 100 2012 Private timber harvest on Enid Melrose Road. past 5 timber harvest - private 8 2014 Private timber harvest on West Stoneham Road. past 6 timber harvest - private 35 2012 Private timber harvest on West Stoneham Road. past 7 timber harvest - private 75 2012 Private timber harvest on Maine State Route 5. past 8 timber harvest - private 45 2015 Private timber harvest on Maine State Route 5. present 9 timber harvest - private 10 2010 Private timber harvest, Albany Township past 10 timber harvest - private 70 2015 Private timber harvest, Albany Township present 11 timber harvest - private 15 2015 Private timber harvest, Albany Township present 12 timber harvest - private 2 2013 Private timber harvest, Albany Township past 13 timber harvest - private 68 2015 Private timber harvest, Albany Township present 14 timber harvest - private 14 2015 Private timber harvest, Albany Township present 15 timber harvest - private 200 2006 Private timber harvest, Albany Township past 16 timber harvest - private 200 2014 Private timber harvest, Albany Township past Farwell Mtn. - includes 45 acres of even-aged 17 timber harvest - FS 298 2009 past management. 18 timber harvest - FS 104 2011 Tyler - includes 9 acres of even-aged mgt. past 19 timber harvest - FS 510 2014 Kennison Ridge - includes 44 of even-aged mgt. past 20 timber harvest - FS 156 2014 Edwards - includes 0 of even-aged mgt. past 21 timber harvest - FS 203 2014 Millstone - includes 11 acres of even-aged mgt. past 22 timber harvest - FS 527 2014 Orchard - includes 43 acres of even-aged mgt. past Brown's Ledge - includes 26 acres of even-aged 23 timber harvest - FS 124 ongoing present mgt. 24 timber harvest - FS 665 ongoing Four Ponds - includes 75 acres of even-aged mgt. present

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 269 Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Map ID Activity Acres Date Comments Timeframe 25 timber harvest - FS 318 2014 Holt - includes 3 acres of even-aged mgt. future 26 snowmobile trail relocation N/A 2008 1,400 feet relocation vicinity Lombard Pond past 27 watershed restoration N/A 2006 Great Brook - 2+ miles on main stem & tributaries past 28 landlocked salmon stocking N/A Annual Annual stocking program MDIFW ongoing permanent wildlife opening Knox permanent wildlife opening - mow or hand 29 1 Annual ongoing maintenance brush. Expand to 4 acres. permanent wildlife opening Round Pond permanent wildlife opening - mow or 30 3 Annual ongoing maintenance hand brush. permanent wildlife opening Virginia Lake permanent wildlife opening - mow or 31 12 Annual ongoing maintenance handbrush. permanent wildlife opening Bell Mtn. permanent wildlife opening - burn or 32 13 Annual ongoing maintenance handbrush. 33 prescribed fire 20 2014 Farwell Mtn. prescribed fire present permanent wildlife opening Donahue Fields permanent wildlife opening - burn, 34 7 Annual ongoing maintenance mow, or handbrush. permanent wildlife opening Harriman Brook Spur permanent wildlife opening - 35 15 Annual ongoing maintenance burn or handbrush. permanent wildlife opening Sunken Pond permanent wildlife opening - burn or 36 8 Annual ongoing maintenance handbrush. permanent wildlife opening Ikie Fields permanent wildlife opening - burn or 37 16 Annual ongoing maintenance handbrush. 0.25 mi East Branch Pleasant River. Farwell Mtn. 38 watershed restoration N/A 2009 past even-aged Decommission portion of Albany Notch Trail. (Four 39 hiking trail N/A 2011 past Ponds EA). past 40 invasive control N/A 2011 Oriental Bittersweet at Donahue Fields present future Proposed gravel pit, end Sunken Pond Rd. (Four 41 gravel pit 2 2014 future Ponds EA). 42 dam construction N/A 2010 Broken Bridge Pond past 43 roads N/A 2010 Reconstruct 3.5 miles Patte Mill Rd. past 44 bridges N/A 2010 Bridge installation at FR 59A over Harriman Brook. past 45 snowmobile trail relocation N/A 2010 300 feet of relocation to FR 59A. past 46 snowmobile trail relocation N/A 2014 2.1 miles old bypass reconstruction. present 47 snowmobile trail relocation N/A 2015 Relocate trail from wet ground. past 48 watershed restoration N/A 2015 Culvert removal at FR 319. future 0.8 miles of construction at expanded Harriman 49 fireline construction N/A 2015 future permanent wildlife opening. past 50 prescribed fire N/A ongoing Harriman Brook 1 and 2 prescribed fire units. future New England, Miles, Mosquito Pond and East 51 watershed restoration N/A 2015 future Pleasant Brooks 52 timber harvest - private N/A 2015 Potential private timber harvest, Stoneham. future snowmobile bridge 53 N/A 2014 Pending state funds, 2014 or 2015. future replacement

270 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Map ID Activity Acres Date Comments Timeframe past 54 trail maintenance N/A Ongoing Brushing, drainage on hiking and snowmobile trails. future Expansion of Crocker Pond Campground by three 55 new campsites N/A Future future sites. 56 accessibility upgrade N/A future Northern end of Albany Brook Trail. future MDIFW=Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 271 Appendix F – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Figure 21. Albany South Project cumulative effects analysis connected activities

272 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix G – Water Resources and Analysis Area Maps

The following maps display the perennial streams, ponds, and lakes in the analysis areas used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to water resources. Names have been assigned to unnamed streams for the purposes of this analysis.

The perennial streams are mapped as of 8/21/2015. Streams may be added or reclassified upon further field work and public input. The following design feature is incorporated into all action alternatives (see Appendix B):

If additional streams, wetlands or other water bodies are located or found to have a different flow regime (i.e. intermittent or perennial), design features will be applied to comply with the Forest Plan, Maine Best Management Practices, and Maine Forest Service standards for timber harvest in shoreland, and any additional site-specific protection deemed necessary by a watershed specialist.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 273 Appendix G – Water Resources and Analysis Area Maps

Figure 22. Streams mapped as of 8/21/15 on the west side of the project area

274 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 23. Streams mapped as of 8/21/15 on the east side of the project area

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 275 Appendix G – Water Resources and Analysis Area Maps

Figure 24. Subwatersheds used in effects analysis of water quantity and water quality effects Note: The yellow lines are the boundaries between watersheds used in this analysis. The gray-shaded area is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects, and the bold black lines encompass the cumulative effects analysis area.

276 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

This report summarizes the Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics reports prepared for the Albany South Integrated resourced Project which are available in the project record. Introduction

This report contains a summary of recent trends in the local climate and modeled expected changes in climate for the Northeastern United States including the White Mountain Region of New Hampshire and Maine. It includes a discussion of the expected effects of modeled climate change on many of the resources within the project area where there is a relationship with climate change. The description for how effects of the proposed project activities on the resources within the project area may interact with the projected changes in climate is addressed outside of this report, in each resource section of the Albany South Integrated Resource Project Environmental Assessment.

The scope of this review of climate change effects on project area resources is generally the project area over the next 85 years (to 2100). The 85-year timeframe aligns with many of the typical projections of climate change for the remainder of the 21st Century. Time frames beyond 2100 are not well represented in the available literature. The geographical boundary of effects to resources may vary based on the available peer reviewed science. Geographic scale may be limited to state, regional or hemispheric scales depending on the modeling selected by the researchers. Existing Conditions

The current climate of the White Mountain region in Northern New Hampshire and Western Maine is generally characterized as a humid continental climate, where winters are long, cold and heavy snow is common. Most locations receive 60 to 120 inches of snow annually. The summer season is moderately warm, short and rainfall is spread throughout the year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has divided Maine into 3 primary climate divisions that reflect the differences between the warmer coastal zone and the colder northern interior. The Albany South project area lies within Maine Climate Division 2 (Southern Interior). This division has a long term average annual temperature of 42.3o F and average annual precipitation of 43.5 inches for the period 1895 -2015 (National Climactic Data Center - NOAA, 2015). Between 1895 and 2015, mean annual temperatures fluctuated from year to year by several degrees across Southern Interior Maine with an average increase in overall warmth of 0.3oF per decade for the entire period. The more recent period 1960- 2015 shows an average increase in temperature of 0.5oF per decade indicating that the rate of warming has increased in the last half century. Trends in

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 277 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

precipitation over the past century have been more pronounced, with an average decadal increase in average annual precipitation of 0.46” over the period 1895 to 2014. The latter half of the period, 1960 to 2014, shows an increase of 1.26” per decade.

Figure 25. Climate Divisions of Maine (Climate Prediction Center - National Weather Service, 2015)

Recent climate trends in the West Virginia to Maine region (Kunkel et al. 2013):

• Temperatures have generally remained above the 1901-1960 average over the past 30 years. Warming has been more pronounced during the winter and spring seasons with trends upward and statistically significant for each season as well as the year as a whole. • Annual precipitation shows a clear shift towards greater variability and higher totals since 1970. Precipitation trends are statistically significant for fall and for the year as a whole. • The frequency of extreme cold events was high early in the record (1901 – 1960) and has been less than average since a peak in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1985 the cold wave index has averaged about 30 percent below the long-term average. • Since the late 1980s the frequency of heat waves has been similar to that of the first half of the 20th century. • There is substantial decadal-scale variability in the number of extreme precipitation events since about 1935. The index has been quite high since the 1990s with the highest value occurring in 2008. • There has been a generally increasing trend in the length of the freeze-free season since the mid1980s. The average freeze-free season length during 1991-2010 was about 10 days longer than during 1961-1990. • Over the last 30 years, the spring center-of-volume dates (a measure of the seasonality of river flow volume) have come 1-2 weeks earlier on average. • Overall warming is further evidenced by later ice-in dates on northeastern lakes and a decrease in average snow depth.

278 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment Predicted Future Conditions

Information on predicted conditions is based on the results of the substantial modelling efforts supporting the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and national efforts such as the US National Climate Assessment. These modeling efforts are documented in scientific peer reviewed literature that is widely available, and therefore are not reproduced in this report. The NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1 “Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 1. Climate of the Northeast U.S.” (Kunkel et al. 2013) provides a succinct discussion of this modeling. The results discussed below are from groups of models that are only representations (each with their own biases) of the complex processes operating on the planet. These global models are sometimes statistically downscaled or used to provide inputs to regional climate models. Inputs to these models concerning potential increases in CO2, other greenhouse gases, and other forcing factors are based on International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios. These scenarios provide internally consistent “storylines” about possible future social, economic, technological and demographic developments. The modeled emission scenarios are:

• A2 scenario: Green House Gas (GHG) emissions steadily rise throughout the 21st century resulting in estimated Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations above 800 parts per million (ppm) • B1 scenario: GHG emissions level off by mid-century and top out at approximately 500 ppm Other scientific literature may also include the A1FI scenario which models a much higher CO2 level of 1370 ppm at the end of the century.

• A1F1 scenario: Estimated CO2 level of 1370 ppm at the end of the century (2100) The very latest work on climate modeling supporting the work of the IPCC has changed from the scenario based approach to a new methodology (Wayne 2015) which uses representation concentration pathways to provide various time- dependent projections of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. As this work has not been widely assimilated into the scientific literature at this time, the scenario approach will be relied upon for future predictions of regional and project area climate, unless otherwise noted. Unless otherwise noted, the results of the modeling describing estimated future conditions is a multi-model mean resulting from the output of up to 15 different climate models.

NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1 “Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 1. Climate of the Northeast U.S.” (Kunkel et al. 2013) describes the results of their future climate simulations for the West Virginia to Maine region. The details regarding the projected rates of change for each emission scenario (A2 and B1) and for each time period (2021-2050, 2041-2070, and 2070-2099) by these scientists and others referenced below are not included in this summary document but are available in the specialist report in the project record.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 279 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

The models indicate an increase in temperature for all three future periods, with little spatial variation across the region though warming tends to be slightly larger in the northern portion of the area. Depending on which emission scenario is utilized, projected changes from the baseline period for the project area are an increase ranging from 4.5 to 8.5 degrees by the year 2099. There would also be a decrease in the number of days below freezing. The freeze-free season is simulated to lengthen by approximately 25-29 days for the project area between 2041 and 2070.

The modeling of precipitation changes in the region is not as clear as for temperature nor is it as strong statistically, however in the project area there is strong agreement across all models that precipitation will increase. Increases will likely be within the normal variation of precipitation up until 2050. There is a statistically significant chance that precipitation will increase by up to 3.6 inches by 2099.

Simulated seasonal changes are mostly upward in winter, spring and fall and downward in summer. However, the range around the multi-model mean is large, indicating greater uncertainty about seasonal precipitation shifts. The strongest signal for the project area of these seasonal shifts is during the period 2070-2099. The increase in the number of days with precipitation totals greater than 1 inch is expected to be by 9-10 days for the project area for the period 2041-2070. There are also projections that the frequency of events greater than 1” will increase for this period in the project area and across the region.

More recent work using the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) modeling supports the previous work of Kunkle who used CMIP3 data. The authors of this study (Wuebbles et al. 2014) note that the CMIP5 modeling predicts, by the end of this century, a 50 to 90 percent increase in the annual fraction of precipitation falling in the heaviest events (mid-low to higher scenarios respectively). The authors also note that at the end of this century, under the higher scenario, the current 20-yr event is projected to occur about 3 – 4 times more frequently for areas of the northeastern United States. The National Weather Service estimated that the 24-hour event with a return interval of 25 years was between 5 and 6 inches for the project area (Hershfield 1961). This projection would result in the 20-year storm becoming approximately the 5-year storm by 2100. Snowfall and Snowpack Modeling of snowfall and snowpack by other researchers supports Kunkel’s general conclusions, but provides a more detailed look at the potential variability of this type of weather. The authors of this study (Notaro, Lorenz, Hoving and Schumer 2014) predict that for both the middle and late 21st Century and both emission scenarios (A2 and B1), the entire region is expected to experience reduced annual snowfall and a shift toward less snow and more rain compared to the period 1980 - 2000. In the vicinity of the project area, these reductions in mean snow depth are on the order of 20-40 percent mid-century and greater than 80 percent by the late period (2080-2100). Reductions of similar magnitude are modeled for the number of days with more than 0.4 inch snow on the ground.

280 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment The authors note that their study provides support for intensified snowstorms during this century. Heavy daily snow events are projected to increase in frequency, particularly across the upper Great Plains and Great Lakes, most notably for low-warming scenarios. Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Project Area Resources

Projected climate-induced impacts on a wide variety of forest resources over the next century were summarized in “Changing Climate, Changing Forests” (Rustad et al. 2012). This summary included work on selected tree species or species groups based on changes in habitat conditions, biogeochemical cycling, and wildlife and nuisance species. Drawing on the work of a large body of peer reviewed literature, the authors succinctly highlight both the findings and the uncertainties uncovered in this scientific work. The following information in this report draws from “Changing Climate, Changing Forests” to illustrate the estimated effects of climate change to Northeastern forests that are representative of the resources in the project area.

Biogeochemical cycling is the movement of elements through the soils, plants, waters and atmosphere; it is a fundamental part of any ecosystem. The evidence collected at a number of research sites around the Northeast indicates that climate change will alter biogeochemical cycling with potentially profound effects on forest productivity, water quality and other ecosystem services. Studies conducted at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest on the White Mountain National Forest, among other locations, suggest that as climate warms through the end of the century (2100), greenhouse gases will be released from soils, the availability of important nutrients will change, and the water quality in sensitive watersheds will decrease (Campbell et al. 2009); even as net primary productivity is modeled to increase. The authors noted in their article, that their model simulations and analyses have limitations, particularly of the feedback loops between processes operating in the environment. They were confident that their results indicated the direction and magnitude of change expected by the end of the century for the models and emission scenarios they used.

Other impacts to biogeochemical cycling are highlighted in a later study that removed snow cover from forested sites to measure the possible effects of soil freezing on calcium cycling in sugar maples. This study (Comerford et al, 2013) confirms other work on soil freezing as a cause of soil acidification that leads to soil cation imbalances (between calcium, a necessary plant nutrient, and aluminum a known phytotoxin). The authors found evidence that increased soil freezing due to a reduced snowpack could exacerbate soil cation imbalances already caused by acidic deposition, and have widespread implications for forest health in the Northeastern United States. Tree Species and Groups In “Changing climate, Changing Forests”, Rustad et al. summarized projected climate-induced impacts over the next century on selected tree species or species

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 281 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

groups. These projections were based on changes in habitat conditions, known as the “climatic envelope” approach. This approach can be used to project shifting conditions for both plants and animals (i.e. how tree species are likely to adjust to new conditions). Current modeling studies project that the climatic envelope of the dominant tree species in the Northeast region are likely to undergo dramatic range shifts as forests slowly disassemble and reassemble in response to changes in suitable habitat through the end of this century. Some individual species are more sensitive to these changes than others and some typical species assemblages we see now on the landscape locally are unlikely to remain together (Iverson et al. 2008). Projections suggest that the suitable habitat (climatic envelope) for spruce-fir forests may virtually disappear from the Northeast in the next 100 years, and that the climatic envelope for the northern hardwood trees that currently dominate the region is likely to be replaced by conditions better suited to oak forests (Rustad et al. 2012). It is important to reiterate that these are projections of climate suitability for individual species and not for the presence or absence of a particular species, as tree species migrate slowly (Mohan et al. 2009). The expectation is that there would still be individuals of the current dominant species, in particular of the more long lived species, on the local landscape at the end of the century; but they would be more stressed and less competitive than they are at present. This stress condition may make individuals of these currently dominant species more susceptible to insects, pests and disease (Iverson et al. 2008). Species at the southern edge of their range, such as paper and yellow birch, red spruce and sugar maple may be more susceptible to winter freeze-thaw events or general freezing of the soil due to reductions in snow cover (Mohan et al. 2009). Understory Vegetation Along with the effects on the dominant vegetation type, there are expected to be similar changes to vegetation in the understory. A study of the ability of understory vegetation to react to stressors such as changes in light levels, drought or waterlogging indicates that less than 10 percent of northern hemisphere species studied were tolerant to two or more stressors (Niinemets and Valladares 2006). In a survey of A climate change vulnerability survey in Maine (Whitman 2013) revealed that plant species at the southern extent of their range or those found in fragmented habitats such as wetlands or alpine areas, were likely to be the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The majority of the plants noted as highly vulnerable by Whitman are currently listed by the state of Maine as threatened or endangered. There is limited research available on the possible effect of climate change on individual species of understory plants in the Northeastern United States. Wildlife Climate affects wildlife through changes in the quality and distribution of habitat, the availability of food, the abundance of parasites and diseases, and the incidence of stress from heat and drought. Specialist species and animals whose populations are already declining due to other stressors will be most vulnerable. Species that are most likely to be affected by the smallest amount of change and therefore are particularly at risk are those:

282 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment • At the southern edge of their range • with restricted ranges, • restricted to a single habitat, or • with small isolated populations

Birds Climate change has affected the distribution and abundance of many species in recent decades. For example, detailed historical information indicates that the ranges of many bird species have changed and that there will be substantial gains and losses in the future, predominantly among migratory bird species, under both high (A2) and low (B1) emissions scenarios (Rustad et al. 2012).

Changes in habitat suitability for many bird species of interest in the project area have been modeled under a range of climate change scenarios. The mean centers of the habitats for 147 species are projected to move, on average, between 98 and 203 km to the north-northeast by the end of the century, depending on the climate change scenario (Matthews et al. 2011). A separate study that modeled projected change in suitable habitat under four climate change scenarios indicated the potential for relatively large changes in the bird community throughout the Northeast (Rodenhouse et al. 2008) with the largest changes occurring under the higher emission scenarios (A1FI). Any given location could be expected to simultaneously gain and lose bird species as ranges, breeding and wintering grounds fluctuate. Areas where habitat may be suitable for the largest increases in bird richness included Maine and New Hampshire, while large losses of species richness were expected to occur in the southern New England States and New York. The abundance of Neotropical and temperate migrants, that compose the majority of birds breeding in the Northeast, may undergo major change with either high or low emissions scenarios. For these two groups of migrants, under both high emission scenarios (A1FI and A2), over 44 percent of the species are projected to decline. An additional 33 percent are projected to increase in incidence by more than 25 percent as a result of climate change. If these changes are realized, they would constitute a dramatic alteration of the composition of bird communities throughout the region. Temperate migrants show the greatest potential for overall losses in incidence as a result of shifting habitat. This is in part due to a greater proportion of losses compared to gains. The Neotropical migrants show substantial losses of current occupants as well as substantial gains of more southern species moving north (Rodenhouse et al. 2008).

Other Fauna Climate change is expected to impact other fauna including mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects. The most sensitive species to climate change are habitat restricted species such as those living or breeding at high elevations, inhabiting small isolated patches of habitat such as bogs; and those dependent upon disturbance regimes (fire), or hydroperiods (vernal pools). Others at risk are those highly specialized species dependent upon a single host plant species or whose population may already be in decline or threatened from some other disturbance, such as pests, disease or other environmental stressors (Rodenhouse

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 283 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

et al. 2009). Many of these species are currently listed as threatened or endangered by the State of Maine (Whitman 2013). Moose is one of the mammals of concern in the area of the project. It currently suffers not only from higher levels of heat stress in the summer, but from winter tick infestations that are more prevalent, due to warmer minimum winter temperatures (Whitman 2013).

Amphibians are also expected to be increasingly vulnerable to climate change. Researchers postulate that vernal pools, a key breeding habitat, may be present for shorter periods of time due to reductions in snow pack, shifts in the timing of precipitation and increased evaporation from higher temperatures (Rodenhouse et al. 2009). The shortening of the pond hydroperiod would likely affect population dynamics negatively by increasing competition, decreasing size at metamorphosis and stranding pre-metamorphic larvae. Insects are expected to change geographic distribution, and exhibit altered phenology, physiology and life history in response to climate change. Human Environment Climate change is expected to have effects on aspects of the human environment. While there is extensive literature on this subject, this discussion is limited to three aspects: Winter recreation, infrastructure and heritage resources.

Winter Recreation Winter recreation within the project area is primarily focused on over snow travel in the form of snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Over snow travel is highly dependent on natural snow conditions. Its extensive nature does not lend itself to benefitting from the type of snow making that occurs in alpine winter recreation. There is one substantial analysis of the potential effect of climate change on snowmobiling in North America (McBoyle et al. 2007).The authors examined the data from 13 sites across Canada, including locations in the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces. Estimating that the minimum snow depth for reliability was 6 inches in smooth terrain and 30 cm 12 in rough terrain, they made projections for each of the sites using a low emission (B2) and high emission (A1) scenario for two time periods the 2020s (2010 – 2039) and the 2050s (2040 – 2069). By calculating against the base period (1961 – 1990) the authors estimate that the number of days with reliable snow cover for snowmobiling in the 2020s would be reduced by 42 percent (from an average of 68 down to 39 days) under the low emission scenario (B2) in Sherbrooke, QC; and as much as 58 percent (from 68 down to 29 days) under the high emission scenario (A1). By 2050 the estimates were 47 percent and 95 percent reductions (to 37 and 3 days) respectively. As Sherbrooke, QC is 120 miles north-northwest of the project area, it would be reasonable to assume that the actual number of days of reliable snow for snowmobiling in the project area will be less than these estimates. The authors conclude that by 2050 the effect of climate change on snowmobiling will be devastating under the high emission scenario and that in all actuality, the likelihood of extreme events (warmer than average winters, multiple rain on snow events), which they did not model, will render the activity unreliable much earlier.

284 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment The effect of climate change on the built environment within the project area, is limited to trails and roads and their associated drainage structures (e.g. culverts and bridges). These changes in the overall precipitation regime will expose the built environment to rainfall and runoff that exceeds its current design specifications in most cases. Crossings on streams will see water levels now associated with the 100 year flood (1 percent return frequency) more often. The gravel and native materials that surface most roads and trails in the area will be subject to extreme events, more frequently, resulting in greater erosion and requiring additional maintenance. Reductions in protective snow cover, more frequent freeze-thaw cycles and the greater likelihood of winter rain events when protective vegetation is absent, will also increase the exposure of roads and trails to the erosive effects of extreme precipitation. Heritage Resources Heritage resources are vulnerable in many of the same ways that natural resources are vulnerable, though the specific mechanisms that impact heritage resources are different. The natural environment is the greatest threat to fragile site materials such as wood and stone masonry. Water, wind, soil chemistry, floods, extreme temperatures, fluctuations in humidity, and freeze-thaw and wet- dry cycling are the primary threats to these resources. Predicted climatic changes include changes in the frequency, duration, and intensity of all of the above, and these changes, where they occur, will impact preservation (USDI National Park Service 2010). As a local example, higher flood flows at stream crossings have potential to compromise the structural integrity of historically significant stone masonry culverts. This issue was highlighted to National Forest managers when several historical rock culverts were at risk after tropical storm Irene passed over the White Mountain National Forest. Interactions with Project Related Disturbance The disturbance created from the proposed activities at the project scale could interact with the larger disturbance generated by anthropogenic climate change in many ways. This will vary by the resource. Some of the possible types of interaction could include:

• Some of the effects of the project generated disturbance are so minimal, possibly because of mitigations included in the project design, that there will be no interaction at all with modeled climate change. • The effects of the project generated disturbance will likely fall within the range of natural disturbance over a short time horizon. It is therefore not likely to interact in a meaningful way with the effect climate change will have on the particular resource. • The effect of the project generated disturbance, temporarily increases resistance or resilience to the modeled effects of climate change to a resource. This allows a species or community to remain on the landscape in a healthier condition or for a longer period of time, than would be expected without the project generated disturbance.

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 285 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

• The effect of the project generated disturbance interacts with the modeled effects of climate change to a resource in a way that accelerates the changes expected from climate change alone. These changes might be either desirable (e.g. assisted migration) or undesirable (e.g. extirpation of a species from the area). Summary Climate change has been and will be a driver of change on the landscape. The measured changes in trends over the last few decades have already begun to affect some project area resources. The modeled changes available in the peer reviewed literature indicate, depending on many factors, that most, if not all of the natural and human resources in the project area are likely to eventually see some effect. The scope, timing and magnitude of the effects to an individual species or resource cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. This is because of the inherent uncertainties in the models used, the natural variability operating in ecosystems and the lack of modeling for many factors and their interrelationships. Carbon Dynamics Report Summary An analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between carbon storage and uptake and the proposed activities in the Albany South Integrated Resource project. There is a strong scientific understanding of carbon flux, however it is not possible to measure accurately or precisely at the project scale, due to the nature of the activities and uncertainties associated with the models that are used to estimate it. Any changes in carbon flux resulting from proposed activities would be temporary, as there would be no change in land use. The area would remain in a forested condition, with only the stand structure, species mixes and age classes changing.

The full analysis, which is available in the Albany South project record, describes the science behind carbon storage and uptake and models for estimating flux. It provides a general contextual setting for the scale of effects from this project in relation to emissions from other activities currently occurring in Maine, and a basic quantification of the carbon flux at the project level and larger scales. The bottom-line results from that analysis are provided below.

The estimated release of CO2 equivalents from this project, depending on the alternative implemented, is expected to be between 14,000 and 30,000 Metric Tons (MT). As discussed previously, it is impossible to quantify all of the uncertainties that surround the estimates. It should be reiterated that this is a point estimate and any release would be spread over several years if not decades as carbon moves between the various ecosystem pools before being released to the atmosphere. Some carbon, converted into harvested wood products or entering the soil pool, may not reach the atmosphere for a very long time if ever.

The impacts of the proposed action on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are very small. The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term

286 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest Albany South Integrated Resource Project Draft Environmental Assessment benefits in terms of carbon storage. This project, at the high end of the estimated range may release approximately 30,000 MT of CO2 equivalents over a period of 8 to 10 years (and possibly longer). If all of the estimated amount was to be released in one year it would be only .07 percent of the annual carbon storage effect of U.S. Forests (which already includes annual harvests and both natural growth and death in the calculation of the flux). Appendix H References Cited

Campbell, J. L., Rustad, L. E., Boyer, E. W., Christopher, S. F., Driscoll, C. T., Fernandez, I. J., Ollinger, S. V. (2009). Consequences of Climate Change for Biogeochemical Cycling in Forests of Northeastern North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39: 264-284.

Climate Prediction Center - National Weather Service. (2015, MARCH 20). Maine CLimate Divisions. Retrieved from Climate Prediction Center, NWS, NOAA: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/CLIM_DIVS/maine. gif

Comerford, D. P., Schaberg, P. G., Templar, P. H., Socci, A. M., Campbell, J. L., & Wallin, K. F. (2013). Influence of experimental snow removal on root and canopy physiology of sugar maple trees in a northern hardwood forest. Oecologia, 171:261–269.

Hershfield, D. M. (1961). Technical Paper #40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PF_documents/TechnicalPaper_No40.pdf

Iverson, L. R., Prasad, A. M., Matthews, S. N., & Peters, M. (2008). Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 390- 406.

Kunkel, K. E., Stevens, L. E., Stevens, S. E., Sun, L., Janssen, E., Wuebbles, D., . . . Dobson, J. G. (2013). Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment: Part 1, Climate of the Northeast US, NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-1. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service.

Matthews, S. N., Iverson, L. R., Prasad, A. M., & Peters, M. P. (2011). Changes in potential habitat of 147 North American breeding bird species in response to redistribution of trees and climate following predicted climate change. Ecography, 34: 933-945.

McBoyle, G., Scott, D., & Jones, B. (2007). Climate Change and the Future of Snowmobiling in non- Mountanious Regions of Canada. Managing Lesiure, 12, 237 - 250.

Mohan, J. E., Cox, R. M., & Iverson, L. P. (2009). Composition and Carbon Dynamics of Forests in Northeastern North America in a Future, Warmer World. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39: 213-230.

National Climactic Data Center - NOAA. (2015, March 15). Time Series. Retrieved from Climate at a Glance: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 287 Appendix H – Climate Change and Carbon Dynamics

National Park Service. (2010). Vanishing Treasures Program 2010 Report. NPS. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://www.nps.gov/archeology/vt/2010yr.pdf

Niinemets, Ü., & Valladares, F. (2006). Tolerance of Shade, Drought and Waterlogging of Temperate Northern Hemisphere Trees and Shrubs. Ecological Monographs, 76:521–547.

NOAA Climate Prediction Center. (2015, January 27). Maine. Retrieved from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/CLIM_DIVS/ maine.gif

Notaro, M., Lorenz, D., Hoving, C., & Schumer, M. (2014). Twenty-First-Century Projections of Snowfall and Winter Severity across Central-Eastern North America. Journal of Climate, 27: 6526 - 6550.

Rodenhouse, N. L., Chritenson, L. M., Parry, D., & Green, L. (2009). Climate Change Effects on Native Fauna of Northeastern States. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39: 249-263.

Rodenhouse, N. L., Mathews, S. N., McFarland, K. P., Lambert, J. D., Iverson, L. R., Prasad, A. S., & Holmes, R. T. (2008). Potential Effects of Climate Change on Birds of the Northeast. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13: 517 - 540.

Rowse, L. 2015. Albany South Habitat Management Unit (HMU) Rationale. Unpublished document, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, NH.

Rustad, L., Campbell, J., Dukes, J. S., Huntington, T., Fallon Lambert, K., Mohan, J., & Rodenhouse, N. (2012). Changing climate, changing forests: The impacts of climate change on forests of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Wayne, G. (2015, April 1). The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways. Retrieved from Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php

Whitman, A. A. (2013). Climate Change and Biodiversity in Maine: Vulnerability of Habitats and Priority Species, Report SEI-2013-03. Brunswick, ME: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (in collaboration with Maine Beginning with Habitat Climate Change Working Group). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from https://www.manomet.org/sites/default/files/publications_and_tools/2013%20BwH%20Vulnerabi lity%20Report%20CS5v7_0.pdf

Wuebbles, D., Meehl, G., Hayhoe, K., Karl, T. R., Kunkel, K., Santer, B. Kharin, V. (2014). CMIP5 Climate Model Analys;ate Extremes in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 571 - 583.

288 Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest