Crawford
United States Department of Agriculture Stewardship
Forest Service
Eastern Project Region
Environmental Assessment Towns of Carroll, Bethlehem, Crawfords Purchase Grafton & Coös Counties, NH
Pemigewasset Ranger District December 2010
For Information Contact: Roger Boyer Pemigewasset Ranger District 71 White Mountain Drive Campton NH 03223 603 536-6130 / Fax 603 536-3685
White Mountain National Forest [email protected] Cover photo: Ammonoosuc Lake.
This document is available in large print. Contact the Pemigewasset Ranger District Phone 603 536-6100 TTY 603 536-3665
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program infor- mation (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Printed on Recycled Paper Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Contents
Where is this project in the Forest Service NEPA process? ...... 5 Chapter 1 — Proposed Action ...... 7 1.1 About the Crawford Stewardship Project Area ...... 8 Location ...... 8 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Project ...... 8 1.3 Decision to be Made ...... 18 1.4 Public Participation ...... 18 1.5 Issues ...... 18 Issue 1: Clearcutting Effects on Scenery ...... 19 Issue 2: Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Rehabilitation ...... 19 1.6 Minor Clarification ...... 20 Chapter 2 — Alternatives ...... 21 2.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 21 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 22 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 31 Chapter 3 — Environmental Effects ...... 43 3.1 Temporal and Spatial Analysis Boundaries ...... 43 3.2 Issue 1: Clearcutting Effects on Scenery ...... 44 3.3 Issue 2: Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Rehabilitation ...... 59 3.4 Environmental Effects On Other Resources ...... 69 Soil Productivity Resource ...... 69 Water Resource ...... 72 Vegetation Resource ...... 78 Wildlife Resources ...... 85 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species (TEPS) .103 Non-native Invasive Plants ...... 106 Cultural Resources ...... 108 Scenery Management — Roads, Trails, Ammonoosuc Lake ...... 110 Recreation Resource ...... 112 Socio-economic Resource ...... 116 Environmental Justice ...... 121 Chapter 4 — Preparers and Consultants ...... 122 References ...... 123
3 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Appendix A — Silvicultural Information ...... 128 Appendix B — Crawford Stewardship Project Forest Plan Compliance and Appendix C — Temporal and Spatial Boundaries Used for Resource Analyses ...... 137 Appendix D — Cumulative Effects Information ...... 145 Appendix E — Scenery Management Tables ...... 151 Appendix F — Crawford Stewardship Project Nordic Ski Trail Information ...... 159 Appendix G — Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ...... 163 Appendix H — Forest Service Response To Comments Received On the Crawford Stewardship Project 30-Day Comment Report ...... 168
Note: A Habitat Management Unit (HMUs) is a block of forest land in which habitat composition and age class objectives will be established to help ensure that habitats are well distributed across the Forest and provide a framework for analyzing project impacts to wildlife habitat at a local scale. Blocks vary in size from about 6,000 to 49,000 acres, and contain a variety of habitat types and land in a mix of management areas (MAs).
4 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Where is this project in the Forest Service NEPA process?
NEPA (short for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) is the Forest Service decision-making process that provides opportunities for interested parties to give their ideas and opinions about resource management. This input is important in helping the Forest Service to identify resource needs, which will shape the alternatives evaluated and lead to the formation of a decision. The following explains the steps of the NEPA process, and where the attached proposal is in that process. ;; Step One–Need for a project. The Forest Service or some other entity may identify the need for a project. YOU may bring the need for a project to the attention of the Forest Service. ;; Step Two–Develop project proposal. The Forest Service or a project pro- ponent develops detailed, site-specific proposal. YOU may be proponent who develops proposal or YOU can share input and ideas. ;; Step Three–Scoping (public input). The Forest Service solicits public input on the site-specific proposal to define the scope of environmental analysis and range of alternatives to be considered. YOU provide site- specific input on the proposal including recommendations to protect the environment and improve the activities proposed. ;; Step Four–Identify significant issues and develop range of reasonable alternatives. The interdisciplinary team evaluates YOUR comments received from scoping and the responsible official approves significant issues and alternatives to receive detailed consideration. ;; Step Five–Information for formal public comment period. Forest Service performs preliminary analysis of environmental effects and solicits formal public comment for a 30-day comment period. YOU provide timely com- ments on the analysis during the comment period. ;; Step Six–Environmental Analysis (EA) & Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision. Forest Service documents the environmental analy- sis in an EA and the responsible officials issue a FONSI on an alternative course of action. The Forest Service will issue a Decision Notice on the selected alternative. Step Seven–Appeal (36 CFR 215). The Forest Service allows the public 45 days following a legal notice of decision to file an appeal. YOU can review the Forest Service decision; and you have an opportunity to appeal it if you disagree, and you have “standing”. Step Eight–Implementation. The Forest Service implements the project. YOU may contribute labor, equipment, or funding to implement the project. Step Nine–Monitor and Evaluate. The Forest Service inspects and moni- tors project implementation. YOU provide feedback on the project to the Forest Service.
5 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
MapC 1.ra Crawfordwford S Stewardshiptewardshi Projectp Pro jVicinity.ect Vicinity Map
White Mountain National Forest White Mountain National Forest
Project Area
0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles
Gorham Randolph ¤£ Dalton Jefferson 2
Whitefield ¤£3 Littleton (!115 Martins Location Low & Burbanks
Carroll Thompson & MeserveGreens Grant
¤3£02 Beans Purchase Crawfords Purchase Bethlehem ¦§¨93 Pinkham's Grant Lisbon Chandlers Purchase ¤£3 Sargents Purchase
Sugar Hill Beans Grant Project Area (!16 £ Cutts Grant Franconia ¤302 Jackson Landaff
!116 ( 0 2 4 6 8 10 Easton Miles Harts Location ¦§¨93 Hadleys Purchase
Bartlett Lincoln Unorganized Territory ¤3£02 Benton Conway Woodstock
6 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 — Proposed Action
The Pemigewasset Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is proposing the following activities in the Crawford Stewardship Project, located in the towns of Carroll, Crawfords Purchase and Bethlehem, Grafton and Coös Counties, New Hampshire (Vicinity Map). Table 1 displays the types and amounts of activities proposed within the Project Area. For details of the Proposed Action see Alternatives: Alternatives Considered in Detail, Action Alternatives, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. Appendix A displays the individual silvicultural treatments by location, prescription, and acres. Table 1. Proposed Action.
Proposed Activity Measure of Activity Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Total area where treatment Actual number of acres treated Management could occur Patch clearcut 354 acres 94 acres Clearcut 114 acres 18 acres Group selection 1340 acres 254 acres Improvement cut 645 acres 227 acres Commercial thin 101 acres 59 acres Total harvest acres 652 acres Estimated harvest volume 5.5 MMBF Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Would be rehabilitated Nancy Barton Nordic Trail New Nancy Barton Nordic Trail 0.6 miles construction Decommission former Nancy 1.2 miles Barton Nordic Trail Ecosystem Restoration Native plant restoration 1 acre Removal of Scotch pine < 1 acre Crawford Brook Bank Would occur Stabilization Public Access and the Transportation System Crawford Path parking area Would occur rehabilitation Roadwork Culvert replacements 5 Temporary bridge installations 5 Road reconstruction 2.4 miles Road construction* 1.0 miles Road Decommission 2.2 miles
*A total of 5.9 miles of forest system road will be added to the database of which 2.5 miles are a database update requiring no physical activity or ground disturbance, 1.0 miles are new construction, and 2.4 miles are reconstruction. See Transportation Analysis in Project Record for details. The 1.0 miles of new construction will serve as both road and a portion of the new Nancy Barton Nordic Trail.
7 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
1.1 About the Crawford Stewardship Project Area A forest inventory was performed in the Crawford Stewardship Project Area (Project Area) in the summer of 2007. The survey showed that the area is com- posed of a diversity of tree species and stand conditions. The lower valley bottom is generally softwood and mixed softwood forest types, such as spruce and fir. While some hardwoods are found here, there is often an understory of soft- woods. Previous harvests in the 1990s were designed to create multiple age classes. At that time, the area was treated with a variety of harvest methods that included group selection, patch cuts, and clearcuts. The upper slopes are predominately mature hardwoods with little age-class diversity. There are minor amounts of softwood, aspen, and birch present. Development of the Bretton Woods area includes condominiums, downhill and Nordic ski areas, roads, hotels, tennis courts, buildings, scenic openings, the Cog Railway, U.S. Route (US) 302, and a golf course. Location The Project Area is located on the Pemigewasset Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest in Compartments 48 and 49 on both sides of U.S 302 (Vicinity Map). The Project Area is within Management Areas 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2 as delineated by the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).1,2 The Bretton Woods Nordic ski trails are plentiful and are located throughout the Project Area on former logging roads and skid trails. 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Project The need for change is identified by comparing the existing conditions on the ground with the desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan and estab- lished for the Bretton Woods Habitat Management Unit (HMU) by a resource team. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Management Existing condition: The Project Area consists of Compartments 48 and 49. Compartment 49 has a high component of softwoods such as spruce and fir, with some paper birch and aspen habitat. Compartment 48 has a high compo- nent of mixedwood and hardwoods, such as maple, beech, and yellow birch. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) visited and reviewed all of the stands in the compartments to determine fitness for timber harvesting. Although the Project Area is composed of a diversity of tree species and stand conditions, there is a lack of the regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old). There is only a small amount of aspen-birch early-successional habitat present. Therefore, there is a lack of habitat diversity.
1USDA 2005a 2This document is tiered to both USDA Forest Service 2005 WMNF Final Environmental Impact Statement, WMNF, Laconia, NH, plus appendices; and USDA Forest Service 2005 WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan, Laconia, NH, plus appendices.
8 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
At the broader, landscape level, the Bretton Woods Habitat Management Unit, which includes the Project Area, is dominated by low-elevation spruce-fir habitat type. There is relatively less mixed wood habitat, followed by northern hard- wood habitat, and much less aspen-paper birch habitat. There is no oak-pine and only scattered small pockets of hemlock habitat type. There are several permanent wildlife openings in the HMU, including a large 21-acre opening in the Project Area adjacent to US 302. As in the smaller Project Area, at the landscape level of Bretton Woods HMU the mature age class dominates all the wildlife habitat types (northern hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir, aspen-paper birch, and hemlock). There is a lack of regeneration age class for any habitat type. There is relatively less young age class (greater than 10 years) compared to the mature age classes in the HMU and MA 2.1 lands in the Crawford Project Area for northern hardwood, mixedwood, and spruce-fir habitat types. There is some young age class aspen-birch habitat in MA 2.1 land in the HMU. Although the Project Area contains spruce-fir habitat used by deer and other wildlife, the Project Area does not contain documented deer over-wintering habitat (yard). There are no prominent cliffs occupied by breeding peregrine falcons, and there are no known tunnels or caves or prominent rock outcrops used by hibernating woodland bats in the Project Area. The Project Area is located within one of the most visited recreational areas on the Forest. There is a series of Nordic ski trails within both compartments 48 and 49. There are several locations on the trail system where small bridges occur. A cabin, built in the 1970s and recently refurbished, is located in Compartment 48. Thick vegetation occurs along these trails and the Mt. Clinton Road. Vegetation Composition and Structure Forest Plan Guidance: Forest Plan direction for vegetation management is to achieve forest health objectives and meet the demand for forest products. The Forest Plan states: The Forest Timber 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 use timber harvesting as a tool to attain wildlife habitat and other resource objectives.1 Management of vegetation through harvesting within the Project Area (Table 1) is intended to attain Forest-wide goals and objectives by: • Managing for commercial products using well-integrated prescriptions that protect biotic2 and abiotic3 resources and are compatible with the high level of recreation use on the Forest.4 • Providing high-quality sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis.5
1USDA 2005a. p 1-17 2Pertaining to life. 3Characterized by the absence of life or living organisms. 4USDA 2005a. 5USDA 2005a. Management Area 2.1, p 3-3
9 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
There is a need to sustain a healthy forest ecosystem and provide forest products. Harvesting treatments in the Project Area would improve future stand quality, promote growth on high-value timber, ensure future healthy-forest conditions, develop uneven-aged stand structure, and provide wood products for the local economy. Wildlife Habitat Management Forest Plan Guidance: One of the most important wildlife habitat issues today in New England is the decline of early-successional habitats and the species associated with them.1 The Forest Plan wildlife habitat management goal is to provide a diversity of habitats across the Forest, including various forest types, age classes, and non-forested habitats.2 The White Mountain National Forest uses Habitat Management Units as a tool to ensure that there is a connection between landscape-level goals and objectives and project-level ecological condi- tions during project development.3 The interdisciplinary team (IDT) examined the existing conditions of the forest habitat composition, age class, and ecological land type (ELT) capability in the Project Area described above and compared them to the individual habitat composition and age-class objectives set for the Bretton Woods HMU.4 At the landscape level, there is a need to perpetuate wildlife habitat types and increase age class diversity in stands where silvicultural treatments could move the existing conditions toward the desired age class and species composition conditions set for the Bretton Woods HMU. Harvesting treatments in the Project Area would: • Improve habitat conditions for wildlife at the broader landscape level of the Bretton Woods HMU; • Create nesting and foraging habitats for a wide variety of wildlife in the Project Area, especially the regeneration age class northern hardwood and early successional aspen-birch conditions for wildlife that use those habitats for all or part of their life cycle; and • Perpetuate the diversity of habitat types such as desirable low-elevation spruce-fir and mixed northern hardwood habitat, and inclusions of less common aspen-birch habitat to increase wildlife habitat diversity in the Project Area and the HMU.
1DeGraaf et al. 2006, p 19 2USDA 2005a, p 1-20 3USDA 2006, “WMNF Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document” 4USDA 2005a, p 2-33, S-1
10 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
The Crawford Project Area provides the best opportunity on the Pemigewasset Ranger District to perpetuate an existing concentration of low-elevation spruce- fir with inclusions of aspen-birch habitats. Figure 1. Example of Trailside Scenery uniform vegetation Management of the vegetation through timber occurring along trail harvesting along trails, roads, and from fixed sides (5/7/08). points of interest could create opportunities to introduce variety and increase visual interest to the overall scenic landscape. Selection of the proper treatment can introduce scenic variety by providing visibility into what is presently dense forest cover. Through the careful place- ment of treatments such as a group, patch cut, or commercial thinning, previously hidden or unknown vistas can be opened and expe- rienced. Properly coordinated treatments not only provide viewing opportunities of the lowland landscapes, either adjacent to or below the viewpoint, but also of hill and mountain range landscapes adjacent to or above the viewpoint. Management of the vegetation also provides the increased openness necessary for potential wildlife viewing. Cultural sites, previously disguised or unseen, may be exposed and experienced adding visual interest and scenic variety to the Project Area. Opportunities to locate small areas of scenic interest can be found along the existing trails and bridges, below the mountain cabin, on the Mt. Clinton Road, and on the proposed Nancy Barton Trail reroute. Harvesting treatments in the Project Area would improve the variety of visual and scenic opportunities available along the travel corridors and from the selected fixed locations. Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation
Figure 2. Dam at Rehabilitation of the Dam at Ammonoosuc Ammonoosuc Lake Lake (5/16/08). Background: Crawford Brook was first dammed in 1858, creating Ammonoosuc Lake, for a sawmill to serve the Crawford House construc- tion. Today, Ammonoosuc Lake is accessible via a short hiking trail (0.2 mi) from the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Highland Center on US 302 in Crawford Notch. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the lake was used as a swimming hole for the Crawford House, and as a place where visitors could seek a cool respite during warmer days. The first dam was prob-
11 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
ably restored or replaced around this time, as in 1889 it was described as “an indistinguishable bank of gravel.”1 Existing condition: The dam, built of rock and mortar, is deteriorating due to its age and recurrent beaver activity. The masonry spillway is failing and has reached its useful life span. Water is leaking under and through the spillway. The leak under the spillway was partially repaired in October of 2000, but con- tinues to pass water and is causing further undermining of the spillway. This may result in eventual failure of the dam. The spillway is often plugged by beaver cuttings, forcing water to flow over the lateral width of the structure. A removable splashboard in the dam controls the water level. However, the local beaver population at the lake has worked diligently over the years to keep the water level high by placing woody debris against the structure. In the summer of 2009, the splashboard was removed to relieve pressure on the dam and lower the water level. Lake water level is now approximately two feet lower than in May 2009. A hiking trail (Around-the-Lake Trail) around the 3.5-acre lake crosses the top of the dam surface. The trail is promoted as a wildlife-viewing trail from the Highland Center. AMC employees often give tours down to the lake in the summer months and use this area for conservation education and interpretation. Ammonoosuc Lake is predominantly a wildlife-watching pond, where beaver and a variety of bird species can be seen. Due to the shallow nature of the pond, the impoundment offers very limited fishing opportunities. Forest Plan Guidance: Protect, restore, or improve riparian area conditions to benefit riparian dependent resources and values. The Forest Plan objectives for ripar- ian habitat include managing riparian areas to provide for cold water, cool water, and warm water aquatic communities within the ecological capability of the landscape.2 There is a need to rehabilitate the dam at Ammonoosuc Lake to reduce the likely risk of flood damage to infrastructure downstream of the dam and to provide aquatic habitat. Rehabilitation of the dam at Ammonoosuc Lake would prevent a dam failure in the future and protect downstream riparian habitat. Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail Relocation Existing condition: Portions of the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail are located within the riparian area of Crawford Brook, a tributary to the Ammonoosuc River which now has a New Hampshire State Protected River status. Several problems exist with this current trail location: • Poor bridges and trail alignment on the southern end of the trail; and • The northern end of the trail is slumping into Crawford Brook due to steep, unstable soils. Forest Plan Guidance: The Forest Plan goals for water resources state: The Forest Service will manage streams at a properly functioning condi- tion (PFC) to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow,
1Sweester. 1889, p. 47 2USDA 2005a, p. 1-15 12 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Figure 3. Poorly situated Nordic bridge on the Nancy Barton Ski Trail.(jtg)
thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality. Forest Plan guidelines for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats state: 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 when doing so would result in greater overall impact to the land or water resource. There is a need to reduce risk of trail soil failure in the riparian area. If the Nancy Barton Trail were to be relocated, the Rosebrook Express (rail- road) Nordic Trail segment would no longer be needed to get skiers from the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center to the Ammonoosuc Springs Trail. A relocated Nancy Barton Trail would provide an interesting and scenic skiing opportunity that would appeal to a wide range of skier ability levels. Benefits resulting from the trail relocation could include the following: • Rerouting the trail would get the trail out of the Crawford Brook riparian zone and upslope of the existing Maine Central Railroad tracks. • The rerouted ski trail would comply with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for protecting riparian, aquatic, and wildlife habitats and for maintaining key linkage areas and habitat connectivity to allow movement of wildlife such as American marten along riparian zones. The rerouted trail would also improve Canada lynx habitat.1 • The location of the ski trail reroute would take advantage of prior disturbed ground for the majority of its length. A portion would be rerouted onto a newly constructed road used for wildlife habitat management and timber harvesting access (see Public Access and the Transportation System). After the timber harvesting, the winter road would be turned into the new Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail and would meet dual Forest Plan management objec- tives.2 The remainder of the rerouted trail would be newly constructed trail. The reroute would require removal of relatively few large diameter trees.
1 USDA 2005a, p. 2-25, G-7; p. 2-28, G-2; p.2-29, G-6; and p. 2-16, G-5 2 USDA 2005a, p. 1-20
13 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Figure 4. Old wildflower planting area at old Crawford Golf Course location (5/8/08).
Ecosystem Restoration
Restoration of Native Plants along US 302 at the Old Crawford Golf Course Existing condition: A collection of non-native plants was seeded in the 1990s as a roadside wildflower planting at the old Crawford Golf Course location. This seed mix contained a variety of both native and non-native plants. As the “gardens” have developed, several aggressive non-native plants have come to dominate these settings, including big-leaf or garden lupine Lupinus( poly- phyllus). This is a highly aggressive species and has taken over roadsides, log landings, and wildlife openings in other areas on the Pemigewasset Ranger District. Non-native wildflower species at this site occur in greater abundance closer to the US 302 than further into the old golf course. Forest Plan Guidance: Forest Plan objectives clearly state that species that can persist and spread into native communities and displace native species should be eradicated using physical, chemical, mechanical or biological treatments.1 The Forest Plan standards state: In revegetation or rehabilitation efforts, native or non-persistent (annual, biannual or sterile) species must be used.2 There is a need to remove non-native plant species and restore native plant species at this site. The removal of non-native species and the establishment of native species would begin to restore the ecosystem at this site.
1USDA 2005a, p. 1-8 2USDA 2005a, p. 2-11
14 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Removal of Non-Native Scotch pine along US 302 Figure 5. Non- Existing condition: Scotch pine (Pinus native planted sylvestris), recognized as non-native to Scotch pine along the ecosystems of the U.S., was planted US 302 - cjm. in the 1930s along US302 to provide shade to the roadbed. Since that time, US 302 has been re-routed and upgraded and the Scotch pine no longer serves its original purpose. The original plantings have increased both in numbers of trees at each site and geographic scope, escap- ing the immediate area of the road and spreading into the margins of naturally-occurring forest stands. At these loca- tions, the Scotch pine is scattered, adjacent to old roads and in clearings along US 302. Individual Scotch pine trees are scattered over approximately 77 acres, although the combined area occupied by these trees is less than one acre. Forest Plan Guidance: Forest Plan objectives clearly state that species that can persist and spread into native communities and displace native species should be eradicated using physical, chemical, mechanical or biological treatments.1 There is a need to remove Scotch pine during or after the commercial timber harvest for ecosystem restoration. Removal of Scotch pine would prevent this species from becoming further estab- lished in the Project Area following project activities. Removal would also allow for native vegetation colonization in areas currently occupied by Scotch pine. Crawford Brook Bank Stabilization
Figure 6. Bank erosion and slumping along Crawford Brook along US 302.
Existing condition: A short section of the Crawford Brook near US 302 within the utility line corridor is currently cutting into the bank. At this location, the brook has been developing side channels due to a tight meander bend in the brook (Figure 6). Slumping occurs during periods of high stream flow, and risk increases annually that the bank adjacent to US 302 could fail.
1USDA 2005a, p. 1-8
15 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Forest Plan Guidance: The Forest Plan states: The Forest Service will manage streams at properly functioning con- dition to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality.1 To reduce risk of bank failure and potential damage to US 302, and also to restore bank stability, there is a need to create a log structure in Crawford Brook downstream of the current Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail bridge. Creating a log structure would promote sediment deposition. The structure would promote more flow through an already existing side channel that has been developing in recent years. The current “main” channel would become an overflow flood channel, where lower velocity flows would promote the deposi- tion of sediment, allowing the stream bank along the highway to stabilize. Public Access and the Transportation System
Maintain, Restore and Reconstruct the Existing Transportation System, Including Improving Culverts along the Mt. Clinton Road and Construct New Road for Current and Future Access Needs Existing Condition: The road system was evaluated by the IDT in the Crawford Project Area and vicinity. Considerations were given to current and future use of the existing roads and trails. Some roads were constructed fifteen to twenty years ago when the last forest management activities took place, and have been converted to trails or need to be converted to trails in our road and trail database. Some roads have been identified as needing reconstruction to allow access to stands for treatment; other roads have been identified to be decommissioned. There are several roads that will be used in future plans for administrative access to areas outside the Crawford Project. The Transportation Analysis in the project record provides details and background information on the roads analysis procedures used for this project. The Mt. Clinton Road, a State Designated Road, is maintained by the State of New Hampshire. In order to facilitate the removal of timber products from Compartment 49, improvements are needed to the road surface and culverts. Five inadequately sized culverts are obstructing movement of stream sediment, woody material, fish, and other aquatic organisms. Compartment 48 has a series of skid trails and woods roads created during timber harvesting operations that occurred prior to Forest Service acquisition. These trails and roads now serve as Nordic ski trails. Currently, access to stands in the southern half of compartment 48 is limited. As stated, skid trails and woods roads are present, however, there are no clas- sified roads by which to access the southern half of compartment 48 for the purpose of vegetation and wildlife habitat management. The IDT determined skidding forest products from these stands to the nearest classified road would be uneconomical. The team considered options of constructing new road or deferring treatment of stands.
1USDA 2005a, p. 1-18
16 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
When considering construction of new road, the present and future value of the trees to which a road gives access must be balanced against the costs of the road if the road’s purpose is limited to the transportation of forest products. If a road is intended to improve access for recreational or other purposes as well, revenues from wood sales can be regarded as a subsidy for developing those uses.1 By collaborating with Nordic enthusiasts, wildlife managers, foresters and engineers; an opportunity was identified. A new road to access compartment 48 for the purpose of vegetation and wildlife habitat management could also serve as a relocation of the Nancy Barton trail. As mentioned earlier, IDT field reconnaissance trips discovered the need to decommission the existing Nancy Barton trail to reduce risk of trail soil failure in the riparian area. Decommissioning the trail without relocating would cause the loss of an important link in the Nordic ski system. However, relocating the trail onto a newly constructed winter haul road would improve the Nordic system by improving the link with the Highland Center and moving the Nancy Barton trail out of the riparian area. Costs would be offset by revenues from wood sales and thus would meet dual Forest Plan management objectives. It is important to note that the newly constructed road would be located on previ- ously disturbed ground (an old dozer road from previous operations prior to Forest Service acquisition). Forest Plan Guidance: The Forest Plan goal states: The Forest Roads Program will provide a safe, efficient, and seamless transportation and parking network that allows for current, continued, and projected management, use, and enjoyment of the Forest with a variety of challenge levels.2 There is a need to maintain and improve the Forest Road system to reduce risk of culvert failure, improve drainage, and improve roads for safe driving conditions during the removal of forest products during harvest and after for Forest users. There is a need to decommission 2.2 miles of road from the White Mountain Forest road inventory. There is a need to convert some roads to trails upon completion of this project. There is a need to construct 1.0 miles of new road on a previously existing footprint to provide for current and future vegetation and wildlife habitat management and administrative and recreation access. Doing so would enable current and future administrative access to the Forest as well as meet the variety of public access needs. Maintenance and improve- ments made to the roads in the Project Area would provide the safe and efficient road system envisioned in the Forest Plan to facilitate the movement of forest products and enjoyment of Forest users. Crawford Path Parking Area Rehabilitation Existing Condition: Asphalt surfacing at the Crawford Path parking area (near the old golf course) is nearing the end of its useful life and has shown signs of
1Beattie 1983, p. 189 2USDA 2005a, p. 1-16
17 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
deterioration. The steep entrance from the Mt. Clinton Road has made main- tenance and snowplowing difficult. Over the years, surface run-off has caused erosion in several places. The sawn-timber curb is degraded, non-functioning, and causes problems during snowplowing. There is a need to replace the current parking lot surface, the old timber curbing, and old culverts in order to ensure continued visitor safety and erosion control. Rehabilitating the Crawford Path parking area would ensure continued visitor safety through repair of the parking lot surface and curbing. It also would improve drainage, eliminating the potential for resource damage. This would meet the Forest Plan Roads Program goal to “provide a safe, efficient, and seam- less transportation and parking network.”1 1.3 Decision to be Made Pemigewasset District Ranger Molly Fuller will decide: • Whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or prepare an EIS, • Under what conditions or design features the project must be implemented, and • Whether the decision is consistent with the Forest Plan or if an amendment is needed. 1.4 Public Participation Scoping Notice of Scoping for the Crawford Project was sent to over 700 individuals and organizations on February 5, 2010. The cover letter and Scoping document were posted on the White Mountain National Forest website:
1USDA 2005a, p. 1-16
18 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Action or through the environmental analysis. Each issue has indicators that measure existing conditions and the potential effects of management activities. The indicators highlight differences between the alternatives, and are both quan- titative and qualitative. They also enable the reader to clearly track the issues throughout the environmental analysis document. Issue 1: Clearcutting Effects on Scenery A comment received from scoping suggested that clearcutting in the Project Area will adversely alter the scenic value of the landscape. Measurement Indicator • Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Crawford Path Parking Lot • Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Washington Hotel Veranda • Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Eisenhower Views from Crawford Path, Mt. Washington Hotel veranda, and Mt. Eisenhower were selected as measurement indicators because they are the most impressive and comprehensive of the stationary, direct, and superior viewpoints available for the entirety of the Project Area. They provide the longest possible duration of viewing opportunity and are the nearest (in distance) to the visible areas. Combined they provide a measure to compare and contrast the alternatives. Since clearcutting is most visible harvesting treatment, the scenery analysis focuses on the clearcuts but takes into account other effects of each alternative, as they relate to these viewpoints. Issue 2: Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Rehabilitation A commentor suggested that we consider an alternative that removed the dam to restore the stream and water quality to its natural state. The watershed at the dam is a size that has been demonstrated in New Hampshire and elsewhere to be important brook trout spawning habitat. Removing the dam would restore the original stream channel over time and would restore high-quality riparian habitat around the stream. This would also provide an excellent educational opportunity on restoring both habitat connectivity and streams for all who visit the site. Measurement Indicator • Stream and Pond Water Temperature • Stream Connectivity • Habitat Quality and Production • Conservation Education These indicators were chosen because they respond to resource conditions rel- evant to riparian and aquatic habitats and conservation education needs in this Project Area.
19 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
1.6 Minor Clarification Public input and on-going Interdisciplinary Team discussions suggested a need to clarify the “Public Access and Transportation System” actions proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3. • Table 1 and Table 4 in the 30-day Notice and Comment report did not match due to typo errors and mileage rounding conventions. • The proposed road construction in the 30-Day Notice and Comment Report showed 3.87 miles. This figure is inaccurate due to an error in cal- culating road mileage versus trail mileage for the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail reroute. • Some of the road construction mileage in the 30-day Notice and Comment Report was erroneously proposed on already existing road. • The transportation system database updates noted in Table 4 subscript were incorrect in the 30-Day Notice and Comment report. Table 1 and Table 4 in this Final Environmental Assessment Report are correct and correspond with the Transportation Analysis for Compartments 48 and 49 (Project Record).
20 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 — Alternatives
Six alternatives were considered for this project. Three were considered but eliminated from detailed study and three alternatives were considered in detail. 2.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study The following three alternatives, suggested by the public in response to Scoping, were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis for the following reasons. No Clearcutting — Uneven-Aged Management Only An alternative was suggested by two members of the public to eliminate all clearcutting in the Crawford Project Area. It was suggested that clearcutting is unnecessary to meet forest health and wildlife objectives and would jeopardize the scenic values of the area. Two alternatives were considered by the Interdisciplinary Team that excluded the use of clearcutting from the Crawford Stewardship Project. The first alter- native removed all clearcut and patch cut treatments from the proposal. Under this alternative Compartment 48 stands 1, 3, 18 and 32 and Compartment 49, stands 41, 49, 51, 56 and 77 were dropped from any treatment activity at this time. This alternative reduced the treated acres from 652 to 501 compared with the Proposed Action, reducing the anticipated volume to approximately 3.7 MMBF from 5.5 MMBF proposed. In addition to dropping the clearcut units, the team also considered changing the clearcut and patch cut prescriptions to uneven-aged prescriptions and treat- ments. Within Compartment 48, stands 1, 3, 18, and 32, and within Compartment 49, stands 41, 49, 51, 56, and 77 would be treated with an uneven-aged group selection in place of clearcuts and patch cuts. The area treated would be approxi- mately 600 acres, 52 acres less than the proposed 652 acres and 99 acres more than the No Clearcutting alternative discussed above. An uneven-aged manage- ment alternative would produce approximately of 4.9 MMBF of forest products from the Project Area, approximately 0.6 MMBF less than the Proposed Action and 1.2 MMBF more than the No Clearcutting alternative described above. Neither of these alternatives would reduce the need for road construction and reconstruction to access the remaining units. The other activities proposed under these alternatives would remain the same as the Proposed Action. Based on the anticipated effects to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and scenery, an alternative that excluded clearcutting from the Proposed Action was eliminated from detailed analysis because it would neither meet the needs identified for the Project Area nor the desired condition in the Forest Plan. “No clearcutting” or “uneven-aged management prescription only” alternatives would: • Not meet the need in the Crawford Project Area to sustain a healthy forest ecosystem and provide forest products as envisioned in the Forest Plan; • Do little to change, improve, or affect the scenic values envisioned in the Forest Plan beyond what is being analyzed in detail under Alternative 3; and
21 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
• Eliminate a silvicultural tool provided in the Forest Plan to manage forest composition for broad habitat types, to maintain less common habitat types, and to provide regeneration wildlife habitats as envisioned in the Forest Plan. Therefore, these two alternatives were eliminated from detailed consideration. Further rationale for eliminating these alternatives from the analysis can be found in the project file. Additional Parking Based on a public comment received during Scoping, the interdisciplinary team considered an alternative that would provide additional parking near the old golf course or expand the current lot off the Mt. Clinton Road to prevent over- crowding and resulting safety concerns in the existing lot. This alternative would expand the current parking lot on the old Crawford House golf course and would entail considerable grading, importation of fill materials, possible blasting, and enlargement of the paved surface in the area. A new entrance onto US 302 was also considered that would require additional informational and directional signing. Consideration was given to a concern about the potential for safety being com- promised by occasional overcrowding in the existing parking lot, but there has been no documentation of this having been a problem to date. Absent a safety concern, this alternative appears to be inconsistent with Forest Plan direction that states, “Trailhead parking lots should not be constructed, improved, or expanded solely to accommodate increased recreation use.”1 Additional con- cerns voiced during interdisciplinary team review included: • Visual effects created by an additional parking lot adjacent to US 302, a designated National Scenic Byway; • A safety concern that the addition of a new entrance onto US 302 would present; • Loss of woodcock habitat; and ▫▫ Possible conflicts with the Appalachian Mountain Club’s periodic use of the old golf course as a helicopter staging area to re-supply their hut system. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1: No New Federal Action (No Action) A No Action alternative would initiate no new federal actions in the Project Area. Activities covered under previous decisions and administrative use would continue. Analysis of no action provides a baseline from which to compare the effects of the action alternatives. If the No Action alternative is chosen for the Crawford Stewardship Project, that decision would only affect this point in time.
1USDA 2005a, p. 2-18, G-2, Developed Recreation, Trailheads
22 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
At some future date, a new analysis could be done of this area and a decision made to include some type of management. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action has been developed in response to the needs identified for the Project Area. The Proposed Action is described briefly in Chapter 1. It would manage a variety of resources in a recreation-based environment. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Management The stands proposed for management would address the landscape level objec- tives for the Bretton Woods HMU by: Diversifying habitat types and age classes; • Providing essential early successional nesting and foraging habitats for a wide variety of wildlife that use that habitat for all or part of their life cycle; and • Perpetuating and promoting desirable low-elevation spruce-fir and mixed northern hardwood habitat, and inclusions of less common aspen-birch habitat. The Crawford Project Area provides the best opportunity on the Pemigewasset Ranger District to perpetuate concentrations of low elevation spruce fir with inclusions of aspen-birch habitats. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat management activities include: • Improving future stand quality and promote high quality timber using 59 acres of commercial thinning; • Creating regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old) forest habitat (particularly northern hardwood and aspen-birch) on 112 acres through clearcutting and patch cut harvesting; • Promoting habitat diversity on 254 acres via group selection treatments to perpetuate the low-elevation spruce-fir component, encourage softwood regeneration, or promote high quality northern hardwoods; and • Developing uneven-aged structure in even-aged or two-storied stands using improvement cuts. The objective is to develop uneven-aged stands from even-aged stands on 227 acres. Uneven age harvests are generally for species composition (usually softwoods) and high quality sawtimber. Table A2 in Appendix A displays the individual silvicultural treatments by location, prescription, and acres. This project would provide approximately 5.5 million board feet of sawtimber and pulpwood. Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation Ammonoosuc Lake Dam The dam at Ammonoosuc Lake would be rehabilitated to: • Improve the safety of the dam itself and reduce the risk of dam failure and downstream impacts, and
23 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Bo
u
n
d
a
ry
Map 2. Alternative 2. L i n
e
T
ra
i l
k Crawford Stewardship Project o
Bro
Alternative 2 y FR 6105 a
fw l Proposed Action a H 51 FR 165 Crawfords Purchase 45 FR 6106 FR 6104 44 Ba 50 (N se ext Sta 54 to tio Chandlers Purchase Sno n R wm oad obile 52 Trail ÓÑ 49 ) Am r mo e 77 no v os i u c R R 84 53 i ÓÑ ve r 89 41 76 ÓÑ c 55 28 A u FR m o s 56 6 FR 7013 m o Cra 13 on 9 FR 7014 w A fo 22 rd ÓÑ Bro 71 ok 61 1 59 69 Ed 87 24 FR 6262 67 ma 23 n 60 d 65 Compartment 49 FR 6263 s 2 Pa th 3 9 3 F Carroll 1 Compartment 48 R R ÓÑ 6 F 1 1 FR6155B 5 6 5 9 1 10 6 R 4 il) F 6 ra 2 T 15 19 6 4 R ile b F o m w 8 o 13 n S 17 4 d (An 18 F d R a 6 FR 6267 o 1 R 5 n 9 8 6 to lin C 10 35 . FR 20 t 30 M 26 61 60 " ÜÑ FR 6266 Bethlehem 28 Beans Grant 29 U S R 24 t. 3 0 31 2 !. !i!i th 32 rd Pa !n rawfo FR C 23 25 61 69 il Tra ff to Cu r ve Saco Lake Ri Ammonoosuc Dry l rai Lake T W il lard e il b ra il W st T lon Tra Mt e d Ava S r n a Ja la c ck a o so e Ri Z n v T e ra r i l W
e
b
st
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 e
r Miles C l
i
f
f
*Some stands will not have all acres T Project is within the Bretton Woods HMU and within them treated. See Appendix A ra i
l Compartments 48 and 49, which are seperated by US Route 302. Tables A4 and A5.
il Forest Service Lands Culvert Replacements Road Status Treatment A-z Tra ÓÑ * Project Boundary ÜÑ Streambank Stabilization Roads Patch Clearcut Town Line !n Dam Rehabilitation Forest Road Clearcut Roads !. Plant Restoration Road Construction Group Selection Streams !i Parking Lot Upgrades Trail Construction Improvement Cut Hiking Trails Decommission Road Thinning 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Road Reconstruction Scotch Pine Forest Plan Revision Roadless Area Inventory Removal Railroad
W ill 24 ey Ra ng e Tra il
rail nd T n Po Etha Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
• Maintain Ammonoosuc Lake for public access to the trail system and to the conservation education program of the lake and aquatic ecosystem that is currently provided by the AMC Highland Center. • Rehabilitation activities would include: • Draining the pond temporarily to remove the existing rock/masonry spillway; • Removing all woody stem growth and stumps from the earthen dam; • Rebuilding and compacting the earthen dam; • Reconstructing the spillway; and • Installing an outlet or drain if desired (not required). Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail Relocation Relocation of the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail would: • Reduce the risk of severe soil erosion and • Create a premiere Nordic ski trail to link the Appalachian Mountain Club’s Highland Center and other trails. • This activity includes: • Trail relocation ▫▫ Relocating majority of trail onto newly constructed winter haul road, taking advantage of previously disturbed ground; ▫▫ Clearing the trail corridor to accommodate a finished trail width of 12-16 feet; ▫▫ Removing stumps and rocks and grading the trail surface; ▫▫ Installing drainage structures (waterbars and ditches); ▫▫ Installing bridges as necessary using engineered and approved designs; ▫▫ Mulching and seeding disturbed ground per specifications supplied by the Forest Botanist; and ▫▫ Constructing the trail in accordance with the Forest Service Trail Construction Handbook.1 • Decommissioning the former trail route ▫▫ The abandoned Nancy Barton Trail would have all existing bridges and signs removed. ▫▫ Any existing culverts would be removed and replaced with ditches. ▫▫ Existing waterbars and ditches would be retained. ▫▫ Seeding and mulching disturbed areas would be per specifications sup- plied by the Forest Botanist. ▫▫ Closing both entrances with boulders and/or downed trees.
1FSH 2309.18
25 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Ecosystem Restoration Restoration of Native Plants along US 302 at the Old Golf Course This would remove the non-native wildflowers previously planted in this area and restore native vegetation on approximately one acre in the old golf course area along US 302. Restoration activities would include: • Removing existing non-native species using backpack sprayer application of a glyphosate-based herbicide (RoundUp®, Accord®, etc.) • After the targeted species have been eliminated, establishing native vegeta- tion on site by planting shrubs and native herbaceous plants or plugs or by seeding. • Continuing regular burning at this site to promote establishment of native plants (covered under a separate wildlife opening maintenance decision). Removal of Non-Native Scotch Pine Along US 302 Across 77 acres, less than one acre of non-native Scotch pine along US 302 would be removed to restore the native ecosystem in these areas. Restoration activities would include: • Cutting existing stems of Scotch pine; and • Manually removing seedlings. Crawford Brook Bank Stabilization Bank stabilization of the Crawford Brook would occur near US 302 within the utility line corridor approximately 0.6 miles downstream from the dam at Ammonoosuc Lake. Stabilization activities would include: • Constructing a 500 square foot log jam structure on stream bottom of Crawford Brook to deflect high flows away from the high banks along US 302. Creating this log jam would require: ▫▫ Hauling approximately 18 whole trees into the site; ▫▫ Excavating the stream bottom to embed large logs under the stream substrate and promote permanence of the jam; and ▫▫ Diverting the stream water through the existing upstream overflow channel temporarily to allow excavation to occur in a relatively dry channel. Construction would occur during low flows. Public Access and the Transportation System Crawford Path Parking Area Rehabilitation Sloping and drainage improvements would occur to rehabilitate the Crawford Path trailhead parking area off the Mt. Clinton Road. Rehabilitation activities would include: • Installing new culverts;
26 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
• Regrading the parking lot, ditch line, drainages, and entrance (this may require hauling and placing embankment borrow); • Installing slope stabilization fabric and/or riprap where needed on fill slope; • Reseeding slopes; • Adding gravel base and asphalt surfacing; • Installing any traffic control and/or parking signage where required; • Clearing brush from ditch and entrance; and • Applying asphalt sealant to enhance long-term performance in one year following asphalt placement. Maintain, Restore and Reconstruct the Existing Transportation System, Including Improving Culverts along the Mt. Clinton Road and Construct New Road for Current and Future Access Needs Maintenance, restoration, and reconstruction of existing Forest System roads in the Project Area would improve safety and provide access to the Project Area. Culvert replacement would improve conditions for aquatic species passage, reduce the risk of resource damage, and improve visitor safety. Construction of new road would improve current and future access for vegetation and wildlife habitat management needs as well as improve recreation opportunities. Activities would include: • Replacing culverts along Mt. Clinton Road; • Maintaining, restoring, and reconstructing culverts, low water crossings, and bridges along the Nordic ski trails within the Project Area; • Installing temporary bridges to facilitate the removal of timber and comple- tion of other project activities; • Reconstructing 2.4 miles of Forest System road; • Classifying 2.5 miles of currently existing road as Forest System Road. Classifying existing roads is a database update requiring no ground disturbance; • Constructing 1.0 miles of Forest System Road on existing unmaintained dozer road within southern portion of compartment 48; • Constructing 0.6 miles of Nordic ski trail in southern portion of compart- ment 48; • Decommissioning 1.2 miles of trail; and • Decommissioning 2.2 miles of roads (FR 6101, 6103, 6160, 6261, 6263, 6264, 6265, 7014). Additional information for Alternative 2 All proposed activities would be accomplished in accordance with the objec- tives and standards in the Forest Plan. Design criteria (Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs)) are practices to protect resources during the implementation of proposed activities. Design criteria can be found in Appendix B.
27 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Not all available stands were included in the Proposed Action. After a rigorous review, some stands or parts of stands were dropped due to concerns about soil wetness or compaction, accessibility, distance from riparian zones, visual concerns, or timber unsuitability. The range of stands being proposed for vegeta- tion management includes the areas that would achieve optimal improvements in age-class diversity, maintenance of forest types, protection of soil resources, and ecosystem restoration. Compartments 48 and 49 are both visible from US 302, as well as from key view- points such as the Bretton Woods Alpine Ski Area, Mt. Washington Hotel, Mt. Clinton Road, Saco Lake, and the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center. Vegetation management being proposed in either compartment may be seen from these locations. While improving the vegetation composition and structure, planned vegetation management activities were designed to be in harmony with the landscape, mimicking existing openings, and making best use of natural topographic patterns to reduce visual impacts on hillsides. Timber harvesting design includes single-tree selection, group selection, thinning, clearcutting, and improvement harvesting (uneven-aged management) that to the casual viewer would appear to be minor changes to the landscape. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to respond to the issues identified for this project: Issue 1 — Clearcutting Effects on Scenery, and Issue 2 — Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Rehabilitation. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 with the follow- ing exceptions: Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Management To reduce the effects of harvesting treatments on the scenic environment, the following timber harvesting activities were dropped: • All clearcutting (18 acres); • 40 acres of patch cutting; and • 39 acres of group selection. Tables 2 and 3 display the silvicultural differences between Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 4 displays the harvest activities proposed in each alternative. Table 2. Silvicultural changes between Alternatives 2 and 3 in Compartment 48
Stand Acres Prescription Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 C48 - 1 100 Patch Clearcut 18.7 0 C48 - 2 51 Group Selection 9.2 7.3 C48 - 3 55 Patch Clearcut 14.9 0 C48 - 5 66 Group Selection 7.6 11.9 C48 - 18 25 Clearcut 6.1 0 C48 - 23 111 Group Selection 33 0 C48 - 32 89 Clearcut 11.9 0
28 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Bo
u
n
d
a
ry
L
i Map 3. Alternative 3. n
e
T
ra
i l
k Crawford Stewardship Project o
Bro
Alternative 3 y FR 6105 a
fw l a
H 51 FR 165 Crawfords Purchase 45 FR 6106 FR 6104 44 Ba 50 (N se ext Sta 54 to tio Chandlers Purchase Sno n R wm oad obile 52 Trail ÓÑ 49 ) Am r mo e 77 no v os i u c R R 84 53 i ÓÑ ve r 89 41 76 ÓÑ c 55 28 A u FR m o s 56 6 FR 7013 m o Cra 13 on 9 FR 7014 w A fo 22 rd ÓÑ Bro 71 ok 61 1 59 69 Ed 87 24 FR 6262 67 ma 23 n 60 d 65 Compartment 49 FR 6263 s 2 Pa th 3 9 3 F Carroll 1 Compartment 48 R R ÓÑ 6 F 1 1 FR6155B 5 6 5 9 1 10 6 R 4 il) F 6 ra 2 T 15 19 6 4 R ile F ob m w 8 o 13 n S 17 4 d (An F R ad 6 FR 6267 o 1 R 5 n 9 8 6 to lin C 10 35 . FR 20 t 30 M 26 61 60 " ÜÑ FR 6266 Bethlehem 28 Beans Grant 29 U S R 24 t. 3 0 31 2 !. !i!i th rd Pa !n rawfo FR C 23 25 61 69 il Tra ff to Cu r ve Saco Lake Ri Ammonoosuc Dry l rai Lake T W il lard e il b ra il W st T lon Tra Mt e d Ava S r n a Ja la c ck a o so e Ri Z n v T e ra r i l W
e
b
st
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 e
r
C
Miles l
i
f
f
*Some stands will not have all acres T Project is within the Bretton Woods HMU and within them treated. See Appendix A ra i
l Compartments 48 and 49, which are seperated by US Route 302. Tables A4 and A5.
il Forest Service Lands Culvert Replacements Road Status Treatment A-z Tra ÓÑ * Project Boundary ÜÑ Streambank Stabilization Roads Patch Clearcut Town Line !n Dam Removal Forest Road Group Selection Roads !. Plant Restoration Road Construction Improvement Cut Streams !i Parking Lot Upgrades Trail Construction Thinning Hiking Trails Decommission Road Scotch Pine 2001 Roadless Area Removal Conservation Rule Road Reconstruction Forest Plan Revision Roadless Area Inventory Railroad
W ill ey 29 Ra ng e Tra il
rail nd T n Po Etha White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table 3. Silvicultural changes between Alternatives 2 and 3 in Compartment 49
Stand Acres Prescription Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 C49 - 6 80 Group Selection 10.7 10.5 C49 - 10 45 Group Selection 6.5 6.4 C49 - 19 112 Group Selection 22.4 22.3 C49 - 22 21 Group Selection 3.9 2.9 C49 - 23 40 Group Selection 8.3 5.3 C49 - 24 61 Group Selection 11.2 10.9 C49 - 53 25 Group Selection 4.9 4.4 C49 - 54 59 Group Selection 10.1 8.5 C49 - 56 16 Patch Clearcut 4.8 4.6 C49 - 59 15 Group Selection 2.8 2.7 C49 - 60 20 Group Selection 4 3.9 C49 - 61 10 Group Selection 1.8 1.5 C49 - 65 29 Group Selection 5.4 5.7 C49 - 67 10 Group Selection 1.8 1.4 C49 - 76 22 Group Selection 4.2 2.6 C49 - 77 18 Patch Clearcut 9.9 3.9 C49 - 84 34 Group Selection 6.3 6.1
Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation Ammonoosuc Lake Dam The dam at Ammonoosuc Lake would not be rehabilitated. Instead, the dam would be removed to: • Restore the original stream channel over time; • Restore high-quality riparian habitat around the stream; and • Provide a future educational opportunity on restoration of streams and habitat connectivity. Activities associated with removal of the dam would include: • Establishing an engineering plan to develop stream channel profile and restoration design for this site. • Partially draining the pond, retaining a conservation pool for existing aquatic species; • Removing all existing rock/masonry and concrete and hauling it off to proper disposal site; • Reshaping stream elevation to a stable grade incorporating natural channel design using an excavator; • Excavating and moving excessive sediment that has deposited behind the dam to make way for stream channel and prevent excessive sedimentation
30 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
downstream. Sediment would be hauled to an appropriate location and would not be used to fill wetland habitat; • Creating a foot crossing using rocks to allow hiking access across rehabili- tated stream; • Revegetating in and around disturbed sites with native grass and riparian species; and • Decommissioning FR 6169 (.42 miles) following dam removal. Forest Plan Compliance and Design Criteria Design criteria can be found in Appendix B. 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives The following tables provide a comparison of the alternatives analyzed in the Crawford Stewardship Project: • Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Activity • Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives by Project Needs and Opportunities • Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Resource Effects • Table 7. Comparison of Alternatives by Compliance Comparison of Alternatives by Activity Table 4 displays the difference in activities between Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Activity
Proposed Activity Measure Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Vegetation and Wildlife Stand area Actual num- Stand area Actual num- Habitat Management where treat- ber of acres where treat- ber of acres ment could treated ment could treated occur occur Patch clearcut 0 acres 354 acres 94 acres 354 acres 54 acres Clearcut 0 acres 114 acres 18 acres 114 acres 0 acres Group selection 0 acres 1340 acres 254 acres 1340 acres 215 acres Improvement cut 0 acres 645 acres 227 acres 645 acres 227 acres Commercial thin 0 acres 101 acres 59 acres 101 acres 59 acres Total harvest acres 0 acres NA 652 acres NA 554 acres Estimated harvest 0 MMBF 5.5 MMBF 4.4 MMBF volume Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation Ammonoosuc Lake Dam No Change Would be rehabilitated Would be removed Rehabilitation Just Minimal Maintenance Nancy Barton Nordic Trail New Nancy Barton 0 miles 0.6 miles 0.6 miles Nordic Trail construction
31 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Proposed Activity Measure Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Decommission former 0 miles 1.2 miles 1.2 miles Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Tail Ecosystem Restoration Native plant restoration 0 acre 1 acre 1 acre Removal of Scotch pine 0 acre < 1 acre < 1 acre Crawford Brook bank No Change Would occur Would occur stabilization Public Access and the Transportation System Crawford Path parking No Change Would occur Would occur area rehabilitation Roadwork Culvert replacements 0 5 5 Temporary bridge instal- 0 5 5 lations Road reconstruction 0 miles 2.4 miles 2.4 miles Road construction 0 miles 1.0 miles 1.0 miles Road Decommissioning 0 miles 2.2 miles 2.6 miles
Comparison of Alternatives by Project Needs and Opportunities Table 5 displays the comparison of alternatives by the needs identified above for the Project Area. For a summary of the rationale used to determine the find- ings, see Table 6. Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives by Project Needs and Opportunities (NM = would not meet; BM = would best meet; SM = would somewhat meet)
Need or Opportunity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Management Vegetation Composition and Structure: There is a need NM BM SM to sustain a healthy forest ecosystem and provide sustain- able forest products. Wildlife Habitat Management: There is a need to perpetu- NM BM SM ate wildlife habitat types and increase age class diversity in stands where silvicultural treatments could move the existing conditions toward the desired conditions set for the Bretton Woods HMU. Trailside Scenery: Opportunities exist along the trails and NM BM SM bridges, below the mountain cabin, the Mt. Clinton Road, and the proposed Nancy Barton Trail reroute to locate small areas of scenic interest.
32 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Need or Opportunity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Watershed Improvement, Recreation, and Interpretation Rehabilitation of the Dam at Ammonoosuc Lake: There NM BM SM is a need to rehabilitate the dam at Ammonoosuc Lake to reduce the likely risk of flood damage to infrastructure downstream of the dam and to provide aquatic habitat Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail Relocation: There is a NM BM need to reduce risk of trail soil failure in the riparian area Restoration of Native Plants along US 302 at the For- NM BM mer Golf Course: There is a need to remove non-native plant species and restore a suite of native plant species at this site. Removal of Non-Native Scotch Pine along US 302: NM BM There is a need to remove Scotch pine during or after the commercial timber harvest for ecosystem restoration. Crawford Brook Bank Stabilization: There is a need to NM BM reduce risk of bank failure and potential damage to US 302, and also to restore bank stability, there is a need to create a log structure in Crawford Brook downstream of the cur- rent Nancy Barton Nordic ski trail bridge. Public Access and the Transportation System Crawford Path Parking Area Rehabilitation: There is a NM BM need to replace or resurface the current parking lot, the old timber curbing, and old culverts in order to ensure contin- ued visitor safety and erosion control. Maintain, Restore and Reconstruct the Existing Trans- NM BM portation System, Including Improving Culverts along the Mt. Clinton Road: There is a need to maintain and improve the Forest Road system to reduce risk of culvert failure, and improve roads for safe driving conditions during the removal of forest products during harvest and after for Forest users.
Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Resource Effects Table 6 displays the comparison of alternatives by management indicator, if appropriate, then by resource effects. Analyses of additional effects by resource follows. Detailed analyses of resource effects can be found either under the Environmental Effects section or in the individual resource specialist reports (project record).
33 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table 6. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue and Resource Effects
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Issues Issue 1: Scenery Management (Treated Acre Total)* Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Crawford Path parking lot 0 acres Parking lot looking at compartment Parking lot looking at compartment 48 only = 51.6 acres 48 only = 0 acres 0 acres Parking lot looking at compartment Parking lot looking at compartment 49 only = 0 acres 49 only = 0 acres Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Washington Hotel Veranda 0 acres View from Hotel Veranda Front View from Hotel Veranda Front looking at compartment 48 only = looking at compartment 48 only = 51.6 acres 0 acres 0 acres View from Hotel Veranda Back View from Hotel Veranda Back looking at compartment 49 only = looking at compartment 49 only = 60.3 53.7 acres Acres of harvesting treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Eisenhower 0 acres Mt. Eisenhower looking at com- Mt. Eisenhower looking at com- partment 48 only = 51.6 acres partment 48 only = 0 acres 0 acres Mt. Eisenhower looking at com- Mt. Eisenhower looking at com- partment 49 only = 51.3 acres partment 49 only = 53.7 acres Issue 2. Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Riparian and Aquatic Resources Stream and Pond Water Temperature There would be no change in Rehabilitation of the dam would Removal of the dam would elimi- stream or pond temperature. If the maintain the warm water pond nate the warm water pond habi- dam were to fail, the warm water- temperature and the associated tat and several small cold water pond would be lost, and several flora and fauna. streams would replace it. Over small coldwater streams would time, beaver flooding could create replace it. a dynamic mix of small cool water beaver ponds and small coldwater streams. Stream Connectivity Stream connectivity would remain Stream connectivity would remain Stream connectivity improves <0.1 unchanged unless the Ammo Lake in current condition, as the barrier miles. Several spring-fed streams dam failed. Connectivity could to aquatic species movements is are reconnected to Crawford improve depending on conditions replaced and dam failure is a very Brook, improving local spawning at the failed dam. low risk. and nursery habitat for brook trout.
34 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Habitat Quality Stream habitat quality and produc- Stream habitat quality and Removal of the dam would elimi- tivity remains similar to existing productivity remains similar to nate risk of dam failure, thereby condition unless the Ammo Lake existing condition. Rehabilita- protecting downstream habitats dam failed. Would be lost oppor- tion of the dam greatly reduces from sedimentation. Less than 0.1 tunities to either rehabilitate or the risk of dam failure, protect- miles of stream habitat is cre- remove the Ammonoosuc Dam at ing downstream habitats from ated from dam removal. Brook this time. Sediments stored behind sedimentation. Ammonoosuc Dam trout in nearby Crawford Brook the dam could degrade stream rehabilitation design would likely utilize newly accessible spawning habitats up to a mile downstream maintain the current pond water habitat, increasing local reproduc- if dam failed. There would be level (surface area and depth) tion. Aquatic invertebrate produc- flooding and erosion impacts to and maintain similar amounts of tion is improved from new diverse downstream terrestrial and aquatic the existing pond riparian habi- riparian habitat. Removal of the habitats and loss of pond and tat (defined banks dominated by Ammonoosuc Dam would cause riparian habitat until beavers likely low woody shrubs, alders, trees, a reduction in the amount of the re-dam the area over time. and pond emergent / submergent existing pond water level (area vegetation). and depth) and riparian habitat until beavers most likely re-dam the area. Overtime, a seasonally fluctuating beaver flow area would create a more complex, high wildlife value marsh / wet sedge meadow / shrub wetland habitat. Based on expected increases in the amount of diverse wetland habitat, increased wildlife species composition is expected following dam removal, with potential im- provements to Regional Forester- listed Sensitive Species (RFSS) Northern bog lemming habitat and no impacts to RFSS heartleaf twayblade. Conservation Education Existing conservation education Rehabilitation of the dam would Removal of the dam would elimi- opportunities provided by the Ap- maintain the existing conservation nate existing conservation educa- palachian Mountain Club Highland education opportunities provided tion opportunities provided by the Center, interpretation of the pond by the Appalachian Mountain AMC Highland Center focused on ecosystem associated with the Club Highland Center focused on interpretation of the pond ecosys- Ammonoosuc Lake, would con- interpretation of both the pond tem associated with the Ammo- tinue until and if the dam fails. and stream ecosystem associated noosuc Lake. Could be replaced with the Ammonoosuc Lake and by interpretation of wetlands. Crawford Brook.
35 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Other Resources Soil Resources Soil Erosion and Compaction No direct/indirect effects to soil No effects to soil erosion and compaction are anticipated with these erosion or compaction are ex- alternatives. pected from Alternative 1. Cumu- Very little new soil disturbance is expected to occur outside of the exist- latively, there would continue to be ing footprint of the current dam during reconstruction or removal. localized erosion related to ongo- Meets the Eastern Region standard for Soil Quality (15 percent or less ing maintenance of Forest Service of a land unit scale area) - there would be no more than approximately System roads, recreational trails, 3.7 percent soil disturbance for the land unit. private roads, and timber harvest- Within Forest Plan objective (up to ten miles of new road construction ing on public and private lands. to be built within the life of the plan); 1.0 miles new road construction in the Crawford Project, a cumulative Forest total of 3.4 miles new road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005 Soil Nutrient Cycling No direct/indirect impacts on long- No effects to soil productivity are anticipated with this project. term soil nutrient cycling or forest Very little new soil nutrient disturbance would be expected outside of health. No cumulative concerns the existing foot print of the current dam during reconstruction with soil nutrient cycling under Soils would be compacted from 1.0 miles of new road construction Alternative 1 would not produce plants and other microorganisms that allow the soil to continue to develop over time. Within Forest Plan objective (up to ten miles of new road construction to be built within the life of the plan); 1.0 miles new road construction in the Crawford Project, a cumulative Forest total of 3.4 miles new road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005 Water Resource Alternative 1 may result in a sud- Would incorporate a controlled release of water during low flow peri- den increase in flows below the ods. Ammonoosuc Lake Dam if the Would have reduced sedimentation relative to a dam failure scenario in dam failed. Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would result in quan- Would result in a flow pattern simi- tity and timing of flows similar to lar to pre-impoundment conditions. the present state. Would allow sediment to accumulate behind the Ammonoosuc Lake Would also restore a self-sustain- Dam. ing pattern of sediment movement rather than allowing sediment to accumulate behind a dam. Water Quantity and Stream Stability No direct/indirect effects to stream No effects to stream flow are anticipated with this project. flow. Most streams would remain in Nancy Barton Ski Trail relocation, Crawford Brook bank stabilization Proper Functioning Condition. and culvert replacements on Mt. Clinton Road would improve stream Reaches on Crawford Brook and stability. No direct or indirect effects on stream stability are anticipated around undersized culverts would in other areas and streams would remain in Proper Functioning Condi- become increasingly unstable, tion. with possible cumulative effect of climate change.
36 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Water Quality No direct or indirect effects on No direct or indirect effects on water chemistry are anticipated with this water chemistry are expected. project Basal area removal related to this Basal area removal in any subwa- Basal area removal in any subwa- project would be 0%. tershed would be below the 17% tershed would be below the 17% threshold for water chemistry ef- threshold for water chemistry ef- fect (maximum value is 11.3%). fect (maximum value is 9.7%). Impervious cover in the analysis Impervious cover in watershed Impervious cover in watershed watershed would be approximately would be below 10% threshold would be below 10% threshold 1.9%. (approximately 2.3%). (approximately 2.2%). Crawford Brook and streams with Nancy Barton Ski Trail relocation, Crawford Brook bank stabilization undersized culverts would have and culvert replacements on Mt. Clinton Road would reduce sedimen- increased sediment loads due to tation, since banks would be less scoured or prone to failure. existing disturbance. This sedi- No direct or indirect effects of increased sedimentation are anticipated mentation may be exacerbated with this project because total soil disturbance meets Soil Quality stan- by climate change. Otherwise, no dards. Design features would limit sediment movement near streams direct or indirect effects on sedi- to short-term, localized effects that have not been found to result in mentation are anticipated. sediment-related impairment. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat In the short-term, (10-20 years) all Implementing Alternative 2, would Effects of Alternative 3 on veg- stands would continue to grow and maintain a mosaic of vegetative etation are similar to those de- mature. The stands would begin conditions and improve spe- scribed under Alternative 2, but to resemble a climax vegetation cies composition by specifically on a reduced scale because of forest and there would be a loss of increasing the amount of aspen- the reduction in treatment acres. habitat diversity. birch and northern hardwood Fewer acres of regeneration age regeneration-age class. Alternative class would be created than as 2 would produce approximately described for Alternative 2. Fewer 5.5 million board feet of timber wood products (4.4 million board products feet or 1.1 million board feet less than Alternative 2) would be enter- ing the marketplace.
37 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Continued presence and expan- Removal of Scotch pine and other non-native plants along route sion of Scotch pine along US 302 302 and at the old Crawford golf course site would provide gaps and and the continued presence and openings that would be colonized by sun-loving plant species – some expansion of aggressive non- supplemental planting of native species at old golf course site; no sub- native herbaceous plants at the stantive effect to non-target vegetation resulting from these activities. old golf course site would have a negative effect native plants and natural communities within the Project Area. Cumulatively, NNIS infestations within the Project Area on NFS lands likely to decrease due to the on-going treatment authorized by the 2007 WMNF Forest-wide NNIS Environmen- tal Assessment, but would also continue to expand in the analysis area from NNIS populations and plantings on state and private lands. Cumulatively, NNIS infestations within the Project Area on NFS lands are likely to decrease due to the on- going treatment authorized by the 2007 WMNF Forest-wide NNIS Environmental Assessment, but would also continue to expand in the analysis area from NNIS populations and plantings on state and private lands. Wildlife Resources Bretton Woods HMU No adverse direct effects to habi- Greater increase than Alt 1 or Alt Lesser increase than Alt 2 in 0 to 9 tat diversity. 3 in 0 to 9 yr old regen age class yr old regen age class in all habitat in all habitat types and perpetu- types via 554 acres of treatments Adds adverse indirect and cumu- ates spruce-fir and aspen-birch (40 ac less of patch cuts, 18 ac lative effects to existing lack of via 652 acres of treatments (40 less of clear-cuts, 39 ac less of age class diversity (no regen age ac more of patch cuts, 18 ac more groups, and same amount of im- class), and would not perpetuate of clearcuts, and 39 ac more of provement cut and thinning). spruce-fir, and risks long-term loss groups, and same amount of im- of early successional aspen-birch provement cut and thinning). habitat in the Project Area and the Greater decrease than Alt 3 in ma- Lesser decrease than Alt 2 in ma- HMU. ture hardwood age class via 171 ture hardwood age class via 113 acres even-aged treatments. acres even-aged treatments. Ecological Indicators & Important Wildlife Habitats No adverse direct effects. No adverse direct, indirect, or No adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to ecological cumulative effects to ecological Adds adverse indirect and cumula- indicators or important habitats. indicators or important habitats. tive effects to the existing lack of No change in habitat diversity or Expected increases in habitat age class diversity (no regen age wildlife species composition via diversity with increase in wildlife class), and would not perpetuate rehabilitation of Ammonoosuc species composition following dam spruce-fir, and risks long-term loss Lake Dam to the existing pond removal with likely beaver re-dam of early successional aspen-birch water level. creating high wildlife value marsh/ habitat in Project Area and the meadow/sedge habitat. HMU.
38 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Management Indicator Species Adds cumulative effect of decline Greater increase than Alt 3 in age Lesser increase than Alt 2 in age- in age class diversity and long- class diversity and perpetuation of class diversity or perpetuation of term loss of aspen-birch habitat. spruce-fir and aspen-birch habi- spruce-fir and aspen-birch habitat. tats. In the near term, would not ad- Would not adversely affect population trends and viability of WMNF versely affect population trends MIS within the Forest-wide planning area. or viability of WMNF MIS in the Forest-wide planning area. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive Species No direct or indirect effects to “No effect” to Federally-listed TEP species. TEPS species (BE in project file). “No impact” and/or “may impact individuals, but would not likely contrib- ute to a trend towards Federal-listing or cause a loss of viability to the Adds adverse cumulative effects population or species” of RF Sensitive Species. to decline in age class diversity Dam rehabilitation requiring lower- Dam removal would reduce the and lack of available browse for ing the water level would reduce amount of pond / riparian habitat, snowshoe hare (prey base for the amount of pond riparian but beavers would likely create Canada lynx), and adds to lack of habitat temporarily with no impacts high value marsh/sedge habitat open canopy conditions for forag- to RFSS Northern bog lemming or for RFSS N.bog lemming with no ing woodland bats. heartleaf twayblade. impacts to heartleaf twayblade. Transportation See transportation analysis in project file. Heritage There would be no direct/indirect Replacement of historic Ammo- Removal of historic Ammonoosuc or cumulative effects to heritage noosuc dam would be mitigated dam would be mitigated by inter- sites by interpretive signs, and stone pretive signs facing to maintain the visual char- acter of the dam. Short-term (1-2 years) of historic Ammonoosuc dam would be mitigated by interpretive signs would lessen as new vegetative growth again obscures sites. Proportion of private land where future development might occur within the Project Area is small, and the current project has been determined to have no effect on cultural resources by the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office, the potential for cumulative effects to cul- tural resources is small.
39 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Recreation Would neither alter nor enhance Short term - harvesting activities Effects on recreation associated current recreation opportunities. would include temporary closure with this alternative generally the Existing resource concerns (soils of some Nordic ski trails, and the same as those in Alternative 2. prone to slumping and inadequate sights and sounds associated with Main difference would be shorter stream crossings) along the cur- timber harvesting would be evi- duration of harvesting effects rent Nancy Barton Trail corridor dent. Long term - increased scenic from reduction in proposed timber would continue to exist and would views along the trails would be harvesting activities near some likely lead to the closure of the trail created adjacent to the trails from trails, particularly in the Stickney in the future. timber harvesting. Recreationists Trail System in Compartment 48, using trails associated with non- where several stands proposed to winter harvesting would also be be harvested in Alternative 2 are affected by the sights and sounds dropped from Alternative 3. associated with timber harvest- ing. Increased early-successional forested stands, short-term habi- tat, and browse for certain game species would provide additional hunting opportunities. Relocation of a portion of the Nancy Barton Trail would create a trail of easy to moderate difficulty and would present the user with increased scenic viewing opportunities; would also eliminate a need to cross US 302 twice by skiers headed to the Highland Center. Would allow the closure of the section of the Rosebrook Express Trail that is difficult to maintain in the winter. Snowmobiling use of the Mt. Clinton Road would be eliminated temporarily when the road would be used for timber harvesting activities. Socioeconomic None of the alternatives would adversely affect the quality of life or the rural character of the area. Environmental Justice Because minority and low-income populations comprise a small percentage of the overall population in the towns, there is little potential for minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.
*Acres of treatment are based on the views that can be seen in each compartment. The alternatives should be compared by compartment; however, the acres for each compartment cannot be added together for comparison purposes.
40 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Comparison of Alternatives by Compliance Table 7 displays a summary of project compliance. For the full description of compliance by resource, see Appendix E. Table 7. Summary of Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans by Alternative
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Scenery Management NA Fully compliant with the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines for Scenery Management. Alternative 3 is more conservative than the guidelines suggest. Water Resources May not meet For- Water quantity and quality comply with the Forest Plan. est Plan guidance Streams expected to remain in Proper Functioning Condi- for water quality in tion or improve due to restoration projects. the case of Ammo- The proposed activities would not change water quantity noosuc Lake dam to an extent that would affect minimum instream flows or failure. Sediment water supplies. and turbidity levels Would comply with State of New Hampshire water qual- may exceed State ity standards for Outstanding Resource Waters. Waters standards for Out- would continue to support designated uses. Where water standing Resource quality is not meeting State standards for pH and alumi- Waters. num, the proposed activities are not expected to cause further degradation Soil Productivity NA Complies with existing Forest Plan standards and guide- lines Vegetation Resource NA Complies with existing Forest Plan standards and guide- lines, availability and suitability for timber harvest, ap- propriateness of even-aged timber harvest, optimality of clearcutting, prescription is best suited to multiple-use goals of the Forest Plan, reasonable assurance of ad- equate restocking, culmination of mean annual increment Wildlife Would not meet Complies with the Forest Plan wildlife habitat manage- Forest Plan wildlife ment goals and habitat management objectives set for habitat management Bretton Woods HMU and the effects are within the range goals or habitat of effects described in the FEIS, and complies with En- management objec- dangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. tives set for Bretton Woods HMU. NNIS NA Complies with existing Forest Plan standards and guide- lines related to NNIS, as well as United States Depart- ment of Agriculture and United States Forest Service policies and handbook direction, and with the New Hamp- shire Invasive Species Act and its rules and regulations. All pesticide applications would be conducted in compli- ance with the New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board rules and product label instructions.
41 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Cultural Resource NA Through consultation with the State Historic Preserva- tion Officer (SHPO) and their concurrence with the Forest Service’s finding of No Adverse Effect to historic proper- ties, the Forest Plan standards and guidelines are met, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is achieved. Recreation Resource NA All alternatives would comply with the Forest Plan and other relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans with regard to recreation. Socioeconomic Resource NA All alternatives would comply with the Forest Plan and & Environmental Justice other relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans with regard to socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.
42 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Chapter 3 — Environmental Effects
This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources found in the Project Area resulting from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Analysis of effects to resources associated with the two issues developed for this project is shown in detail and is displayed first by issue. Analyses of additional effects (by resource) follows and may be summarized from detailed Specialist Reports that are located in the project record. Design criteria applicable to the Proposed Action and alternatives, and used in the analyses, are displayed in Appendix B). 3.1 Temporal and Spatial Analysis Boundaries Table 8 displays the time and space boundaries used to analyze effects. The full description of the cumulative effects analysis area boundaries can be found in Appendix C including the rationale for choosing the boundaries. Table 8. Time and space boundaries used for resource analysis of effects
Resource Direct/Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Riparian & Crawford Brook watershed, starting from the mouth of Sebosis Brook. Populations of Aquatic Habitat aquatic species within this area are more likely to be connected within a time period of 10-25 years. Conservation Compartments 48 and 49 (Project Area) Project Area for 2001-2021 Education within the Bretton Woods Habitat Manage- ment Unit (HMU), with a timeframe for direct and indirect effects is the actual dura- tion of the Crawford Project, expected to be two to four years Scenery Project Area for 30 years Includes landscape views in front of, into Management the Project Area and beyond, from the same viewpoints. The timeframe is the same as for direct and indirect effects. Soil Productivity The individual stands proposed for treat- Upper Ammonoosuc River watershed, for Resource - Soil ment as part of the Crawford Project twenty years in the past and ten years be- Erosion and yond the implementation of the project Compaction Soil Productivity The location of the actual timber harvest activities, from early harvesting approximately in Resource - Soil the early 1900s to ten years into the future (2020) Nutrient Cycling Water Resource Headwaters of the Ammonoosuc River, Headwaters of the Ammonoosuc River, down to a point on the Ammonoosuc River down to a point on the Ammonoosuc River immediately below the Project Area, 10 immediately below the Project Area, 25 years in the past and 10 years in the future, years in the past and 25 years into the up to twenty years after the proposed ac- future (1985-2035) tivities occur on the ground
43 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Resource Direct/Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Vegetation Management Area (MA) 2.1 lands in Com- White Mountain National Forest System Resource partments 48 and 49 within the Bretton lands in the Bretton Woods HMU (approxi- Woods HMU mately 10,639 acres); and Non National Forest System lands in the towns of Beth- lehem, Carroll, and Crawfords Purchase, New Hampshire, which are adjacent to or near the Crawford Project Area (approxi- mately 44,118 acres), twenty years in the past and twenty years into the future (1990 to 2030). Non-native The Crawford Project Area The Bretton Woods HMU and the adjacent Invasive Plants public and private land in the surrounding village of Bretton Woods, NH. The past and future ten years (2000 to 2020) HMU Objectives, The MA 2.1 lands in Bretton Woods HMU, All National Forest System lands (MAs 2.1, Ecological the past and future ten years (2000-2020). 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 8.3, 8.5, 9.3) in the Bretton Indicators, MIS Woods HMU, the past and future ten years (2000-2020) Cultural The Project Area boundary, twenty years before, and twenty years after 2010. Resource Recreation Compartments 48 and 49 (Project Area), The Bretton woods HMU, 2001 through Resource duration of the Crawford Project 2021 Socio-economic Towns of Bethlehem, Carroll and Craw- Towns of Bethlehem, Carroll and Craw- Resource ford’s Purchase, duration of the project ford’s Purchase, twenty years past and ten activities years into the future (1990-2010)
3.2 Issue 1: Clearcutting Effects on Scenery A comment received from scoping suggested that clearcutting in the Project Area would adversely alter the scenic value of the landscape. Measurement Indicator • Acres of harvest treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Crawford Path Parking Lot • Acres of harvest treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Washington Hotel Veranda • Acres of harvest treatment (clearcutting/patch cutting) seen from Mt. Eisenhower Affected Environment The Project Area is located immediately to the north of Crawford Notch along US 302, in Management Area (MA) 2.1. It lies between Bretton Woods Ski Area and the Mt. Washington Hotel on the northern boundary and Crawford Notch on the southern boundary. The western boundary is best described as the moun- tainsides of (north to south) Mt. Rosebrook, Mt. Stickney and Mt. Echo. The eastern boundary is approximately the Ammonoosuc River and the Mt. Clinton Road as well as the western base slopes of the Presidential Range.
44 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
The viewed landscape for this project is the Project Area as well as the moun- tain backdrops or outlying valley bottom areas or both. The two compartments (48 and 49) of the Project Area are geographically divided sections located on opposite sides of US 302. Compartment 48 is located on a relatively undisturbed mountainside, southwest of US 302. Compartment 49 lies northeast of US 302 on the quilted valley bottom, creeping only slightly up the mountainside mosaic of the Presidential Range. The overall scenery of the Project Area can be described as a collaged or quilted valley bottom cradled by mountains. The quilted valley and lower mountain- sides consist of a combination of naturally occurring and humanly altered or influenced open areas, forest, and constructed features. Viewpoint at the Crawford Path Parking Lot (Viewpoint 7) The Crawford Path Parking Lot (Viewpoint 7, Figure 9) represents the opposite and complementary viewing angle of the front of the Mount Washington Hotel veranda (Viewpoint 6F). From this viewpoint, the observer sees the undulations of the mountainsides making up Compartment 48. It is an open and undisturbed view. The cone of vision is marked to the left or the south by Crawford Notch. The right or northwestern end of the cone of vision is marked by the fading edge of Mt. Stickney’s mountainside dropping toward US 302. It is an attrac- tive, but not unusual, view typical of the lower elevation mountains, ridgeline, and side slopes of the region. The ridgelines, peaks, and mountainsides are clearly visible, with almost nonexistent immediate foreground vegetation and no architectural or structural interruption. The mosaic of vegetation on these mountainsides is relatively unmarked or can be seen as a consistent blanket to the casual observer. The keen observer may detect the railroad corridor in the lower portion of the mountainsides, running parallel with US 302. This viewpoint contains dominantly middleground views (ranging from 1 mile to 2.3 miles distant). The exception is the view immediately in front of the observer that is foreground (only 0.4 of a mile distant). See Table E1 (Appendix E) for more information regarding Viewpoint 7.
Figure 9. Viewpoint 7 Viewpoints at the Mount Washington Hotel Veranda (Viewpoint 6F and 6B) The viewpoint on the front of the Mount Washington Hotel veranda has a cone of vision (Figure 10) that is marked to the right (northwest) by the ski slopes of Bretton Woods Ski Resort, with distinct upper-level openings in the ridgeline. The left (southeastern) end of the cone of vision is marked by Crawford Notch. The ridgelines, peaks, and mountainsides are clearly visible with little immedi- ate foreground vegetation or architectural or structural interruption. The mosaic
45 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
of vegetation on these mountainsides, aside from Bretton Woods, is relatively unmarked or can be seen as a consistent blanket to the casual observer (refers to average visitor or resident who may drive, visit, or recreate in or around the area and whose view may be less sensitive to detail or due to frequency, time or interest may become complacent). The keen observer (sensitive to detail and changes or alterations to the landscape and takes time to take in a single view or may not be distracted by having a purpose while viewing) may detect the railroad corridor in the lower portion of the mountainsides, running parallel with US 302. This viewpoint contains close middleground views (ranging from 0.6 miles to 2.3 miles distant) with the exception of the view immediately in front of the observer, which is foreground (only 0.5 miles distant). Refer to Table E2 (Appendix E) for more information regarding Viewpoint 6F. The viewpoint from the back of the Mount Washington Hotel veranda has a cone of vision (Figure 11) that is marked to the right (south) by Crawford Notch. The left (northeastern) end of the cone of vision is marked by the northern end of the Presidential Range. Although the ridgelines, peaks, and mountainsides of the Presidentials are clearly visible, with little immediate foreground vegeta- tion or architectural or structural interruption, the majority of Compartment 49 lies in the middleground of the viewshed and, due to this, is easily overlooked. The observer’s focus and attention may be on features of the golf course in the foreground or the grandeur of the mountain backdrop in the background.
Figure 10. Viewpoint 6F
Figure 11. Viewpoint 6B
46 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
The viewpoint from the back of the veranda overlooks the Mount Washington Hotel golf course, then the vegetative mosaic of Compartment 49, which is spo- radically interrupted with lines of shadow, light, and texture created from the partially visible edges of past openings. This may go completely unnoticed by the casual observer. From this perspective, it is, overall, a very natural-appearing lowland area once the observer looks past the golf course. The mountainside backdrop does have past group selection openings that are more readily appar- ent to the keen eye as the aspect of the slope is nearly direct to the observer, which, some would argue, detracts from the scenic quality of the view. This viewpoint contains middleground views (ranging from 0.9 miles to 2.3 miles distant) with the exception of the view immediately center left, the outside edge of the golf course and in front of the observer, which is foreground (only 0. 5 miles distant). See Table E3 (Appendix E) for more information regarding Viewpoint 6B. Viewpoint on Mt. Eisenhower (Viewpoint 1) Mt. Eisenhower (Figure 12) is the superior viewpoint for the analysis. It was chosen over other superior viewpoints within the Presidential Range because it was the nearest peak in proximity to the Project Area that captured nearly the entirety of the Project Area within one viewshed (or cone of vision). Compartments 48 and 49 are both clearly visible, as well as background that provides context to the project. This viewshed is comprised of a complex combination of “natural” landscape (meaning undisturbed in very recent history), manipulated landscape and con- structed features. It appears as a patchwork or quilt of: • The past group selection openings visible in the near middleground; • The more naturally-appearing meadow-like openings from past clearcuts; • The vegetative mosaic surrounding and between; • The extensive clearings and constructed landform, structural and architec- tural features of the resorts, condominiums and residential subdivisions in the far middleground; and • The mostly vegetated mountainsides of the background. • The complete viewshed extends miles into the distant background. The far background would only truly be visible on the clearest of days. Clouds, haze, or fog often restrict the depth of field and limit the view to the Project Area and its immediate surroundings. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the Project Area and its immediately surroundings, which include, but are not limited to, the Bretton Woods Ski Resort, the Mount Washington Hotel and Golf Course Resort complex, and the residential subdivisions and condominiums dotting the landscape on the borders of these two features. This viewpoint is typical of superior viewpoints in that it peers down into and over the landscape. The viewpoint’s cone of vision is marked to the left (south) by Crawford Notch. The right of center focal point stands out as the ski slopes carved from the canopy at Bretton Woods and dropping toward US 302. The northwestern end of the cone of vision would be characterized as the south- eastern facing sideslopes of the mountains bordering the Ammonoosuc River, north of the Mount Washington Hotel and golf course complex.
47 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Figure 12. Viewpoint 1
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1 there would be no change from the present condition and therefore no visible change to the landscape within the Project Area. However, there may be naturally-occurring changes and disturbances to the Project Area due to the area remaining as an unmanaged landscape. Unmanaged stands are still prone to mortality in dominate trees from lighting strike, storm damage, or pathogens. Small-scale, localized, high-intensity disturbance like the multiple tree-fall gaps associated with a microburst wind event also have the ability to create openings, shadow, color, and texture changes to the landscape. Examples of such events are the blowdown that occurred on the Base Road behind the Mt. Washington Resort and along the Mt. Clinton Road in the winter of 2009-2010, ice storms, or pockets of insect or disease mortality. Alternative 2 Compartment 48 The changes to the landscape in the Project Area that would be most evident and affect the most observers are in Compartment 48; from the front of the Mt. Washington Hotel (Figure 13) and from the Crawford Path Parking and Trailhead (Figure 14). These two perspectives are complementary as they peer from opposite sides of the viewshed toward each other at an oblique angle. This angle aids in reducing the visibility of some stands while peering down the openings of others. Each perspective has one stand proposed for harvest in the foreground (one half mile distant or less) and multiple stands within the near middleground (0.6 to 1.5 miles distant) of the viewshed. Both view- points are used intensively by a variety of user groups and are, therefore, the most important viewsheds to consider. Mt. Eisenhower (Viewpoint 1) is the superior viewpoint, overlooking nearly the entirety of the Project Area and beyond. Although fewer observers would hike and experience Compartment 48 from this view, it provides a quality superior viewshed completing the range of potential views.
48 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
The front of the Mt. Washington veranda (Figure 13) stares directly at Stand 1, which in turn is one of the most visible of all the stands. It has this distinction due to its proximity and because it is a direct view of a slope with an aspect that is also nearly direct to the viewer. These patch clearcuts would be reasonably spaced to ensure that plenty of leading edge and buffer is left between units. They incorporate other design features such as being linear with the contour and narrow so that each unit’s leading edge would mask a large portion of its opening. The largest of the openings is approximately 6 acres, yet the amount visible immediately and for the mid-range future, would be, in all likelihood, roughly one third of that. This would leave mostly a hard shadow line, color, and textural change. Stand 1 would have some filtering from partially obscur- ing foreground vegetation, but it would not be of any real consequence to the visibility of the stand. Moving further down the front porch of the hotel, the view would become mostly unobstructed. The other visible stands from this viewpoint would be stands 2 (group selec- tion) and 3 (patch clearcut). A fraction of the openings depicted in the modeling would be visible but would show up as an evident feature on the landscape in the immediate to mid-range future. Stand 3’s lowest-lying patch would be one of the most open appearing units in the compartment because of its width on the northwest side. This one unit could have the highest probability of any harvest treatments proposed to produce an exposed opening or, at the very least, expose tree boles (trunks) along the back edge of the opening. Otherwise, the stands would also share the design characteristics mentioned above, leaving a reduced visible footprint on the mountainside from other viewing opportunities. Stands 4, 5, and 23 are all group selections and would be only partially visible from the front of the Mt. Washington veranda. Stands that are only partially visible in the modeling might, on the ground, appear as shadow lines, textural differences in the landscape, show a variance in color from their surroundings, or a combination of all. (See the Specialist Report in the project file for further explanation.) These three would be the only stands within the viewshed to have interrupted views from foreground vegetation. Stand 4 is lower on the landscape, being partially located on a flatter roadside section of terrain. Stands 5 and 23 are partially in lower sections of the mountainside and those areas would be partially obscured from full view. It would be unlikely to see much, if any, of stands 13 and 18 from the front of the Mt. Washington veranda, as the topography would mask them from the line of site. Stand 18 is an approximately 6-acre clearcut. Stand 32 is an approximately 11-acre clearcut that is barely visible on the model from this viewpoint. It is unlikely it would be visible as anything more than a slight shadow, color, or textural change because of the distance from the observer (2.2 miles), the angle of the slope in which it is located, and the topographic and vegetative features surrounding it. The remaining stands are small group selection openings that would be mildly apparent for the foreseeable future, not as openings but more as changes to the overall canopy as previously mentioned.
49 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Figure 13. Visual Simulation Model – Viewpoint 6F – Mt. Washington Hotel – Front – ALT 2
Crawford Path Parking Lot (Viewpoint 7) obliquely faces Compartment 48, including stand 23, which is proposed to be group selection openings and is in the foreground. Some of the openings would be viewed directly and the closest is located only 0.4 of a mile from the viewpoint, making the groups appear fairly dramatic and sizeable despite the largest being only approximately 2 acres. The groups would appear as the other features previously analyzed in that they appear larger in model form than they would on the ground. Due to proximity though, more than a textural, color, and shadow change might be evident. It might be possible to see the boles of some of the trees within a few of the openings. This would likely be the case for many years following a harvest because of the orientation and angle of the slope as it relates to the viewpoint. The largest clearcut in the compartment, stand 32 is within 1.2 miles of the Crawford Path Parking Lot (Viewpont 7). Because of topographic features and the location of the stand on the slope, stand 32 would be visible but not easily recognizable as an opening from this viewpoint. It would appear as a shadow, color, and texture feature instead. As it follows the ridgeline, the casual observer might not see the stand or, if they did, might think of it as a dark line from a patch of conifers. Stand 18 lies on a slope that is more in a direct angle toward the Crawford Path Parking Lot (Viewpont 7). Although being nearly two miles distant, the appear- ance of this clearcut would still be recognizable as that of an opening on the top of one of the ridgelines. The visible scale would not be the approximate six acre size but probably closer to the Forest Plan maximum guideline size of four to five visible acres. The distance would reduce the magnitude of the open visible area. This opening alone could look as if it resulted from a natural occurrence, but in combination with the group selections of stand 17 below it and stand 15 slightly below and beyond, the keen observer would not mistake its origin. Due to the angle of the slope and the locations of stands 15 and 17, the openings of the stands would probably remain apparent for eight to ten years or more, but probably not as openings. They more likely may appear as a shadow, color, and texture feature instead. The group selections and patch clear cuts of stands 1, 2, 4, and 5 would very soon fade to not much more than lines of shadow, color, and texture. Stand 4, located on lower, flatter land, would appear more natural as it blends over time. The patch cuts of stand 3 would be a visible feature on the far end of the viewshed. It
50 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
would be only 1.9 miles distant from the viewpoint and would remain visible for many more years than the nearby group selections. The casual observer might not recognize the stands and units in the lower portion of the viewshed as being treated but would notice the visual changes to the landscape as the groups and patch clear cuts would be between 1.25 miles and 2.25 miles distant. It is not enough distance to allow the openings to fade off immediately but enough so they would begin to blend after perhaps ten years or more years of regrowth. It would most likely appear as a shadow, color, and texture feature instead.
Figure 14. Visual Simulation Model – Viewpoint 7 – Crawford Path Parking – ALT 2
The changes to the landscape of Compartment 48, as visible from Mt. Eisenhower, would initially be distinct and ranging in scale. The observer, looking across US 302, would initially see stacks of the small group selection openings bordered on the top and sides by much larger clearcuts, patch cuts, and large group open- ings. Stand 18, a clearcut, would be atop the pile of group selection openings of stands 4, 17, 15 and 13. Due to its width and the angle of the slope it is located on, it might expose minor amounts of ground. From a distance of nearly five miles away, the observer’s naked eye would only recognize the background opening as not much more than a heavy shadow, strong color, and strong tex- tural change after the initial 8 to 10 years following harvesting. Group Selection in stands 5 and 2 along with stand 3, a patch cut, combine at a distance of over four miles and would initially, and for many years to come, appear as lines of shadow, texture, and color. The angle and orientation on the landscape, as well as their number and proximity to one another, would lead the eye to the mass of change. After 10 to 15 years, the openings should be suf- ficiently developed so that the texture change and amount of shadow would diminish and the color would begin to blend with the surroundings. The same can be said for the larger patch cuts of stand 1, all the way to the right of the viewshed and directly in front of the disturbances of the Mt. Washington Hotel Resort and golf course. The two closest and lowest units are located, sized, and shaped so that they would begin to meld similarly to the groups mentioned above. The larger and farthest three units would be on a side facing slope that aligns the openings with the viewer. This would allow the openings to be viewed partially along their length and would expose sections of them to the ground. Again, at four to five miles distant, the openings would appear more as a heavy shadow, strong color, and strong textural change. They would remain fairly visible for probably 15 to 20 years, when they would sufficiently fill back in to begin blending with the surroundings.
51 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
The larger group selection openings of stand 23 would be partially masked by the southern mountains. Those units visible, based on the angle, slope, and superior viewpoint, would have partial visibility as openings, although it is doubtful that ground would be visible. They would have an appearance of heavy shadow, strong color, and strong textural change for the first few years after harvesting until the new canopy began to rise sufficiently from the forest floor. Stand 32, a clearcut, would also be very visible. Because of the width on the southern side of the opening, some ground might be visible immediately after harvesting. The remaining portion would appear as a heavy shadow, strong color, and strong textural change. The stand would be removed enough from the other stands, and in combination with its shape, might have a semi-natural appearance after the initial 8 to 10 years of regeneration. In future years, the keen observer would still immediately locate this stand but might attribute its existence to a past storm event or view it as an upland meadow. From all but the superior viewpoint of Mt. Eisenhower (Figure 15), evidence of bare ground would not be expected in Compartment 48. Any other viewpoints would be far enough distant that those openings visible to the ground would not be observed as ground but as changes in color, shadow, and possibly texture. However, in the winter, all stands, regardless of viewshed distances, would be much more evident with snow highlighting the opening until a new crop would emerge with enough height to begin blending with the surrounding landscape. Even without snow, the openings might become more evident once the canopy has lost its leaves, because of the shadow and texture being accentuated as limited color would exist to blend the eye’s focus, particularly from Viewpoint 1.
Figure 15. Visual Simulation Model – Compartment 48 – Mt. Eisenhower – Alt 2 Compartment 49 Compartment 49 is visible from Viewpoint 1, Mt. Eisenhower, and from Viewpoint 6B, Mt. Washington Hotel Back. Both viewpoints would complement one another in that they would be nearly opposing and peer at one another. Both viewpoints would view the compartment at a middleground distance zone, with the exception of a singular foreground stand, 49, visible from Viewpoint 6B. The changes to the landscape of Compartment 49 as visible from Viewpoint 1 (Figure 16) would initially be distinct and ranging in scale. The openings that would be visible from the variety of group selection and patch cuts would continue the collage of mixed year openings, regrowth, areas that have been unmanaged, and past as well as current development. The valley bottom is historically a place of agricultural practices (forest and food). Harvesting would only continue the tradition and follow the culture of the area in the use and appearance of the landscape.
52 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Group selection openings would range in size from just over one acre to just under three acres. Most of the openings would average approximately two acres or less in size and, after the initial few years, would fade off into the mosaic of colors and textures covering the valley floor. The larger patch cuts range in size from just under five acres to just over seven acres. These larger openings would be more indicative of historic agricultural openings and would easily blend as such after the first few years of revegetation. The keen observer would see the consistent age differences of the new verses old openings, but the area has been so highly manipulated over time, it would not seem out of place. Where appropriate, the group selection openings would be placed to border previous openings with the intent of increasing the footprint of those existing openings. This is a design feature used to make the patchwork landscape less segmented with small pieces, like a jigsaw puzzle, and to be quilted and more naturally appearing. The Forest Plan suggests that larger openings relate better to low elevations and valley bottoms.1 This technique was also used to reduce the visibility of past group selection openings that were laid out somewhat uniformly and not well-distributed across the landscape. The “cookie cutter” look on the lower slopes of the Presidentials bordering stands 19, 24, 22, and 28 is an example of this. After several years, the landscape would blend, and those harsh shadow lines would fade, producing a look that would be more consistent with meadows or past agriculture areas that have succeeded to forest, rather than as though a large inverted muffin tin had been placed over the landscape. The changes to the landscape of Compartment 49 visible from Viewpoint 6B (Figure 17) would initially be very difficult to distinguish, and any visibility of the stands would only diminish over time. Leading edge and foreground vegeta- tion would block most the openings from view from this low angle perspective. Those openings partially visible would appear as light textural, shadow, or color changes. These would eventually blend back together, continuing the existing patchwork quilt that covers the valley floor. Only the patch cuts in the foreground and near middleground, such as in stand 49, might appear as openings. Although the largest of the patches is approxi- mately seven acres, perhaps only a quarter of it might actually be seen as an opening. Ground would not be visible because of the mild angle of the per- spective. The group selection openings that creep up the lower slopes of the Presidentials in stands 19, 24, 22, and 28 would only be partially visible. The reason that these stands have any visibility is due to their location on a direct, forward facing slope. Only about a third of the projected acres would actually be visible because of leading edge vegetation, the shapes of the units them- selves, and the perspective from which they would be viewed. After 15 to 20 years, as the shadow lines of the units began to fade and the textures and colors started to blend with the surroundings, the casual observer at Viewpoint 6B would probably no longer notice that the visible treatments had taken place in Compartment 49. Much of the viewshed from the back of the Mt. Washington Hotel is focused on either the features of the golf course in the foreground or the distinctive and
1USDA 2005a, p. 3-8
53 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Figure 16. Visual Simulation Model – Compartment 49 – Mt. Eisenhower – Alt 2
Figure 17. Visual Simulation Model – Mt. Washington Hotel – Back – Alt 2
endearing mountain backdrop of the Presidential Range in the background. The mild slope aspect of Compartment 49 is sandwiched between these two features. Therefore, it would be challenging to locate most stands within this viewpoint with any real precision. The overall change to the landscape would not be as noticeable from this viewpoint as from others, even within the first three years following harvesting. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to reduce the impacts of harvest treatment on scenic values. There are observers within the population living, working, or recreat- ing in the area who prefer to view unbroken/unmanaged forested landscapes. Alternative 3 addresses this public issue by deleting the clearcut prescriptions (18 acres), eliminating 40 acres of patch cutting, and by reducing group selection openings by 39 acres. See EA Appendix A for the specific changes in silvicul- tural treatments by location, prescription, and acres. Under Alternative 3, where clearcutting is eliminated and patch cutting is greatly reduced (eliminated from Compartment 48 while Compartment 49 retains more than half of the patch cut acres), the visual change and immediate future appearance of the landscape would have much less visual impact than Alternative 2.
54 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Compartment 48 The overall visual impression from the front of the Mt. Washington veranda under Alternative 3 (Figure 18) would be a modest modification to the canopy. With the deletion of stands 1, 3, 18, 32, and 23 (looking down the viewshed), the areas of greatest visual impact would be eliminated. The remaining stands would still have most of the other visual changes described under Alternative 2. Because the remaining units would be small group selection openings, no more than approximately 1.5 acres in size, they would range from being mildly apparent (but again not as openings but more as changes to the overall canopy as previously mentioned) or relatively undetectable to the casual observer, approximately 15 years following harvesting. Stand 2 would have a decrease in total acres treated, as well as a decrease in the number of visible openings. The openings would be designed to be narrower than in Alternative 2. Most would be reduced in size, especially those on the upper slope, so that they would appear only as the shadow, textural, and color changes described previously. The observer from viewpoint 6F would still notice changes in the canopy imme- diately following a harvest, but the lasting effects would be greatly reduced from those of Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, the changes would fade and blend with the untreated surroundings much more readily than under Alternative 2.
Figure 18. Visual Simulation Model – Mt. Washington Hotel – Front – Alt 3
The obliquely angled viewshed of Viewpoint 7 under Alternative 3 (Figure 19) would be seen as relatively untouched. With the removal of stands in this alternative, particularly Stands 23, 18, and 3, the areas of greatest visual impact to the viewshed would be eliminated. Because the remaining units would be small group selection openings, not more than 1.5 acres in size and viewed at distances of between one and two miles, they would range from being mildly apparent (again not as openings but more as changes to the overall canopy as previously mentioned) to being relatively undetectable. There would not be enough distance to allow the openings to fade off immediately but enough so they would begin to blend after perhaps 10 to 15 years of regrowth. The casual observer from Viewpoint 7 might not recognize the northwestern portion of the viewshed as being treated after approximately 10 to 15 years, but would notice the visual changes to the landscape immediately following harvesting.
55 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Figure 19. Visual Simulation Model – Crawford Path Parking and Trailhead – Alt 3
Under Alternative 3, the changes to the landscape of Compartment 48 visible from Viewpoint 1 (Figure 20), with some reductions in group openings (either size or number), would be viewed as being in scale with the surrounding land- scape and its features. With the deletion of Stands 1, 3, 18, 32, and 23 (looking from north to south across the viewshed), the areas of greatest visual impact would be eliminated. Stand 2 would have fewer total acres treated as well as a decrease in the number of visible openings compared to Alternative 2. The openings would be re-designed to be narrower than Alternative 2, and most would be reduced in scale, espe- cially those on the upper slope, so that they would appear only as the shadow, textural, and color changes described previously. Stand 5 would have an in increase in the number of units and acres removed, but the layout of those acres would decrease in width. Because stands 5 and 15 would be stacked up the slope, they would create an unnatural staircase effect to the canopy, attracting the viewer’s attention. The more erratic layout of Stand 17 may appear to have been caused by a natural event. However, with stands 2 and 17 bordering the focal point that Stand 5 and 15 create, all stands would become, in turn, more apparent rather than blending into the landscape.
Figure 20. Visual Simulation Model – Mt. Eisenhower – Alt 3
56 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Stands 5, 15, and 17, well as the other remaining stands in Compartment 48, would still have most of the other visual changes described under Alternative 2. The remaining units would be small group selection openings, not much more than approximately 1.5 acres in size. At a distance of almost four miles or more, they would appear not as openings but more as changes in the overall canopy. In approximately 15 years following harvesting, they would be rela- tively undetectable. As in Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would not be expected to show bare ground in Compartment 48. In the winter, however, all stands, regardless of viewshed distances, would be much more evident with snow highlighting the opening until a new crop of trees emerged with enough height to begin blending with the surrounding landscape. Even without snow, the openings may become more evident once the canopy has lost its leaves, since the shadow and texture would be accentuated as limited color exists to blend the eye’s focus, particularly from Viewpoint 1 Compartment 49 Mt. Eisenhower (Viewpoint 1) and Mt. Washington Hotel Veranda Back (Viewpoint 6B) Under Alternative 3, the changes to the landscape of Compartment 49 as visible from Viewpoints 1 (Figure 20) and 6B (Figure 21) would be very similar to those of Alternative 2. Only slight variations to the stands and units have been made, although the overall acreage in openings would be reduced. Because of the valley location of Compartment 49, the vastness of the viewshed from Viewpoint 1, and other disturbance features attracting attention, changes between Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be readily discernable on the ground. Looking at a map or model and searching for differences would be the only way to see the changes readily. The changes to the landscape of Compartment 49 as visible from Viewpoint 6B would initially be very difficult to distinguish, and any visibility of the stands would diminish over time. Leading edge and foreground vegetation would block most openings from view from this low angle perspective. Those openings partially visible would appear as light textural, shadow, or color changes. This would eventually blend itself back together, continuing the existing patchwork quilt that covers the valley floor. The overall change to the landscape between the alternatives would not be as noticeable from these viewpoints.
Figure 21. Visual Simulation Model – Mt. Washington Hotel – Back – Alt 3
57 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Because there would be no direct/indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects to the scenery management under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2-3 Openings that pose a cumulative effect include 1990s clearcuts and groups harvested on the slopes and lowlands in and near the Project Area that can be seen from the surrounding viewpoints. These openings are most noticeable from the closer superior viewpoints of the Presidentials, from the ski trails in Compartment 48, and from the slopes of Bretton Woods. Total acres viewed for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be below the Forest Plan recommended threshold of four percent.1 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, cumulative scenic effects of newly-created openings would eventually blend with the existing landscape, including openings from 1990s clearcuts and groups, becoming nearly unnoticeable when leaves are on the hardwoods. The ability of new forest regeneration to occupy the newly-cre- ated openings, along with careful placement on the landscape (from use of the design features mentioned), would ensure that the scenery remains intact under either alternative based on the Forest Plan four percent threshold. However, in the short term (10 years), Alternative 3 would be less obtrusive to the observers and, overall, would blend into a more natural appearing landscape.
1USDA 2005a, p 3-6, G-1
58 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
3.3 Issue 2: Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Rehabilitation A comment received from scoping suggested that we consider an alternative to remove the dam and allow the stream and its water quality to be restored to its natural state. The watershed area at the dam is a size that has been demonstrated in New Hampshire and elsewhere to be important brook trout spawning habitat. Removing the dam would, over time, restore the original stream channel and the high-quality riparian habitat around it. This would also provide an excellent educational opportunity on restoring both habitat connectivity and streams for all who visit the site. Measurement Indicators • Stream and Pond Water Temperature • Stream Connectivity • Habitat Quality and Production • Conservation Education Affected Environment A dam was constructed to form Ammonoosuc Lake, which is fed by small streams and springs. A ponded condition has been present for over 150 years. The uses for the dam and the lake it supports have evolved from industrial to recreational and educational. Additional historical information concerning Ammonoosuc Lake and the dam can be found in the Cultural Resources section. The dam, built of rock and mortar, is deteriorating from age and recurrent beaver activity. The masonry spillway is failing and has reached its useful life span. Water is leaking under and through the spillway. The leak under the spillway was partially repaired previously but continues to pass water and is causing further undermining of the spillway. This may result in eventual failure of the dam. The spillway of the structure is commonly plugged by beaver cuttings, forcing water to flow over the lateral width of the structure. The removable splashboard in the dam structure controls the water level. The local beaver (Castor canadensis) population at the lake has worked diligently over the years to keep the water level high by placing woody debris against the structure. In the summer of 2009, the splashboard was removed to relieve pressure on the dam and lower the water level. Lake water level today is noticeably lower by approximately two feet than in May 2009. The lake currently has a surface area of about 3.5 acres and a maximum depth of 6.5 feet.1 Surface water temperature at the spillway was 75°F on July 6, 2010. The spring water inlet temperature was 52°F on the same day (see project file). Table 9 shows that, while the Ammonoosuc Lake impoundment does warm up the spring water substantially, the effect downstream in Crawford Brook is
1Dennehy 2008
59 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
negligible. Gibbs Brook, which enters Crawford Brook just downstream of the Ammonoosuc Lake outlet, appears to have the largest influence on the summer water temperature of Crawford Brook. Table 9. Point water temperatures measured on July 6, 2010, above, below, and at the spillway of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam; at Crawford Brook upstream and downstream of the dam outlet stream; and at Gibbs Brook, a major tributary of Crawford Brook.
Stream Name Water Temperature (°F) Ammonoosuc Lake spring inlet 52° Ammonoosuc Lake surface 75° Crawford Brook- upstream of Ammonoosuc Lake 57° Gibbs Brook at mouth before entering Crawford Brook 62° Crawford Brook-downstream of Gibbs adjacent to US 302 63° Crawford Brook at US 302US bridge crossing 64° The constructed lake provides open water and riparian habitat for a variety of insects, fish,1 amphibians, reptiles, mammals, waterfowl, and songbirds. Beavers currently occupy the pond, and other wildlife breed, forage, and drink from it. Woodland bats and birds forage on insects flying above the open water (an aerial foraging opportunity usually not present in a closed canopy forest). The hiking trail around Ammonoosuc Lake (Around-the-Lake Trail) receives high levels of year-round human activity. Figure 22. There are two trails in the Ammonoosuc Lake Project Area specifically desig- as seen from the nated as hiking trails: the Red Around-the-Lake- Bench Trail and the Around- Trail (2010) the-Lake Trail (Figure 22) around Ammonoosuc Lake. Both trails are maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). The Around- the-Lake Trail (1.2 miles) is heavily used (26-50 people per day), with the majority of use originating from the AMC Highland Center, either by casual hikers or from guided nature walks led by AMC natu- ralists. Currently, the Highland Center conducts daily guided nature hikes and provides a self-guided mountain flower walk around the lake. In addi- tion, it hosts an annual six-week “Family Adventure Camp,”
1Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) appear to be widespread throughout Crawford Brook and its tributaries (Prout, 2010. Crawfors Project Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Report).
60 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
part of which consists of Pond Discovery activities where groups of ten 5-12 year olds learn some fundamentals of pond ecology three days per week at Ammonoosuc Lake. With the exception of the Family Adventure Camp, all of the activities that the Appalachian Mountain Club hosts or guides around Ammonoosuc Lake are free and open to the public and provide an educational opportunity for Forest visitors that the White Mountain National Forest is unable to provide on its own. Direct and Indirect Effects Note: Currently the Ammonoosuc Lake dam is deteriorating and there is a pos- sibility that the dam will eventually fail. If this happened, Ammonoosuc Lake would be drained, and the effects would be similar to those described under Alternative 3. Stream and Pond Water Temperature Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to stream or pond temperature under Alternative 1 unless the dam was to fail within ten years. This might convert the warm water pond to several coldwater streams, depending on how much water would be pooled following the dam failure. Alternative 2 Reconstruction of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would maintain the artificially warm waters of the impoundment. Since the existing dam and associated impounded water have been present for many decades, the completed recon- struction would result in no change to stream or pond temperatures. Temperature of the short stream reach from the outlet of Ammonoosuc Lake to Crawford Brook (less than 0.1 miles) would remain artificially higher due to the solar heating of the impounded water surface. There may be some reduction of water temperature in the pond outlet stream during construction because the pond would be drawn down. This would reduce the solar heating of the water surface and let the cold spring waters flow into Crawford Brook. Once construction is complete, the impoundment would fill and return to a warm water pond and outlet stream. The effect on Crawford Brook water temperature during construction would be immeasurable due to the low water volume leaving Ammonoosuc Lake during summer flows (most likely when construction would take place). Alternative 3 Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam would initially reduce the 3.5-acre pond to a mud flat with a small half-acre marsh. Some small spring-fed streams would cut through the mud flat (Figure 23), and drain directly into Crawford Brook. After a few years, the pond would convert to a marsh/wet sedge meadow/ shrub wetland habitat complex (Figure 24) with small groundwater stream channels flowing through it. These small streams would be very cold and flow directly into Crawford Brook. After five to ten years, a mix of tag alder and sedges would dominate the area (Figure 25). Beaver may dam some of these
61 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
channels as the tag alder food source develops around the perimeter of the old impoundment. This would flood some of the new vegetation that established following dam removal, potentially killing off woody stems and creating diverse riparian habitat. These dams may increase surface water temperatures, but water flowing through the dam would most likely be colder than that flowing over the current stone and concrete dam structure. Figures 26 and 27 display examples of a beaver meadow stage that the Ammonoosuc Lake could covert to within 25 years.
Figure 23. Example of what Ammonoosuc Figure 24. Example of what Ammonoosuc Lake could look like following the dam Lake could look like 2-5 years following the removal. dam removal.
Figure 25. Example of what Ammonoosuc Figure 26. Example of what possible beaver Lake could look like 5-10 years following the flooding of old Ammonoosuc Lake could look dam removal. like sometime in next 25 years.
62 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Figure 27. Example of a beaver meadow stage that Ammonoosuc Lake could covert to within 25 years.
Stream Connectivity Alternative 1 There would be no change in stream connectivity unless the Ammonoosuc Lake dam was to fail within ten years. Stream connectivity would eventually improve by less than 0.1 miles as the dam structure continues to deteriorate. Fish and amphibians would be able to pass freely between Crawford Brook, the wetland, and the spring-fed streams flowing into the wetland. Alternative 2 Reconstruction of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would indirectly continue to isolate the groundwater springs draining into the current impoundment from Crawford Brook below the impoundment. Other springs located in the Project Area still are accessible through US 302 culverts. Brook trout (Salvelinus fonti- nalis) appear to be widespread throughout Crawford Brook and its tributaries even though these spring features have been isolated from Crawford Brook for many decades. Less than 0.1 miles of stream is isolated from Crawford Brook due to the dam structure. Alternative 3 Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would immediately reconnect spring fed streams to Crawford Brook. While the total distance of stream connectivity would increase less than 0.1 miles, the quality of habitat re-connected would be superior for the production of wild brook trout, particularly the newly accessible groundwater streams which make excellent spawning habitat. Connectivity may fluctuate over the years as beaver dams are built and abandoned. Stream connectivity would be dynamic over time, driven by the availability of food for beaver. In some years, brook trout may be able to enter the area in great numbers, while in other years movement may be greatly inter- rupted by beaver dams.
63 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Habitat Quality Alternative 1 Annual maintenance of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam (removal of beaver sticks from the spillway) would occur independently of the proposed Crawford Project. Under Alternative 1, there would be lost opportunities to either reha- bilitate or remove the dam at this time. Habitat would remain unchanged above and below Ammonoosuc Lake unless the dam failed. If the dam were to fail suddenly, there would be flooding and erosion impacts to downstream terrestrial and aquatic habitats, reducing both fish and inver- tebrate productivity, and loss of pond and riparian habitat until beavers likely re-dam the area over time. Downstream migration of sediments would occur with each high flow event. Sedimentation could degrade stream habitats up to a mile downstream, into the beaver meadow along Crawford Brook. Alternative 2 Reconstruction of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would result in short -term dis- turbances to aquatic life in the pond and downstream in the outlet stream. Some aquatic life would be lost or displaced during draining of the pond, removal of the old dam structure, and construction of the new dam. The Ammonoosuc Lake dam rehabilitation design would likely maintain the current pond water level (approximately 3.5-acre surface area and maximum depth six to eight feet). The design would maintain similar amounts of the existing pond riparian habitat (well defined banks dominated by low growing woody shrubs, alders, willows, trees (mostly spruce-fir), and shallow edges with open pond water emergent/ submergent vegetation including pond weeds (Potamageton spp.), bladderwort (Utricularia foliosa), lilies (Lilium spp.), and pipewort (Eriocaulon aquaticum). No change in habitat diversity or the current wildlife species composition would be expected from the Ammonoosuc Lake dam rehabilitation to the existing pond water level. Beavers currently occupy the pond and are expected to occupy the pond if dam rehabilitation occurs. A new engineered dam structure would indirectly reduce the potential for dam failure where increased water volumes could result in channel erosion and scour in Crawford Brook. Alternative 3 Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would result in immediate loss of 3.5 acres of pond habitat and fauna who depend on it. Several small spring fed stream channels would cut new paths through a flat of pond sediments (Figure 23). Some adult wild brook trout would be forced to move downstream into Crawford Brook. Some amphibians and invertebrate species would be reduced in numbers as the pond is reduced substantially in size. Removal of the dam structure would eliminate the potential for dam failure under Alternative 1 where increased water volumes could result in channel erosion and scour in lower Crawford Brook. An approximately one-mile reach of Crawford Brook would no longer be at risk of degradation from high sediment loads due to potential failure of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam.
64 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
After a few years, as the pond converted to a marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland habitat (Figure 24), a new community of aquatic and wetland wild- life species would move into the shrubby habitat. Both diversity and numbers of amphibians and aquatic insects would most likely be greater in the more complex shrubby wetland/marsh than in the current pond ecosystem. Young brook trout would be more common in the spring-fed tributaries to Crawford Brook during the summer months. In the fall, larger adult trout would be more common moving into the spring-fed stream habitat above the current pond for spawning purposes. Under Alternative 3, removal of the dam would cause a reduction in the current pond water level (same area and depth as described above) and would reduce the amount of riparian habitat until beavers most likely re-dam the area. Over time, a seasonally fluctuating beaver flow area would create more complex, high value wildlife habitat by cycling through ponded water (shallow marsh) to naturally abandoned/drained area (wet sedge meadow) to re-growth (shrub wetland) to beaver dam re-establishment. Shallow marsh habitat is characterized by water depths to 1.5 feet with persis- tent emergent vegetation that grows out of water with wet roots such as cattails (Typha latifolia), pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), and water lilies (Nymphaea odorata). American black duck (Anas rubripes), American bittern Botaurus( lentigi- nosus) and least bittern Ixobrychus( exilis), Blanding’s turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (all New Hampshire Fish and Game species of conservation concern), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) (New Hampshire State endangered), and common spring peeper (Pseudoacris crucif), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) rely on marsh habitat for their lifecycles.1 Wet sedge meadow habitat is dominated by sedges, grasses, and cattails, with surface water depths to 6 inches in winter and early spring and with exposed but saturated soil surface in summer. Sedge meadows provide rich habitat for spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) (New Hampshire Fish and Game species of conservation concern), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) (New Hampshire State endangered), and blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma( lateral), leopard frog (Rana pipiens), dragonflies (Ophiogomphus spp.), and woodland bats.2 Shrub wetland habitat is dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Thickets of shrubs and young trees grow out of wet soils that are seasonally or permanently flooded to a depth of 1 foot. Woody species include alders (Alnus spp.) and dogwood (Cornus spp.). American woodcock (Scolopax minor) and spotted turtle (both New Hampshire Fish and Game species of conservation concern) and Canada warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) use shrub wetlands for food, cover, or breeding habitat.3 In addition to shallow marsh species, the sedge meadow wildlife community includes ribbon snakes (Thamnophis sauritus), rails (Rallus elegans), snipe (Gallinago gallinago), and the sedge wren (Cistothorus pla- tensis) (New Hampshire State endangered), and star-nosed moles (Condylura
1NHFG Wildlife Action Plan, 2006 2NHFG Wildlife Action Plan, 2006 3NHFG Wildlife Action Plan, 2006
65 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
cristata) that are associated primarily with the wetter sedge meadow habitat.1 Also, sedge meadow grass, seed, moss, and fungi would become available as forage habitat for the Regional Forester-listed sensitive species northern bog lemming (see the Crawford Project BE in project file). Conservation Education Alternative 1 Alternative 1 could result in the eventual failure of the dam on Ammonoosuc Lake, which would eventually convert the ecosystem of the Ammonoosuc Lake area to a marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland ecosystem. The exist- ing conservation education opportunity that the Appalachian Mountain Club Conservation Education Department provides now would no longer exist. The public would no longer be able to visit Ammonoosuc Lake to view the pond ecosystem or to have the opportunity to participate in the AMC’s current con- servation education programs about pond ecosystems. Alternative 2 The Around-the-Lake Trail (Figure 23) would be directly affected in this alter- native by short-term disruption of the loop opportunity as the existing dam, which the trail crosses, would be removed and rebuilt. Upon completion of the dam’s reconstruction, the trail would become fully available, and Ammonoosuc Lake would gradually refill, once again providing a pond habitat conservation education opportunity using the Around-the-Lake Trail. Reconstruction of the dam would directly affect the recreational and educational activities (that are currently conducted by the Appalachian Mountain Club) around the lake area. The lake would need to be drained in order to reconstruct the dam and equipment and construction activities would be evident. Following completion of the dam rehabilitation project, interpretive panels providing information on the history of the dam, the sawmill, and the related Crawford House grand hotel and recreation facilities would be installed on the walking trail near the dam, adding to the educational information associated with Ammonoosuc Lake. Alternative 3 Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would directly affect the recreational and educational activities (that are currently conducted by the Appalachian Mountain Club) around the lake area. The lake would be drained and equipment and construction activities would be evident during the removal process. The loop hiking opportunity around the lake (Around-the-Lake Trail) would also be unavailable for a period as the dam was being removed. Disruption of the loop trail opportunity would likely be brief (i.e. only as long as it would take to remove the dam and rehabilitate the site). However, following dam removal, the resulting brook crossing would be no impediment to hikers seeking to do a loop, as the brook would be an easy stepover.
1DeGraaf and Yamasaki et al. 2006
66 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would eventually convert the eco- system of the Ammonoosuc Lake area to a marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland ecosystem (Figure 24). The AMC and a few other entities are currently providing some conserva- tion education programs to the public in or near the analysis area. In the long term, there would be an opportunity to develop a new conservation educa- tion program around the developing marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland ecosystem. However, development of such a program would be dependent on the collaboration of Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center, the NH Department of Fish and Game, the Forest Service, and other community-minded conservationists. In the absence of that collaboration, conservation education programs centered on the ecology of Ammonoosuc Lake at the Highland Center would no longer be available. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Ammonoosuc Lake may exhibit longer periods of water temperatures lethal to wild brook trout. While the current population seeks the spring water inlets as thermal refuge in hot weather periods, projected worst case scenarios of increased air temperatures due to climate change would most likely cause a local loss of wild brook trout in Ammonoosuc Lake by 2035. Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 1, with regard to water temperatures in Ammonoosuc Lake. Stream connectivity to groundwater areas for thermal refuge would generally be viewed as a mechanism for coldwater fish populations to mitigate against extreme climatic events. Given the cold temperatures of Crawford Brook in the summer months, it seems doubtful that the local brook trout population would be dependent on access to the spring-fed waters above Ammonoosuc Lake by 2035 to endure. Reconstruction of the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam would indirectly continue to isolate the groundwater springs draining into the current impoundment from Crawford Brook below the impoundment. Other springs located in Crawford Brook would still be accessible through US 302 culverts. Reconstruction of the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam would result in short -term dis- turbances to aquatic life in the pond and downstream in the outlet stream. Some aquatic life would be lost or displaced during draining of the pond, removal of the old dam structure, and construction of the new dam. A new engineered dam structure would indirectly reduce the potential for dam failure where increased water volumes could result in channel erosion and scour in Crawford Brook. Periodic maintenance of removing beaver sticks would help maintain proper functioning of the new dam. With respect to cumulative effects, climate change is expected to cause contin- ued warming of air and water.1 Ammonoosuc Lake may exhibit longer periods
1WMNF 2010
67 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
of water temperatures lethal to wild brook trout. While the current population seeks the spring water inlets as thermal refuge in hot weather periods, some models predict increases in air temperatures due to climate change that would most likely increase water temperatures. Wild brook trout would not survive in the high water temperatures predicted in Ammonoosuc Lake by 2035.
Alternative 3 Over the next 25 years, the water temperature of the small spring-fed streams to Crawford Brook may warm, sometimes creating coolwater classes of small ponds or streams. Only less than 0.1 miles of stream would warm, as Crawford Brook water temperatures would remain unaffected by the beaver complex. There may be, at times, small coolwater beaver ponds forming over these small streams. This would be determined by the cyclic nature of beaver colonies and their food availability. Connectivity may fluctuate over the years as beaver dams are built and abandoned. Stream connectivity would be dynamic over time, driven by the availability of food for beaver. In some years brook trout may be enter the area in great numbers, while in other years movement may be greatly interrupted by beaver dams. The former Ammonoosuc Lake and outlet stream would convert to a natural marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland that could be flooded by beaver over the next 25 years. The beaver ponds could increase pond habitats and associ- ated fauna temporarily until available food is consumed and the dams naturally breakdown. The former Ammonoosuc Lake could vary from a beaver meadow to a beaver flooding over the course of the cumulative effects timeframe. Associated aquatic life would fluctuate in concert with the successional state of the meadow, creating educational opportunities for visitors to the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center. Brook trout may flourish in newly formed beaver ponds and then slowly decline as the ponds become filled with sediments.
68 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
3.4 Environmental Effects On Other Resources Soil Productivity Resource This section includes a summary of the effects to soils from the Crawford Stewardship Project. For a detailed analysis, please see the Crawford Soils Report in the project file. Indictors related to this project that affect long-term soil productivity are soil erosion, soil compaction, and nutrient cycling. The indictors are measured in terms of percent disturbed, bulk density, and nutrient status. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FEIS 2005) states soil productivity, as is defined by the Forest Service, is the inherent capacity of the soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or sequences of plant communi- ties. Soil productivity may be expressed in a variety of ways, including volume, weight/unit/area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accu- mulation.1 A productive soil is able to help support a healthy and growing forest. Soil may also play a role in buffering the impacts of other environmental concerns, such as changes in stream chemistry, which may originate from acid deposition. All activities proposed in the Crawford Stewardship Project would be imple- mented following Forest Plan design criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize direct, indirect and cumulative effects to soil erosion, com- paction, and soil nutrient productivity. Alternative 1 Soil Erosion and Compaction In the absence of activities such as timber harvesting, no increase in surface soil erosion or soil compaction is expected with Alternative 1, because there is no reconstruction or re-established use of existing skid trails and landings. No indirect effects to soil erosion or compaction are expected from Alternative 1. Cumulatively, there would continue to be localized erosion related to ongoing maintenance of Forest Service System roads, recreational trails, private roads, and timber harvesting on public and private lands. Soil Nutrient Cycling Alternative 1 would have no direct impact on long-term soil nutrient cycling or forest health. The indirect impact of no harvesting includes no possible changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium, base saturation, and possible impacts on forest health, productivity, or species composition that are attributed to forest harvest (as compared to acid deposition).2 Given that acidic deposition is the primary mechanism affecting soil acidification, deferring treatment is likely to exert little impact on soil nutrient cycling or forest health. No indirect effects to soil nutrient cycling are expected from Alternative 1. Atmospheric deposition may remove calcium from the soil irrespective of timber harvesting. Given the cumulative effects time period it is possible that up to
1FSH 2509.18 2USDA. 2005, p. 3-18
69 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
three percent of the total soil calcium may be removed during that time due to atmospheric deposition, and another less than one percent due to early harvest- ing methods.1 Atmospheric deposition may continue to deplete soil calcium, although a quick review of the literature seems to show that soil and streams are recovering from the possible impacts of acid deposition.2 Therefore, an estimated four percent soil calcium could be lost over 120 years.3 On-site evidence during timber and other inventories has not revealed any unusual dieback or mortal- ity. Stands previously harvested in this vicinity have adequately regenerated (project record). No change in biomass accumulation has been documented in control stands at the nearby Bartlett Experimental Forest. Thus, based on on-site evidence and research on biomass accumulation (See Crawford Project Soils Report), it does not appear there are cumulative concerns with soil nutrient cycling under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2-3 Soil Erosion and Compaction The Soil Quality Standards for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service allow soil disturbance (exposure of mineral soil) of 15 percent or less of a land unit scale area4 before being considered a detrimental soil disturbance. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have up to approximately 90.9 acres (Alternative 2) and up to approximately 57.56 acres (Alternative 3) of soil disturbance. This project meets this standard because the project proposes no more than approximately 3.6 percent soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 2, and no more than approximately 2.3 percent soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 3. Maintenance of approximately two miles of existing road and the Crawford Path Parking Lot would improve drainage and road surface, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. Although road maintenance may initially cause ground disturbance, improving and main- taining roads to their level of anticipated use could prevent future soil erosion. Relocating approximately 0.6 miles of the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail higher up on the hillside than the current trail location would avoid wet, poorly drained areas, and move the trail away from a potential slump next to the Ammonoosuc River. Approximately 1.2 miles of existing Nancy Barton Nordic Trail would be decommissioned, putting this soil back into productivity. The old Nancy Barton Nordic Trail would be rehabilitated using BMP standards which have proven effective in preventing soil erosion.5 There would be 2.4 acres in Alternative 2, and 2.4 acres in Alternative 3 of per- manent cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction. This soil directly under the road would be compacted and would not produce plants and other microorganisms that allow the soil to continue to develop over time until the road is decommissioned. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is
1Fay 2003 2Fay 2003, p. 3-26 3Fay 2003, p. 3-24 4Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1, Section 2.2 5BMP New Hampshire 2004; Maine Forest Service 2002 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996
70 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment covered by a compacted surface (1.0 miles of new construction in each alter- native). The Forest Plan analyzed and allowed up to ten miles of new road construction to be built Forest-wide within the life of the Plan.1 This project meets that objective, because, based on the current Forest Plan Monitoring Report of 2009 there have been 2.4 miles of new road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005. This project would not cumulatively (3.4 miles) exceed the Forest Plan ten-mile threshold. (Note the above calculations use 1.0 mile equals 2.4 acres). Dam rehabilitation is proposed on Ammonoosuc Lake in Alternative 2 and a dam removal on Ammonoosuc Lake in Alternative 3. In both alternatives, the lake would be drained down, and the stone dam would be removed. Equipment access would be on an old asphalt road currently used as the Ammonoosuc Lake Trail. Brush would need to be trimmed back as the road is currently used as a trail. In Alternative 2 the dam would be rebuilt in the existing foot print following Forest Plan S&Gs and BMPs to prevent and minimize soil displace- ment and erosion during construction. In Alternative 3 the channel way of the old dam would be reshaped for the easy flow of water. Under either alterna- tive very little new soil disturbance is expected to occur outside of the existing footprint of the current dam. Soil Nutrient Productivity Following the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, tiering to the FEIS, and using best available science, effects on soil nutrient productivity, the follow- ing effects are anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3. The effects would result from the new road construction (1.0 miles in each alternative), as this is the soil that sits directly under the road. This soil would be compacted and would not produce plants and other microorganisms that would allow the soil to con- tinue to develop over time. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is covered by a compacted surface, but the Forest Plan analyzed and allowed up to ten miles of new road construction to be built within the life of the Plan.2 This project meets that objective, because based on the current Forest Plan Monitoring Report of 2009 there has been 2.4 miles of new road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005. This project would not cumulatively (3.4 miles) exceed the Forest Plan ten-mile threshold. Dam rehabilitation is proposed on Ammonoosuc Lake in Alternative 2 and dam removal on Ammonoosuc Lake in Alternative 3. In both Alternatives (the activities involving the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would follow Forest Plan S&Gs and BMP), the lake would be drained down, and the stone dam would be removed with equipment access on an old asphalt road currently used as the Ammonoosuc Lake Trail. Under either alternative very little new soil nutrient disturbance would be expected outside of the existing foot print of the current dam. No effects to Soil Productivity are anticipated with this project.
1USDA 2005b; USDA 2005, pp 3-29 to 3-36 2USDA. 2005b, USDA. 2005, pp 3-29 to 3-36
71 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Water Resource This section includes a summary of the effects to water resources from the Crawford Stewardship Project. For a detailed analysis, please see the Crawford Water Resources Report in the Project record. Affected Environment The analysis area is located in the headwaters of the Ammonoosuc River, which includes the Upper Ammonoosuc River Subwatershed and a 75-acre segment of the Middle Ammonoosuc River Subwatershed. Stream orders are classified for the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The Ammonoosuc River below the confluence of Crawford Brook is classified as a fourth order stream. The upper portion of the Ammonoosuc River and the portion of Crawford Brook downstream of Sebosis Brook are classified as third order streams. All other perennial streams are first or second order streams. Subwatersheds of perennial streams in the analysis area were delineated for analysis. For a map of these streams and the associated subwatersheds, see the Crawford Water Resources Report in the Project record. Streams in the Project Area are characterized by low pH and high total alumi- num concentrations, which do not meet State water quality standards in some portions of the analysis area. The low baseline pH value and high aluminum concentration are typical in the White Mountains and may be due to a combi- nation of natural factors and human influences such as acid deposition. With the exception of aluminum and pH, these waters meet State Water Quality Standards related to the use of aquatic life. Human alterations to the watershed include placement of culverts and bridges on streams at road, railroad, and trail crossings. Some of these structures are undersized, have changed flow paths, changed channel shape (through scour- ing or deposition), and made banks unstable in places.1 Roads have restricted movement of brooks, leading to scouring and bank instability, particularly on Crawford Brook. A dam has been constructed to form Ammonoosuc Lake, which is fed by small streams and springs. Another dam forms a pond on Abenaki Brook. All waters of the National Forest are designated as “Outstanding Resource Waters,” and water quality and supported designated uses shall be maintained and protected in these surface waters.2 Some limited point and nonpoint source discharges may be allowed provided they are of limited activity and result in no more than temporary and short-term changes in water quality. In accor- dance with the Forest Plan, temporary and short-term degradation shall only be allowed after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are imple- mented.3 Site-specific Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Soil and Water Conservation Practices, and other mitigations elsewhere in the Environmental Assessment that are designed to protect and maintain designated uses and prevent degradation would be used should an action alternative be selected.
1Johnson 2009 2NHDES 1999 3USDA 2005a, p. p. 2-30
72 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects Water Quantity Alternative 1 Not replacing undersized culverts would continue to increase velocity of high flows through the culverts, decreasing stability of the streambed and banks. Water quantity would remain similar to the present state, as it is unlikely that water quantity and stream stability in Project Area streams would be affected by other aspects of Alternative 1. Taking no action related to the Ammonoosuc Lake dam increases the probability that the dam would fail in the analysis period. Based on the present condition of the dam, beaver activity, and small watershed, this may be a gradual failure. Direct effects due to increased risk of dam failure include higher flows and scouring in the outlet stream leading to Crawford Brook as portions of the dam fail. As an indirect effect, these high flows could be detrimental to already unstable banks downstream in Crawford Brook, such as where meander bends are close to the road, particularly if they coincide with high flows in Crawford and Gibbs Brook. Because the watershed of Ammonoosuc Lake is small (about 50 acres) relative to the combined watersheds of Crawford and Gibbs Brooks (about 1,300 acres), long-term flood risk would not be expected to increase under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2-3 No direct or indirect effects on water quantity would be expected from timber harvesting, as no watershed would have more than 25 percent of its basal area removed.1 The greatest amount of basal area that would be removed in any complete watershed would be 11.3 percent under Alternative 2 and 9.7 percent under Alternative 3. Watershed improvement activities including the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail relocation and Crawford Brook bank stabilization would not be expected to have a direct or indirect effect on water quantity. Both activities would directly increase stream stability in Crawford Brook by providing more stable riparian areas and dissipating energy by adding woody debris. Restoration of native plants and removal of non-native Scotch pine would not be expected to have a direct or indirect effect on water quantity and stream stability due to the locations and small amounts of vegetation removed. Roadwork including Crawford Path parking area rehabilitation and road and skid trail construction and road maintenance would have no direct or indirect effect on water quantity. Best Management Practices would be employed to reduce concentration of flow, formation of gullies, and impacts to riparian areas. This work would not create additional impervious cover in the watershed that would exceed the 10 percent threshold at which water quantity impacts may occur.2
1Hornbeck 1993 2Center for Watershed Protection 2003
73 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Replacement of five undersized culverts on Mt. Clinton Road would have the direct effect of increasing stream stability by enabling the stream to accom- modate bankfull flows at the crossing point. This work would not affect water quantity. Rehabilitation of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam as proposed in Alternative 2 would directly affect water quantity in the Crawford Brook watershed tem- porarily while the pond is drained. Most of this effect would be a temporary increase in flows during the draining itself, since the dam is unlikely to provide flood control benefits. Design features such as draining the pond gradually and working during low flow periods are expected to prevent impacts such as flood- ing or excessive scouring. The watershed of Crawford Brook is 650 acres at the Ammonoosuc Lake outlet stream, and over 1,300 acres at the confluence of Gibbs Brook (200 feet downstream). During low flow periods, these stream channels have the capacity to accommodate additional flow from the lake without reduc- ing stream stability. Indirect effects on stream stability would be less than those that would occur during dam failure (which is more likely under Alternative 1), since design features to mitigate sudden, high flows would not be in place during a rapid failure. After rehabilitation, water quantity in the outlet stream and the Crawford Brook watershed would return to the current state, with little or no direct or indirect effect. However, this state is altered from the watershed’s natural condition prior to dam construction. Removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam proposed in Alternative 3 would have the same initial effects as Alternative 2 on water quantity and stream stability as dam reconstruction, since the construction sequence and design features would be the same. It would also prevent the hydrologic effects of dam failure described in Alternative 1. In the period after removal, not reconstructing the dam would have the direct effect of returning water quantity to a more natural regime, with a stream-wetland complex developing in the former lake bed. Water tables may be somewhat lower in the vicinity of the lake, but based on the presence of springs well above the lake elevation, base flow in nearby Crawford Brook, and the likely continuance of beaver activity, any widespread change in water availability is unlikely. Surface water levels may be more vari- able than with the dam present, but the influence of groundwater on this small watershed would be expected to provide consistent flow and low flood risk. Stream stability in the channels that form in the lake bed would initially be low, and the system would likely remain dynamic due to the wide, flat valley type and beaver activity. However, regrowth of vegetation in the former lake bed would be expected to provide an appropriate level of stability for the stream type within a few years. Stability in Crawford Brook would be increased due to elimination of the risk of dam failure and the ability of interconnected streams and wetlands to absorb flood flows. Water Quality Alternative 1 Not relocating the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail increases the risk of erosion and bank failure along this trail. Not stabilizing an unstable bank of Crawford Brook would allow continued erosion and increased risk of a road washout. In both
74 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
instances, the indirect effect of this erosion would be increased sedimentation in Crawford Brook. Sedimentation from undersized culverts and disturbance along roads and trails would continue at present levels, which are not resulting in water quality impairment. It is unlikely that water quality and stream stability in Project Area streams would be affected by other aspects of Alternative 1, and water quality would remain similar to the present state. As described above, there is an increased risk that the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would fail under Alternative 1, relative to the Action Alternatives. Indirect effects on water quality would include increased sedimentation immediately after the failure. These effects would dissipate somewhat below the confluence of Crawford and Gibbs Brooks, as high flows wash sediment downstream. Sediment may persist in Crawford Brook for a multiple years, but beaver ponds would likely mitigate sediment movement further downstream. Because Ammonoosuc Lake has good water quality and few sources of contamination in the watershed, no further increase in acidity or aluminum concentration would be expected and water chemistry would be expected to meet State standards for other parameters. Alternatives 2-3 No direct or indirect effects on water chemistry or sedimentation are anticipated due to timber management. There is a high level of confidence that no effect on water chemistry would occur if less than 17 percent of the basal area were removed from a watershed. All subwatersheds would be well below this thresh- old in both Alternatives 2 and 3. Riparian buffers have been found effective in preventing sediment from reaching streams.1 Since riparian buffers would be applied to all perennial streams, sedimentation is not expected to increase to a measurable extent. No direct effects on water quality are anticipated to result from the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail relocation and the Crawford Brook bank stabilization. An indi- rect effect of decreased sedimentation in Crawford Brook would be expected. Although short-term soil disturbance would occur, application of construction and trail maintenance Best Management Practices would be expected to mini- mize introduction of pollutants and sediment to water bodies. In the long term, these activities would reduce the risk of severe soil erosion, with an indirect effect of decreasing sedimentation in Crawford Brook. Restoration of native plants and removal of non-native Scotch pine would not be expected to have a direct or indirect effect on water quality due to the limited extent of vegetation removal and prescribed burning. No direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected from parking area rehabilitation, culvert replacement, landing development, and road and skid trail construction and maintenance proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. The risk of leakage or spills affecting water resources would be minimized by implementa- tion of riparian buffers, locating roads and landings away from riparian areas,
1Gilliam 1994; Brown and Binkley 1994
75 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
and implementing applicable Best Management Practices as required by law and Forest Plan guidance. No direct or indirect effects on sedimentation from transportation work including parking area rehabilitation, landing use, road construction, road maintenance, skid trail use, or trail relocation are expected under either action alternative. Under Alternative 2, approximately 90.9 acres of ground-disturbing activities are proposed, while under Alternative 3, approximately 57.6 acres of ground- disturbing activity are proposed. This covers 2.1 percent of the 4,260-acre Project Area for Alternative 2 and 1.4 percent of the Project Area for Alternative 3. This level of disturbance does not exceed soil erosion and compaction limits under the Forest Plan (see Soil Resources report). Though the risk of indirect effects on sedimentation is slightly higher under Alternative 2, implementation of Best Management Practices has been found to minimize sedimentation.1 These prac- tices are part of Forest Plan guidance and are design features included in this project. Transportation activities related to stream crossings would be expected to have an overall effect of reducing sedimentation. The transportation system proposed for use in Alternatives 2 and 3 involves approximately eight perennial stream crossings on haul roads and 14 perennial stream crossings on skid trails. Given the design features in place and the location of designated crossings, only short- term, localized direct effects on sedimentation would be expected under either alternative. Replacing five undersized culverts on Mt. Clinton Road would be expected to have an indirect effect of reducing sedimentation. Appropriately sizing culverts to accommodate bankfull width and flood flows would reduce bed and bank scour around these crossings, eliminating an existing anthropo- genic sediment source. The Ammonoosuc Lake Dam would be rehabilitated in Alternative 2 and removed in Alternative 3. In both cases, short-term direct effects on water chem- istry and sediment may occur during pond draining and construction. Design features described in this document are in place to limit sediment mobilization and prevent sudden high flows. Available water chemistry data do not indicate a major difference in water chemistry that would make release of a larger volume of lake water detrimental to Crawford Brook. Though lakes can be subject to oxygen depletion at some depths, monitoring of the lake did not find oxygen depletion during spring, summer, or fall, and the construction work most likely would occur during low flow conditons.2 Indirect effects of dam rehabilitation under Alternative 2 would include those associated with having an impoundment in the watershed. After rehabilitation, water quality in Ammonoosuc Lake and downstream reaches would be expected to be similar to the current state. Compared to Alternative 1, there would be less risk of sudden dam failure and the associated sediment and temperature increases that could occur in this scenario. Compared to removal of the dam and restoration of free-flowing conditions (Alternative 3), sediment dynam- ics would be altered by accumulation of sediment behind the dam instead of movement through the stream network. Though this accumulation is likely to be slow, it may require manual removal to maintain pond depth. This would
1MDOC 2009 2Dennehy 2008 76 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
have the indirect effect of requiring future disturbance. Water chemistry in Ammonoosuc Lake is within the range found in the surrounding watershed and does not appear to be impaired by the dam. Indirect effects of dam removal under Alternative 3 would include a return of water quality to pre-impoundment conditions. Unlike Alternative 2, sedi- ment would be transported in balance with the natural flow regime rather than accumulating behind an impoundment. The lack of sediment accumulation requiring future intervention would be an indirect effect. This would be similar to processes occurring in headwater streams that are not impounded, which have not led to excess sedimentation or turbidity. Water chemistry may change slightly to reflect a combination of groundwater input and biological activity in wetlands. This would not be expected to change water quality status relative to State standards, since the water source and some of these processes would be the same under all alternatives. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, a cumulative effect of greater stream instability and sedi- mentation due to climate change combined with taking no action in disturbed areas could occur. In the Northeastern United States, a general increase in precipitation and more frequent heavy precipitation events are projected by mid-century.1 The effect of not replacing five undersized culverts combined with more frequent high-flow events could further reduce stream stability around those culverts. Not stabilizing a meander bend and the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail along Crawford Brook could have a cumulative effect of greater stream instability when combined with the effects of high flows due to climate change. Bank failure and increased scour would then be expected to make these unstable areas a source of sedimentation. Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quantity or quality are expected under Alternative 1, no other cumulative effects are expected. Alternative 2-3 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, replacing undersized culverts, stabilizing a meander bend, and relocating the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail would have a cumulative effect of increasing stream stability and reducing sedimentation in the Crawford Brook watershed. Ongoing road and trail maintenance would include replacing additional undersized stream crossings, improving drainage, and stabilizing road and trail surfaces, further reducing sediment loads in the watershed. This effect may be somewhat offset by short-term disturbance related to this project, climate change, and other soil-disturbing activities in the watershed. Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quantity or quality are expected under Alternatives 2 and 3, no other cumulative effects are expected. Past, present and foreseeable activities would not result in an amount of basal area removal, even-aged harvesting, or increased impervious cover that would exceed a threshold at which effects on water quantity or quality may occur. For a detailed analysis, please see the Crawford Water Resources Report in the Project record.
1Huntington et al. 2009; NECIA 2006 77 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Vegetation Resource
Summary This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the three alternatives on the vegetation resource. Under Alternative 1, No Action, trees would respond to natural conditions and would move toward a climax type forest. Shade-intolerant species would be replaced with more shade-tolerant trees. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, trees would be harvested and would either provide room for other existing older trees to grow, conditions for new trees to germinate, or space for young trees to grow (see EA Chapter 2, Table 4). Affected Environment The Crawford Project Area is variable in both composition and age. The area is composed of a diversity of tree species and stand conditions. The lower valley bottom is generally softwood and mixed softwood forest types. While some hardwoods are found, there is often an understory of softwoods. The softwood stands are approaching maturity. Previous harvests in the area were designed to create multiple age classes. The upper slopes are predominately hardwoods with some softwood present. The hardwoods are approaching maturity. Within the Crawford Project Area of the Bretton Woods HMU, spruce-fir forest pre- dominates (64 percent). Many of the stands within MA 2.1 in the Bretton Woods HMU that have been identified for vegetative treatment are well-stocked mature northern hardwood, spruce-fir, or mixedwood stands (see project record for the existing condition of stands identified for treatment). These stands contain trees that are approach- ing an age where mortality is imminent, or are of low timber quality because of a damaged component within the branches or stems of individual trees. This means that the stands are at least 60 years old for the hardwoods, and 40 years old for the softwoods and aspen-birch forest types. According to theSilvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast 1 and the Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised),2 harvesting trees and controlling stocking in these stands would improve the quality and vigor of the remaining trees. Tree mortality due to insect and disease is minimal in the Bretton Woods HMU. Much of the American beech (Fagus grandifolia) in the stands proposed for treat- ment suffers from beech bark disease Nectria( ditissima). Due to its capability to regenerate and sustainably produce crop trees, the Crawford Project Area has been actively managed for wood products. Logging has played an important role in the White Mountains since the 19th century. Present vegetative conditions are largely the result of historical logging prac- tices and, more recently, silvicultural activities. There is no documentation or other evidence that this area was ever considered prime farmland, although there is evidence of homesteads. Some of these same areas are still maintained as wildlife openings, which are mowed or burned periodically to keep them open. Historically, harvesting operations have been scheduled by calendar dates established by seasonal weather patterns and/or resource or silvicultural
1Leak et al. 1987 2Safford 1983
78 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
requirements. Fall and winter operations are required when dry or frozen ground conditions are necessary to protect soil and water resources, or in partial cuts where frozen conditions are necessary to minimize bark damage on resid- ual trees (trees are more susceptible to bark damage in the summer). Summer operation is chosen when non-frozen ground conditions are required to create a seedbed necessary to establish regeneration of particular tree species, where soils could support equipment without adverse effects, or where harvesting prescriptions would remove all trees from a site. Today, operations occur when site conditions are appropriate. For example, winter harvesting may take place in November instead of December if the ground is sufficiently frozen. Conversely, harvesting operations would be halted if conditions are unsuitable or become unsuitable, even during a “winter” month. Calendar dates established to protect nesting wildlife, however, do not change. As in the past, harvesting operations would be overseen by a Timber Sale Administrator, a Forest Service employee with the authority to halt timber sale operations at any time to protect resources. Direct and Indirect Effects The Forest Plan describes the Desired Condition of the 2.1 Management Area as a mix of deciduous and coniferous forest stands of various types. The stands will vary in size, shape, height, and tree species. Both even-aged and uneven- aged harvest techniques will be used. For a comparison of silvicultural treatments, see EA Section 2.3, Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Activity located EA Chapter 2. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, no silvicultural activities would occur during this entry. In the short-term (10-20 years), all stands would continue to grow and mature. Older trees would eventually die from natural forces such as competition from other trees, weather damage, forest insects or disease, age, or a combination of these. Conditions for the germination and establishment of shade-intolerant tree species could be created, or release of shade-tolerant tree species previously established in the understory would replace the trees that have succumbed to natural mortality. If no management were to be the preferred status in these stands, in the long term (greater than 20 years), the stands would begin to resem- ble a climax vegetation type. Long term, there would be a species shift from stands containing paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and aspen (Populus spp.) to stands dominated by American beech, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), or red spruce (Picea rubens). Natural mortality, weather events, and insect and disease attacks could influ- ence the long-term succession of the forest by temporarily providing forest openings of varying sizes that would encourage establishment of less shade- tolerant species. Older trees would die and the remaining healthy trees would grow larger. Shorter-lived species (aspen, balsam fir, paper birch) would grow older and eventually succumb to natural mortality. The remaining trees in the stands would also eventually grow older and die.
79 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
This process would continue if no management occurred over the long-term. No wood products would be produced and utilized if management did not occur. As trees reached maturity and grew old, they would become more susceptible to attack from forest insects and diseases. As stands progressed into maturity and began to experience widespread age-related mortality, they would become less able to withstand ice and wind events. These events would expedite mortal- ity in the stand and facilitate insect and disease occupation in the trees already stressed by age and damage from weather events. Tree mortality would occur in small pockets or over larger acreages of the Project Area. Overall stand vigor might decline, and timber quality would decline, because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone. Silvicultural prescriptions that would increase growth rates on selected quality sawtimber trees with the use of timber harvesting would not be implemented. Neither the Forest Plan goal nor the Crawford Project Purpose and Need for providing high quality sawtimber and other wood products on a sustained yield basis would be achieved. A direct effect of Alternative 1 is that no regeneration age class at the stand scale (except for large scale natural disturbances) would be created. An indirect effect of Alternative 1 is that the stands in the Project Area would continue to age. With each year that passes there would be a shift among the trees and the stands to the older age classes. That would continue the overall trend of few stands in the regenerating age classes being represented in the Project Area and in the Forest. At any point in the future, this long-term trend towards a permanent climax forest could be reversed by the introduction of some form of silvicultural management. Alternative 2 Implementing Alternative 2 would maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions and improve species composition by specifically increasing the amount of aspen- birch and northern hardwood regeneration-age class, which is a desired wildlife habitat objective (see Bretton Woods HMU Rationale in project record). Much of the vegetation in the Crawford Project Area has been managed in the past, most recently in the mid-1990s. A variety of harvesting methods were used. Stands planned for group selection (254 acres) would have “groups” (small regeneration cuts) one tenth acre to two acres in size located variably through- out the stand. Group selection is an uneven-aged silvicultural treatment. As practiced on the White Mountain National Forest, group selection is used to regenerate approximately 20 percent of the acreage of the stand with each man- agement entry. Each future entry into the stand would treat an additional 20 percent of the stand area. After five entries of group selection, 100 percent of the stand would be regenerated, with five distinct forest age classes occurring in tenth-acre to two-acre pockets throughout the stand. In some stands in the Project Area, group selection has been applied in past projects. The current proposal would continue this uneven-aged silvicultural treatment. Group selec- tion can provide regeneration of a broad mix of shade-intolerant, intermediate, and shade-tolerant tree species. Nearly all the species currently represented in the stored seed mix, or those originating from nearby seed trees, would have an opportunity to germinate and grow in these varied light conditions. There
80 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment would be some variation in species mix from year to year resulting from seed periodicity and seed dispersal. Present advanced regeneration in the areas desig- nated for group selection treatment would be strongly represented in the future forest immediately following treatment and would comprise the majority of the initial seedling and sapling stocking of the group. Clearcuts (18 acres) and patch cuts (94 acres) are proposed in stands of low quality or containing mature trees to allow the next generation of trees the opportunity to grow to their full potential. Clearcutting is a silvicultural treat- ment that focuses on the removal of all the trees in a stand, promoting a mix of shade-intolerant trees that require high levels of sunlight, such as aspen and paper birch. Paper birch requires large openings and full sunlight for successful germination and regeneration. It is intolerant of shade and competition from older trees, woody shrubs, and herbaceous species.1 Stands planned for clearcut- ting are generally of poor quality or have declining growth rates resulting from stand maturity. Harvesting these stands would provide regeneration-age forest habitat while salvaging timber value and promoting the regeneration of vigor- ous, fast-growing trees that can effectively use the site. In the short term, a few species of woody or herbaceous vegetation that have seeds with a long period of dormancy, such as raspberry and pin cherry, would have an opportunity to germinate and become part of the ecosystem, thus increasing species diversity. A direct effect of clearcutting in northern hardwood stands is the promotion of suckers and stump sprouts in species such as aspen and red maple. According to a study on four sites in New England,2 stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings begins in the first growing season after harvesting. Within five years after cutting, young, dense stands were established on all four sites in the Pierce study. Stocking surveys conducted on the Forest three years after clearcutting have shown successful regeneration in even-aged and uneven-aged harvested stands (see project record). This harvesting method is most likely to result in aspen and paper birch representation in the regeneration mix. Clearcutting would also produce the most productive, managed, early-successional habitat. Thinning (59 acres) is an intermediate even-aged treatment designed to improve stand quality. Stand thinning would reduce the basal area by removing dying and defective trees, undesirable tree species, or acceptable trees that are crowd- ing trees with high-value stems. By removing low quality trees, future harvesting in these stands would lead to a higher percentage of quality sawlogs. The objec- tive of this treatment would be to provide adequate growing space for the stems with the highest value.3 Thinning would lead to a higher percentage of sawlogs in the future. Improvement cutting (227 acres) is also an intermediate harvesting tool that removes the less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve the composition and quality. The difference is that this activity is done to develop the uneven-aged structure. Related to the treatments described in Alternative 2, there is a potential for wind throw in the partially cut stands. Areas of stands adjacent to groups and stands
1Safford 1993 2Pierce et al. 1993 3Safford 1983
81 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
adjacent to clearcuts may have increased wind throw until tree crowns expand to fill the canopy and the roots become wind-firm. Some residual tree damage would occur from harvesting operations, but skid trails would be planned adja- cent to trees marked for removal in order to provide adequate working space for logging equipment without damage to residual trees. Alternative 2 would produce approximately 5.5 million board feet of timber products. Alternative 3 A member of the public expressed concern that Alternative 2 would have a det- rimental visual effect on the Bretton Woods area. Alternative 3 was developed to respond to the issue of Clearcutting Effects to Scenery. Alternative 3 follows treatment designs provided by the Forest landscape architect that would con- tinue to allow treatment in Compartment 48 but reduce the treatment acreage by 97 acres (see the Scenery Management section of this EA for further analysis). Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that five stands pro- posed to receive a treatment in Alternative 2 (Compartment 48; stands 1, 3, 18, 23, and 32) would not receive clearcut, patch cut or group selection treatments. The changes to the five stands would reduce total silvicultural treatments in the Project Area by 58 acres. A reduction of 39 acres would be distributed across the stands treated with group selection. The direct/indirect effects of Alternative 3 on vegetation are similar to those described under Alternative 2, but on a reduced scale because of the reduction in treatment acres. In addition, fewer wood products (4.4 million board feet or 1.1 million board feet less than Alternative 2) would be entering the marketplace. In the stands that are proposed for treatment under Alternative 2, but eliminated from treatment in Alternative 3, the effects to vegetation would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Unless influenced by weather events or an attack by forest insects or diseases, stand regeneration would be subject to the natural mortality of the trees comprising the overstory of the stands. Natural mortality of the trees would be slow and sporadic, and would create conditions on the forest floor that may be conducive to shade-tolerant tree species only. The improvement of stand health and productivity, and quality of wood products would not occur on these acres. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 This alternative would not contribute incrementally to the effects of timber harvesting or land clearing over the 40-year period from 1990–2030 unless forest management were practiced sometime in the future. Without the pro- posed timber harvesting, forest age class, structural diversity, and tree species composition would remain static or diminish. Diversity could be enhanced by natural disturbance such as a weather event, fire, disease, or insect infesta- tion that can create forest openings and provide some limited opportunities for shade-intolerant plant species to grow. However, on National Forest lands, regenerating and young stands would age and grow closer to the surrounding canopy of mature stands. Sunlight to the forest floor would diminish, as would
82 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
shade-intolerant species. Mature stands of the short-lived (40–60 years) paper birch and aspen community types would continue to age toward mortality, many to be replaced by shade-tolerant species now growing in the understory of these stands. The Forest Service may evaluate harvesting opportunities in the compartments in the northern portion of the Bretton Woods HMU. However, the extent of foreseeable future harvesting is not known and would be determined by future stand examinations. Timber harvesting on private lands has resulted in, and would continue to result in changes in age class and distribution. The cumulative effects would be the same as direct and indirect effects. Alternatives 2-3 The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS.1 Even-aged harvesting would have the cumulative effect of reducing acreage in closed-canopy forest and would contribute to age class diversity and species diversity in the forested landscape. Over the past 20 years, 1.2 percent of the suitable lands within the Bretton Woods HMU have been harvested. On private lands within the towns of Bethlehem and Carroll, between 1999 and 2005, 2,779 acres were harvested or 0.7 percent. Both are below the “rule of thumb” removal rate cited in the North Country Timber Harvest Trends Study of 2.5 percent annual removal rate. The cumulative effects would be the same as direct and indirect effects. The majority of northern hardwood and softwood stands are at least 80-90 years old and growth is slowing. By harvesting with a variety of treatments now, younger, more rapidly growing trees would be released and therefore the average future growth per acre would increase (FEIS). The result of removing diseased, damaged, and low quality trees would be a healthy, vigorous future forest with increased resilience to insect and disease, with increases in value over time due to higher quality residual overstory and understory trees. Overall, lands within the analysis area would remain predominately forested with a range of age classes and a diverse composition of tree and herbaceous species. With respect to stand conditions, the proposed timber harvesting would result in both even- and uneven-aged conditions and reductions in high risk, low quality, and mature conditions. Regarding species composition, there would be an increase of softwoods (spruce-fir) within the mixedwood stands and an increase in the paper birch/aspen component in the patch cuts. Herbaceous understories would respond favorably to regeneration and group selection harvests. Regarding vegetation management on private lands in the analysis area, it is assumed that harvesting would continue at the same rate as in the past. As some of the area in developed for homes, the amount of area remaining or returning to a forested condition would decrease. Climate Change Climate change will have an influence on vegetation, water, disturbance frequen- cies, and forest pests. These changes will each influence one another, making it difficult to predict what changes will occur and when. Within the usual 20-year
1USDA 2005a, pp 3-73 to 3-164
83 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
period of our cumulative effects analysis, climate change should have little if any measurable effect on our local forests. The exceptions might be isolated pest infestations, if those are actually related to climate change, and slight changes in the location of some forest species at higher elevations. Maintaining optimal forest and tree health is widely supported as a means to buffer climate changes.1 Monitoring of regeneration, as required by National Forest Management Act at the project and Plan level, would lead to reconsideration of harvest techniques if climate-related influences were detected. It is important to improve forest resil- iency to withstand better the stressors such as climate change. The diversity of species composition, age, and structure are several factors that affect resiliency. For example, forests that are less likely to have insect outbreaks and contain greater species diversity may have greater resiliency in the face of climate change.2 Management actions such as thinning, prescribed fire, or altering species composition through final harvesting and planting could create these characteristics that increase resiliency in the face of climate change.3 Some lit- erature indicates there are already small elevational shifts in tree species and changes in seedling abundance occurring in some northern tree species. How quickly noticeable changes in tree species composition would occur is uncertain best estimates are that it will be very slow unless insect or disease outbreaks cause disturbances that precipitate faster changes.4 Two climate change studies were highlighted during the scoping and analysis of the Crawford project. “A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont”5 and “Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications.”6 Both studies utilize long-term vegetative plots to study responses of vegetation to climate change. The Leak study shows that it is possible that the conditions and changes, revealed locally by this research, are related to natural succession and soil conditions. The Leak study and, time-tested silvicultural prescriptions used in the Crawford Project, validate the effects analysis and the predicted changes over the next 20 years. The Forest Service expects that we will be successful in regenerating the treated stands. The time scale for regeneration is shorter than the time scale over which species distributions change in response to climate (5-10 years, vs. the 90-year endpoint of the tree distribution models7). Stocking surveys taken three years after regeneration harvests indicate that we can establish the desired species, after which they will be relatively resilient to longer-term trends, especially if stands are maintained and insect and disease outbreaks are treated.
1Millen 2009a 2USDA Forest Service 2008d, Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change 3Millen 2009a; Millen 2009b; USDA Forest Service 2009 4USDA Forest Service 2009 5Beckage et al. 2008 6Leak 2009 7Shugart et al. 2003
84 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Wildlife Resources This section contains a summary of the analysis of effects contained in the Wildlife Specialist Report and the Biological Evaluation (BE). For more detailed information and analyses concerning wildlife resources, see the specialist report and the BE in the project record. The Project Area is approximately 4,260 acres of National Forest system lands located in MA 2.1 lands within the Bretton Woods HMU. Approximately 8,033 acres of adjacent private land was considered to address habitat diversity, con- nectivity, and cumulative effects to wildlife resources. The private land adjacent to the HMU contains a mix of habitat types and age classes, paved and dirt roads, developments, and year-round residences and attractions. The private land contributes to habitat diversity, but not sub- stantially to the 0-9 year old regeneration age class by habitat type, especially northern hardwood. Future activities on private land are not expected to create substantial amounts of regeneration age class or early successional habitat such as aspen and paper birch. There is a high likelihood that some of the forested habitat or openings on private land would be converted into non-habitat includ- ing housing or other developments such as the Mt. Washington Omni Resort Dartmouth Brook Development (construction of 199 condominiums on 182 acres of once forested and open habitat). Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects The Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would maintain habitat connectivity for wildlife travel to, from, or within the larger HMU and the Project Area, and would not cause fragmentation. Alternatives 2 and 3 (that includes skidding, harvesting, road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, trail building and other proposed activities) would not introduce new or increase predators known or expected in the Crawford Project Area (barred owl, red-tailed and broad- winged hawks, porcupine, raccoon, mink, weasel, marten, fisher, fox, coyote, bear, bobcat), nor alter existing predator-prey relationships. These determina- tions are based on but not limited to extensive knowledge of wildlife and habitat occurrences within the larger Bretton Woods HMU and the Project Area from: • Several multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific wildlife and habitat surveys and internal and external database checks for the Crawford Project Area conducted by an Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists;1 • Wildlife and habitat survey data from prior project BEs within the Bretton Woods HMU and other nearby HMUs (having similar habitat as the Crawford Project Area); ▫▫ Forest-wide Wildlife Opening Maintenance BE (2008) included Bretton Woods HMU; ▫▫ Reroute of Base Station Rd. Snowmobile Trail BE (2004) within the Bretton Woods HMU; ▫▫ Base Station Road Salvage BE (2010) within the Bretton Woods HMU;
1Audubon 2010, Mattrick 2010; NHFG 2010a and b; NHNHB 2010; NHNHI 1992; USDA 2007 & 2008 & ID-Team field reviews 2009-10; USDA 2008a, 2009 (monitoring reports); Weloth 2010. 85 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
▫▫ Bretton Woods Nordic Center Ski Trail Connector BE (2003) within Bretton Woods HMU; ▫▫ Sugarhouse (2005), Tintah (2004), Nubble (2003) Vegetation Management Project BEs in nearby HMUs; ▫▫ Twin Mountain Bicycle Path BE in nearby HMU (2007); and • Forest-wide wildlife and habitat monitoring data gathered in adjacent HMUs with similar habitats as the Project Area (WMNF monitoring reports). Alternative 2 has potential to cause more of the negative direct effects to wild- life and their habitat because 98 acres more would be harvested compared to Alternative 3. However, winter harvesting, designated skid trails, and previously cited Forest Plan standards and guidelines and design features would protect and maintain wildlife and their habitat. Therefore, the negative direct effects to wildlife and their habitat would be relatively minor in magnitude, localized, and short-term in duration (except possible mortality). Furthermore, Alternative 2 would cause greater positive indirect and long-term beneficial effects to wild- life habitat diversity, because 58 acres more of the 0-9 year old regeneration age class would be created via patch and clearcut treatments that would also perpetuate aspen-birch and softwood habitats compared to Alternative 3. Thus, Alternative 2 best meets the intent of the goals and objectives (Objectives #2 and 4) for wildlife habitat management stated in the Forest Plan.1 Under Alternative 1, there are lost opportunities to increase hardwood browse and regenerate aspen-birch adjacent to deer habitat. Based on relatively minor, localized direct and indirect negative and long-term beneficial effects to wild- life and their habitat, Alternatives 2 and 3 would not add adverse cumulative effects to wildlife resources in the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would move the forest toward the objective of providing wildlife habitat diversity (especially regeneration age class, early successional habitat, and perpetuation of softwood) within the Bretton Woods HMU (Alternative 2 the most, then Alternative 3 based on the amount and type of harvest and other activities proposed). Cumulatively, timber harvesting would have a beneficial effect of creating early successional habitat required by many of the migratory birds on the White Mountain National Forest, and therefore would not have a mea- sureable negative effect on Neotropical migratory bird populations (including White Mountain National Forest Management Indicator Species magnolia and chestnut-sided warblers). Affected Environment Based on best available information and site-specific surveys, the Crawford Project Area and the entire Bretton Woods HMU is dominated by spruce-fir, followed by mixedwood, then northern hardwood, with aspen-paper birch habitat types and few scattered hemlocks. The mature age class dominates all the habitat types. There is a lack of regeneration age class for all the habitat types in the Crawford Project Area (and the entire HMU), except recent wind throw occurred in several spruce fir stands along the Base Station Road that may encourage some softwood regen. There are relatively minor amounts of
1USDA 2005a, p. 1-20
86 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
young age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU for northern hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir, and aspen-birch. Few places on the Pemigewasset District support a relatively large concentra- tion of low-elevation spruce-fir habitat as seen in this HMU. The Crawford Project Area provides the best opportunity on the District to perpetuate the low-elevation spruce-fir and aspen-birch habitats and opportunities to increase the regeneration age class for all habitat types across the HMU landscape. The low-elevation spruce-fir habitat in the Crawford Project Area is used by the White Mountain National Forest ecological indicator American marten (Martes americana), Management Indicator species blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca), moose (Alces alces), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), and other wildlife. There are few bear-clawed beech trees within portions of Compartment 48. There is a permanent 21 acre wildlife opening, the constructed 3.5-acre Ammonoosuc Lake, and Abenaki Pond that provide habitats important to wildlife such as the American woodcock (see the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam Habitat Quality section). There is documented occurrence of two Regional Forester-listed sensitive species: Ameletid mayfly Ameletus( browni) and twayblade plant (Listera cordata), and habitat is present for several other sensitive plants and animals, and habitat only is present for two Federal-listed species (see the Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species section of this document and the BE in the project file). There are no stands specifically identified as old growth forest, and no other outstanding natural communities, alpine ravines, or bog meadows occur within the Crawford Project Area. Furthermore, there are no cliffs, talus, caves, mines, tunnels or prominent rock outcrops as suitable woodland bat habitat within the stands proposed for treatment in the Crawford Project Area. Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: Breeding peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum) do not and are not expected to occupy the Project Area in the future because there is no cliff nesting habitat. The open canopy conditions (i.e. large wildlife opening adjacent to US 302) in the Project Area may provide foraging habitat for hunting falcons nesting outside of the Project Area. American Marten: The marten was documented in softwood habitat in Compartment 49 (seen and photographed at the Yurt along the Nordic Trail System), and marten tracks were documented in mixedwood habitat in Compartment 48 in the Project Area. Red squirrel (Tamiascurus hudsonicus) and their tracks were also noted in portions of the Project Area. The red squirrel is one of the prey bases of the American marten. Important Wildlife Habitats White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: White-tailed deer and moose occupy and travel through the Project Area throughout the year. However, there are no known documented deer wintering areas (yards) within or adjacent to the Crawford Project Area.
87 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: The Project Area contains American beech (Fagus grandifolia) that produces beechnuts, a hard mast food source for black bears and other wildlife. Few beech trees clawed by foraging black bear were observed in portions of mixedwood and hardwood stands in Compartment 48 in the Project Area during site-specific field reviews.1 White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Woodland Bats: Bats affected with WNS have a white fungus on their muzzles, ears, or wing/tail membranes. Other physiological and behavioral symptoms are exhibited. In winter, hibernating bats affected with WNS move near the cave entrance and often come out of caves prematurely to the normal emergence time in the spring and fly around in the middle of the day. These affected bats generally have reduced fat reserves and are non-responsive and have been found dead both inside and outside of the caves. White-nose syndrome has been confirmed in hibernating bats from Canada to Tennessee, and recently in New Hampshire. In March 2009, white-nose syn- drome was confirmed for the first time in three hibernacula in New Hampshire (located off the White Mountain National Forest), two of which are in Grafton County (Red Mine in Lyman and Bristol Mine in Bristol). In 2010, bats at Mascot Mine in Coos County tested positive for white-nose syndrome (NHFG 2010; USDA 2010). No Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) or eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) were observed in these hibernacula. Elsewhere outside of New Hampshire, white-nose syndrome has been detected in Indiana bats. Currently, no bat hibernacula have been found on the White Mountain National Forest (including the Crawford Stewardship Project Area); however, there are 15 known small caves in New Hampshire, with more than half in Grafton County. On several occasions in March 2010, WMNF, USFWS, and Vermont biologists investigated citizen reports of abnormal behavior of bats flying in the daytime along the Base Station Road and at the Mt. Washington Cog Railway attrac- tion in Bretton Woods, NH. Little brown bat specimens were collected at the Cog Railway Base Station, which tested positive for WNS.2 Consequently, US Fish & Wildlife Service, NH Fish & Game, and WMNF biologists and other personnel and volunteers are coordinating ongoing efforts to search the Cog Railway private land and the adjacent WMNF for a possible hibernaculum. Recent 2010 acoustic bat detection data indicates encouraging news of abundant and normal nighttime woodland bat activity (including little brown bats) at the Cog Railway, within the adjacent Ammonoosuc River drainages, and along the Jefferson Notch and Mt. Clinton Roads on the WMNF. However, survey efforts did not find a hibernaculum site within the WMNF or on private land. Given the proximity of the White Mountain National Forest to the Cog Railway bat specimens and hibernacula (located off forest) affected by white-nose syn- drome, it is likely that bats using the White Mountain National Forest have been or will be exposed to white-nose syndrome-affected bats. The Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a web site on white-nose syndrome with the most recent scientific information on this syndrome. Current recommendations (developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
1NHFG 2010a; Weloth 2010 2NHFG 2010; USDA 2010, USGS 2010
88 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Service and multiple partners including the USDA Forest Service) are aimed at preventing and slowing the spread of white-nose syndrome are outlined in, “A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats (National WNS Response Plan)” (available at the website:
1See U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and US Forest Service websites for WNS response plan details. 2Krusic et al. 1996; Sasse 1995; Chenger 2002, 2004; Veilleux & Reynolds 2005, 2005a, 2010 3WMNF Unpublished acoustic bat data 2009-10 (in the project file) 4USDA 2005a
89 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table 10. WMNF Management Indicator Species Probability of Occurrence in the Analysis Area. MIS and Representative MIS and/or Habitats in MIS Population Trends Habitat Condition the Analysis Area Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) Regeneration age class hard- Little to no acres of regeneration WMNF breeding bird monitoring woods (mostly northern hardwood hardwood habitat in MA 2.1 land in & BBS(*) data shows a statisti- seedling/sapling stages, but the HMU. No chestnut-sided war- cally significant declining trend. includes some scattered regenera- blers were seen or heard during The amount of regeneration age tion softwoods). several field reviews of the Project habitat on the WMNF has declined Area. in recent decades. Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) Mature hardwoods (predominantly 1,565 acres mature hardwood WMNF bird monitoring data shows northern hardwood, could include habitat in MA 2.1 land in the HMU. a declining trend (but not statisti- scattered pole-size softwoods). Suspect tanager could occur in the cally significant) since 1992. BBS analysis area, but none seen or data shows a stable trend last 4 heard during several field reviews decades (NH data show declining of the Project Area. trends, while VT and ME show increasing trends). Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) Regeneration age softwoods (pre- Little to no acres of regeneration WMNF bird monitoring data shows dominantly spruce-fir, but could age spruce-fir habitat in MA 2.1 a declining trend (not statisti- include some scattered regenera- land in the HMU. No magnolia cally significant). BBS data shows tion age hardwoods). warblers were seen or heard dur- stable trend (trends declining in ing several field reviews of the northern NH & ME & increasing in Project Area. southern NH & northern VT). Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) Mature softwoods (mostly spruce- 5,566 acres mature spruce-fir WMNF bird monitoring data shows fir, but includes some scattered present in MA 2.1 in the HMU. Bi- a declining trend (but not statisti- regeneration age hardwoods). ologist saw and heard this warbler cally significant). BBS data shows during several field reviews of the a stable trend. Project Area. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) All ages of aspen / paper birch. 52 acres total aspen/birch in MA WMNF bird monitoring data shows 2.1 land in the HMU. Biologist saw a declining trend (not statisti- and heard grouse in Project Area cally significant). BBS data shows during several field reviews of the gradual decline from large peak in Project Area. mid 1970s, overall trend stable.
WMNF MIS population trends were based on forest-wide breeding bird data (1992-2008) summarized in recent 2008 & 2009 WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, and from MacFaden and Capen (2000). BBS(*) = Breeding Bird Survey data was summarized from Sauer et al., 2003. Suitable Habitat = Meets species’ life history needs (food, cover / shelter, water, breeding, and young rearing). Range and suitable habitat definitions were taken from USDA-FS 2005; DeGraaf et al. 2006; DeGraaf andYamasaki 2001. The determination of no occurrence of MIS considers the potential for occasional, incidental and infrequent travel through or flyover of a species within theAnalysis Area.
90 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would: • Include no tree or vegetation removal, soil or snow compaction, or human presence and noise from timber harvesting, recreation and watershed improvements, streambank and ecosystem restoration, or public access and transportation system activities; • Cause no direct effects of mortality, disturbance, displacement, or inter- ruptions of wildlife travel to, from, or within the Project Area due to no vegetation management or other activities at this time; and • Cause no direct effects on ecological indicators peregrine falcon (or cliff habitat) or American marten or other important wildlife habitats of concern (deer wintering areas, bear-clawed beech trees, or woodland bat summer roosting and foraging habitat), or Management Indicator Species in the Project Area or the larger Bretton Woods HMU. Young age-class forest would evolve into mature forest with no new regenerating forest to take its place unless stand-replacing natural disturbances occur. There would be an increase in the amount of mature forest as young forest matured. The mature age class is already dominant in the Project Area, the HMU, and Forest-wide, and is available habitat for Ecological Indicator American marten, Management Indicator Species scarlet tanager and blackburnian warbler, and other wildlife like fisher that use mature habitat. Over time, Alternative 1 has a greater potential than Alternatives 2 and 3 to develop large-diameter cavity trees, snags, and accumulate downed woody material for wildlife habitat compared to the proposed harvest units under the Alternatives 2 and 3. There is a lack of the regeneration age class (except recent softwood blowdown along Base Station Road may encourage regen) and minor amounts of young age classes in the Project Area. There would be lost opportunities to increase and improve wildlife habitat diversity by not creating the 0 to 9-year old age class, regenerating early-successional aspen-birch, and perpetuating spruce- fir in a mosaic across the landscape for Management Indicator Species grouse, chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers in the Project Area. There would be lost opportunities to increase and improve peregrine falcon (ecological indicator) and woodland bat foraging habitat by not creating openings in the forest canopy and relocating the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail out of the riparian area (used as a bat flyway and wildlife travel corridor). Loss of regeneration and young age classes and loss of aspen-paper birch habitats would cause long-term, adverse indirect effects of a decline in habitat diversity for Management Indicator Species ruffed grouse and chestnut-sided warbler in the Project Area. Alternatives 2-3 Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause relatively minor, localized, and short-term increase in human presence and noise in the Project Area from timber har- vesting, recreation and watershed improvements, stream bank and ecosystem restoration, or public access and transportation system activities. The vegetation
91 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
and other management activities proposed would not occur in the entire Project Area all at the same time. Direct negative effects could include mortality, disturbance, and/or displacement of nesting birds, roosting bats or denning mammals, or temporary alteration of wildlife travel patterns, including amphibians and reptiles and small and large mammals. Beneficial effects include regenerating spruce-fir and aspen-birch via harvest for Management Indicator Species magnolia warbler and grouse, increas- ing mobility for some species on snow compacted by skidding, and increasing browse for moose and deer from residual treetops scattered on the ground. Alternative 2 would have greater potential for minor negative and greater ben- eficial effects based on the amount of treatment acres proposed compared to Alternative 3. The same amount of recreation and watershed improvements and ecosystem restoration activities are proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3, except for the dam rehabilitation is proposed under Alternative 2 and the dam removal proposed under Alternative 3 (See the Ammonoosuc Lake Wildlife Section). Season of Harvest: See the Affected Environment heading of the Vegetation Resource Section of this EA for a complete description of the appropriate seasonal site conditions required in order for harvest operations to occur. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the majority of stands would be harvested in the fall/ winter or winter only. There would be very minor differences in magnitude of effects to wildlife (including woodland bats) between the action alternatives because the proposed season of harvest is the same, with fewer treatment acres proposed under Alternative 3. While conducting spring breeding bird surveys in portions of the recently completed Moose Watch Timber Sale (located in a nearby HMU in Bethlehem, New Hampshire), the district biologist observed that winter harvest operations (frozen ground conditions) effectively protected vegetation, water, and soil substrates for wildlife habitat. No raptor nests were found in the stands proposed for treatment during site-spe- cific surveys of the Project Area. If raptors such as Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) nested in a proposed harvest unit, they are often vocal and aggressive and would likely be detected during layout or prior to harvesting of the unit. Any active raptor nest that was detected in a harvest unit would be protected under Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and wildlife design features (EA Appendix B). The District biologist observed that the Forest Plan standards and guidelines were effective in protecting raptor nests during active harvesting and sale area closure work on the past Moody Ledge Timber Sale located on the White Mountain National Forest in Benton, New Hampshire. Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: There are no breeding peregrine falcon territories (ecological indicator for cliff habitat) within the Project Area and none is expected in the future. Thus, Alternatives 2 or 3 would have no negative effects on falcon breeding, courtship, or migration, but would increase open-canopy foraging habitat for peregrine falcon. American Marten: Alternative 2 would perpetuate more acres of softwood, aspen-birch, mixedwood, and hardwood habitats and create more foraging habitat for marten and red squirrel due to more acres proposed for treatment compared to Alternative 3. The harvest treatments or access and transportation
92 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would not reduce the stand basal area beyond a suitable habitat condition for ecological indicator American marten. Mature habitat used by marten and red squirrel would remain within the Project Area and within the larger HMU. Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, closure and relocation of the Nancy Barton Nordic Trial and closure of the Rosebrook Express Trail (follows the railroad tracks between Ammonoosuc Springs Trail and the Highland Center) in Compartment 48 would improve and protect riparian habitat along Crawford Brook that is suitable as a travel corridor for wildlife such as the ecological indicator American marten and a foraging and flyway for woodland bats. The new Nancy Barton Nordic Trail relocation (Compartment 48) would transverse through mixedwood / hardwood habitat that would affect only a portion of a marten’s large home range, but would not prevent marten form foraging or traveling to, from, or within the Project Area or the larger HMU. The Nordic trail relocation would increase the amount of semi-open canopy bat foraging habitat. Important Wildlife Habitats White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The clearcuts proposed under Alternative 2 (Stands 18 and 32 in Compartment 48) and the patchcuts under Alternative 3 would increase the amount of limbs and tops on the ground from timber harvesting, which would provide a localized, short-term source of nutritious browse for deer and moose when they need it the most for overwinter survival. In a couple years, the clearcuts would create browse for deer and moose. The removal of individual trees and group cuts would enhance and perpetuate the existing softwoods, possibly providing winter cover for deer in the future. In the long term, treatments may increase some beech regeneration within the Project Area, providing a source of hard mast in the future. Alternatives 2 and 3 (including harvesting and access and transportation system activities) would not adversely affect mobility patterns or travel corridors of large mammals such as deer and moose traveling to, from, or within the Project Area and private land. These large mammals have large home ranges, and appear to adjust quickly to disturbance or displacement from human presence (including noise) and may adjust their foraging behavior to avoid human activity. Over a period of 19 years on the White Mountain National Forest, the District biologist observed effec- tive practices of placing small harvest groups in softwood habitat to perpetuate cover and placement of clearcuts or larger groups in hardwood habitat to create browse near softwood stands on numerous vegetation management projects across the district. This effective practice was photo-documented at the recently harvested Right Angle Timber Sale located in Rumney, New Hampshire (see project record). Alternatives 2 and 3 would follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that would avoid impacts to softwood habitat that is necessary to support wintering populations of white-tailed deer. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: Wildlife design feature (Appendix B) that retains bear-clawed beech trees would minimize the effect of a slight reduction of fall foraging habitat within the proposed harvest units under Alternatives 2 and 3. Fall harvesting could temporarily displace bears feeding in beech trees, but they would likely move to adjacent hardwood stands until harvest- ing ended. There would be less potential for these effects under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, because no clearcuts are proposed. Over a 19-year period
93 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
on the White Mountain National Forest, the District biologist has observed the effectiveness of this design feature. There is mature northern hardwood habitat with a beech component in the MA 2.1 lands in the larger HMU that would not be affected under the Alternatives 2 and 3. White-Nose Syndrome and Woodland Bats: Winter harvesting (majority of the stands) would not disturb summer roosting bats as they would have left the forested habitat to enter winter hibernacula (usually a cave or old mine site) located elsewhere outside the Crawford Project Area. Furthermore, the potential effects of mortality, disturbance, or displacement of individual bats and reduc- tion in the amount of summer bat roosting habitat from timber harvesting or other activities proposed under the Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely be minimal for the following reasons: • Most of the common woodland bats that summer roost in trees prefer to use snags.1 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and design features (EA Appendix B) would protect snags and retain wildlife trees2 and minimize the potential loss of roost habitat sufficient for no effect to bats3. • Woodland bats oftentimes select roost sites in open areas that receive ample solar radiation. Some bat species rely on solar radiation to help keep warm (e.g. bats are often found in home attics or in snags in openings where they are exposed to direct sunlight for much of the day). Much of the forest habitat proposed for treatment in the Crawford Stewardship Project Area has a closed canopy and would not provide suitable roosting habitat sites for bats seeking a site that is exposed to the sun. • Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain open foraging habitat via Ammonoosuc Lake Dam rehabilitation and/or removal and improve flyway/forage habitat via Nancy Barton Nordic Trail reroute out of the riparian area suitable for eastern small-footed, northern-long-eared, tri-colored, big and little brown, and other woodland bats. • Only a portion of MA 2.1 land in the Bretton Woods HMU is proposed for treatment leaving a large area of mature habitat available as bat roosting habitat. Also, upon completion of harvesting under Alternative 2 or 3, the residual stand condition of most harvest units (proposed patch cuts and clearcuts would have reserve areas) as well as the surrounding forest in the HMU would still retain adequate numbers of mature trees and live and dead snags as roosting habitat for woodland bats, including the north- ern-long eared, tri-colored bats, eastern small-footed, big and little brown bats.1,2 Clearcuts such as Stand 18 and 32 (and patch cuts) proposed under Alternative 2 would provide open forage areas and expose more suitable roosting sites to sunlight compared to Alternative 3. Research on the White Mountain National Forest found that bats often forage near water bodies, trails, roads, and forest openings,4 presumably because insect prey may be more abundant in more open habitats and maneuvering in the air is easier. There are no known WMNF management activities that are directly affecting white-nose syndrome on or near the Forest. Timber harvesting and prescribed
1Sasse 1995; Veilleux and Reynolds 2005, 2005a 2USDA 2005a, pp. 2-35-36 3USDI-FWS concurrence letter on BA for revised WMNF LRMP dated 08/09/2005 4Krusic et al. 1996 94 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
burning (prescribed burning is not proposed in the Crawford project) have the potential to impact roosting bats, but these actions have been mitigated through Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design features, and pre-project surveys. As for indirect effects, management actions should result in beneficial effects to bats and protection or enhancement of bat habitat.1 Overall, tree and vegetation removal during harvesting activities could cause a reduction in the amount of roosting, nesting, and denning habitat for wild- life within the treated areas. Indirect effects also include potential decreases in the amount of large woody material recruitment onto the forest floor, used by birds, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles and insects. The proposed recreation and watershed improvements, streambank and ecosystem restora- tion, and access and transportation activities could cause a very localized and minor amount of tree and vegetation removal. Creating regeneration age class habitat via even-aged harvest methods Alternative 2 would treat approximately 171 acres using even-aged harvest methods (patch cut, clearcut, commercial thinning) compared to Alternative 3 that would treat approximately 113 acres (40 acres less of patch cuts and 18 acres less due to no clearcutting). The same amount of commercial thinning is proposed under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Commercial thinning is an interme- diate harvest that affects the condition of a stand, but it would not change the stand age class. Thinning does not create the same habitat structural value for wildlife compared to clearcut and patch cut treatments that immediately estab- lish regeneration age class habitat that develops dense shrub and brush layers, soft mast, and minimal overstory. Thus, Alternative 2 would create approxi- mately 112 acres (94 acres from patch cut and 18 acres from clearcut) of 0-9 year old regeneration age-class habitat compare to Alternative 3 that would create approximately 54 acres. The patch cuts and clearcuts (no clearcuts under Alternative 3) would increase age-class and habitat diversity (dense shrub layer) causing long-term beneficial effects to Management Indicator Species chestnut- sided warbler and Management Indicator Species ruffed grouse and deer and moose (the clearcuts in Stands 18 and 32 in Compartment 48 would especially increase the northern hardwood regeneration habitat that is lacking for these MIS). Alternative 2 would create 58 more acres of regeneration age class habitat (with 18 acres more of northern hardwood) compared to Alternative 3. Perpetuating and creating regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat There is a lack of the regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat in the Project Area (and the entire HMU). Alternatives 2 and 3 would create regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat type via even-aged methods (excluding commercial thinning as previously described). Alternative 2 would create approximately 94 patchcut and 18 clearcut acres compared to Alternative 3 approximately 54 patchcut acres (no clearcuts). Patchcuts and clearcuts would perpetuate the aspen-birch and benefit species that use early successional shrub layers, herba- ceous ground vegetation, soft mast, and minimal overstory components, such as MIS chestnut-sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. Without some type of disturbance, aspen-birch succeeds into northern hardwoods or softwoods. The
1USDA 2010
95 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
WMNF Forest Plan Standard G-1 (p 2-33) states habitat should be managed according to guidance provided in the Forest’s Terrestrial habitat Management Reference Document (see the project record). This reference document (p 5) states there is an expected deviation from the age class objectives for the first decade to allow the Forest to regenerate higher levels of aspen-birch forest before it degenerates further and is lost. The patchcuts under Alternatives 2 and 3 (and clearcuts under Alternative 2) are designed with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that reserve large mature and overmature trees within the harvest units. Eventually many of the reserved trees become cavity trees, providing vertical structural diversity avail- able to woodland bats, songbirds, small mammals, hawks, and woodpeckers as roost and nesting habitat. Approximately 150 species use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle, including MIS chestnut- sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. The male aspen-birch buds and catkins are an important food for MIS ruffed grouse.1 Even-aged management with patchcut and clearcut regeneration provides large patches of early successional habitat, young forest, and mature and old forest conditions in a shifting mosaic over time. Such management provides habitat for the most diverse wildlife com- munity and maintains forest and wildlife diversity through time. Most of the wildlife diversity is associated with seedling and sapling stands. Once beyond the pole timber stage, stands have about the same wildlife species whether they are even-aged sawtimber or old forest. MIS chestnut-sided warblers are among the first birds to breed in hardwood clearcuts. They abandon the site after about ten years, when dense foliage is no longer present within three feet of the ground. Early-successional habitats are needed because it supports a diverse array of habitat specialist species that are declining throughout New England.2 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, site conditions on the forest floor within the harvest units would be hotter and drier for about 2 to 5 years after cutting, with increased decomposition of leaf litter. This micro-site condition could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as the red-backed salamander.3 If they do not relocate, individual salamanders in large unshaded openings would likely not survive. Amphibians and small mammals in clearcuts would likely be more vul- nerable to predation. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that reserve patches of trees within the harvest units would continue to provide some escape and hiding cover for these and other wildlife species (Forest Plan). The district biolo- gist has observed intact patches of trees reserved in harvest units being used by wildlife in the recent Moose Watch Vegetation Management Project Area on the district and at the Bartlett Experimental Forest (see the project record); the same standards and guidelines would apply to the Crawford Project Area as well. Perpetuating and creating regeneration age class softwood habitat Uneven-aged harvesting (groups and improvement cuts) would remove some mature trees and open the canopy to partial sunlight, causing minimal changes in the amount of shade reaching the forest floor. The open canopy would release the understory to create vertical structure and layers, diversifying the stand
1DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; DeGraaf et al. 1992 2DeGraaf et al. 2005 3DeMaynadier and Hunter 1998
96 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
structure and increasing understory vegetation and browse availability for wild- life, but to a less-concentrated extent than even-aged harvesting. A recent wind throw event toppled mature trees and partially opened the canopy in several softwood stands located along both sides of the Base Station Road. Some stands were located inside and some were outside of the Crawford Project Area, but none were proposed for treatment prior to the wind throw. The wind throw will release the advanced softwood understory, but would not create substan- tial amounts of the 0 to 9 year old softwood age class habitat. The wind throw event and the proposed uneven-aged harvest treatments would maintain the mature character of the stands. The group selection harvests would perpetuate spruce-fir, and would move northern hardwood or mixedwood types on ecologi- cal land types that indicate softwood capability towards spruce-fir (favorable to Management Indicator Species magnolia and blackburnian warblers). This would move the Project Area toward the long-term objectives of the HMU to maintain the mature age class within each habitat type and move stands with softwood ecological land types towards a spruce-fir habitat type. After uneven- aged harvesting, there would be habitat diversity in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU (including the Project Area) for wildlife that use open- and closed-canopy forest, beech mast, dead trees (roosting and denning), or softwood regeneration age class such as Management Indicator Species magnolia warbler (Alternative 2 would implement 39 acres more of uneven-aged harvesting compared to Alternative 3). Wildlife Reserve Trees (live and dead standing cavity, snags, and down wood recruitment) Within the stands proposed for even-aged treatment, there would be less large, dead and down wood (greater than 11 inches dbh) on the forest floor 10-60 years post harvesting compared to the uneven-aged treatments (more even-aged acres proposed under Alternatives 2 compared to Alternative 3). Trees left in untreated portions of the stands would continue to supply a component of standing cavity and snag trees and down woody material as trees die, branches break, and annual litter builds up. Over a period of 19 years, the District biologist observed past Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (similar to current Wildlife Reserve Tree standards and guidelines1) that effectively retained wildlife reserve trees within harvesting units and the untreated portions of the stands. These past and current Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and design features ensure an adequate amount of cavity trees, snags, and dead and down wood is available for wildlife that use these habitat features including some amphibians, birds, mammals, and woodland bats. Riparian and Aquatic Standards and Guidelines2 would also maintain a 25-foot no cut riparian buffer around perennial streams and vernal pools (excluded from harvest units), and retain dead and down logs (see the Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species section of this document).
1USDA 2005a, pp2-35 to 36 2USDA 2005a, pp 2-24 to 26
97 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Management Indicator Species Table 11 displays the effects on the amount and quality of habitat for Management Indicator Species within the analysis area (MA 2.1 lands in the larger HMU which includes the Crawford Stewardship Project Area). Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would affect the amount and quality of habitat for Management Indicator Species differently. Alternative 1 would create no new habitat for Management Indicator Species that use regeneration-age habitat (ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers). The Management Indicator Species scarlet tanager and blackburnian warbler would benefit in the long term through perpetuation of mature northern hardwood and softwood habitats respectively. Under the Alternatives 2 and 3, MIS grouse and warblers would benefit from the immediate establishment of regeneration age class habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause a relatively minor reduction in the overall amount of existing mature habitat available in the HMU and the Project Area for these Management Indicator Species (Alternative 2 more so, because more acres are proposed for treatment compared to Alternative 3). Table 11. Effects of Alternatives on Amount and Quality of Management Indicator Species Habitat.
MIS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Chestnut-sided Warbler Regeneration (regen) Perpetuates the lack of Greater increase in hard- Lesser increase in hard- Northern hardwood. hardwood regeneration wood regen age class wood regen age class age class habitat in the habitat via habitat via analysis area. 94 ac(*) patch cut 54 ac patch cut 18 ac clearcut 0 ac clearcut 112 acres even-aged 54 acres even-aged Scarlet Tanager Mature Perpetuated the con- Greater decrease in Lesser decrease in hard- Northern hardwood tinued increase in the hardwood mature age wood mature age class amount of mature hard- class via via wood age class habitat 94 ac patch cut 54 ac patch cut that is already dominat- 18 ac clearcut 0 ac clearcut ing the analysis area. 59 ac commercial thin(a) 59 ac commercial thin(a) 171 acres of even-aged 113 acres of even-aged The 254 acres of group selection (Alt. 2) and the 215 acres of group selection (Alt. 3) along with the 227 acres of improvement treatments under both action alternatives would remove mature trees, but these uneven-aged treatments would maintain mature for- est at the stand scale with some canopy gaps. Magnolia Warbler Regeneration Softwoods Perpetuates lack of Greater increase of Lesser increase of soft- softwood regeneration softwood regen age class wood regen age class age class habitat in the habitat via 254 acres of habitat via 215 acres of analysis area. group selection. group selection.
98 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
MIS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Blackburnian Warbler Mature Softwoods Perpetuated the con- Greater decrease in soft- Lesser decrease in ma- tinued increase in the wood mature age class ture softwood habitat age mature age class habitat habitat via 254 acres of class via 215 acres of that is already dominat- group selection. group selection. ing the analysis area. Group treatments would remove some mature soft- wood but maintain mature forest habitat at the stand scale with some canopy gaps. Ruffed Grouse No distinct age class Perpetuates the con- Greater increase in Lesser increase in Aspen / Birch. tinued decline and long aspen-birch habitat via aspen-birch habitat via term loss of aspen-birch 112 acres of patch and 54 acres of patch cut via no regeneration har- clearcut even-aged treat- even-aged treatments. vests. ments.
All acre (ac*) figures are approximate. (a)Commercial Thinning is an even-age method, but does not immediately establish the 0 to 9 year old age class habitat structural value. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Mature softwood, followed by mixedwood and northern hardwood forest would continue to dominate the HMU analysis area. Individual dead or dying trees would continue to fall to the ground via natural disturbances (i. e. wind throw) and create relatively small, infrequent, sporadic, and unpredictable canopy openings allowing sunlight to the forest floor and creating very limited amounts of 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class habitat in the HMU with lesser habitat structural value compared to larger openings. Field observations and aerial photos indicate the private land adjacent to the HMU does not contribute substantially to the 0 to 9 year old regeneration age- class habitat. Aspen-paper birch habitat would be present in the HMU in 10 years, but would have matured and possibly begun converting towards northern hardwood or spruce-fir types. This alternative does not preclude future options for creating early-successional habitat or diversifying habitat types in the HMU. Visitors would continue to use the general area. Alternative 1 would not add a cumulative effect of increased human activity in the analysis area as vegetation or other management activities are not proposed at this time. There would be lost opportunities to protect and improve Canada lynx habitat or the Crawford Brook riparian area wildlife travel corridor via the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail closure and reroute at this time, or rehabilitate or remove the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam. Alternative 1 would add no cumulative effects to ecological indica- tor falcon or cliff nesting habitat, or deer overwintering habitat, bear clawed beech trees, or added stress to woodland bats that summer roost in trees. However, Alternative 1 would not perpetuate aspen-birch or spruce-fir habitat for American marten or red squirrel (prey base), nor create 0-9 year old age class habitat for Management Indicator Species ruffed grouse and chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers. Alternative 1 would add adverse cumulative effects to the lack of regeneration age class, add to the steadily decline in aspen-birch
99 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
type, and cause a lost opportunity to perpetuate spruce-fir habitat in the HMU cumulative effects analysis area. Alternative 1 would not move the Bretton Woods HMU or the Forest toward the wildlife habitat diversity objectives outlined in the Forest Plan for the full range of wildlife species on the White Mountain National Forest in the reason- ably foreseeable future.1 Under Alternative 1, there are lost opportunities to increase hardwood browse and regenerate aspen-birch adjacent to deer habitat. Alternative 1 would not add any cumulative effects to the WNS situation on the WMNF or in NH. Climate Change Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scien- tific information2 indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitat or species’ populations from climate change within the Crawford Stewardship Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2010-2020). Alternatives 2-3 Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future Forest Service management activities in the Bretton Woods HMU within the temporal scope (shown in EA Appendix Table D 1) have and would affect wildlife and their habitat within the HMU analysis area. The recent wildlife opening maintenance (mowing and prescribed burning of the Old Crawford Golf Course) in the HMU, and the proposed recreation, watershed, restoration, access and transportation, and vegetation management activities have or would use a similar mix of standards and guidelines that pro- tected riparian and wildlife habitat described in previous direct and indirect effects section. The stands treated in the past vegetation management projects have grown out of the regeneration age class into the young age class. The Bretton Woods HMU analysis shows a lack of 0-9 year old regeneration age class for all habitat types within the cumulative effects analysis area. The MA 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 8.3, 8.5, 9.3 lands within the Bretton Woods HMU are not subject to vegetation management and mature northern hardwood and mixedwood forests would continue to dominate the HMU and be available to Management Indicator Species scarlet tanager, blackburnian warbler, and ruffed grouse and woodland bats. The non-MA 2.1 lands plus the MA 2.1 land unsuitable for harvest in the HMU (2,021 acres) would develop into older forest habitat. Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: Because Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause no adverse direct effects on breeding peregrine falcon or cliff nesting habitat, and would cause beneficial indirect effects (increased foraging habitat) in the HMU (see the Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species section), no cumulative effects are anticipated from the Crawford Project. American Marten: Alternatives 2 and 3 (including the harvesting, access and transportation system, and other proposed activities) would add no adverse
1USDA 2005a, Chap. I, pp 20-22 2Summarized in L. Prout 2010
100 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
cumulative effects to marten or their habitat. Instead these alternatives would provide long-term beneficial cumulative effects by increasing the 0 to 9 year old age class, perpetuating aspen-birch and spruce-fir habitats for marten and red squirrel (prey base), and protecting and improving Canada lynx habitat and Crawford Brook riparian wildlife travel corridor. Important Wildlife Habitats White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines that ensure deer wintering habitat is maintained in the HMU and Forest-wide.1 Past vegetation management projects in the Bretton Woods HMU adhered to similar standards and guidelines that protected deer habitat. Because the Crawford Stewardship Project would follow wintering habitat guidelines, Alternatives 2 and 3 (including the harvesting and access and transportation system activities) would cause no adverse cumulative effects to deer winter- ing habitat. Even-aged harvesting in softwood or mixedwood and clearing for residential development could reduce the amount of wintering habitat available to white-tailed deer on private land. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: Past, present and future timber harvesting may have or could result in a minor reduction of bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU. However, the larger HMU contains substantial amounts of mature mixed- wood and hardwood, which provides habitat for wildlife including black bears. Design features under Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce direct and indirect effects to bear clawed beech trees within the Project Area so there would be no adverse cumulative effects to bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU. Harvesting and residential development on private lands adjacent to the HMU most likely affected bear-clawed beech trees, and some loss is likely to occur with future development on private land. White-nose Syndrome and Woodland Bats: Past timber harvesting and other management activities in the analysis area did not add any additional stress to woodland bats with white-nose syndrome, because WNS was not known prior to 2007. The potential disturbance or disturbance of individual bats or reduction of summer roosting habitat from timber harvesting, access and transportation system, or other proposed activities would be minimal for the same reasons discussed under the direct and indirect effects section. Very few individual bats would likely be disturbed or displaced from culvert replacements, road con- struction/reconstruction/trail building, or summer/fall timber harvests because annually less than one percent of the White Mountain National Forest is actively harvested each year and only a portion of this occurs during the period of time when bats would be present. While timber harvesting, culvert replacement, and road construction/reconstruction or trail building would result in some loss of potential roost trees, there are thousands of potential roost trees within and near the analysis area that would still be available to woodland bats during and upon completion of harvesting and other proposed project activities. Predicting what the potential threats might be to bat populations on the White Mountain National Forest is difficult, and it is difficult to take action to limit the spread of this disease except at hibernacula. The White Mountain National
1USDA 2005a, p. II-34, G-6
101 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Forest is in close contact with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to stay informed about this issue and take appropriate actions as needed regarding white-nose syndrome. From a cumulative effects standpoint, it is essential to emphasize that white-nose syn- drome has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities included in the Crawford Stewardship Project proposed action or alternatives. No hibernacula have been found on the WMNF. All proposed activities under Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur outside known, documented cave areas, which are off-Forest, with no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on hibernacula.1 Future projects within the HMU would also use similar standards and guide- lines for protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. As a result, Alternatives 2 and 3 would not add any adverse cumulative effects to wildlife or their habitat within the cumulative effects analysis area. Private Land: Activities on private land have and would affect wildlife and their habitat (altered habitat, loss of habitat, improved habitat). Increased develop- ment of surrounding private lands would likely result in increases in human presence in the HMU and portions of the Project Area over time, resulting in possible increased disturbance to wildlife in the HMU. Some activities on private land would likely cause cumulative effects of reduced amount of wildlife habitat and increased human presence adjacent to and within the HMU. Management Indicator Species Determinations Table 12 summarizes the effects determinations of the No Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 on White Mountain National Forest Management Indicator Species and habitat within the analysis area (MA 2.1 lands in the HMU, which includes the Crawford Project Area). The effects to Management Indicator Species and their habitat are within the range of those described in the White Mountain National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).2 The Management Indicator Species framework is useful for indicating the effects of Forest Plan implementation. Management Indicator Species may be affected by individual project actions or no actions. However, viable populations of Management Indicator Species are to be maintained or monitored in the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide planning area. Table 12. Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species and Habitat
WMNF MIS Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Chestnut-sided Perpetuates the lack of regen age class, Would cause a relatively minor decrease Warbler the declining trend in aspen-birch, and the in the dominant mature age class, but Scarlet Tanager lack of habitat diversity in the analysis area. would increase the amount of regen age Over the long term, MIS that prefer regen class currently lacking in the analysis Magnolia Warbler age class and paper birch habitats would area. Would perpetuate the aspen-birch decline within the analysis area including and spruce-fir and increase habitat diver- the Project Area and would seek these sity in the analysis area. The Project Area habitats elsewhere. would provide regen and early succes- sional habitat for three of the five MIS.
1USDA 2010 2USDA 2005
102 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
WMNF MIS Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Blackburnian Alternative 1 (in the near term) would not Alternatives 2 and 3 would not ad- Warbler adversely affect population trends and versely affect population trends and vi- Ruffed Grouse viability of WMNF MIS within the Forest- ability of WMNF MIS within the Forest- wide planning area. wide planning area. Rationale: 1. The 652 acres proposed for treatment under Alternative 2 of the Crawford Stewardship Project would only affect approximately 0.09 percent of the entire 752,000-acre White Mountain National Forest (Alternative 3 would treat even less at 554 acres (0.07 percent). 2. The action alternatives would increase the amount of regeneration age class hardwood and softwood acres in the Project Area enough for several breed- ing pairs of Management Indicator Species chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers, and increase age class diversity and the aspen-birch habitat type for MIS ruffed grouse. 3. The Crawford Stewardship Project action alternatives (including the harvest- ing, recreation and watershed improvements, streambank and ecosystem restoration, and public access and transportation system activities) would not interrupt the processes necessary for genetic interaction for maintaining population viability of Management Indicator Species within the Forest- wide planning area. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species (TEPS)
Biological Evaluation (BE) The District biologist and Forest botanist completed a BE of the potential effects to federally-listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Regional Forester- listed Sensitive plant and animal species (TEPS) for the Crawford Stewardship Project. The WMNF has nominated three plant and two woodland bat species for inclusion on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list that is currently under revision (see the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project record for further details). Affected Environment Based on a review of all available information, the Crawford Stewardship Project Biological Evaluation disclosed there is habitat in the Project Area for two fed- erally-listed species and habitat for several and documented occurrence of two Regional Forester-listed sensitive species within portions of the Project Area. The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and the tempo- ral scope with rationale for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species taken from the Crawford Stewardship Project Biological Evaluation are summarized in Table 13.
103 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table 13. Analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and temporal scope with rationale
TEPS Species BE Analysis Area and Rationale BE Temporal Scope Direct Effects Cumulative Effects For Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Terrestrial MA 2.1 lands in the HMU All NF lands in HMU (MAs The past and future because: 1) habitat objectives 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 8.1, 8.3, ten years (2000-2020) are based on ELT capabilities 9.3) and 8,033 acres of adja- because it spans a on MA 2.1 land; 2) it includes cent private land. Considers timeframe when benefits the Project Area for an array habitat diversity and connec- to some wildlife diminish of wildlife home ranges. tivity at the landscape level. after 10 years due to loss Except for Canada lynx habitat the BE used the WMNF of 0 to 9 year old regen- Lynx Analysis Units 5 & 9, includes HMU & Project Area. eration age class and includes WMNF Forest Aquatic Perennial streams in the Perennial streams in the Plan S&Gs that have and Project Area due to restricted HMU and on adjacent private would protect soil, water, aquatic habitat requirements. land due to restricted aquatic riparian, and wildlife and habitat requirements. their habitats. Plants MA 2.1 land in the Project Area because plants are sessile. Biological Evaluation Effects Determinations and Rationale The Crawford Stewardship Project Biological Evaluation details the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to TEPS species and their habitat having documented occurrence and/or suitable habitat present in the Project Area. The effects determinations with rationale taken from the Biological Evaluation are summarized below (Table 14; see BE in the project record). The Biological Evaluation effects determinations were based on best available science, on inter- nal and external database and scientific literature reviews, information from internal and external professional biologists, and based on site-specific Forest Service stream, plant, and wildlife surveys and field reviews. (For the full analy- sis and rationale, see the BE and Wildlife Report in the project file.) Table 14. Summary of Effects Determinations from the Biological Evaluation
Determination Rationale Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species Indiana Bat Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause This determination was based on best available “no effect” to individual Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). science and new information (USDA 2010), site- There is no federally-designated critical habitat for specific Forest Service surveys and field reviews Indiana bat within New Hampshire. Under No Action, of the Crawford Project Area (Weloth 2010), forest- there would be lost opportunities to open the forest wide mist-net surveys on WMNF (BCM 2002, 2004; canopy and create favorable roosting and foraging Yamasaki 2000), recent cave surveys in NH (NHFG habitat in the HMU landscape for woodland bats 2010), and woodland bat surveys off the WMNF in due to no vegetation management in the Crawford NY and VT (Kiser et al. 2001-02). Project Area this time. Canada lynx
104 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Determination Rationale Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause This determination was based on site-specific Proj- “no effect” to individual Canada lynx (Lynx ca- ect Area surveys and field reviews, Forestwide sur- nadensis). There is no Federally-designated criti- veys, prior BEs in the same and adjacent HMUs, and cal habitat in New Hampshire. Alternatives 2 and 3 information from internal and external databases, are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines and best available scientific literature reviews and outlined in the White Mountain National Forest Land professional biologists. and Resource Management Plan for protecting Canada lynx habitat on the Forest (USDA 2005a). Regional Forester Sensitive Species Peregrine Falcon Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause This determination is based on Audubon (2010) “no impact” to the population or species of per- breeding falcon monitoring, FS site-specific Proj- egrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). ect Area field surveys (Weloth 2010), internal and external database reviews (NHNHB 2010) and best available scientific literature. Eastern small-footed myotis Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 “may impact This determination was based on new informa- individuals, but would not likely contribute to a tion (USDA 2010), the best available local and trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of relevant science, and Forest Service site-specific viability to the population or species” of Eastern Crawford Project Area field surveys and reviews small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). (Weloth 2010), recent cave surveys in New Hamp- shire (NHFG 2010), Forest-wide mist-net surveys on the WMNF (BCM 2002, 2004; Yamasaki 2000), and woodland bat surveys off the White Mountain National Forest in New York and Vermont (Kiser et al. 2001-02). Northern bog lemming Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause This determination was based on the best available “no impact” to the population or species of northern science, site-specific stream and plant surveys of the bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphagnicola). Project Area, and past Forest-wide directed searches for Northern bog lemming (included portions of the Bretton Woods HMU). Ameletus Mayflies Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause This determination was based on site-specific Proj- “no impact” to the population or species of mayflies ect Area streams surveys, personal communication (Ameletus browni or A. tertius). with external professional biologists, and scientific literature reviews. The Alternative 1 would not cause any effects to Based on site-specific Crawford Project Area plant RFSS plants or their habitat. surveys and best available information. Implementation of Alternative 2 or 3 “may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” of RFSS- listed plants Bailey’s Sedge (Carex baileyi), Broad- leaved Twayblade (Listera convallarioides), Heartleaf Twayblade (Listera cordata), and Northern Adder’s Tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum).
105 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Climate Change The White Mountain National Forest has used sustainable ecosystem manage- ment practices to provide a diversity of habitats across the Forest landscape for the array of wildlife species that occur on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scientific information (summarized in L. Prout 2010) indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Crawford Stewardship Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2000-2020). Thus, climate change is not expected to affect wildlife resources or how well Alternatives 2 or 3 of the Crawford Stewardship Project achieve the desired outcomes. Non-native Invasive Plants1 This section includes a summary of the effects to or from non-native invasive plants (NNIS for this document) from the activities Crawford Stewardship Project. For a detailed analysis, please see the Crawford Non-Native Invasive Plants Report in the Project file. With the exception of the Scotch pine along US 302 and the wildflowers planted at the old Crawford golf course (see Purpose and Need section for a description of the existing condition), the Project Area and the surrounding local landscape are relatively free of NNIS infestations. NNIS plants exist in small numbers within the Project Area in discreet locations along the Mt. Clinton Road and US 302. Additional infestations exist off National Forest system lands in the village of Bretton Woods. Species occurring within the Project Area include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) along US 302, goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), and brownray knapweed (Centaurea jacea).2 These infestations are not new and were originally documented during intensive surveys conducted on the Forest by the New England Wild Flower Society from 2001 to 2004. The infestations likely resulted from the use of contaminated fill material or possibly brought in on contaminated mowers. No new infestations of NNIS were discovered during botanical surveys of the Project Area.3 All known infestations within the Project Area are under active treatments to eradicate them. The control of these NNIS infestations is being carried out under the authorization of the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment signed in 2007. Therefore, treatment of these infestations is not being analyzed in the Crawford Stewardship Project. All locations of NNIS within the Project Area were identified during a search of the White Mountain National Forest NNIS database. This search also indicated
1Non-native invasive plants are species that have spread in native or mini- mally managed systems. They cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations that dominate and/or disrupt native ecosys- tems. They are, by definition, not native to the geographic region in which they occur. Non-native plants are species that are living outside their native range and which arrived at that location by human activity, either deliberate or accidental. Most non-native plant species cause little or no ecological or environmental harm. 2USDA-Forest Service 2010b 3Mattrick 2010; Mattrick and Schori 2010
106 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
there are additional documented infestations of a handful of species off the National Forest but within the analysis area on private lands both in cultivation or escaped from home landscapes in Bretton Woods. These include autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb.), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), common barberry (Berberis vulgaris), burning bush (Euonymus atropurpurea), Oriental bit- tersweet (Celastrus orbiculata Thunb.), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara L.), and Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii [Rupr.] Herder). These species are primarily found on private lands along public roads, and most plants are not directly adjacent to the Project Area. In addition to the NNIS, there is a wide array of non-native species that occupy small niches within the Project Area. Most of these species are simply weeds that pose no particular threat to the health of the ecosystem in which they reside. These have arrived as accidental introductions that were deposited by birds, wind, or unintentional human means. There is only a small percentage of non-native species that have been intentionally planted within the Project Area and that pose a considerable present or future risk to ecosystem health in this Project Area. Summary of Effects Alternative 1 The effects of Alternative 1 include the continued presence and expansion of Scotch pine along US 302 and the continued presence and expansion of aggres- sive non-native herbaceous plants, including bigleaf lupine at the old golf course site. The continued presence of these species has a negative effect on native plants and natural communities within the Project Area. Cumulatively, NNIS infestations within the Project Area on National Forest System lands are likely to decrease due to the on-going treatment authorized by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide NNIS Environmental Assessment. However, NNIS would likely to continue to expand in the analysis area from NNIS populations and plantings on state and private lands Alternative 2-3 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the removal of Scotch pine and other non-native plants along US 302 and at the old Crawford golf course site would cause small temporary openings and gaps in the vegetative cover along US 302 and small areas that would be devoid of vegetation at the old golf course site. There could be a loss of small amounts of native vegetation at the old golf course site from herbicide application, because of the intermingled growth habits of the tar- geted non-native vegetation and the existing native vegetation. There would be a slight chance that equipment and fill needed to accomplish other project activities could introduce NNIS propagules1 into the Project Area. There are no substantive cumulative effects from any project activity. There are no substantive cumulative effects from any project activity including native plant restoration at the old Crawford golf course and Scotch pine removal along US 302. There would be a general decrease in Scotch pine within the analysis area due to the removal of this species on National Forest System lands as part of this project. The removal of the non-native plant species at the old Crawford golf course
1Any structure capable of being propagated or acting as an agent of reproduction.
107 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
would not have any effect on the status of these species within the analysis area due to the small size of the area treated as part of this project. Cumulatively, NNIS infestations within the Project Area on National Forest System lands would be likely to decrease from the on-going treatment authorized by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide NNIS Environmental Assessment. However, cumulatively, NNIS would likely continue to expand into the analysis area from NNIS populations and plantings on adjacent state and private lands. Cultural Resources
Summary of Effects Recorded cultural sites would be avoided during project activities, thereby avoiding any effects beyond short-term (1-2 years) indirect effects. The one exception is the Ammonoosuc Lake dam,1 which would be rehabilitated under Alternative 2 or removed under Alternative 3 (Table 15). On July 19, 2010, the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office concurred that the proposed actions under all alternatives would have no effect on properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on the Forest Service’s proposed management direction, and that the Ammonoosuc Lake dam’s physical integrity has been compromised by deterioration over time. Table 15. Activities associated with the Ammonoosuc Dam by alternative
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Ammonoosuc Lake Dam No effect Rehabilitation Removal
Affected Environment Many themes important to the history of the White Mountain region are repre- sented in the history of the Crawford Stewardship Project Area. This includes early exploration and settlement of the mountains, the Grand Hotel age of tourism, and the large scale logging operations and forest fires at the turn of the twentieth century that led, through the advocacy of local conservation groups, to the creation of the White Mountain National Forest. The Crawford and Rosebrook families settled in the valley in the 1790s, building farms, mills, and gradually expanding their homes to accommodate increasing numbers of tourists whom they guided up Mt. Washington (Crawford 1886). The road through the notch was much improved after the construction of the Tenth New Hampshire Turnpike (now US 302) in 1806, making it possible to drive a wagon from the northern part of the state to the seacoast for trade and commerce. The Conway Scenic Railroad, originally the Portland and Ogdensburg and then the Maine Central Railroad, was an engineering marvel of its day, reaching the notch in the 1870s and, along with the Boston and Maine Railroad, further opening the area to tourism and commerce. Soon after the railroads made removing large quantities of timber feasible, the area was logged on a large scale. Logging camp remains from this period are located in the Project Area. Railroad logging made it profitable to the lumbermen to remove all trees, regardless of size, and
1Site No. 09220400397
108 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
use the less desirable wood for pulp and charcoal.1 Two charcoal kiln sites in the Crawford Stewardship Project Area are evidence of this use. Grand hotels were built adjacent to the Project Area in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the Crawford House to the south, and the Mt. Pleasant House and Mt. Washington Hotel to the north, with a combined capacity of 1200 guests.2 Features related to these hotels are located within the Project Area, including recreation trails, a collapsed wooden gazebo, wooden water tanks, and the Ammonoosuc Lake dam. A dam at Ammonoosuc Lake was constructed in 1858 to provide waterpower for a sawmill erected at the same time to saw lumber for the construction of the second Crawford House after the first one burned down.3 An earlier dam for construction of the first Crawford House likely existed, as a pond near the Crawford House on the 1852 map with an outlet to the Ammonoosuc River is labeled “Mill Pond.”4 A walking path around Ammonoosuc Lake and over the dam was first opened by the Crawford House for the leisure of its guests in 1886.5 During the 20th century, the lake was used as a swimming area for Crawford House guests, and a beach house was con- structed beside the dam in 1948 (removed by the Forest Service in 1979). The 1858 dam was described in 1889 as “an indistinguishable bank of gravel.”6 Based on its design and engineering, the existing dam was probably built around 1948, at the same time as the beach house. 7 Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects. Alternative 2-3 The replacement dam spillway would be designed with stone facing to retain the visual character of the existing dam. Interpretive panels providing informa- tion on the history of the dam, the sawmill, and the related Crawford House grand hotel and recreation facilities would be installed on the walking trail near the dam. By implementing the above design criteria, the potential effects from the reha- bilitation of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would be mitigated: The replacement dam would be designed with stone facing to maintain the visual character of the dam. The historical values of the dam would be protected through the installation of a professionally designed interpretive panel with information about the history of the dam, the sawmill, the lake, and their relationship to the Crawford House hotel. Indirect effects to cultural sites in timber treatment units might include increased exposure to vandalism of historic-period cultural sites due to increased visibility
1Walker 1895: 11 2Spalding 1982: 27 3Sweetser 1889: 47 4Leavitt 1852 5Sweetser 1886: 2 6Sweetser 1889: 47 7USDA 2005a, p. 47
109 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
with the removal of vegetation. This effect would be temporary (1-2 years after harvesting), as new growth would quickly again obscure the sites. Alternative 3 By implementing the above design criteria, the potential effects from the removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam would be mitigated: Interpretive panels provid- ing information on the history of the dam, the sawmill, and the related Crawford House grand hotel and recreation facilities would be installed on the walking trail near the dam. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives 2-3 Actions on adjacent private land within the Project Area, such as ongoing con- dominium, housing, and resort facility development, have potential to affect cultural sites important to Crawford Notch and White Mountain history. There is a lack of data, as no comprehensive inventory of sites on private property has been completed, and the current project does not include new ground distur- bance on the private land included in the Project Area. All identified cultural sites within the Project Area would be avoided during implementation of these alternatives, with the exception of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam, which has been determined by the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office to lack physical integrity.1 As the proportion of private land where future development might occur within the Project Area is small, and the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office determined on July 19, 2010 that the current project will have no effect on cultural resources, the potential for cumulative effects to cultural resources is also small. Scenery Management — Roads, Trails, Ammonoosuc Lake
Affected Environment The Project Area is located within one of the most visited recreational areas on the Forest. There is a series of Nordic ski trails within both compartments 48 and 49. There are several locations on the trail system where small bridges occur. A cabin, built in the 1970s and recently refurbished, is located in Compartment 48. Thick vegetation occurs along these trails and the Mt. Clinton Road. These areas could benefit from harvest treatments that would open up the trail views, allowing the visitors to catch glimpses of the far landscape and enjoy the mag- nificent beauty of the area. Ammonoosuc Lake is about a 3.5-acre pond visible from the Around-the-Lake Trail.
1Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Linda Ray Wilson, 7/19/2010
110 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect effects Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative to scenery management – roads, trails, Ammonoosuc Lake (see previous related analysis under EA Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Issue 1 and 2).
Alternatives 2 and 3 Ammonoosuc Lake Under Alternative 2, while the dam is being drained and repaired, the visual character of the Ammonoosuc Lake would be similar to Alternative 1 if the dam was to fail (Figure 24). Once the dam was repaired and the lake filled again, the visual character of the lake would be restored. Similar effects are anticipated under Alternative 3 if the dam were removed. Once the dam was removed, the area would undergo a sequence of revegetation with effects as described in EA Chapter 3.2, Issue 2. Trails and Roads (US 302) There would be positive direct and indirect effects related to Compartments 48 and 49 from trail use. The locations of openings have been designed in both compartments so that trails would border and or cross the openings, creating viewshed opportunities and overall variation and visual interest to the land- scape. Currently, the trails that pass through these areas are mostly grown over or are abutting forest cover that is tall enough to block out any potential view- sheds of the surrounding area or mountains. Coordination efforts have been ongoing to ensure opportunities to create visual openings would benefit trail users and managers. For additional analysis, see the Vegetation Resource and Recreation sections. Compartments 48 and 49 are geographically separated by US 302. Because the viewing opportunities along this section of the National Scenic Byway replicate those described for Crawford Path Parking (Viewpoint 7) and Mt. Washington Hotel-Front (Viewpoint 6F), the direct and indirect effects would be the same as those analyzed for those viewpoints. The only difference is in duration of the view, but because the viewpoint’s viewsheds overlap the entire area from both directions, no further analysis was necessary. See EA Chapter 3.2 ,Issue 1 for further analysis of effects. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects to the scenery of Ammonoosuc Lake are the same as the direct and indirect effects disclosed above. No other projects are known or planned on the National Forest or adjacent private land that would cause new or additional cumulative effects with the Proposed Action or alternatives. The cumulative effects to scenery along the trails and roads are the same for each alternative as the direct and indirect effects disclosed above. No other projects are known or planned on the National Forest or adjacent private land that would cause new or additional cumulative effects with the Proposed Action or alternatives.
111 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Recreation Resource This section includes a summary of the effects to recreation from the Crawford Stewardship Project. For a detailed analysis, please see the Crawford Recreation Report in the Project record. Affected Environment Recreation resources within and adjacent to the Crawford Stewardship Project include trailheads and hiking trails, the Bretton Woods Ski Touring Center’s Nordic ski trail system and roads used for snowmobiling, and other recre- ation activities. For a history of the Bretton Woods Ski Touring Center and its special use permit with the White Mountain National Forest, see the Crawford Recreation Report in the project record. Today, approximately 60 percent of the Bretton Woods (nearly 100-kilometer) Nordic trail system is located on National Forest System Lands, and the Nordic trail system has seen an average of nearly 16,000 skier visits annually over the past 8 years (2002-2010). Table F1, Appendix F, provides a brief description, including use levels, of the Nordic trails within or immediately adjacent to the Crawford Project Area. Ski trails are also used by hikers, hunters, mountain bikers, and others in the spring, summer, and fall. However, the use level is much lower than it is in the winter ski season. In addition, there is trailhead parking for the Crawford Path hiking trail located within the Project Area near the western entrance to the Mt. Clinton Rd, though the hiking trail itself is located almost entirely outside of the Project Area. Mountain bikers use much of the Ammonoosuc section of the Nordic ski trail system as do casual day hikers originating from the Mount Washington Resort complex. The area around Upper and Middle Falls on the Ammonoosuc River, adjacent to the Bridle Path and B&M Trail, sees heavy use by swimmers and picnickers during the summer months. There are two trails in the Project Area that are specifically hiking trails, the Red Bench Trail and the Around-the-Lake Trail (see Recreation-Environmental Education Section), around Ammonoosuc Lake. Both trails are maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club. The Red Bench Trail (0.3 miles), which leaves the Around-the-Lake Trail near the northern end of Ammonoosuc Lake, is mod- erately used (7-25 ppd1). The majority of use originates from the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center either as casual hikers or as guided nature walks led by Appalachian Mountain Club naturalists. Snowmobiling is a very popular activity in the area, and two trails lie near or adjacent to the Project Area: • New Hampshire Corridor 11, a heavily-used main snowmobile route, closely follows the Base Station Road just outside the Project Area; and • The Mt. Clinton Road serves as a lightly-used, dead end snowmobile oppor- tunity and is adjacent to the Project Area.
1People per day
112 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Direct/ Indirect Effects Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, No Action, eventual soils failure and closure of the Nancy Barton Trail would force skiers to use alternate routes to achieve the same desti- nations, either via the railroad tracks, also on the west side of US 302, or several interconnecting trails on the east side of US 302. Due to the greater exposure of the railroad tracks to the sun, the snow on the railroad tracks tends to melt earlier in the spring and during thaw events than does the snow on the more sheltered woodland trails. In either case, closure of the Nancy Barton Trail would result in fewer route opportunities for Nordic skiers. This would most likely increase the density of skiers on those remaining trails that access the same destinations as the current Nancy Barton Trail. There would be no effects to hiking and mountain biking trails and other rec- reation activities, or to snowmobiling and automobile use on the Mt. Clinton Road under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have the greatest direct/indirect effects on the existing Nordic ski trail system than either Alternatives 1 or 3, as it contains the great- est amount of timber harvesting of the three alternatives. Forest Roads (FR) 6159, 6161, 193, 6139A, and the Crawford’s Pass Trail on private land would be used as plowed, winter haul roads for timber harvesting. Such use would temporarily preclude their use as groomed Nordic ski trails. Likewise, active timber harvesting would create a need for temporary closures on some trails and a need for skid trail crossings of most trails at some point for the duration of the proposed project, expected to be approximately two to five years. Table F1, Appendix F displays the Nordic ski trails that would be affected by timber harvesting under Alternative 2. Implementation of design criteria during harvesting operations would reduce the short-term effects of timber harvesting. Slash from cutting trees would be removed or cut close to the ground within a 50-foot buffer along both sides of the affected ski trails to mitigate adverse visual impacts, and skid trails would cross ski trails at right angles in as few locations as practically necessary to accomplish the harvest. With the exception of trails that were originally built as timber haul roads and are currently used as ski trails, ski trails wouldn’t be plowed or used for skidding except as necessary to cross a trail. Nordic trails that lie on road corridors may benefit due to drainage and surface improvements that are necessary for timber hauling. These improvements would reduce the need and cost of long-term trail maintenance, as they would remain following timber harvesting operations. The resulting change created by timber harvesting activities in this alternative would be in the appearance of the forest. The views along the Nordic trails would include patch cuts, groups, and clearcuts. These new openings would provide new views of Mt. Washington and the Southern Presidential range. There would be no noticeable change in the forested views between the patch cuts, groups, and clearcuts unless a partial harvest such as thinning or single tree selection were implemented. When in those areas, the discerning visitor might
113 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
notice more openness in the forested landscape. Timber sales have occurred in this area in the past and the current forest landscape is varied, with evidence of both even- and uneven-aged vegetation management occurring across the Nordic trail system. One particularly popular loop ski opportunity follows B&M, Porcupine Lane, and Sebosis Trails. FR6139A and Porcupine Lane occupy the same corridor for about 300 feet. To allow continued use of the loop opportunity during periods when FR6139A is plowed, this proposal includes a widening of that section of FR6139A sufficient to allow grooming the ski trail adjacent to the road for the approximately 300 feet necessary to accommodate both uses simultaneously. Nancy Barton Trail Alternative 2 proposes to close the existing Nancy Barton Trail and relocate it further up hill, above the railroad corridor onto a more stable route that would connect to the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center in Crawford Notch. The proposed relocation would begin at the northern end of the exist- ing Nancy Barton Trail and follow Forest Road 6161 to 6160 to 6160’s terminus in Compartment 48, Stand 23. From that point, approximately one half mile of new trail would need to be constructed to make the connection to the Highland Center, crossing the railroad tracks near the south side of Ammonoosuc Lake. Within a few yards of this crossing, the relocation would take advantage of a section of an existing trail (the Around-the lake trail) that loops around the south side of the lake and proceeds on that trail to the Highland Center. The proposed reroute would create a trail of easy to moderate difficulty and, as it would be located largely in open, northern hardwoods, the relocated trail would present the user with increased scenic viewing opportunities than the existing Nancy Barton Trail. Relocation of the existing Nancy Barton Trail would also eliminate a need for skiers headed to the Highland Center to cross US 302 twice. The existing trail now ends about a half mile north of the Highland Center, at which point a skier needs to cross the highway, ski the Highland trail to its ter- minus opposite the Highland Center, and then cross the highway again before arriving at the Highland Center. Rosebrook Express Trail An additional part of the proposal to relocate the Nancy Barton Trail includes the closure of the section of the Rosebrook Express Trail between its junction with the Ammonoosuc Springs Trail and the Highland Center. This trail follows the railroad tracks and provides a route to and from the Highland Center that doesn’t require any road crossings. The Rosebrook Express can be difficult to open and keep open, particularly in marginal snow winters. Since its width is maintained for the passage of trains and it has a north-south orientation, it tends to melt out more quickly than the typical Nordic trail. It can also be difficult to groom in marginal snow conditions as the bed slopes steeply away from the rails in many locations and the bridges aren’t designed to hold snow. By rerouting the Nancy Barton Trail, there would be no further need for this section of the Rosebrook Express Trail. The trails are also used by hikers, mountain bikers, hunters, anglers, and others during the spring, summer, and fall. Except where those activities may occur
114 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
in Compartment 49, Stands 4, 6, 19, or 24 (i.e., stands that may be harvested in the summer or fall), none of these activities would be directly affected by any of the activities proposed in Alternative 2. Indirect effects may include changes in foreground and distance views on most trails following harvesting. In Compartment 49, stands 4, 6, 19, and 24, hikers, bikers, and hunters may encounter active timber harvesting activities. They may also be directly affected by trail closures, noise, and dust. The Red Bench Trail would be indirectly affected by the sounds of timber har- vesting activities in the winter season. In the case of the upper end of the Red Bench Trail, possible changes in foreground views due to harvest activities may occur. The analysis area is also used by hunters, and since this alternative would establish the most early-successional forested stands, short-term habitat and browse for certain game species would increase. Snowmobiling on the Mt. Clinton Road would be directly affected by Alternative 2. The Mt. Clinton Road would be plowed for 2-4 years during project imple- mentation for logging trucks to be able to access FRs 7013, 6139A and 193 in Compartment 49. During that timeframe, the Mt. Clinton Road would not be available to snowmobiles. As a snowmobile opportunity, the Mt. Clinton Road represents a “side trip” to most users - a dead end route leading from the popular New Hampshire Snowmobile Corridor 11 trail that closely parallels the Base Station Road from Fabyan’s at Bretton Woods before turning onto the Jefferson Notch Road. Automobile use of the Mt. Clinton Road would be indirectly affected by the project as the potential for summer and fall harvesting has been identified in stands 19 and 24, both of which lie adjacent to the road. Visitors traveling the Mt. Clinton Road by automobile may encounter active timber harvesting activities within sight of the road: noise, dust, and changes in foreground and distance views. The Mt. Clinton Road would be closed in the winter to public automobile use just as it is now. Alternative 3 The direct and indirect effects on the Nordic ski trail system under Alternative 3 are similar to those described in Alternative 2, with the exception that the number of stands proposed for harvesting is fewer than in Alternative 2. Therefore, it is likely that the duration of the effects would be shorter, or of less magnitude, on the trails that pass through those stands than under Alternative 2. Table F1, Appendix F displays the Nordic ski trails that would be affected by timber harvesting under Alternative 2 and 3. Hiking and Mountain Biking Trails and Other Recreation Activities Direct and indirect effects to hiking and mountain biking trails and other recre- ation activities would be the same as in Alternative 2 with the following probable exceptions: • The sounds of timber harvesting activities would likely be less on the Around-the-Lake Trail as harvest activities would not occur in the nearby Stand 23 under this alternative.
115 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
• The sounds of timber harvesting activities would likely be less on the Red Bench Trail, and there would not be a change in foreground scenery along this trail as harvest activities would not occur in the adjacent Stand 23 under this alternative. Direct and indirect effects to snowmobiling and automobile use on the Mt. Clinton Road would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Possible cumulative effects from Alternative 1 would include increased skier traffic on Highland, Fairway Loop, and Crawford Hollow trails if the Nancy Barton Trail failed and/or was closed. Alternatives 2-3 Cumulative effects on Nordic ski trails by timber harvesting activity would be moderated by adherence to design features and the likelihood that harvesting activities would occur in one general area at a time, leaving other nearby trails unaffected. Predicted trends in global warming and climate change have the potential to cumulatively effect Nordic skiing. Predictions of warmer tempera- tures, more winter precipitation falling as rain and shorter seasons with skiable snow could cause the Bretton Woods Nordic center to adapt to these changing conditions with an increased emphasis on grading and smoothing of existing trails so that they may be groomed and skiable with less snow than they need now. Cumulative effects on hiking would be very low because hiking trails would remain open during harvesting activities. The number of trails and total trail miles affected cumulatively is very small compared to the extent and range of hiking opportunities available in the cumulative effects analysis area. Cumulative effects on snowmobiling would be very low because, even though the Mt. Clinton Road could be plowed and closed to that use for several years, it is a lightly used and dead-end snowmobile opportunity. Likewise, the cumu- lative effects on snowmobile use on Corridor 11 (adjacent to the Base Station Rd) would be very low. This trail would stay open, though it is likely that users would note an increase in logging truck traffic on the Base Station Road while the project was being implemented. Snowmobiling would be subject to the same cumulative effects as Nordic skiing as regards to global warming and climate change. Socio-economic Resource The following is a summary of the socio-economic analysis of effects for the Crawford Project. For details, see the Socio Economic Report in the Project record. Affected Environment The Project Area is located in the Town of Bethlehem, Grafton County, and the Towns of Carroll and Crawford’s Purchase, Coös County, New Hampshire in the central section of the White Mountain National Forest.
116 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Bethlehem’s population has increased to the current level of 2,460, resulting in a population density of 27.1 persons per square mile. Carroll’s population has generally increased over the years with the largest percent increase (109%) occurring between 1970 and 1980. In 2008, the population was 742. Carroll contains 50.3 square miles of land for a population density of 14.8 persons per square mile. The Town of Crawford’s Purchase is located in Coös County. It contains 8.2 square miles and as of 2000, has a population of zero. The Forest Service recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional econo- mies and strives “to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer” (Forest Plan, pp 1-3 and 1-17). Many local forest product manufacturers are within viable hauling distance to the Project Area, and it is reasonable to assume that products from the Crawford Project would supply some of these businesses. Forest products for local markets are also available from private land, as well as state and town forests. Planning costs for the Crawford Project include planning and analysis as docu- mented in this Environmental Assessment, field surveys and examinations, literature reviews, surveys, public involvement, and preparation of documents are incurred regardless of the alternative. If the decision is made to move forward with either Alternative 2 or 3, additional costs would be incurred for timber sale preparation, contract preparation, appraisal, and sale, contract administration, and personnel time for preparing and implementing activities. Funding options for some of the proposed work include money authorized by Stewardship Contracting or Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) laws, which allow the retention and use of timber receipts to accomplish restoration and improvement projects in and near the Project Area. For the Crawford project, the non-native invasive plant removal, the parking lot improvements, the culvert replacement on the Mt. Clinton Road, the bank stabilization, decommissioning of the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail, and the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam projects could be consid- ered for these funding sources. Reimbursements would be made to communities in which National Forest timber is harvested: • New Hampshire Statute (Chapter 79 [Forest Conservation and Taxation], RSA Section 79:3, Normal Yield Tax) directs what is known as the “Timber Yield Tax.” Section 79:3 describes the tax as “[a] normal yield tax at the rate of 10 percent on the stumpage value at the time of cutting.” The Towns assess and collect the 10% yield tax from harvesting on private and public lands each year. • Under the 25 Percent Payment-to-States Fund (25% Fund), New Hampshire collects 25 percent of the annual revenue generated in the White Mountain National Forest from timber harvest and other revenue-producing activities. The state then transfers a portion of the revenue to the county or town in which the activities occur, with the amount transferred depending on the amount of National Forest land within it. If the activities occur in an unor- ganized township, the money is transferred to the county. If the activities occur in an organized town, the money is transferred to the town govern- ment. For the Crawford Project proposal, the calculation for the estimated
117 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
funds would be 25 percent of the net timber value multiplied by the percent of national forest land in the towns of Bethlehem and Carroll. The money is to be used for the benefit of public schools. Measuring Socio-Economic Effects At the project level, examination of social and economic effects is required if they are important to a reasoned decision. Also required is the consideration of effects to low-income and minority populations (FSH 1909.15 Section 15). Social and economic factors are not a public issue in the Crawford Stewardship Project analysis and not a component of the Purpose of and Need for the project. The Crawford Project activities that could have a measurable socio-economic effect are timber harvesting, road construction/reconstruction, dam stabilization, bank stabilization, and the parking lot. Direct and Indirect Effects Table 16 displays the calculated values to compare the economic efficiency and economic impacts by alternative. A brief explanation related to each of these measures can be found in the Socio Economic Report in the Project record. Table 16. Economic Characteristics by Alternative (numbers are approximate).
Costs/Revenues/Totals Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Costs* Environmental Analysis and Project Planning $404,272 $404,272 $404,272 Timber Sale Preparation & Administration $0 $404,272 $322,300 Regeneration Surveys $0 $7,686 $5,649 Road Construction/Reconstruction $0 $198,580 $198,580 Crawford Path Parking Lot Construction and associ- $0 $125,000 $125,000 ated facilities Non-native Invasive Species Control $0 $1,000 $1,000 Nancy Barton Trail Relocation and Decommission $0 $32,915 $32,915 Crawford Brook Bank Stabilization $0 $5,000 $5,000 Mt. Clinton Road Culvert Replacement $0 185,000 185,000 Ammonoosuc Lake Dam $0 $200,000 $75,000 Total Estimated Costs $404,272 $1,563,725 $1,354,713 Revenues Harvest Volume (MBF) $0 5.5 MMBF 4.4 MMBF Stumpage Receipts $0 $823,649 $656,584 Estimated 25% Fund Payment $0 $205,912 $164,146 10% Timber Yield Tax $0 $82,364 $65,658 Net Value (receipts – cost) -$404,272 -$451,800 -$468,328 Unit Cost (net value/MBF) -$73 -$82 -$106 Income Generated ** 0 $773,000 $616,000 Jobs Provided/Sustained *** 0 33 26 Total Estimated Revenue 0 $1,111,925 $886,388
118 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
*NOTE: Costs for Planning, Preparation, and Administration are based on average costs per ccf (hundred cubic feet) as updated by W. Millen (8/2010). Regeneration surveys are not completed on Improvement or Commercial Thinning treatments. Alternative 2 proposes 366 acres of regeneration surveys; Alternative 3 proposes 269 acres of regeneration surveys. **A multiplier of $140,500/mmbf is being used in this analysis to estimate the expected income generated under each alternative. The source of this multiplier is in Appendix B, Table B-21 of the FEIS. *** A multiplier of approximately six jobs/million board feet of timber is used for this analysis to estimate the number of jobs created/sus- tained. The source of this multiplier is Appendix B of the FEIS.
Alternative 1 No revenue would be generated and no reimbursements would come to the towns. The cost of project planning and environmental analysis is approximately $404,272 regardless of the alternative selected. There would be no changes in rural character or public health and safety because no activities would be imple- mented. The recreational component contributing to quality of life would be slightly affected because the Nancy Barton Trail Relocation that would have been completed would be foregone. Alternatives 2-3 The National Environmental Policy Act regulations 40 CFR 1507.8(b) require that all analyses consider economic factors. The law does not require a quantitative, monetary analysis of non-commodity resources. The cost of stream restoration, improvements to the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam, removal of non-native invasive plants, repairs to the parking lot, and culvert replacement on the Mt. Clinton Road are considered resource enhancements with non-commodity benefits. Non-commodity benefits are also associated with timber management, such as removing poor quality and suppressed trees so that a future economic value of the residual stand would reach sawtimber size in a shorter period. The eco- nomic analysis, however, will not focus on these non-commodity benefits. See Table 16 for estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing either Alternatives 2 or 3. Direct and indirect effects to quality of life and rural character are expected to be minimal because the proposals mirror traditional activities occurring on private lands in the region and town. Water and soil resources would be enhanced with road maintenance, trail relocation, and watershed restoration, while healthy ecosystems would be promoted through timber harvest and creation of diverse habitat. Recreation use would be negatively affected during the harvesting implementation, but enhanced by increased scenery opportunities for several years after harvesting (see Recreation and Scenery Management section). Scenic quality and heritage resources would be protected through Forest Plan Scenery Management System and standards and guidelines, as described in the Scenic Resource and Cultural Heritage sections. Human activity would be increased for the duration of project operations as work crews and Forest Service personnel implement the proposed activities, but not to the level of having a noticeable effect on the rural character of the analy- sis area. New roads proposed are not expected to increase use levels. The road decommissioning would not change public access because the road segments proposed for decommissioning are not currently used for public access. Human activity in the area would increase only for the duration of the operations.
119 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Direct and indirect effects to public health and safety, as measured by changes in traffic patterns, would occur with traffic increases on US 302, the Base Road, and the Mount Clinton Road. Visitors in the area would notice increased use by trucks and large equipment associated with timber harvesting. This noticeable traffic increase is not without precedent, due to the traffic associated with timber harvests on private land in and near the Project Area over the past 15-20 years. Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 Because there are no direct/indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects from Alternative 1. Alternatives 2-3 Cumulatively, human activity associated with timber harvesting operations on National Forest and private lands would continue to be steady and noticeable. There have been no permanent developments or changes in access resulting from past timber sale harvesting, and only the reconstruction of the Nancy Barton Trail, and dam at Ammonoosuc Lake are proposed or planned, so no cumulative effects to the rural character of the towns are anticipated. Human activity associated with timber harvesting may be viewed locally as a beneficial effect in this area. Because each timber sale is site specific and different in acreage, timber volume and value, road costs, harvesting prescriptions, and the need for regeneration surveys, total costs vary widely. There are no cumulative effects associated with project planning, preparation, and administration. Costs are incurred as funding allows implementing the Forest Plan and carrying out the Forest Service mission, with many resulting non-commodity and unquantifiable benefits asso- ciated with the cost of public land management. Assessing the cumulative economic effects for the Crawford project includes the past and predicted payments to the towns from timber receipts, as displayed in Table 17. Other National Forest revenue-producing activities in the cumula- tive effects area that would contribute to the 25 Percent Payment to States fund include payments from the Bretton Woods Nordic permit area.
120 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Table 17. Potential payments to Grafton & Coös Counties and Towns of Bethlehem, Carroll & Crawfords Purchase 1990-2020.
Timber Sales since 1990 Total Timber Value – Crawford (1990’s), Upper Falls & Mt. Clinton $396,010 $534,613 25% Payment to States Fund $99,002 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $39,601 Crawford Project Total Timber Value – Alternative 2 $819,908 $1,106,876 Potential 25% Payment to States Fund $204,977 Potential 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $81,991 Alternative 2 + Previous Harvests $1,641,489 TOTAL POTENTIAL PAYMENTS (1990-2020) Total Timber Value – Alternative 3 $653,602 $882,362 Potential 25% Payment to States Fund $163,400 Potential 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $65,360 Alternative 3 + Previous Harvests $1,416,975 TOTAL POTENTIAL PAYMENTS (1990-2020) Because each timber sale is site specific and different in acreage, timber volume and value, road costs, harvesting prescriptions, and the need for regeneration surveys, total costs vary widely. There are no cumulative effects associated with project planning, preparation, and administration. Costs are incurred as funding allows implementing the Forest Plan and carrying out the Forest Service mission, with many resulting non-commodity and un-quantifiable benefits asso- ciated with the cost of public land management. Environmental Justice Less than five percent of Grafton County and less than three percent of Coös County is considered minority population. About 7.9 percent of Bethlehem’s population and about 3.1 percent of Carroll’s population is below the poverty level. The persons living below the poverty level in the state of New Hampshire is 7.8 percent and the Grafton County average is 10.6 percent and 13 percent for Coös County (US Census Bureau). No concerns about these populations were raised during scoping, and, because they comprise a small percentage of the overall population in the towns, there is little potential for minority and low- income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities..
121 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Chapter 4 — Preparers and Consultants
Chris Mattrick Botanist White Mountain National Forest Clara Weloth Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest Jacob Ormes Transportation Engineer White Mountain National Forest Janice Mulherin Forester White Mountain National Forest Joe Gill Winter Sports Specialist White Mountain National Forest Ken Allen Landscape Architect White Mountain National Forest Leighlan Prout Forest Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest Mark Prout Fisheries Biologist White Mountain National Forest Patty Beyer IDT Leader USFS, TEAMS Enterprise Robert Coulter Soil Scientist White Mountain National Forest Roger Boyer Forester White Mountain National Forest Sarah Jordan Archaeologist White Mountain National Forest Sheela Johnson Hydrologist White Mountain National Forest Stacy Lemieux Forest Planner White Mountain National Forest Steve Jones Forestry Technician White Mountain National Forest Sue Wingate IDT Leader USFS, TEAMS Enterprise Richard Dow Forest Writer/Editor/Webmaster White Mountain National Forest
122 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
References
Audubon. 2010. NH peregrine falcon recovery group breeding season update. Unpublished email updates. Concord, NH. Beattie, Mottie, Charles Thomas, and Lynn Levine. 1983. Working with your woodlot, University Press of NE. Beckage, B., B. Osborne, D. G. Gavin, C. Pucko, T. Siccama, and T. Perkins. 2008. A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105 (11):4197-202. Brown, Thomas C. and Dan Binkley. Effects of Management on Water Quality on North American Forests. GTR RM-248. Center for Watershed Protection, 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. 142 pp. Chenger. 2004. Bat Conservation and Management (BCM), Summer survey for New Hampshire woodland bats, Carlisle, PA. 38 pp. _____. 2002. Summer survey for New Hampshire woodland bats. Prepared by J. Chenger of Bat Conservation and Management for USFWS, NEFO, Carlisle, PA. 47 pp. DeGraaf, R., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A. M. Lester. 2006. Technical guide to forest wildlife habitat management in New England. Univ. of VT Press, VT. 305 pp. _____., M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 482 pp. _____., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England wild- life: management of forested habitats. USDA Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-144. 271 pp. Dennehy, P.M. 2008. A Limnological and Hydrological Assessment of Three White Mountain, NH Lakes. Unpublished senior thesis. Bates College, Lewiston, Maine. Fay. 2003 Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23 (5) 896-900. 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. Huntington, T.G., A.D. Richardson, K.J. McGuire and K. Hayhoe, 2009. Climate and hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent trends and implications for forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39:199-212. Johnson, S. 2009. Crawford Project field notes. Krusic, R., M. Yamasaki, C. Neefus, P. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in the White Mountain National Forest. Journal Of Wildlife Management. 60(3):625-631.
123 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Leak, W.B., D.S. Salomon, P.S. DeBald. 1987 Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (revised) NE-603 Leak, W.B. 2009. Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 26(4)2009: 164- 166 Leavitt, Franklin. 1852. Map of the White Mountains, N.H. Boston: J. H. Bufford’s Lithography. Maine Forest Service, 2002. 2000 – 2001 Maine Forest Service Report on Best Management Practices - Use and Effectiveness in Maine. Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME. Maine Forest Service. 2006. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices - Use and Effectiveness 2005. Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME. Maine Forest Service. 2009. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices - Use and Effectiveness 2008. Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME. Mattrick, Christopher. 2010. WMNF botanist survey of the Crawford Project Area. Unpublished botanical report in the Crawford project record. Campton, NH. Mattrick, Christopher and Alice Shori. 2010. WMNF botanist survey of the Crawford Project Area. Unpublished botanical report in the Crawford project record. Campton, NH. Martin, C.W., J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, and D.C. Buso, 2000. Impacts of inten- sive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 19–29. MacFaden, S.W. and D.E. Capen. 2000. White mountain national forest wildlife monitoring program: analyses of bird surveys on permanent plots, 1992-1999. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 79 pp. Millen, W. 2009a. Estimated Climate Change Effects on New England Forests, Literature Review and Summary. March 26, 2009. Updated 9/17/09. White Mountain National Forest unpublished document. Campton, NH. _____. 2009b. “Forestry and Climate Change, Is There a Role for Forestry? What do we know at this point that relates to New England? A review of applicable literature.” WMNF unpublished document. _____. 2010. Costs per CCF. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1999. State of New Hampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations. Chapter 1700. http:// des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-wq1700.pdf Accessed January 25, 2010. New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands, 2004. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. A Pocket Field Guide.
124 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 2010. NHFG News: Winter surveys of NH caves shows WNS affecting NH bats. NHFG Department, Concord, NH. 3 pp. _____. 2010a. NHFG Regional Wildlife Biologist W. Staats to FS District Ranger Fuller with site-specific comments on 2009 and 2010 field reviews of proposed treatment stands and Nancy Barton Trail reroute for the Crawford Stewardship Project, Town of Bethlehem, Carroll, Crawfords Purchase, NH. Letter dated 03/15/10 located in project record, Campton, NH. 3 pp. _____. 2010b. NHFG Fish Habitat Program Manager J. Magee to FS District Ranger Fuller with site-specific comments on 2008 field review of stream cross- ings, bank stabilization, and the Ammonoosuc lake Dam for the Crawford Stewardship Project in the Towns of Bethlehem, Carroll, Crawfords Purchase, NH. Letter dated 03/29/10 located in the project record, Campton, NH. 3pp. _____. 2006. NHFG Wildlife Action Plan. 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH. 145 pp., plus appendices. NHNHB. 2010. Rare plants, rare animals, and exemplary natural communities in NH towns. Division of Forest and Lands-DRED, Concord, NH. NHNHI. 1992. An Ecological Inventory of WMNF MAs 2.1, 7.1, 8.1 & portions of 3.1. NHNHI-DRED, Concord, NH. Included Pemigewasset District. Concord, NH. 61 pp. Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. 35pp.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. Pierce, Robert S., James W. Hornbeck, C.Wayne Martin, Louise M. Tritton, C. Tattersall Smith, C. Anthony Federer, and Harry W. Yawney, 1993. Whole-Tree Clearcutting in New England: Manager’s Guide to Impacts to Soils, Streams and Regeneration, GTR NE-172. Prout, L. 2010. Literature review of current and scientific information on climate change related to wildlife. Unpublished report. Campton, NH. Prout, M. 2010 Riparian and aquatic habitat special report. Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised) NE-535 Sasse, D.B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. University of NH, Durham. MS Thesis. 54 pp. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2003. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2002. Version 2003.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Shugart, Herman, Roger Sedio, Burt Sohngen. 2003. Forests Potential Impacts on U.S. Forests and Global Climate Change.
125 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Spaulding, Randall. 1982. “The Grand Hotels, The Glory and the Conflagration” in Outlook Magazine special volume The Enterprise of the North Country of New Hampshire, 26-31. Lancaster, NH: White Mountains Region Association of Northern New Hampshire. Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, Misc Report, 399. Sweetser, M.F..1889. Here and There in New England and Canada: Among the Mountains. Passenger Department, Boston & Maine Railroad. _____. 1886. The White Mountains: A Handbook for Travellers. Boston: Ticknor and Company. USDA-Forest Service. 2010. WMNF Review of new information for White-nose Syndrome and forest bat populations. Project File. Campton, NH. 11 pp. _____. 2010a. Eastern Region, White-nose Syndrome Regional Response Plan 2010-2011 (available at: www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/wildlife/bats/php). _____. 2010b. NRIS NNIS data base. Crawford Project file. Campton, NH. _____. 2009. White Mountain National Forest Evaluation and Monitoring Report 2009. Crawford Project File, Pemigewasset District, Campton, NH. 54 pp. _____. 2008. Ocular surveys of Crawford Stewardship project Area (wood turtle and stream surveys). Unpublished Data. Pemigewasset District, Campton, NH. _____. 2008d. Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. _____. 2008a. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2008. Crawford Project File, Pemigewasset District, Campton, NH. 44 pp. _____. 2007. Ocular surveys of Crawford Stewardship Project Area (winter tracking and deer yard surveys). Unpublished Data. Pemigewasset District, Campton, NH. _____. 2007a. White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment. _____. 2006. WMNF terrestrial habitat management reference document. Unpublished. WMNF, Laconia, NH. 17pp. _____. 2005. WMNF Final environmental impact statement: proposed land and resource management plan. WMNF, Laconia, NH. 520 pp & appendices F&G _____. 2005a. WMNF Land & Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH. 198 pp. plus appendices. _____. 1995. Title 2600, Wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management: Forest Service Manual 2672.42 Biological Evaluations. Washington, D.C. USDA-Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.18, Soil Management Handbook, WO Amendment 2509.18-91-1. 1991
126 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats (National WNS Response Plan) (available at: http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/plan- ning.html). _____. 2005. Concurrence letter on the Biological Assessment for the revised WMNF LRMP. USDI-FWS, Concord, NH. 5 pp. _____. 1972. Endangered species act of 1973: As amended through the 100th Congress, Washington D.C. 45 pp. USGS National Wildlife Health Center. 2010. Diagnostic services case update: Mt. Washington (Coos Co, NH) tested positive for WNS. Crawford Project Record, Campton, NH. 1 pp. Veilleux, J. P. and S. Reynolds. 2010. 2009/2010 Survey of Bat Populations and Status of White-nose Syndrome in Select New Hampshire Hibernacula. Report Submitted to New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, NH. 44 pp. _____. 2005. Species Profile, Eastern Pipistrelle, Pipistrellus subflavus. Pages 270-275 In: NHFG. 2005. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan. NHFGD, Concord, NH. _____. 2005a. Species Profile, Northern Myotis, Myotis septentrionalis. Pages 317-322 In: NHFG. 2005. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan. NHFGD, Concord, NH. Weloth, C. J. 2010. Wildlife Report (multi-year/seasonal site-specific wood- land bat, MIS bird, winter tracking, and habitat surveys) for the Crawford Stewardship Project Area in the towns of Bethlehem, Carroll, Crawfords Purchase, NH. Unpublished report in Crawford project record. Pemigewasset Ranger District, Campton, NH.
127 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Appendix A — Silvicultural Information
Tables A2 and A3 display the total treatment acres by prescription and by compartment. Tables A4 and A5 provide detailed information on treatments by compartment
Table A1 merged with Table A2. since 30-Day Comment Report
Table A2. Total Acres Treated by Prescription
Prescription Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 Patch Clearcut 93.9 53.7 Clearcut 18 0 Group Selection 253.7 214.71 Improvement Cut 227 227 Commercial Thinning 59 59 Total 651.6 554.41 Table A3. Total Acres Treated and Volume by Compartment
Compartment Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 48 369.4 287.2 49 282.2 267.21 Total 651.6 554.41
128 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Table A4. Compartment 48
Stand Acres Prescription Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 C48 - 1 100 Patch Clearcut 18.7 0 C48 - 2 51 Group Selection 9.2 7.3 C48 - 3 55 Patch Clearcut 14.9 0 C48 - 4 112 Group Selection 16 16 C48 - 5 66 Group Selection 7.6 11.9 C48 - 8 25 Commercial Thin- 18 18 ning C48 - 9 47 Commercial Thin- 25 25 ning C48 - 10 30 Commercial Thin- 16 16 ning C48 - 13 17 Group Selection 3.3 3.3 C48 - 15 40 Group Selection 6.1 6.1 C48 - 17 144 Group Selection 21.6 21.6 C48 - 18 25 Clearcut 6.1 0 C48 - 20 10 Improvement Cut 7 7 C48 - 23 111 Group Selection 33 0 C48 - 25 59 Improvement Cut 35 35 C48 - 26 32 Improvement Cut 10 10 C48 - 28 143 Improvement Cut 50 50 C48 - 29 22 Improvement Cut 8 8 C48 - 30 37 Improvement Cut 10 10 C48 - 31 82 Improvement Cut 42 42 C48 - 32 89 Clearcut 11.9 0 Compartment 48 Totals 369.4 287.2
129 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table A5. Compartment 49
Stand Acres Prescription Acres Treated Alt 2 Alt 3 C49 - 4 28 Group Selection 5.2 5.21 C49 - 6 80 Group Selection 10.7 10.5 C49 - 10 45 Group Selection 6.5 6.4 C49 - 19 112 Group Selection 22.4 22.3 C49 - 22 21 Group Selection 3.9 2.9 C49 - 23 40 Group Selection 8.3 5.3 C49 - 24 61 Group Selection 11.2 10.9 C49 - 28 24 Group Selection 4 4.8 C49 - 35 80 Improvement Cut 40 40 C49 - 41 96 Patch Clearcut 26.4 26.3 C49 - 44 16 Group Selection 2.7 2.7 C49 - 45 30 Group Selection 4.5 4.5 C49 - 49 44 Patch Clearcut 13.7 13.4 C49 - 50 80 Improvement Cut 25 25 C49 - 51 24 Patch Clearcut 5.5 5.5 C49 - 52 72 Group Selection 11 11 C49 - 53 25 Group Selection 4.9 4.4 C49 - 54 59 Group Selection 10.1 8.5 C49 - 55 26 Group Selection 5.4 5.4 C49 - 56 16 Patch Clearcut 4.8 4.6 C49 - 59 15 Group Selection 2.8 2.7 C49 - 60 20 Group Selection 4 3.9 C49 - 61 10 Group Selection 1.8 1.5 C49 - 65 29 Group Selection 5.4 5.7 C49 - 67 10 Group Selection 1.8 1.4 C49 - 69 15 Group Selection 2.8 2.8 C49 - 71 36 Group Selection 6.9 6.9 C49 - 72 14 Group Selection 0 0 C49 - 76 22 Group Selection 4.2 2.6 C49 - 77 18 Patch Clearcut 9.9 3.9 C49 - 84 34 Group Selection 6.3 6.1 C49 - 87 21 Group Selection 4.4 4.4 C49 - 89 29 Group Selection 5.7 5.7 Compartment 49 Totals 282.2 267.21
130 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix B — Crawford Stewardship Project Forest Plan Compliance and Design Criteria
The proposed activities will be accomplished in accordance with the objec- tives and standards provided for in the Forest Plan. Design criteria (Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs)) are prac- tices implemented to protect resources during the implementation of proposed activities. This project would help to achieve the desired future conditions described in the Forest Plan (USDA. 2005a, pp. 1-3 to 1-22), which reflect the following goals: • Accessibility (p. 1-3) • Conservation Education (p. 1-4) • Heritage Resources (p. 1-6) • Non-Native Invasive Species (p. 1-7) • Rare and Unique Features (pp. 1-8 to 1-10) • Recreation (pp. 1-10 to 1-15) • Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (p. 1-16) • Scenery Management (p. 1-16) • Soil Resources (p. 1-16) • Transportation System (pp. 1-16 to 1-17) • Vegetation Management (p. 1-17) • Water Resources (p.1-17 to 1-18) • Wildlife (pp. 1-8 to 1-10 and 1-20 to 1-22) Design Criteria Access Access to the dam for equipment and personnel would be on the old road to the dam (currently closed and used as trail) and installation of a 20-foot temporary truck bridge behind the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center. Erosion and Sedimentation Use effective, proven runoff and erosion control methods (Forest Plan standard, p. 2-30) if ground disturbance will occur in accessing the stream or placing the structure. • To minimize turbidity where construction activity occurs in intermittent or perennial watercourses, such activity should be isolated from the stream- flow or carried out during low flow periods. (Forest plan guideline, p 2-31) • Obtain any required wetland permits
131 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Roadwork The Forest would coordinate with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation to facilitate these improvements. The culverts would be designed by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NH DOT). • US302US 302US 302 was incorporated as the Tenth New Hampshire Turnpike in 1803, and the remains of historic activity along the roadway include the sites of a tavern, stables and barns, a store, railroad beds, logging camps, dams, sawmills, charcoal kilns, and homes. All activities planned in the Crawford Project will be designed to avoid cultural sites. Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Design Features In addition to State of New Hampshire basal area law and BMPs, Forest Plan Guidelines G-1, G-2, and G-15 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (pp. 2-24, 2-25 and 2-26) would be implemented to protect water quality. These specify that: • Crossing of perennial streams with motorized vehicles for recreational or commercial purposes must be done at designated locations. • 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 ecologi- cal 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 be relocated, or protecting human safety or infrastructure. Trees (greater than 4” DBH) cut or moved in this zone should be placed in a fashion that benefits riparian functions or aquatic habitats when possible. • Uneven-aged silvicultural practices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) along all perennial streams, lakes, and ponds, and vernal pools. Cuts should be designed to maintain a relatively continu- ous forest canopy for the protection and maintenance of water quality, dead wood recruitment, hydrologic function, wildlife habitat, and scenic values. Regeneration group cuts 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 RMZ’s should be defined as 75 feet for 1st and 2nd order streams, 275 feet for 3rd order streams, 575feet for 4th and larger order streams, and 75feet for lakes, ponds, and vernal pools. • Trees that directly provide structure to the streambanks and channels of intermittent streams should be retained. The above guidelines have been modified or clarified on a site-specific basis in the following locations. Ammonoosuc River Watershed (Compartment 49): • In stand 51, the riparian management zone along the Ammonoosuc River would be modified to extend only to the railroad grade/ski trail instead of the 275 feet width specified in Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Guideline G-2 (Table 2-01). The existing railroad grade and riprap hydrologically isolate this section of floodplain from the River.
132 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Crawford Brook Watershed (Compartment 48): • In stand 1, a 50-foot no-cut buffer should be applied on Rosebrook Brook per New Hampshire Basal Area Law. • In stand 3, a 25-foot no-cut buffer should be applied to an intermittent tribu- tary on the Southeast stand boundary for streambank stability. • In stands 4, 10, 26, 29, 28 and 31, a 25-foot no-cut buffer should be applied to Forked Brook to ensure continued wood loadings. • In stands 28, 31 and 25 a 25-foot no-cut buffer should be applied to Nancy Brook to ensure continued wood loadings. Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Treatments All herbicide applications would be carried out according to state and federal law, and label instructions. All herbicide applications would be made by or under the direct supervision of applicators licensed by the State of New Hampshire. All project activities would comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS prevention. In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the following protocols would be used when developing the treatment project for controlling non-native plants at the old Crawford golf course. • All control treatments would be designed so that they are effective based on the species phenology and life history, yet have the fewest undesired impacts to native vegetation. • Any treatments resulting in any part of a Project Area greater that one-quar- ter acre in size resulting in less than 20 percent vegetated cover following the treatment would be seeded with an appropriate mix of native plant seeds. • Field personnel involved in control treatments would be able visually to distinguish between target NNIS plants and non-target vegetation. • Herbicides would be selected based on the invasive species being treated and other site conditions. Water Resource Design Features • Use effective, proven runoff and erosion control methods during construc- tion activity (Forest Plan, S-3, p. 2-30). This includes State Best Management Practices for erosion control • To minimize turbidity where construction activity occurs in intermittent or perennial watercourses, such activity should be isolated from the streamflow or carried out during low flow periods. (Forest Plan, G-2, p 2-31) • All permanent new, redesigned, or reconstructed stream crossings and other instream structures must be designed and constructed to pass bank full flows, withstand expected flood flows, provide for the passage of sediment, bedload, and woody material, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. (Forest Plan, G-3, p 2-31) • For dam removal or rehabilitation, evaluate the quality and quantity of sedi- ment accumulated behind the dam, with sediment removal as necessary. Any sediment removed will be disposed of properly outside of wetlands.
133 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
• For dam removal or rehabilitation, the lake will be drained gradually, at a rate designed to minimize turbidity and temperature changes in down- stream reaches. • Guidelines to the regulatory requirements for Dam Removal projects in New Hampshire will be followed (DES-WD-03-35) Wildlife and Habitat Design Features • To maintain hard mast as a food source for wildlife, beech trees with abun- dant bear claw-marks would not be marked for cutting unless the tree is expected to die in the near future. In areas with a heavy concentration of bear-clawed beech trees, patches of habitat would be reserved to minimize damage to the trees (Forest Plan, G-1, p 2-35). Exceptions may include haz- ardous trees, trees located where there are skid trails or landings that cannot be moved because of land features, and trees with greater than 75 percent crown damage since there is a high probability they would die in the near future. Retaining heavily bear-clawed beech trees is effective because these are the most productive beech trees, repeatedly producing beechnuts, as evidenced by foraging black bears (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). • Protect any active raptor nest areas. Avoid marking trees with evidence of active raptor nests and report their presence to the District Biologist, who would determine the level of protection needed (Forest Plan, S-3, p 2-33 and G-11, p 2-34). The standard is effective because it would not reduce nest sites and would provide a no-disturbance buffer of at least 66 feet around nest sites from the nest site selection to fledging period, generally March through July (DRED & SPNH, 1997; Forest Plan Revision Rationale for Development of Wildlife Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines, 2005). • When harvest reduces the basal area of a stand below thirty square feet per acre, uncut patches totaling five percent of the harvested area must be retained, with each at least one quarter acre in size (Forest Plan, S-1, p 2-35). • When timber harvest would leave basal area above thirty square feet per acre, at least six cavity and /or snag trees per acre must be retained. These leave trees should include at least one wildlife tree and there trees exceeding twelve inches DBH per acre when feasible. In areas lacking such cavity trees and snags, trees of the largest available diameters with defects likely to lead to cavity formation should be retained (Forest Plan, S-2, p 2-35). • Uncut patches retained under S-1 should be located to encompass as many wildlife trees, snags greater than or equal to nine inches DBH, other trees with cavities or broken tops, and bear-clawed beech as possible. A wildlife tree or snag greater than eighteen inch DBH may be used as a nucleus. In areas lacking suitable cavity trees and snags, trees of the largest available diameters with defects likely to lead to cavity formation should be retained. • When possible, uncut patches retained under S-1 and leave trees retained under S-2 should be placed within three hundred feet of open wetlands, ponds, riparian areas, or wildlife openings greater than five acres in size. • Existing standing dead, and dead-and –down woody material, should be retained and not damaged during forest management activities unless they are considered a safety hazard or the area is being permanently removed
134 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
from a forest condition (for example, parking lot construction). This applies especially to large (greater than or equal to eighteen inches DBH) hollow or rotten logs and rotten stumps. • Cull material form harvested trees, especially hollow logs, should be left in the woods. • Retain all hemlock habitat on the landscape where possible (G-2 and 3, p 2-33). In additon to the WMNF Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Wildlife (LRMP 2005a, pp 2-33 to 2-35), the following design feature also applies: • When possible under S-1 uncut patches and S-2 leave trees, include recently dead hardwood snags (beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, red maple, aspen, black cherry, paper birch, white ash) that are tall (>50 feet) and larger diam- eter (8 to 16 inches) and < 1 km from water (Sasse 1995). Cultural Resource Design Criteria Alternative 2 • The replacement dam spillway would be designed with stone facing to retain the visual character of the existing dam. • Interpretive panels providing information on the history of the dam, the sawmill, and the related Crawford House grand hotel and recreation facili- ties would be installed on the walking trail near the dam. Alternative 3 Design criteria would be the same for Alternative 3 as for Alternative 2, with the following exceptions: • With the removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake dam, there would be no need to design the replacement spillway with stone facing to retain the visual character of the existing dam. Recreation Resource Design Criteria Alternative 2-3 • 50 foot slash disposal zone on either side of affected Nordic Trails. ▫▫ No weekend harvesting in Compartment 49. • Right angle skid trail crossings of active ski trails in as few locations as practically necessary to accomplish harvest. • With the exception of trails that were originally built as timber haul roads and are currently used as ski trails, ski trails wouldn’t be plowed or used for skidding except as necessary to cross a trail.
135 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Alternative 3 • White Mountain National Forest resource specialists would monitor the restoration of the marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland ecosystem following the removal of the dam on Ammonoosuc Lake and the drain- ing of the dam. The resource specialists could work with the Appalachian Mountain Club naturalists, and possibly the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to develop a new conservation education program utilizing the current Around-the-Lake Trail. The program could focus on the benefits of removing some dams and the shrub-wetland ecosystem that would be restored.
136 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix C — Temporal and Spatial Boundaries Used for Resource Analyses
Riparian and Aquatic Habitat The analysis area for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on riparian and aquatic habitat resources will be the Crawford Brook watershed, starting from the mouth of Sebosis Brook. Populations of aquatic species within this area are more likely to be connected within a time period of 10-25 years. The timeframe for analyzing effects will differ for short-term and long-term effects. The direct and indirect effects of rehabilitating or removing the dam will be examined 10 years into the future as the area should be re-vegetated and any sedimentation effects have disappeared. The timeframe for cumulative effects will be 10 years in the past and 25 years into the future. This timeframe covers all short-term effects of past projects that may still be occurring and examines into the future approximately the timeframe that a beaver meadow could establish after dam removal. Table C1. Activity* Included in Cumulative Effects Analysis for Ammonoosuc Lake Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Resource
Date Compartment Project Name Activity 2003 Private Land Abutting NF AMC’s Highland Center at Construction of the AMC’s Crawford Notch Highland Center
*Outside of the Bretton Woods HMU and abutting WMNF Scenery Management The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects is typically the Project Area, because this is the zone within which the proposed vegetative management activities would alter the scenery. The viewshed for a majority of the views does not extend much beyond the Project Area due to the area’s overall scale (what can be seen with the normal cone of vision), the distance from the Project Area to a viewpoint and due to a majority of the Project Area’s viewsheds being largely contained by several mountainsides. When viewed from the superior viewpoint, the analysis area extends beyond the Project Area to include the resort areas, condominium complexes, residential subdivisions, etc to the northwest, which completes the field of view. The cumulative effects analysis area includes landscape views in front of, into the Project Area and beyond, from the same viewpoints. It also includes an analysis of existing harvested openings and wildlife openings within the Project Area. The timeframe is the same as for direct and indirect effects for the same reasons. Existing openings are included, as some are maintained in an open condition for wildlife purposes. The timeframe for effects is 30 years, as it allows all of the harvested openings to fully restock, put on a full canopy of vegetation, and reach a height of enough spread and density to allow the shadow and textural differences to begin to
137 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
blend with the adjacent surroundings as seen from a typical viewing distance by the casual observer. The visibility of any opening would be greatest for the first five years, as the color and texture begin to return. The shadow lines and lighting differences would be evident depending on the time of day, weather and season for much longer into the future than would the color and texture. The casual observer would probably stop noticing the opening as a distinct feature approximately 15–20 years after regeneration. This has been verified with personal interviews of visitors at Mt. Washington, Iron Mountain, and Attitash Ski Area during 2003 to 2006, and from the University of New Hampshire trail and Sugar Hill Overlook in 2008 during research for the Kanc 7 Management Project. None of the interviewed visitors considered the 15-30-year-old viewed openings as an unnatural scene, despite the changed color, texture, and shadows, nor could they explain what they were seeing once the texture and shadow change was pointed out. The keen eye may notice a shadow created by the difference in height between the top of canopy of the newly grown (15-20-years old) vegetation and the far edge of the previously existing (taller) timber. Sun angles, cloud effects (shadows) or during certain kinds of weather may fade these shadow “lines” and go generally unnoticed to the casual observer with a quick glance. Soil Productivity Resource
Soil Erosion and Compaction The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction are the stands proposed for treatment as part of the Crawford Project. The area has been selected because the expected effects are limited to the area within the proposed treatment area. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the stand analysis area totals approximately 2,554 acres. The project analysis area lies almost entirely within the Upper Ammonoosuc River Watershed. Part of analyzing the direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction is to consider how the soils have responded to the effects of similar past actions The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is the Upper Ammonoosuc River watershed, with a total acreage of approximately 22,000 acres. This scale is not so large that it spatially dilutes the cumulative sum of the effects on soil resources, nor is it so small that it fails to identify and consider current and potential use on both National Forest and private lands relative to the proposed project. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is twenty years in the past and ten years beyond the implementation of the project. This period was chosen to incorporate the last timber harvesting operations on National Forest lands within the analysis area (the last sale was in the early 1990s). It takes into consideration present effects on soil resources resulting from any past soil disturbing actions, to allow time for the proposed activities to occur and be completed, and to consider any other foreseeable soil disturbing activities. This timeframe allows consideration of multiple uses, and provides enough time for the expected recovery of soils from erosion and compaction resulting from timber harvesting, as well as the projected recovery time from
138 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
future activities. Evidence of erosion and compaction beyond the expected time- frame would imply that the soil is not recovering as expected, and effects from this and future activities could be additive and cumulative. Soil Nutrient Cycling The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on soil nutrient cycling is the location of the actual timber harvest activities, since site-specific impacts related to soil or forest productivity are not likely to extend further. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on soil productivity is from early harvesting approximately in the early 1900s to ten years into the future; which is the reasonable planning horizon for a future harvest. Early harvesting is considered because land use may affect soil nutrients, including soil calcium (Hornbeck 1990). Future harvesting and acidic deposition are considered for the same reason. The actually percent of total calcium loss takes into account calcium depletion for the last 60 years, foreseeable calcium depletion for the next 10 years, previous harvests, and current harvest proposed. Water Resource The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the headwaters of the Ammonoosuc River, down to a point on the Ammonoosuc River immediately below the Project Area (21,725 acres). This area was chosen because it includes all streams draining the Project Area, and upstream areas that flow into these streams. While the focus of this analysis is streams in the 4,262-acre Project Area, lands outside this boundary must be included to analyze complete watersheds. The analysis period for direct and indirect effects is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future, because water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management and temporary disturbance would be expected to subside in this period (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000). The analysis area for cumulative effects is the headwaters of the Ammonoosuc River, down to a point on the Ammonoosuc River immediately below the Project Area (21,725 acres). This area includes the entire Upper Ammonoosuc River Subwatershed (HUC12 010801030401) and a 75-acre segment of the Middle Ammonoosuc River Subwatershed (HUC12 010801030402). This area was chosen because it includes any activities in the watershed containing the Project Area, and it is expected that the effects of project activities would be attenuated by dilution further downstream, as large tributaries enter the Ammonoosuc River. The analysis period for cumulative effects is 25 years in the past and 25 years into the future (1985-2035), because long-term effects of infrastructure changes should become apparent within this period. Vegetation Resource The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on timber resources is the Management Area (MA) 2.1 lands in Compartments 48 and 49 within the Bretton Woods HMU. This analysis area was chosen because MA 2.1 lands are the National Forest System lands within the HMU where vegetation management using various silvicultural techniques is appropriate and allowed. Any notice- able direct and indirect effects on timber resources would be in and near the harvested stands. The non MA 2.1 (10,237 acres) lands within the Bretton Woods
139 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
HMU are not subject to vegetation management. The analysis area encompasses approximately 5,308 acres of the 20,876 acres of National Forest System land within the HMU. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects on timber resources is up to twenty years after the proposed activities occur on the ground. This time period was chosen because it represents the length of time for the next entry for an uneven-aged management harvest cycle. The analysis area for cumulative effects on vegetation encompasses approxi- mately 54,757 acres: • White Mountain National Forest System lands in the Bretton Woods HMU (approximately 10,639 acres); and • Non National Forest System lands in the towns of Bethlehem, Carroll, and Crawford’s Purchase, New Hampshire, which are adjacent to or near the Crawford Project Area (approximately 44,118 acres). • This area was chosen because it includes the activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, past and potential future activities in the Bretton Woods HMU, and past timber harvesting on private lands adjacent to the Project Area. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on timber resources is twenty years in the past and twenty years into the future (1990 to 2030). Twenty years is important in tracking effects, because it is the length of time after an uneven-aged harvest (such as a group selection) when the stand would be considered for re-entry. See map in project record for display of cumulative effects analysis area for the vegetation resource and the loca- tion of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on White Mountain National Forest. The map in the record also displays the analysis area of the private lands adjacent to or near the Project Area. When consider- ing past and future harvests in the cumulative effects area, it is assumed that the effects of such harvests would be the same as direct and indirect effects of harvesting analyzed under Alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of the stands are at least 80 to 90 years old and growth is slowing. By harvesting now, sites supporting the trees with slowing growth rates would be restocked with younger, more rapidly growing trees, and, therefore, the average future growth per acre would increase. Overall, removing diseased, damaged, and low quality trees promotes a healthy, vigorous forest that increases in value over time by producing high quality residual trees. The North Country Timber Harvest Trends Study, a project of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, discusses heavy harvesting activity “above the Notch.” This study was prompted by stories of large-scale timber cutting. The goal of the study was to assess the rate of ongoing cutting to ascer- tain whether that harvesting rate might be exceeding a sustainable rate of growth and replenishment in the region’s forest resource base. The data showed that, with the exception of two municipalities, Success and Berlin harvests in the North Country were well within the bounds of sustainability. For the towns of Carroll and Bethlehem, this resulted in 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent annual rate of harvesting of operable lands. The study did not include light or partially cut stands.
140 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Non-Native Invasive Plants The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants is the Crawford Project Area, because this is where vehicles and equipment associated with the proposed project actions would have access to 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 NNIS. Newly created openings, parking areas, roads, and log landings are also potential entry sites. The analysis area for cumulative effects of NNIS is the lands within the Bretton Woods HMU and the adjacent public and private land in the surrounding village of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwoods, mixed-woods intermixed with lakes, ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential development. The temporal scope for cumulative effects of NNIS is the past and future ten years (2000 to 2020). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (anything over ten years would have re-established a canopy and/or re-vegetated areas of soil disturbance making it highly unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.) This time frame also allows consideration of the Forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society 2001 - 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2010) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap. 3-154-155). Ammonoosuc Lake Wildlife The analysis area for the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on Ammonoosuc Lake riparian habitat is the Crawford Brook watershed, starting from the mouth of Sebosis Brook. The temporal scope of 10 years in the past and 25 years into the future was used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for dam rehabili- tation and/or repair because time timeframe spans the cycles of a beaver flow area and adjustment of wildlife species to that habitat and past management activates in the area. Wildlife Resources The analysis area for direct and indirect effects and temporal scope with ratio- nale for wildlife resources (including Ecological Indicators and Management Indicator Species) and their habitats are shown in Table C2.
141 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Table C2. Analysis area for direct and indirect effects and temporal scope
Measures Analysis Area for Direct and Indirect Effects Temporal Scope For Direct and Indirect Effects HMU Objectives The MA Rationale: Habitat objectives are The past and future ten years 2.1 lands based on Ecological Land Type (2000-2020) because it spans Ecological Indicators in Bretton (ELT) capability of MA 2.1 lands a timeframe when benefits to Woods within the HMU and provide a some wildlife diminish after MIS HMU. measurable assessment of how 10 years due to loss of 0 to the No Action and alternatives 9 year old regeneration age (See Threatened, En- contribute to the Forest-wide habi- class, and includes WMNF dangered, Proposed, tat objectives defined in the 2005 Forest Plan S&Gs that have and Sensitive Species Forest Plan. Large scale includes and would protect soil, water, section) varying wildlife home range sizes riparian, and wildlife and their and includes many habitat types. habitats (DeGraaf and Yama- saki 2001). The analysis area for cumulative effects on wildlife and their habitat includes all National Forest system lands (MAs 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 8.3, 8.5, 9.3) in the Bretton Woods HMU, totaling approximately 20,876 acres. The analysis area also includes approximately 8,033 acres of private land located within and adjacent to the Bretton Woods HMU. The private land west of the HMU includes com- mercial and residential developments and the Alpine ski area. Private land to the south includes the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center and Crawford Notch State Park. Private land to the east and within the HMU is the Cog Railway Attraction and New Hampshire Dept of Transportation land. This analysis area boundary was used because it: • Includes the Crawford Project Area and the larger HMU designed with logical watershed boundaries with habitat diversity objectives to meet the needs of Ecological Indicators, Management Indicator Species, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species, and common wildlife species. • Is large enough to address habitat connectivity and wildlife travel and migration corridors to and from private land, the Project Area, and the HMU. • Addresses habitat diversity at the landscape level (includes rivers streams, lakes, paved and dirt roads, developed areas, manicured lawns, and a mix of open and forested habitat on private land). The temporal scope for cumulative effects on wildlife and their habitat (includ- ing private land) is the past and future ten years (2000-2020) because the benefits of regeneration age class for some wildlife including Management Indicator Species diminish after approximately 10 years (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). In New England, catastrophic disturbances from wind-throw and fire occur at intervals of about 1,150 and 800 years, respectively. Some localized, mid-to large- size natural disturbances (some severe) do occur in the Northeast (including the White Mountain National Forest ), but they are infrequent, sporadic, and unpredictable (Lorimer and White 2003). Past field reviews and over-flights of the White Mountain National Forest documented that the majority of the 1998 ice storm event affected mostly the hardwood forest type in other parts of the Forest (such as the Kilkenny Range) located outside of the Bretton Woods HMU (including the Crawford Project Area). The 1998 ice storm did not create any
142 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment substantial amounts of earl- successional habitat within the HMU or the Project Area (see previously cited multi-Forest Service field surveys and reviews). Although wind has a dramatic effect on overstories, it has little impact upon suc- cessional trends and overall species composition. The majority of wildlife on the White Mountain National Forest use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle (DeGraaf et al. 1992, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Vegetation management activities, land clearing for residential or commercial development, have occurred on private land in the past ten years and are likely to continue over the next ten years. Based on recent activities on adjacent private land, these activities are not expected to create substantial amounts of regenera- tion age-class habitat. The adjacent private land currently contributes to habitat diversity from a mix of habitats, but not substantially to the 0 to 9-year old age class by habitat type. There is a high likelihood that open habitat on private land would not stay in an open state (i.e. maintained as permanent openings), and a high likelihood that the 0 to 9-year old regeneration age class or some of the forested areas (including mature forest) would be converted from habitat to non-habitat such as permanent developments (i.e. Mt. Washington Omni Resort Dartmouth Brook development). Cultural Resource The spatial boundary for analyzing the cumulative effects to cultural resources is the Project Area boundary, because cultural sites beyond the Project Area would not be affected. The temporal boundaries are twenty years before and twenty years after 2010. This temporal scope was chosen to account for the last major earth disturbing activities that took place in the Project Area, and to anticipate future earth disturbing actions. Recreation Resource The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on recreation is defined as Compartments 48 and 49 (Project Area) within the Bretton Woods Habitat Management Unit (HMU). The timeframe for direct and indirect effects is the actual duration of the Crawford Project, expected to be two to five years, depending on the alternative selected and on sale operations. This area and duration was selected because where and when the management activity ceases, so do the direct and indirect effects. The boundary was chosen to include all activities occurring within the Project Area, primary access points to the area, the Nordic ski trail system, and affected snowmobile routes. The Cumulative effects Analysis area for recreation is defined as the Bretton woods HMU, because it includes not only the Nordic trail system. It also includes Nordic trails on private lands and snow machine trails outside the Project Area that may be affected by an increase in truck traffic during project implementa- tion and the potential for warmer winters characterized by lower snow depths. The temporal boundary is 2001 through 2021, because ten years in the past and ten years in the future is a reasonable measure of past and future activities. Past projects include some trail construction, minor trail relocations, general trail maintenance, and bridge reconstruction. General trail maintenance is an on-going activity that involves clearing of ingrowth and blown down material,
143 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
maintenance of waterbars and ditches, and repair and replacement of signs and bridges as needed. Maintenance is an important operational activity that enhances the recreation experience, provides for visitor safety, and protects natural resources. Likewise, trail construction and relocation activities have been and may be conducted to meet changing recreation objectives or to protect public safety and natural resources. Looking forward ten years, we would expect continued trail maintenance and minor construction activities, plus a heightened concern about the ability to provide reliable snow based recreation activities in the face of global climate change and localized real estate and golf development. The Appalachian Mountain Club has conducted conservation education pro- grams at its Highland Center since the Center’s construction, and they are currently the only entity within approximately 20 miles or more doing so on a formal and structured basis. Looking forward ten years, we would expect con- tinued trail maintenance and a continuation of conservation education program activity on the part of the Appalachian Mountain Club. Socio-economic Resource The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on socio-economics is the towns of Bethlehem, Carroll and Crawford’s Purchase because all of the proposed activities would occur there. In addition, because a large portion of the towns is in National Forest ownership, it would be most affected socially and eco- nomically by the proposed activities. The Town of Bethlehem encompasses 58,200 acres, with 31,000 acres in National Forest ownership. The town of Carroll includes 32,200 acres with 15,500 in National Forest ownership and the unincor- porated town of Crawford’s Purchase is 5250 acres with 5070 of it in National Forest ownership. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is the duration of the project activities because any direct or indirect effects would occur during or soon after operations. Effects to the economic and social environment are not expected to last beyond 2015 or approximately 5 years. That would be the extent of the time from when the decision is signed and vegetation, wildlife, recreation and watershed projects are completed. Timber volumes are calculated by District Foresters based on average volumes per acre by forest type and from plot data entered into the “FS Veg” stand exam program. The harvests proposed in this project are the same type of harvests used in the past on the Forest. The analysis area for cumulative effects on socio-economic conditions includes the towns of Bethlehem, Carroll and Crawford’s Purchase because it is adja- cent to the Project Area. Bethlehem, Carroll and Crawford’s Purchase have 53 percent, 48 percent, and 98 percent of its landbase in National Forest ownership respectively. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on socio-economics is twenty years past and ten years into the future (1990-2010) from when the harvest would occur.
144 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix D — Cumulative Effects Information
The following table lists the projects/activities included in some of the cumula- tive effects analyses for the Crawford Stewardship Project. See the Bretton Woods HMU Cumulative Effects Analysis Area Map following for approximate locations. Table D1. Crawford Stewardship Project - Bretton Woods HMU Cumulative Effects Analysis Area
Map Key Date Compartment Project Name Activity Amount Number* 1 2004 1 Lake of the Clouds Hut Remove flush toilets, ad- Reconstruction dition to hut to reconstruct toilets. 2 2004-05 50 Base Station Road Tree and brush removal to 3.9 miles Snow Machine Trail widen road shoulder with Reroute bridges built for snowmo- bile trail. 3 2008-09 1 Jewell Trail Level 2 Bog bridges replaced, soil 80 feet, 45 Trail Work retainers installed. soil retainers 4 2009 1 Edmand’s Path Level 2 Bridge replaced. 15 feet Trail Work 5 2010 48 Trail Work on Ava- Drainage work, rock 3 trails lon, Mt. Willard, and stairs, bog bridging, cor- Around-the Lake Trails. ridor maintenance 6 2000, 49 Crawford Golf Course Rx burn for wildlife habitat 21 acres 2002-03, Permanent Wildlife improvement. 2005 Opening 7 2006 49 Hairpin Vista Opening Burn Brush Piles 5 acres 8 1989-94 49 Crawford Timber Sale Manage Vegetation 170 acres 9 1991-95 1 Mt. Clinton Timber Sale Manage Vegetation 524 acres 10 1992-97 50 Upper Falls Timber Manage Vegetation 938 acres Sale 11 2010 50 Base Station Road Harvest blown down 20 acres Blowdown Salvage timber. 12** Present Private Land Mt. Washington Omni Alpine Club tent. Spa/ Previously Abutting NF Resort Development meeting room built. Golf disturbed Course redesigned. footprint 199 Condos to be built. 182 acres 13 2003 49 Crawford Hollow, High- Construction of Nordic 2 kilometers land, and Fairway Loop Trails Trail Project 14 Future 48, 49 Nordic Trail Recon- Trail surface grading, Special Use struction removal of stumps and Permit Area stones, culvert installa- tion.
145 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Map Key Date Compartment Project Name Activity Amount Number* 15** 2007 Private Land Mount Washington Created a service road, Previously Abutting NF Fiber Optic and Electric buried fiber optic and disturbed Transmission Power electrification cables footprint Line Project and Back- along the Cog Railway to up Generator Building the top of Mt. Washington, and built concrete struc-
l ture for generators. i
l
i
a r
a
r
T
T
16** 2003d Private Land AMC’s Highland Center Construction of the AMC’s
e a
n
e l
i K i
L
H a i
n r
Abutting NF at Crawford Notch Highland Center t
s
g r l I C l T sr i
a R o r
w r a a W a T h *Please see the Bretton Woods HMU Cumulative Effects Analysis Area Map for approximate locations.st a s l vi O e i a e S l l l de n c i i l t a a e e so R S r M sca r T i a G T T d T r n s g C a e **Outside of the Brettona Woods HMU but abutting WMNF r in r i P g a e a l th ab id y a r i T Cl cks R a r th nK r a i M i h 5 l t n 1 H ke te 1 C a o w b o R a P n st Parap t Het Trail ry M le T r r e ch Crawford Stewardship Project R a h r C a M i e a vi l l d i n P e iso Bretton Woods HMU Cumulative Effects Analysis Area a T r n r G a T il ul f T Numbers on map are explained in the Cumulative Effects Table ss ra e il r
t
t
u
C B
h
a Great Gulf
l n rai T d
e l il) idg e R r ra s ap B l T C r i
o
a
o r ad ile k T o Low and Burbanks T k ob
d r o R il) Thompson and Meserves a o . m r " t i oa w ra l B e R M T as h ail no h Tr ck c tc ile ell a rry S ur w l P o ob Je B d s N he ford m C on w (An raw s H C no 3 W er S u ff 15 e n t e d st in Base Station Road J si g t (An Trail d o (Next to Sn ine e n owmobile Trail) Rav osuc T R ono r a Amm a vi il T C n re 12 11 e 10 ha st T le 1 r 2 a T i ra nd l il ler 7 E Carroll d s m h
il) a t n P 14 ds a ur ra l P
P i T a
t a h s c r
h vi ad T
ile a
o r as il 4 e D ra 8 R ob lder T e w ou m en B l o l rai on G ok T t w 9 h Bro n ale lin no Beans Grant e H s C S i
. E
t d 13 t I M n so
h u (An Pat l ord il o a awf ra ti Bethlehem Cr T M o l 6 ff i n o t a T 5 u r C ra T Ammonoosuc r i e r l Saco Lake iv l e i W W M 16 R a Lake U e y v il r i r t b e ra S st D T R T T e b r M o n R st d lo M Ja y A r n m o t e r va t . ckso u a A D u l W r n L S 3 n t p e a 0 C p i T S n e l 2 r C l Cutts Grant u l a d Z a i i l h l f i t r - r f n a d t a rail T o - -z T P h A T r n
a s a r T n a i vi l r i a d l a T il D r a il
Crawford StewaWrdship Project Area ille il y R iff Tra a Zeacl ng Bretton Wraoilods Habitea t Management Unit nd T Tr Sargents Purchase n Po ail S tha h E o a Nl ational Forest outside Bretton Woods HMU P o n Towd n Lines Ar eth usa /r Stai Ponds 0 1 2 ipl 3 4 rs C ey ol Tr Fa ail lls R Roads Miles o cky
B ra n Hiking Trails ch T Harts Location ra il
l i
a Hadleys Purchase r
T
r
ke 146 r
a
P
t
n
u
o
M Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The following includes additional information concerning activities including in analysis of resource cumulative effects. Water Resource Past Projects (25 years): Past recreation management projects in the cumulative effects analysis area include 3.9 miles (9.4 acres) of snow machine trail reloca- tion and 1.2 miles (2.9 acres) of Nordic trail construction. A twenty-one-acre permanent wildlife opening and brush piles on five acres have been burned periodically. Timber harvesting occurred in 1991-1995 (534 acres) and in 1992- 1997 (938 acres). Construction of the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center on approximately 24 acres in the CEA in 2003 included building, parking lot, and trail construction. Service road construction, electric cable burial and construction of a generator structure occurred on private land in 2007. Ongoing use and maintenance of the road and trail network has occurred on public and private land. Present Projects: Ongoing road, trail, recreation site and wildlife opening use and maintenance occur at present. Twenty acres to harvest blown down timber will occur along Base Road within the cumulative effects analysis area in 2010. Resort development including condominium construction on 182 acres, golf course redesign, and spa/meeting room construction are underway on private land in the cumulative effects area. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects (25 years): Management activities in the next twenty-five years 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. Nordic trail reconstruction will occur under special use permit. Vegetation Resource Data regarding timber harvesting in the cumulative effects area (National Forest System and non Forest Service lands) were collected from National Forest data- bases, roadside assessments, North Country Timber Harvest Trends Study, and inspection of aerial photos. As expected, a variety of activities have, or are planned, to take place in the cumulative effects analysis area, including timber harvesting in the form of commercial thinnings, improvement cut, patch cutting, clearcutting, and group selection. Past Harvesting • Over the past twenty years, 1,632 acres of National Forest lands have been harvested in the Bretton Woods HMU, with the most recent being 1997. • Between 1999 and 2005, approximately 2779 acres of non-National Forest lands adjacent to, and nearby, the Project Area were clearcut or nearly clearcut.
147 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Future Harvesting • The Forest Service may evaluate harvest opportunities in the future in the compartments in the northern portion of the Bretton Woods HMU. The extent of foreseeable future harvesting is not known and would be deter- mined by future stand examination. • In the next twenty years, harvesting is expected to continue in the Towns of Carroll and Bethlehem, although types and amounts of harvests cannot be known. It is expected that past harvesting trends would continue. Road maintenance activities would include occasional removal, trimming, or mowing of woody and non-woody vegetation in some areas to accommodate equipment. Forest vegetation affecting the passage of vehicles on the road surface would be trimmed or removed. Maintenance activities in stands bisected by roads would not have an effect on within-stand conditions. Trees would continue to grow on the roadside. The trees growing near or adjacent to roads would be able to, or continue to, occupy the space above the road surface (above the clearance height of vehicles) with branches. Trees could use this space to capture sunlight with leaves. Nordic trail construction would include removal and trimming of trees. Forest vegetation affecting the passage of skiers on the trail surface would be trimmed or removed. Trail construction would not have an effect on conditions in stands for which they bisect. Trees would continue to grow trailside. The trees growing near or adjacent to the trail would be able to, or continue to, occupy the space above the trail surface (above the clearance height of skiers) with branches, and use this space to capture sunlight with leaves. Parking area rehabilitation would include removal of few trees and mostly non- woody vegetation (shrubs and herbaceous plants). Rehabilitation would not affect stand conditions because the parking area work proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 is located in a stand that is presently designated as a permanent wildlife opening. Non-native invasive species control would include cut-stem or foliar application of herbicide to shrubs and herbaceous plants, but would not be applied to tree species. Non-target vegetation in the immediate vicinity of targeted vegetation may be effected by overspray or drift of herbicide during application . Scenery Management Table D1 displays the activities considered for cumulative effects analysis for Scenery Management. Cultural Resource Past, present, and reasonably future (projects listed on the SOPA) activities incorporated in this analysis are displayed in Table D2.
148 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Table D2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Future Activities included in the Cultural Resource Cumulative Effects Analysis.
Date Project Activity Area Affected c. 1990 Crawford Timber Sale Manage Vegetation 1991-95 Mt. Clinton Timber Sale Manage Vegetation 524 acres 1992-97 Upper Falls Timber Sale Manage Vegetation 938 acres 2010 Base Station Road Blowdown Harvest blown down timber. 20 acres Salvage Present Mt. Washington Omni Resort Alpine Club tent. Spa/meeting room built. 182 acres Development Golf Course redesigned. 199 Condos to be built. 2003 AMC’s Highland Center at Construction of the AMC’s Highland Cen- Crawford Notch ter Recreation Resources Past projects in the analysis area either had minimal effects on recreation due to the distance from recreation facilities and trails or in the case of the Crawford and Upper Falls timber sales and the Crawford Hollow, Highland, and Fairway Loop trail project, directly enhanced recreation opportunities in the area. Wildlife habitat benefits associated with the timber sale projects have cumula- tively increased opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing. At the same time, openings created on or adjacent to trails have enhanced scenery-viewing opportunities. New Nordic trails have been created using timber sale roads and skid roads after harvesting operations were completed. Construction of the Appalachian Mountain Club Highland Center with its clientele of outdoor- oriented users has cumulatively increased usage of the Bretton Woods Nordic trail system and the use of Ammonoosuc Lake for recreation and education. Future planned expansion of the Mount Washington Resort and golf course on private lands, with its attendant housing construction, can be expected to con- tribute to future increases in the use of Nordic trails in all seasons and increased use of snowmobile trails in winter. Activities over the past 10 years include: • Annual and ongoing maintenance, including trail brushing and mowing, clearing of blown down material, maintenance of drainage structures, bridges and signs. • Construction of the Crawford Hollow, Highland, and Fairway Loop trails, designed to afford easy access to the trail system from the Appalachian Mountain Club Highlands center. • Relocation of a portion of the Madison Trail off private lands to the Rosebrook Express Trail near the Bretton Woods Lodge Motel. Activities over the next 10 years would likely include: • Annual and ongoing maintenance, including trail brushing and mowing, clearing of blown down material, maintenance of drainage structures, bridges and signs.
149 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
• Closure of the existing route of the Nancy Barton Trail and construction of a new trail to replace it in a better location in order to meet natural resource objectives. • Increased level of trail reconstruction with an objective to provide reliable skiing on less snow due to anticipated effects of global climate change. This would likely include trail surface smoothing and grading, removal of stumps and stones from the trail surfaces and greater reliance on culverts to replace waterbars. • Expansion of the Mount Washington Hotel Golf Course and real estate development on private lands will potentially create different patterns of access, travel, and levels of use on ski trails on Public lands due to the poten- tial for relocation of some segments of the ski trail system on private lands.
150 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix E — Scenery Management Tables
Appendix E displays the Tables of treatments for the Management Indicator viewpoints by alternative. Measurement Indicator – Issue 2
151 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
152 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
153 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
154 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
155 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
156 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
157 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
158 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix F — Crawford Stewardship Project Nordic Ski Trail Information
159 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
160 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
161 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
162 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Appendix G — Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
Soil Productivity
Soil Erosion and Compaction The Soil Quality Standards for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service allow soil disturbance (exposure of mineral soil) of 15 percent or less of a land unit scale area (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1, Section 2.2) before being considered a detrimental soil disturbance. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have up to an approximately 94 acres (Alternative 2) and up to an approximately 66.7 acres (Alternative 3) of soil disturbance. This project meets this standard because the project proposes no more than approximately 3.7 percent soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 2, and no more than approximately 2.6 percent soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 3. However, there would be 2.3 acres in Alternative 2 and 2.3 acres in Alternative 3 of permanent cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction; this is the soil that sits directly under the road. This soil would be compacted and would not produce plants and other microorganisms that allow the soil to continue to develop. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is used as a road surface but the Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-29 to 3-36) analyzed and allowed up to ten miles of new road construction to be built within the life of the plan. This project meets that objective, because based on the current Forest Plan Monitoring Report of 2009 there has been 2.4 miles of road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005. Soil Nutrient Productivity Following the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, tiering to the FEIS, and using best available science, detrimental effects on soil nutrient productivity are anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3 the effects would result from the new road construction as this is the soil that sits directly under the road. This soil would be compacted and would not produce plants and other microorgan- isms that allow the soil to continue to develop. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is used as a road surface but the Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-29 to 3-36) analyzed and allowed up to ten miles of new road construction to be built within the life of the plan. This project meets that objective, because based on the current Forest Plan Monitoring Report of 2009 there has been 2.4 miles of new road construction since the Forest Plan was revised in 2005 Water Resource, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Alternative 1 may not meet Forest Plan guidance for water quality in the case of Ammonoosuc Lake dam failure. Sediment and turbidity levels may exceed State standards for Outstanding Resource Waters.
163 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on water quantity and quality comply with the Forest Plan in that they fall within limits of temporary and short-term degradation allowed only after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are implemented. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to water resources have been incorporated as design fea- tures and would not be exceeded where limits have been placed. Streams are expected to remain in Proper Functioning Condition or improve due to restora- tion projects. The proposed activities would not change water quantity to an extent that would affect minimum instream flows or water supplies. The proposed activities would comply with State of New Hampshire water quality standards for Outstanding Resource Waters in that no more than tem- porary and short-term changes in water quality would occur. Waters in the analysis area would continue to support designated uses. Where water quality is not meeting State standards for pH and aluminum, the proposed activities are not expected to cause further degradation. Non-native Invasive Plants All activities and effects in this alternative comply with existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to NNIS, as well as United States Department of Agriculture and United States Forest Service policies and handbook direc- tion. They also comply with the New Hampshire Invasive Species Act and its rules and regulations. All pesticide applications would be conducted in com- pliance with the New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board rules and product label instructions. Vegetation Resource
Availability and Suitability for Timber Harvest Harvesting will be done on land that is available and suitable for timber man- agement. None of the stands proposed for harvest in this project have been withdrawn from timber production by an Act of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief of the Forest Service. The suitability analysis conducted during forest planning identified all of these stands as suitable for timber man- agement, subject to site-specific verification as project activities are proposed. Timber stand inventory data for these stands shows productive forests, well- stocked with trees. Every forest stand considered for treatment in this project has been examined by a forester to verify suitability for timber management (see project record); essentially field-checking the Forest Plan-level analysis. No site-related factors that would remove the Project Area from the White Mountain National Forest suitable land base were identified. Appropriateness of Even-Aged Timber Harvest Approximately 59 acres are proposed for even-aged harvest methods other than clearcutting. Based on field investigations by the interdisciplinary team (see project record), the purpose and need for the project, and the predicted effects of implementing these prescriptions, the proposed prescriptions will achieve the purpose and desired conditions in the Forest Plan for MA 2.1 (Forest Plan,
164 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
p 3-3), and will contribute toward the “Estimated Silvicultural Practices” shown in Appendix B of the Forest Plan. Optimality of Clearcutting Nine stands totaling 112 acres are proposed for clearcut or patch cut harvest in the project. Clearcutting is proposed to provide 0 to 9 regeneration age class forest habitat and regenerate a number of forest types to move this area toward the desired future condition and help achieve Forest Plan habitat objectives (Plan p. 1-21). Clearcutting is the optimal way to achieve these habitat goals given the current species mix, stand conditions, and soils. Prescription Is Best Suited To Multiple-Use Goals of the Forest Plan Alternative 2 is consistent with the multiple use goals and objectives stated in Chapter 1 of the Forest Plan and for Management Area 2.1 as described in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan. Reasonable Assurance of Adequate Restocking All silvicultural prescriptions for this project were developed with the oversight of a certified silviculturist and are consistent with the Forest Plan. A review of stocking surveys has shown consistently successful restocking of areas treated with even-aged regeneration harvests within 5 years (see project record). Timber types and site conditions in the Crawford Project Area are the same or very similar to other areas on the White Mountain National Forest where restock- ing has met this requirement. Based on this information, there is reasonable assurance that all stands receiving a final regeneration harvest in the Crawford project will be adequately restocked within five years of harvest. Based on sound silvicultural practices, adequate restocking is a consideration only for final regeneration harvests. Other types of harvest, such as single-tree selection, thinning, or improvement harvest, do not require restocking (FSH 1909.12). Culmination of Mean Annual Increment Stands of trees authorized for even-aged regeneration harvest have all passed the age where the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth has occurred. This determination is based on stand data, field investigations by professional foresters, and Chapter 3 of the White Mountain National Forest’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan (p. 3-146 and 3-147). Sound silvicultural practices indicate that CMAI is only meaningful for even aged management and applies only at the time of regeneration harvest (36 CFR 219.12(c)(2)). CMAI is not applicable to intermediate harvests (such as thinning or other stand improvement measures) or uneven-aged management. Wildlife Resources Alternative 1 would not meet Forest Plan objectives for wildlife habitat manage- ment set for the Bretton Woods HMU. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on wildlife recourses comply with the Forest Plan and the effects are within the range of effects described in the FEIS. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to wildlife resources have been incorporated as design features and would not be exceeded where limits have been placed.
165 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
The Crawford Stewardship Project would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that was designed to forestall hinting of migratory birds and the sale of their parts and was not meant to regulate timber harvesting. Cumulatively, timber harvesting would have a beneficial effect of creating early successional habitat required by many of the migratory birds on the White Mountain National Forest, and therefore would not have a measureable negative effect on Neotropical migratory bird populations. A Biological Evaluation (BE) of potential effects of the Crawford Stewardship Project on Federally-listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Regional Forester-listed Sensitive Species was completed per Forest Service manual direc- tion and format for all alternatives (USDA. 1995, FSM 2672.42) and per Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (USDI. 1972). See the BE in the project record for details. Cultural Resource Through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and their concurrence with the Forest Service’s finding of No Adverse Effect to historic properties, the Forest Plan standards and guidelines are met, and com- pliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is achieved. Recreation Resource All alternatives would comply with the Forest Plan and other relevant laws, regulations, policies, and plans with regard to recreation. The Forest Plan states that “Existing trails should be removed from the Forest Trail System and closed if continued use causes unacceptable impacts that cannot be mitigated….” (pg 2-19, Trails, G-1). This applies to the existing situ- ation with the Nancy Barton Trail, and if either Alternative 2 or 3 is chosen in this analysis, mitigation of trail issues would be resolved through closure of the old route and relocation to a more suitable location. The Forest Plan states that “New Hampshire non-corridor (primary and local trails) … may be closed or interrupted due to Forest operations.” (pg 2-18, Winter Motorized Trails, G-5). Closure of the Mt. Clinton Road to snowmobile use during harvest operations proposed in Alternative 2 is consistent with this guideline. The Forest Plan maintains as a recreation objective “The Forest Service and partner organizations will collaborate to provide recreational opportunities, conservation education, and visitor information programs.” (pg 1-13, objective 6) Alternative 2 is also consistent with the Bretton Woods Ski Area Special Use Permit (6/2006) which governs the operation of the Bretton Woods Nordic ski trail system on public lands and states: “This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permit- ted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized.” (SUP, I.E). The proposed activi- ties do not materially interfere with the Bretton Woods Nordic ski trail system unreasonably, as harvesting activities would not take place over large areas of the system simultaneously, weekends would not be impacted by harvesting
166 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment activities, and trails would not be used as roads or for skidding except for where they were originally built for such use. Socio-economic Resource The Twenty-five Percent Fund Act (1908) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to allocated 25 percent of all fiscal year National Forest receipts to the state (or territory) in which the National Forest is situated. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that conse- quences to the human environment be analyzed and disclosed. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that renewable resource programs be based on a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses. The demand for, and supply of, renewable resources must be determined through an analysis of environmental and eco- nomic impacts. Local community impacts, as well as economic cost-efficiency considerations, must be considered when revising a Forest Plan. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act (1976) authorizes compensation to counties in lieu of property taxes that cannot be levied against federal lands within the counties jurisdiction. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 speci- fies how states and counties will be compensated for impacts associated with visitors to National Forest System lands.
167 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Appendix H — Forest Service Response To Comments Received On the Crawford Stewardship Project 30-Day Comment Report
Comments received were organized by resource area and appear in bold text with Forest Service responses in normal text. The following individuals submit- ted comments which were randomly assigned a number that appears next to their comment for tracking purposes:
Commenter Number Commenter Name 1 Dave Govatski 2 Leslie Bergum 3 Frank Robey 4 Steve Wingate 5 Erik Bergum 6 Ernest Demers and Frances Krauss 7 Richard M Chrenko Wildlife Resources Commenter 1. Expressed support for Ammonoosuc Lake Dam rehabilitation and clearcutting to create early successional habitat for birds and other wild- life and for aspen-birch regeneration. Thank you for your comment on the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam. The Wildlife Section of the 30 Day Comment Report disclosed that clearcutting would create the 0 to 9 regeneration age class and would perpetuate the early successional aspen-birch habitat for wildlife. Commenter 1. Stated the 30-Day Comment Report did not show where the Forest Service plans to continue periodic burning of the old Crawford Golf Course to increase the wild blueberry percentage. The Purpose and Need and the Proposed Action for the Crawford Stewardship Project did not include Crawford Golf Course opening maintenance activities. The maintenance of the old golf course as a permanent wildlife opening was analyzed under a separate document entitled, “Forestwide Wildlife Opening Maintenance, Scenic Vista Maintenance, and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program” completed in 2008. The Forest Service plans to maintain the old golf course, which includes periodic burning and /or mechanical mowing to encour- age wild blueberries and other grasses, forbs, and shrubs for wildlife habitat. Commenter 2. Stated a personal opinion that a hibernacula of significant size is located on the USFS WMNF land at a higher elevation, nearby to the project area. Commended the USFS WMNF staff for all the work they did this past fall to collect acoustic bat detection data. Would like to add that the USFW Service released a draft National Plan for assisting states, federal agencies and tribes in managing White-Nosed Syndrome in bats: http://www.fws.gov/ whitenosedsyndrome/
168 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Recent surveys on the WMNF within and near the Crawford Project Area did not find any hibernacula. Surveys will continue in the future and thank you for your opinion. The condition affecting bats is referred to as white-nose syndrome. The District Biologist reviewed both the draft USFWS National Plan and the USDA Forest Service Eastern Region Plan while conducting the environmental analysis. These plans are referred to in the EA text and listed in the Literature Cited and/or Reviewed Section of the Final EA and both plans are located in the Crawford Stewardship Project Record. Commenter 2. Wondered how American woodcock might utilize the area of the Ammo Lake if the dam were to be removed. American woodcock need a mixture of small (1 to 3 acre) openings as singing grounds for the males’ courtship display (sky dance) that are scattered among dense stands of shrubs and young leaf-bearing trees in moist fertile soils with invertebrates (especially earthworms). Woodcock prefer young, recently har- vested aspen stands that form dense nesting and brood rearing cover. Large openings or harvested forest areas are needed as night roosting sites. Alder stands along streams and other lowlands are preferred woodcock habitat. The 30-Day Comment Report disclosed that American woodcock (a NHFG species of conservation concern) use shrub wetlands for food, cover, and breed- ing habitat (NHFG Wildlife Action Plan, 2006). The 30-Day Comment Report also disclosed (with sequential pictures) that removal of the Ammonoosuc Lake Dam would reduce the 3.5 acre pond to a mud flat until beavers likely re-dam the area. Over time, a seasonally fluctuating beaver flow area would create shallow marsh/wet sedge meadow/shrub wetland habitats. Therefore, dam removal would result in a mix of habitats that woodcock need with rich, moist soils with invertebrates, dense shrubs including alders, and open meadow areas. Commenter 3. Noted on page 139 the 30-Day Comment Report shows between 1999 and 2005 approximately 2779 acres of non-NF land were clearcut or nearly clearcut and questioned how does that not qualify as early succes- sional habitat? The acreage you reference may not have remained or returned to a forested condition. Some may have been converted to homes, lawns or other building sites. Also, lands harvested in 1999, are over 10 years old and no longer meet the needs of early successional habitat. Commenter 3. Suggested that FS go back into group selections and cut them to create early successional habitat rather than cut bigger trees. Retreating existing groups to create early successional habitat does not provide for long term management of the stand and fails to meet the Forest Plan objec- tives and project specific purpose and need of providing forest products on a sustained yield basis. Also, groups provide future growing stock that would eventually replace the stand over time. While going back into groups and cutting them would continually “reset” the clock in the groups, the stand of trees around the groups would keep on aging and at some point would begin to decline. In group selection, the objective is to have a variety of age classes across the stand, therefore this suggestion would not meet that objective.
169 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Commenter 3. Claimed the FS is basing MIS representative habitat conditions on 10 year old data and questioned if that meets the “Best Available Science” criteria (refers to MacFaden and Capen 2000, and BBS data Sauer et al. 2003 on page 9 of the Wildlife Specialist Report). The Wildlife Resources Report for the Crawford Stewardship Project uses recent and best available stand inventory data and site-specific Project Area field reviews and surveys to describe the existing habitat conditions in the analysis area. Subsequently, the acres of habitat types were calculated via the 2010 HMU Analysis Tool. The WMNF breeding bird data and the Breeding Bird Survey data taken from MacFaden and Capen are still valid population trend data. Recent and best available MIS population trend data from the WMNF 2008 and 2009 Monitoring Reports are used the Final EA. Commenter 3. States group selection cuts, especially those greater than 1 acre, should count toward “regeneration habitat” and feel they more closely mimic what would happen in a natural disturbance. The 30-Day Comment Report discloses that although the group selection treat- ments will result in some regeneration age habitat, it does not provide the same habitat value and structure of sufficient size to benefit wildlife species that use larger forest openings. The number of breeding bird species increased with opening size up to 50 acres (DeGraaf et al. 2006). Breeding bird species diversity was higher in clearcuts 20 to 30 acres versus ½ to 1.5 acre groups (Costello 2000). Although natural disturbances (like the recent wind event along the Base Road in and adjacent to the project area) have a dramatic effect on overstories, it has little impact on successional trends and overall species composition. Heritage Resource Commenter 1. Stated the 30-Day Comment Report did not reference protection of an historic charcoal kiln adjacent to western side of railroad on the north side of the sale. Claims the kiln was damaged when two of the cross country ski trails were put in many years ago. As stated in the 30-Day Comment Report (p. 102), recorded cultural sites will be avoided. Sites in or near proposed activities will be protected by marked reserve areas. No harvesting or equipment will be allowed in heritage reserve areas. The charcoal kiln site has been recorded, will be placed in a reserve area, and will be avoided. On July 19, 2010, the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office concurred that the proposed actions would have no effect on cultural resources. Watershed / Aquatic Resource Commenter 2. Noted the compartments are referred to incorrectly in the 30-Day Comment Report–Aquatic Resources Section (pages 123-125). Thank you; the compartments are corrected in the final EA document. Commenter 2. Claims the 30-Day Comment Report does not specify stream orders, provide stream order maps, or explain the method used to determine stream order. They requested the EA clarify and better explanation no cut buffers and riparian management zones for the watershed.
170 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
For the purposes of the 2005 Forest Plan and FEIS, the Strahler method was used to determine stream order. Application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines corresponds to Appendix H of the Forest Plan. Within this project area, stream orders are classified in the table below. All mapped perennial streams (based on USGS topographic maps) would have a 25-foot no-cut buffer plus an additional 75, 275, or 575-foot Riparian Management Zone. Uneven-aged silvicultural prac- tices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ).The total of these buffer widths is listed in the table below. Several perennial streams in the project area are not mapped as such. The RMZ for these streams is defined on a site-specific basis and is listed below. Stream reach Stream order Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) width (including no cut buffer) Crawford Brook, downstream of juncture 3 300 ft with Sebosis Brook Ammonoosuc River, between Jefferson 3 300 ft , except in stand 51* Brook and Crawford Brook Ammonoosuc River, downstream of junc- 4 600 ft ture with Crawford Brook All other mapped perennial streams 1 or 2 100 ft Unmapped perennial (“Rosebrook Brook”) 1 50 ft no-cut buffer in Compartment 48, stand 1 Unmapped perennial (“Forked Brook”) in 1 25 ft no-cut buffer, uneven aged management Compartment 48, stands 4, 10, 26, 29, 28 already prescribed and 31 Unmapped perennial (“Nancy Brook”) in 1 25 ft no-cut buffer, uneven aged management Compartment 48, stands 28, 3,1 and 25 already prescribed Intermittent stream in Compartment 48, 0 25 ft no-cut buffer stand 3, Southeast stand boundary Ponds, lakes, identified natural vernal N/A 100 ft pools *In stand 51, the riparian management zone along the Ammonoosuc River would be modified to extend only to the B&M Nordic ski trail/ old railroad grade (FR6139) instead of the 275’ width specified in Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Guideline G-2 (Table 2-01). The existing railroad grade and riprap hydrologically isolate this section of floodplain from the River. It is recognized that the State of New Hampshire classifies the Ammonoosuc River as a 4th order stream for its entire length. It will be treated as such with regard to applicable State laws. Timber harvest on the White Mountain National Forest is conducted in compliance with NH Basal Area Law. Therefore, more than 50 percent of the basal area will be left within 150 feet of the Ammonoosuc River, even if other guidelines established in this proposal are less restrictive. The riparian buffers prescribed meet or exceed those found to be protective of water quality and temperature, including the 23 m (75.4 ft) partial cut buffer described by Wilkerson and others (2006), and the 100 ft buffer recommended by Chase and others (1995). The addition of a 25 ft no-cut buffer adjacent to the stream exceeds these recommendations. While the no-cut buffer is primarily intended to provide continued wood loading, it also reduces disturbance in riparian areas and increases retention of canopy cover.
171 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Commenter 2. Stated it is clear all streams in the project area are cold water streams and protective measures to insure no temperature increases or deg- radation in water quality should be adopted. Thank you for your comment. The final EA discloses measures that will protect water quality. Also see the following response to comment. Commenter 3. Stated the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for protect- ing Aquatic Resources sound good, but based on their past observations, is concerned S&Gs will not be implemented on the ground. Examples given claimed observations of clearcuts with perennial streams in them, landings next to perennial streams, and cutting right up to the edge of ponds. The following communication processes are in place to ensure that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as well as other design features are implemented as described in the analysis. The forestry staff will incorporate the language of the Environmental Analysis into the marking guide, so timber within ripar- ian zones will not be marked. These Standards, Guidelines and other design features will also be incorporated into the timber sale contract. At that point, a timber sale administrator for the National Forest will monitor implementation and enforce contract provisions. While this is fairly straightforward for larger, mapped streams and ponds, properly identifying perennial streams that do not appear on USGS topographic maps or digital data layers is more challenging. To address this, Forest staff collected information during the development of this project to identify and map these perennial streams. This map was included in the Water Resources Specialist Report in the Crawford Stewardship Project Record and will be used by WMNF forestry staff to ensure perennial streams are properly identified for the purposes of marking and contracting. In addition to these measures, landing locations have been mapped and reviewed by the Forest hydrologist and soil scientist. Landings are not proposed within 100 ft of streams or in riparian areas. In addition to distance, hydrologic connec- tion is considered in selecting appropriate landing locations (e.g. well- drained soils, ability to direct runoff away from streams, grade changes that separate uplands from riparian areas). No even-aged management is proposed in the vicinity of ponds on this project. Uneven-aged management is allowed in the Riparian Management Zone of ponds, within the parameters set by Forest Plan guidelines and NH basal area law. Past monitoring has documented that soil and water conservation BMPs have been applied, that temporary disturbance is in compliance with Forest Plan guidance, and that water quality has not been degraded by forestry activi- ties (see White Mountain National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, USDA-Forest Service 2008, USDA-Forest Service 2009, USDA-Forest Service 2010). Commenter 2. Expects USFS will follow all NHDES Rules regarding stream crossings and notes a problem with a culvert on nearby private lands on a trail that connects to Nordic trails on USFS lands. They wonder if the problem culverts can be considered for Stewardship projects in the near future.
172 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Regarding stream crossings, the WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) incorporates a large number of Standards and Guidelines which direct our management activities on the land. Two pertinent Standards directly relative to the comment are “State of Maine and State of NH Best Management Practices must be met or exceeded” (LRMP pg 2-29, S-4) and “Soil and Water Conservation Practices (FSH 2509.22) must be developed and documented for activities that could affect water and soil resources.” (LRMP pg. 2-30, S-1). Regarding the problem culvert on nearby private lands, it is possible that we may have considered this to be a stewardship opportunity had we been aware of it earlier in the analysis. Having said that however, the culvert in question is ultimately the responsibility of the landowner and we will provide the land- owner with a location and description of the situation and encourage them to address it, providing them with whatever technical expertise and advice that they may require. Commenter 2. Was surprised to see the temperature of Ammo Lake was taken at surface level. Stated fish, especially trout, do not swim at the surface; they only come up to the surface to feed. Suggested additional temperature read- ings at depths would be more appropriate to determine if it can support cold water dependant fish such as brook trout. Ammonoosuc Lake is actually a very shallow pond, with most of the pond less than 8’ deep. Ponds or lakes that “stratify”, meaning they are cold on the bottom and warmer at the top typically are at minimum of 15’ deep. Stratification allows a very cold deeper portion of the lake where trout can live, and warmer water is found above the “thermocline”, where warmwater fish may thrive. Shallow ponds like Ammonoosuc Lake do not stratify and therefore are nearly the same temperature from top to bottom, and temperature is ultimately determined by air temperatures. The day that water temperatures were collected at the pond, the only trout observed where those gathered at the small spring water inlet where they could find the cold (52ºF) and well oxygenated water they require during the summer months. Commenter 3. Stated given the importance of the Crawford Notch area for the NH Tourist Industry the only alternative that makes any sense to select is Alternative 1 with the addition of removing the dam on the Ammo Lake and the relocation of the Nancy Barton Nordic Ski Trail. Suggests could be done with volunteer labor. Thank you for your comment. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are considered in detail in the Environmental Assessment. Commenter 3. Stated they believe that since Alternative 1 would never be selected, they would have to select Alternative 3 as next best. Supports removal of the dam makes the most sense and would provide the public a long term opportunity to watch a stream go through its various stages. In the face of climate change it also makes the most sense since at some point the water in the Ammo Lake will be too warm to allow trout to continue to frequent it. Suggests public can go to recently repaired Broken Bridge in Albany Maine. Also suggests moving “problem” beavers to help dam up the stream. Suggests using the Scotch pine trees in the Crawford Brook bank stabilization work.
173 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Comments noted. The 30-Day Comment Report discloses that beavers already occupy the Ammonoosuc Lake and if the dam were removed, beavers most likely will colonize and re-dam the area. Use of non-native materials (such as invasive Scotch pine) for stream restoration or habitat enhancement projects is discouraged by the White Mountain National Forest Plan (USDA-FS, WMNF Plan, G-14, p. 2-26). Commenter 3. Assumed that if Ammo Lake Dam was replaced it would be with a large structure that would look out of place and be very expensive. The 30-Day Comment Report (Chapter 3.3–Habitat Quality) disclosed that if the dam were rehabilitated, the design would likely maintain the current pond water level (approximately 3.5 acre surface area and maximum depth six to eight feet). The replacement dam would be designed with stone facing to maintain the visual character of the dam (EA, Section 3.4 — Cultural Resources). The economic characteristics of each activity, including rehabilitating the dam, were considered for each alternative (EA, Section 3.4 — Socio-economic Resources Table 16). Visual Resource Commenter 2. Thanked the USFS for putting together the visual simulation models and found them very helpful. Understood the acres per view area in the chart (page 31) cannot be added; however, they felt the impression as presented would lead one to do that and is therefore somewhat misleading. We agree, thank you for pointing this out. We edited page 31 in the final EA to point out that the acres are separated by compartment and cannot be added together for comparison purposes. Page 31 edits: insert asterisk in table (Treatment Acre Total*). *Acres of treatment are based on the views that can be seen in each compart- ment. The alternatives should be compared by compartment; however, the acres for each compartment cannot be added together for comparison purposes. Commenter 3. Stated not sure what is “casual visitor” referred to on page 26 of 30-Day Comment Report. Casual observer is the average visitor or resident who may drive, visit or rec- reate in or around the area and whose view may be less sensitive to detail or due to frequency, time or interest may become complacent. Whereas the keen observer may by their own nature be sensitive to detail and therefore changes or alterations to the landscape would be more apparent. This person may also be more likely to take more time to take in a single view or may not be distracted by having a purpose while viewing. Commenter 3. Stated they don’t see how any of the scenic viewsheds meet FS requirements, especially scenic viewshed 6F. Guidelines G-1 through G-7 of the Forest Plan (3-6, 3-8) provide the sideboards for created openings. Scenic viewshed 6F (Front view from Mnt. Washington Hotel Veranda) meets these guidelines.
174 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Commenter 3. Stated that harvests on the WMNF have rutted skid trails, stumps, and logging slash, and assumed they look unnatural and assumed it is not what visitors want to see. The 30-Day comment Report (Section 3.2) disclosed the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on scenery that visitors may or may not see from many viewpoints of the Crawford Stewardship Project Area. The 30-Day Comment Report and the Crawford Soils Report (in the project record) also described Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices that would minimize the potential effects of har- vesting including soil erosion and compaction, and including design criteria such as slash disposal zones along Nordic trails (EA, Section 3.4 — Recreation). It is also important to note that harvesting activity has taken place within the Crawford Stewardship Project Area in the past (EA, Section 1.2 and 3.4 — Cultural Resources), and many stakeholders and visitors are accustomed to a working forest. Road Resource Commenter 3. Doesn’t understand why the 1.5 miles of new road is proposed as part of this project and they feel the USFS already has way too many miles of roads that aren’t maintained properly and cause issues and asks why couldn’t FS use skid trails that then could be closed off? Commenter claims Roads Analysis document didn’t provide any information as to why the need to add more roads to the WMNF. They strongly disagree with adding any new roads to the WMNF. The Crawford Stewardship Project proposed to decommission the Nancy Barton Nordic Trail (1.2 miles) and relocate it uphill from its present location. A portion of the trail will be reconstructing an old trail (0.5 mi), a portion will be construction to a road standard (1.0 miles) and a portion will be construc- tion of the Nordic trail (0.6 mi). This will serve two functions, hauling of forest products and ski trail. Construction of the road will reduce the distance that forest products are skid to the landing. In addition, the 1.0 miles of new road will provide for current and future access needs in Compartment 48 for the pur- poses of wildlife habitat and vegetation management as well as recreation and other administrative functions. A skid trail would not provide the same access to Compartment 48. Also, cumulative road construction since the 2005 Forest Plan (which limits new road construction to 10 miles) was 2.4 miles. Crawford project adds 1.0 mile which is still below the limit stated in the Plan. Soil Resources Commenter 3. Noted the 30-Day Comment Report (page 67) discusses soil erosion and compaction where the FS states that only 95.7/61.64 acres will be disturbed. Wondered if that number included all skid trails or only the “major” ones? Wondered if the FS ever goes back after a project and deter- mines how close their estimates for disturbed soil were compared to what actually occurred on the ground? Skid trails are defined as temporary trails receiving more than three passes with equipment (Lull, 1959, Martin, 1988). Past monitoring has shown that fewer
175 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
than three passes in the same spot on a piece of land with logging equipment does not produce measurable detrimental results. Currently we are monitoring to see if the estimated amount of skid trail acres in the project area is the actual amount of skid trail disturbance on the ground. We started analyzing for skid trail disturbance in 2005. None of the projects for which we did this analysis has been completed yet, so we do not have final skid trail totals to verify the estimated skid trail amount. Commenter 3. Stated they don’t understand if the compaction goes away with a couple freeze/thaw cycles, then how can you tell a skid road or landing when you walk through the woods? They should look the same. There are many different factors leading to establishing a skid trail on the ground other than by compaction. Skid trails and landings typically have all the trees removed in the foot print of the trail, so the trail revegetating in small forbs helps to outline the trail and landings. Skid trails also typically will have brush on the trails to protect the soil from rutting and compaction, which will help to define a trail on the ground. Skid trails and landings will also experience some disturbance and compaction from use, which will help distinguish the trail or landing on the ground, but skid trails and landings are allowed to experience some compaction and disturbance during use as long as it is not detrimental disturbance. Research and monitoring as routinely shown a harvest operation can be conducted with the application of Best Management Practices and not produce detrimental results to soils on the White Mountain National Forest (see soils report in the project record for more information). Commenter 3. Expressed concerns for use of ecological land types (ELT’s) and ecological land units (ELU’s) on WMNF. Asked for past examples of where FS said it was softwood ELT with hardwood on it and that FS managed to convert it by a timber harvest? The commenter is correct in stating ELT’s sometimes lack the level of resolution that is needed to conduct an office exercise but that has been mitigated with an extensive amount of field work performed on the ground by the Soil Scientist/ Ecologist, Forester, Wildlife Biologist and other resource specialists working as an interdisciplinary team. These specialists verified the type of ground condi- tions and soil type and the type of vegetation conditions in representative stands across the project area to verify the type of management being proposed fits with the conditions looked at on the ground to achieve the results expected. The commenter is also correct in stating that ELT’s relationship with natural communities is not necessarily straight forward. However an extensive amount of research and field verification was done when the ELT’s were developed to fine-tune the connection between ELT’s and natural communities. Field verifica- tion conducted on this project by the Soil Scientist/Ecologist, Forester, Wildlife Biologist and other resource specialists working in an interdisciplinary team looked at the understory vegetation, soils, and proposed management prescrip- tion to ensure a conversion to softwoods. Finally the commenter is also correct in stating “in the future it will revert by itself,” but this process would take a very long time and we are trying to help speed up the conversion process to meet the goals of the project including wildlife habitat objectives.
176 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Commenter 3. Noted page 6 of the Soil Resource Report, “past monitoring has shown that fewer than 3 passes in the same spot on a piece of land with logging equipment does not produce measureable detrimental results“. Asked can FS make such a general statement and how does FS know how many passes are made on a particular skid trail that FS is monitoring? Skid trails are defined as temporary trails receiving more than three passes with equipment (Lull, 1959, Martin, 1988). Past monitoring has shown that fewer than three passes in the same spot on a piece of land with logging equipment does not produce measurable detrimental results. Past monitoring includes an extensive review of the best available science and regeneration exams of previous clearcuts with no loss in biomass accumulation on this forest (see project record). The 2005 FEIS states that “research findings and on-the-ground experience of previous timber projects confirm that accelerated soil erosion due to roads and skid trails can be reduced — and its effects on streams largely eliminated — by timely application of well-known best management prac- tices (BMPs).” (FEIS, p 3-29) The State of Maine has published monitoring data supporting the conclusion that properly applied Best Management Practices would mitigate effects from soil erosion (Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service 2005; Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001-2005, 2006) and while the results of a similar study in New Hampshire have not yet been published, Maine and New Hampshire soils and BMPs are similar. It is therefore assumed that the effectiveness of these BMPs is also similar. Monitoring also consists of working alongside the sale adminis- ter during harvest operations to inspect the site conditions and see how many passes are being made on a piece of ground and measure if its above three passes or below three passes and see if what is cited in the best available science is still true on the ground. These results have routinely been published in the White Mountain National Forest’s annual monitoring report. Commenter 3. Wondered if compaction isn’t a concern with less than 3 passes on a skid trail, how come you can still see those skid trails when you walk through the woods after a sale? See the previous response to the question directly related to skid trails. Commenter 3. Stated that the soil and water quality analyses depend on BMPs being followed, and claimed that loggers aren’t following those BMPs on the ground. They further state that winter logging may help, but only if you get the right ground conditions. The Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator (TSA) routinely inspects active logging operations and maintains inspection reports. The TSA is keenly aware of the Forest Plan Soil and Water Standards and Guideline and Best Management Practices for protecting these resources. Furthermore, the TSA knows the right ground conditions that are required for allowing summer, fall, or winter harvest- ing operations. The TSA and the Forest Service Representative (of the timber sale contract) have the authority to halt harvesting operations should resource conditions warrant (EA, Section 3.4 — Vegetation Resources). Furthermore, the Forest Service Harvest Inspector can relay any observations and concerns to the TSA and Forest Service Representative.
177 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Non-native Invasive Species Commenter 3. Questioned how is the FS going to prevent NNIS from invad- ing the areas that are proposed for harvest in the project, especially since they are in the near vicinity? Timber Sale contracts require all equipment coming on to National Forest lands to be free of soil and debris. The Timber Sale Administrator inspects the equip- ment to ensure this condition is met. Although it is possible that some areas proposed for harvest could be affected by NNIS, there is no evidence to support that this has occurred on the White Mountain National Forest during past harvest activities, since standards and guidelines related to NNIS have been applied. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS including equipment inspec- tions and cleanings and the use of uncontaminated fill and seeding materials continue to do an excellent preventing the introduction and spread of NNIS on the WMNF. These actions coupled with on-going control efforts in and adja- cent to the project area, as well as periodic inspection of log landings (one of the likely avenues of introduction for NNIS) following harvest activity should prevent the establishment or spread of NNIS within the Crawford Project area and forest-wide. WMNF staff, in particular, recreation, forestry and biology staffs have been extensively trained on the identification of NNIS that occur in our area. The 2007 WMNF NNIS Control Environmental Assessment provides for the rapid treatment of any newly discovered infestation on lands manage- ment by the WMNF. If a new infestation were documented in an area of recent harvest activity it would be of the highest priority to control. The NNIS Risk Analysis contained in the project record rated the overall risk for the Crawford Stewardship Project is low. It also detailed a series of mitigation measures to be applied as needed to project activities. A risk rating of low indicates the project can proceed as planned and to initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. Socio-economics Commenter 3. Stated they don’t understand on Table 16 where FS show Income generated of $773K/616K. They tried finding out by reading the socio- economic report but it just doesn’t make sense, and don’t understand the jobs provided/sustained. Timber and wood products are a source of income to the local economy. Jobs are created through the harvest, hauling, processing and manufacturing of wood products. Secondary jobs, such as transportation and service-related occupa- tions, are also affected by the processing of wood. A multiplier of $140,500/mmbf is being used in this analysis to estimate the expected income generated under each alternative. The source of this multiplier is in Appendix B, Table B-21 of the FEIS. Table 16 has been updated to reflect this reference. Commenter 3. Doesn’t agree with use of Stewardship Contracts, especially when the details of the proposal from the contractors aren’t made public.
178 Crawford Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment
Once the contract has been awarded, the details of the proposal are made public. The exception is personal identifiable information (such as tax id numbers) or information that is proprietary in nature. Commenter 7. Objects to paying fees to ski on trails groomed and maintained under Special Use Permit on Public lands, and further suggests that groom- ing of snowmachine trails get accomplished in the absence of fees charged to those using Public lands. The comment is outside the scope of this analysis, however it provides a worth- while opportunity to describe and list some of the Authorities and Direction the Forest Service uses when deciding to permit this type of commercial activity on Public Lands. • All commercial uses of National Forest lands except for timber, mineral and livestock operations are designated as special uses and must be authorized by permit. (Title 36, code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 251.50(a)). • Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 251.53(n)) authorizes the Chief of the Forest Service, or other Agency officials to whom such author- ity is delegated, to issue special use authorizations for National Forest System land for the “Operation of Nordic and alpine ski areas and facili- ties for up to 40 years and encompassing such acreage as the Forest Officer deems sufficient and appropriate as authorized by the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b). • The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, objectives, responsibilities, instructions and guidance needed by Forest Service line officers and staff to plan and execute programs and activities.FSM 2343.11- Policy, directs the Forest Service to: 2. Encourage privately operated Nordic ski touring centers. a. Authorize high investment, permanent facilities under a term special use authorization; base the length of the term on the holders’ anticipated invest- ment in the operation. b. Allow holders to charge for the use of permitted trails when they make capital investments or incur expense directly for trail maintenance, groom- ing, and patrolling. • The White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMRP, 9/2005) states as a Goal that “The Forest Service will work with the private sector through Special Use Permits to provide recreation opportuni- ties (areas, facilities, services and events) that the forest Service alone is not able to offer” (pg 1-15). The LMRP goes on to provide a guideline in Chapter 2 – Forest Wide Management Direction that states “In general, Special Use Permits for Cross Country ski areas should provide more developed oppor- tunities, including highly groomed trails and patrols, than Forest trails”. (LMRP 2-24, G-5) It is further worth noting that while snowmobiles are not required to pay for a daily trail pass for the use of groomed snowmobile trails, they still pay for the use of these trails via their registration fees for their snowmobiles, which the State of NH uses to fund the grooming, construction and maintenance of the snowmobile trail system.
179 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District
Commenter(s) 6. Expressed a desire to retain the dam and emphasized its importance as a scenic asset to the area and to their art class, which is currently engaged in landscape painting at the dam site. Comment noted. Commenter 5. Supported Alternative 2, with the suggestion that the AMC should pay for all improvements to the dam, since the AMC would be the beneficiary. States taxpayers should not pay for what benefits the AMC. The AMC would certainly benefit from the repair of the dam, and in recogni- tion of that benefit, AMC has agreed to take on maintenance of the dam once restoration has been completed. This is not to say though, that AMC is the sole beneficiary of the dam’s restoration. Ammonoosuc Lake sees quite a bit of local use, as a short and scenic hiking opportunity and even as a local swim hole. The National Forest further benefits from the Conservation and Natural History education opportunities that the pond ecosystem provides. Climate Change Commenter 3. Claimed that not harvesting would result in a forest that is better able to handle climate change and act as a buffer for the condos that will be built in the area. Comment noted. The 30-Day Comment Report (under each resource section) disclosed the potential effects of climate change. The Comment Report also disclosed the cumulative effects of condominium development. Miscellaneous Commenter 1. Suggested using a better map with contour lines in the EA. Thank you for this suggestion. Commenter 4. Supports Crawford Project, Alternative 2 with exception to remove the dam. States the project will provide income, jobs and local products, important wildlife habitat and supports recreational activities. Sustainable raw material for our economy and needs. Harvesting trees will also create space for trees to grow and store carbon. Durable products made from harvested trees also store carbon. Thank you for your comments, which are addressed in the final EA.
180