Resource Name (Heading 1)

Northeast Swift Integrated Resource United States Department of Agriculture Management Project Forest Townships of Albany and Bartlett Service Carroll County, New Hampshire

February 2012 Environmental Assessment

Prepared By

Saco Ranger District

White Mountain National Forest

Views of Bear Mountain from Middle Sister, Albany, New Hampshire

For Further Information Contact: Desiree Johnston Saco Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 33 Kancamagus Highway Conway, NH 03818 603-447-5448 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=28840

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at 202/720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper

This Page Intention ally Left Blank

Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Contents

Chapter 1 — Proposed Action and Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Description of the Northeast Swift Project Area ...... 3 1.3 Need For Action ...... 10 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 19 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 20 1.6 Issues ...... 21 Chapter 2 — Alternatives

2.1 Introduction ...... 24 2.2 Description of Alternatives ...... 24 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 24 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 24 Alternative 3 ...... 30 Alternative 4 ...... 35 2.3 Project Design Features ...... 40 2.4 Monitoring ...... 48 2.5 Other Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 49 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 54 Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Recreation ...... 56 3.2 Scenery ...... 83 3.3 Vegetation ...... 121 3.4 Soils ...... 140 3.5 Water Resources ...... 162 3.6 Wildlife ...... 195 Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Rare Communities ...... 233 3.7 Non-native Invasive Plants ...... 247 3.8 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ...... 256 3.9 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 268

White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

3.10 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 292 3.11 Wilderness ...... 331 3.12 Fire and Fuels ...... 332 3.13 Air Quality ...... 343 3.14 Heritage Resources ...... 356 3.15 Socio-Economic ...... 360 Environmental Justice ...... 369 Chapter 4 — Preparers and Consultants ...... 370 References ...... 365 Appendix A - Glossary ...... 371 Appendix B - Silvicultural Treatments ...... 392 Appendix C - Past Harvest Map ...... 399 Appendix D – Response to Comments ...... 401

6 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. Proposed Action and Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction

The Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is proposing an integrated resource management project in the towns of Albany and Bartlett in Carroll County, New Hampshire. The Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project, is designed to promote desired wildlife habitat and vegetation conditions outlined in the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); provide a wide range of recreational opportunities; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs. This document provides an environmental analysis of the Proposed Action as well as three other alternatives, including No Action, which were analyzed for this project. This document, based on and tiered to the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), analyzes the effects from implementation of the proposed Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project to physical, biological, and social resources. Chapters 1 and 2 of this document provide background information, public involvement, issues, and a detailed description of the Proposed Action and other alternatives considered for the project. The effects of alternatives analyzed in detail, including the Proposed Action, on recreation; scenery; soils; water; fisheries; roadless/wilderness; wildlife habitat, including Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS); social/economic resources; air quality and heritage resources are described in Chapter 3. Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines provide resource management direction for the White Mountain National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Applicable Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards and guidelines were used to design the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project. The proposed action for Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project includes implementation of the following site-specific activities:

• Managing forest vegetation to improve wildlife habitat and forest health conditions on approximately 1,750 acres, with an estimated 8 million board feet of associated timber harvest;

• Pre-commercial thinning and release of about 400 acres of young timber stands;

1 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• Planting northern red oak seedlings on approximately 20 acres;

• Up to 750 acres of prescribed burning;

Watershed restoration activities at three locations: (1) at a former crossing location on Cilley Brook, (2) along the Swift River adjacent to Deer Brook Road, and (3) on an unnamed tributary to the Swift River south of Passaconaway Road;

Recreation improvements including:

• relocating two short trail segments and constructing one new trail bridge and approximately 250 feet of bog bridging on the Nanamocomuck Nordic ski trail,

• constructing a new trailhead parking lot, approximately 3 acres in size, along the Bear Notch Road, and

• removal of dead and dying trees to enhance public safety, esthetics and forest health at Covered Bridge Campground;

Forest transportation system management activities including:

• Constructing 13 new landings with 5 temporary spur roads, or driveways, each less than 500 feet in length, to facilitate timber harvest;

• Constructing two new Forest Roads, totaling approximately 1 mile in length; • Reconstructing portions of five existing Forest Roads, totaling an estimated 5.2 miles; • Adding five existing roads to the Forest Transportation System, totaling approximately 1.5 miles; and • Decommissioning three existing roads that are not included within the Forest Transportation System, totaling approximately 0.9 miles. Most of the proposed project activities would be implemented within the next 3 to 5 years, with the exception of prescribed burning and vegetative release treatments which would likely be extended to the next 5 to 10 years. This project also incorporates a variety of project design features to minimize impacts to air quality and public health from prescribed burning, reduce adverse impacts to scenic quality from timber harvest activities, protect cultural resource areas, minimize impacts to forest visitors recreating in the project area, protect trail integrity and maintain high quality wildlife habitat features. All proposed project activities would be undertaken within the scope of the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. Chapter 2 of this

2 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

document describes additional details on the Proposed Action and other alternatives analyzed for this project.

The Proposed Action and alternatives for the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management project, as well as the analysis of their effects described in this document, are confined in scope to the area of the White Mountain National Forest within which they are contained. Neither this environmental assessment, nor the eventual decision document, will apply to or set precedent for any area outside of this project.

1.2 Description of the Northeast Swift Project Area

The Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management project area is bounded within the Northeast Swift Habitat Management Unit (HMU), which includes approximately 10,400 acres of National Forest lands located within the Swift River watershed, in the towns of Albany and Bartlett, New Hampshire (Figure 1.1). The project area is located immediately north of the Swift River, extending from near Bear Notch Road (FR 26) easterly to the Forest boundary. The Swift River is an Eligible Wild and Scenic River, and is the primary drainage in the project area. Tributaries of the Swift River that are located within the project area include Dry, Big, Deer and Douglas Brooks. Several small unnamed tributaries, small seeps and wetlands are also located within the project area, including Falls Pond. Elevations in the project area range from 650 feet at the Swift River to 3,196 feet at the crest of North Moat Mountain. Terrain in the project area is variable, ranging from flat to moderately steep, with several steep escarpments. Forest habitats within this area include a mix of northern hardwoods, oak-pine, mixedwoods, and hemlock/spruce/fir softwood stands. Existing forest types and ages have been largely determined by past management activities that occurred within the project area prior to it becoming National Forest land, such as turn of the century railroad logging, as well as more recent logging since 1940 (truck roads, landings and skid trails). Timber harvesting that has occurred within the project area in the past 30 years included the Bear Mountain, Red Eagle, Falls Pond II, Big Brook II, Deer Brook, Dry Brook and Falls Pond timber sales.

3 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Figure 1.1 Northeast Swift Project Location

4 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The project area does not contain any Congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Sandwich and Presidential Range/Dry River are the closest designated wilderness areas to the project area, and are located approximately 1.6 and 3 miles away respectively.

Approximately 7,155 acres of the project area are located within one of the areas inventoried during Forest Plan revision as having characteristics that meet roadless criteria (Table Mountain). These characteristics include:

• 5,000 acres or more in size;

• Less than 5,000 acres in size, and meet one or more of the following conditions:

• Areas that can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions. • Areas that are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

• Areas that are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

• Do not contain forest roads or other permanently authorized roads, except in areas east of the 100th meridian which meet the following conditions:

• The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled appearance. • Improvements existing in the area are being affected by the forces of nature rather than humans and are disappearing or muted.

• The area has existing or attainable National Forest System ownership patterns, both surface and subsurface, that could ensure perpetuation of identified wilderness characteristics.

• The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of wilderness values.

• The area contains no more than a half mile of forest roads under Forest Service jurisdiction for each 1,000 acres.

• No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, planted vegetation. • Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within the past 10 years. • The area contains only a few dwellings on private lands and the location of these dwellings and their access needs insulate their effects on wilderness characteristics on National Forest System lands.

5 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The project proposes a variety of vegetation, recreation and transportation system management activities within this area. There are no lands that were part of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventory located within the project area.

Recreational opportunities within the project area include the Covered Bridge Campground and Interpretive Area, Rocky Gorge, Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, Falls Pond Trail, South Moat Trail, Boulder Loop Trail, and Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail (Figure 1.2). Several of the management activities proposed in this project are located immediately adjacent to these recreation facilities. The project area is also popular for recreation activities such as camping, sport climbing, bicycling, casual walking, fishing, swimming, kayaking, wading, scenic viewing and hunting. The Kancamagus Scenic Byway (NH State Highway 112), a popular scenic drive located just outside the project area, follows the Swift River and provides access to a variety of recreational opportunities. More information on the affected environment for each of the specific resources and recreation uses within the analysis area is found under each resource heading in Chapter 3 of this document.

Tiering to the Forest Plan The analysis for this project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD) for the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Land and Resource Management Plan. (USDA Forest Service, 2005b and 2005e) Tiering is described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 as a process of summarizing and incorporating by reference from other environmental documents of broader scope to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision. (USDA Forest Service, 2011a) The Land and Resource Management Plan (also called the “Forest Plan”) is the “principal tool for preserving, protecting, and managing the resources that comprise the White Mountain National Forest, while at the same time making those resources available to the public for a variety of uses.” (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) The Forest Plan is a programmatic document which sets management direction for the White Mountain National Forest through the establishment of short term (10–15 years) and long-range goals and objectives. It also prescribes the standards and practices used to achieve these goals and objectives, along with guidelines for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of our actions.

6 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Northeast Swift Project Recreation Features Recreation Project Swift Northeast

Figure 1.2

7 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The Forest Plan divides the Forest into Management Areas (MA), each with its own goals and objectives. Each MA also has a set of standards and guidelines that sets parameters on activities to ensure protection of the character and resources of the land. The estimated 10,400 acre Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project Area includes the following Forest Plan Management Area allocations as shown in Figure 1.3:

MA 2.1: General Forest Management (7,100 acres) allows for a range of uses and activities, including wildlife habitat management, timber harvest, prescribed fire, roads, motorized recreation such as snowmobiling, and developed areas such as campgrounds. MA 2.1 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-3 through 3-8.

MA 6.1: Semi-Primitive Recreation (3,260 acres) emphasizes non-motorized recreation, but allows motorized trail use in winter. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new Forest Roads are not allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to maintain viability of fire-adapted communities such as pine, oak, and oak-pine. MA 6.1 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-19 through 3-22. MA 8.5: Scenic Area (40 acres) recognizes an area’s natural beauty. Rocky Gorge Scenic Area is managed to meet the objectives for which it was designated. Rocky Gorge is a high use Day Use recreation facility. MA 8.5 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-61 through 3-67. Management Area 2.1 is the primary area within which management activities are proposed in this project. Approximately 100 acres of prescribed burning is proposed in MA 6.1 lands within the project area, while no activities are proposed in MA 8.5 lands. The Forest Plan lists the purpose for MA 2.1 as four-fold (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p 3-3):

• Provide high quality hardwood sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis.

• Provide a balanced mix of habitats for all wildlife species. • Provide opportunities for a full mix of recreational opportunities from low-use hiking trails to developed campgrounds, and meet Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) objectives varying from urban to semi-primitive motorized, in different locations and varying by season or presence of management activities.

• Manage high-use or highly developed recreation areas to acceptable social and ecological standards; manage to retain some low-use and less developed areas.

8 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 1.3 Northeast Swift Project Management Areas Management Project Swift 1.3 Northeast Figure

9 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Vegetation management is proposed in the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management project to meet the following Forest Plan wildlife habitat management goals and objectives (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p 1-20):

• Manage forest composition for the broad habitat types of northern hardwood, mixed hardwood-softwood, and spruce-fir forest, consistent with Ecological Land Type capability.

• Maintain less common habitat types, such as aspen-birch where ecologically feasible and desirable to provide for native and desired non-native wildlife and plant species.

• Maintain high quality mature forest and old forest habitats on a majority of the forest.

• Provide regeneration age forest and open habitats to sustain biological diversity and support species that prefer those habitats. Proposed vegetation management and associated timber harvest in the Northeast Swift Project is confined to MA 2.1 lands that are considered “suitable” for commercial timber harvest. Lands that are considered suitable for timber harvest are typically located in areas below 2,500 feet in elevation. Non-suitable lands include wetlands and riparian areas, steep terrain, and areas that are inaccessible for vegetation management.

1.3 Need For Action

Wildlife Habitat The purpose of managing wildlife habitat conditions in the project area is to increase opportunities for wildlife to sustain or increase their populations. Regional literature and experts indicate that maintaining populations of wildlife and plant species native to northern New England means providing a wide variety of habitats across the landscape, including various forest types, age classes, and non-forested openings. The primary wildlife habitat types that occur on the Forest are associated with northern hardwoods, spruce-fir, mixedwood, and aspen-paper birch. Age classes include regeneration (0–9 years of age), young (10 – 59 years), and mature (60 + years). All of these forest habitat types (softwoods, northern hardwood, mixedwoods etc.) and structural characteristics (mature forest, pole stands, brushy openings etc.) provide essential habitat for various wildlife species in New England (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001).

10 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Species composition changes as a forest matures. This is referred to as forest succession. Vegetation management activities can be specifically designed to improve habitat conditions for wildlife. Wildlife species that depend on “early-successional” forest for nesting or foraging habitat benefit from forest openings, including those created through habitat management. Species that prefer softwood and mixedwood habitat benefit from partial harvesting that develops or maintains all ages of softwood and mixedwood component. A blend of the many stand types and ages provides for the greatest diversity and populations of wildlife species.

The Forest Plan established Forest-wide habitat composition and age-class goals and objectives for maintaining a diversity of habitats across lands allocated to MA 2.1 on the White Mountain National Forest, including various forest types, age classes and non- forested habitats (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p 1-20 to 1-21). The Forest uses Habitat Management Units (HMUs) as a tool to ensure that there is a connection between Forest landscape-levels goals and objectives and project-level ecological conditions during project development. Within the Northeast Swift River HMU, there is a lack of early-successional forest habitat (where most trees are 0-9 years old) and an overabundance of mature habitat for all habitat types (HMU Analysis, project record). Northern hardwoods make up the most acres; however more than 40 percent of the HMU is made up of spruce-fir and mixedwood habitats. Relatively small components of both hemlock (13%) and oak/pine (7%) habitat occur within the HMU, however no stands are listed as aspen/birch habitat and no permanent wildlife openings exist (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1-4. NE Swift River HMU Existing Habitat Types on MA 2.1 Lands

Existing Habitat Types in MA 2.1 NH 13% 0% 7% Mxdwd 19% S/F A/B Hemlock 39% 22% O/P

11 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Regeneration Forest Habitat Within the Northeast Swift River HMU, there is currently a lack of early-successional, or regeneration, forest habitat (where most trees are 0-9 years old). Numerous scientific studies in the Northeast have found that a wide variety of wildlife use regeneration forest habitat structure for all or part of their life (Chandler, 2006; Dettmers, 2003; DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001; Fuller and DeStefano, 2003; King et al., 2001; Litvaitis et al., 1999; Schlossberg and King, 2007; Thompson et al., 2001). This habitat condition is ephemeral on the landscape as forests in the Northeast regenerate quickly and within a decade or so the structural characteristics favorable for this suite of species no longer exist. Changes in land use patterns across the Northeast have greatly reduce the availability of this habitat resulting in declines in scrub/shrub birds that require this habitat structure for suitable nesting habitat including chestnut-sided warbler, and magnolia warbler (Schlossberg and King, 2007).

Mixedwood and Softwood Habitat Approximately 50 percent of the Northeast Swift River HMU consists of mixedwood and softwood stand types. Mixedwood and softwood habitat is relatively well represented in this HMU but not across the Forest, due to past intensive harvest practices in the late 1800s and early 1900s that favored northern hardwood regeneration on sites previously dominated by spruce/fir or hemlock. Mixedwood and softwood stand types are essential habitat components for a wide variety of wildlife species’ food and cover needs including golden-crowned kinglet, blackburnian warbler, purple finch, deer mice, snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer, and American marten. Mature softwood and mixedwood habitat offers structural variability and foraging opportunities necessary to provide thermal cover in winter for species such as white-tailed deer (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001). Surveys in Dry Brook and Big Brook watersheds have repeatedly found deer wintering in these areas of the HMU.

Aspen-Birch Currently there are only 22 acres typed as aspen-birch within the HMU, and these areas lie outside of MA 2.1 lands. Paper birch also occurs as individual trees and small inclusions in other forest types within the HMU. Aspen-birch is an early-successional habitat that is not as long-lived as other forest types and thus will succeed to late successional habitat without frequent disturbance (DeGraaf et al., 2006). Regeneration age-class aspen-birch provides high quality cover for many wildlife species including

12 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment ruffed grouse while mature aspen-birch is important for other species of wildlife such as broad-winged hawk (DeGraaf et al., 2006).

Oak-Pine The Northeast Swift River HMU contains an estimated 600 acres of oak-pine natural communities. These communities are important to retain because they are somewhat rare on the White Mountain National Forest and provide a unique habitat component in the ecosystem. Oak acorns and pine seeds are an important food source for a variety of wildlife. Species associated with oak-pine stands such as blueberry, huckleberry, and grasses, also provide food and cover for a wide variety of wildlife. Oak/pine stands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species associated with both softwoods and northern hardwood. The oak component of this habitat, in combination with beech in northern hardwood areas, also provides hard mast that is essential to a variety of wildlife species that rely on a fall food component such as black bear and whitetail deer (DeGraaf et al., 2006). Forest Plan goals include having a distribution of wildlife habitat types which closely match ecological site potential over most of the Forest. An analysis of the Northeast Swift River HMU found differences between the current distribution and abundance of forest types and age classes compared to the ecological potential of the area (Delineation of Habitat Management Unit Boundaries on the White Mountain National Forest and Rationale for NE Swift River HMU, project file). Potential acres by habitat type and age class were determined from Ecological Land Types found in the HMU, as well as existing habitat of oak, pine and hemlock (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1-5. NE Swift River HMU Potential Habitat Types on MA 2.1 Lands

Potential Habitat in MA 2.1 NH 5% 14% 8% Mxdwd S/F A/B 32% 30% Hemlock O/P 11%

13 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Desired wildlife habitat goals for this HMU include (1) increasing regeneration forest habitat for all habitat types, but especially aspen-birch, (2) increasing the amount of softwood habitat by favoring hemlock and spruce-fir within mixedwood stands, (3) adding structural diversity and encouraging regeneration in existing spruce-fir and hemlock stands, and (4) maintaining and, if feasible, increasing oak/pine and hemlock habitat.

Forest Vegetation Management The purpose of vegetation management is to accomplish a variety of resource goals and objectives for forest management, wildlife habitat, recreation management, riparian and aquatic habitat and visual quality. Throughout the project area, there are many hardwood and mixedwood stands where past harvesting and damage from ice storms has resulted in dense understories dominated by shade tolerant species such as American beech and striped maple saplings. During field reviews of the project area, resource specialists identified opportunities to manage forest vegetation to promote desired wildlife habitat and forest health conditions, while providing a sustainable yield of forest products, such as sawtimber, pulpwood, biomass and firewood, for local markets. These opportunities included forest vegetation treatments such as shelterwood, overstory removal, seed tree, clearcut, patch clearcut, thinning, group selection and single-tree selection. The stands proposed for treatment have site-specific objectives and harvest prescriptions designed to meet desired habitat conditions for wildlife and for the vigor, health and diversity of forest vegetation. Proposed harvest treatments and management objectives are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. One of the habitat goals for the Northeast Swift HMU is to increase forest regeneration habitat across all forest types. Clearcut, patch clearcut, shelterwood harvest, seed tree harvest and in some cases overstory removal harvests are used to create regeneration forest habitat structure, as defined in the Forest Plan glossary (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Glossary, page 23), similar to that created by natural disturbances, such as wind and disease, which commonly occur in the Northeast. These treatments are needed to create openings in the forest canopy to encourage regeneration of a diversity of shade intolerant and intermediate species (ie. paper birch, yellow birch and sugar maple) (Leak et al., 1987) and to regenerate aspen-birch habitat on certain soil types.

14 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Other habitat goals for the Northeast Swift HMU include converting mixedwood habitat to softwood or aspen-birch habitat, initiating hemlock regeneration within existing dense hemlock stands and providing desirable habitat structures used by wildlife for hiding, nesting or cover at various times of the year. Group selection and single tree selection harvests are used to remove overtopping and competing hardwoods, which is needed to release existing softwood understory trees and regeneration and improve stand structure in mixedwood and dense softwood stands. Group selection creates gaps in the forest canopy, ranging from about ¼ acre to 2 acre in size, which are needed to encourage regeneration of a greater diversity of shade intolerant, intermediate and tolerant species (ie. paper birch, yellow birch and sugar maple) within the newly created open spaces (Leak et al., 1987). Group selection is also used to perpetuate an aspen- birch component as a small inclusion in northern hardwood or spruce-fir habitat. Smaller gaps (less than ½ acre) are utilized in eastern hemlock and spruce/fir stands where regeneration is desirable or already exists. Smaller groups are appropriate in these forest community types because these species tolerate shade (Lancaster, 1985; Frank and Bjorkbom, 1973). Single tree selection removes a range of tree sizes from a stand, which allows establishment of a new age class and creates desired habitat structures. Another goal in the Northeast Swift HMU is to maintain, or even increase, the existing component of oak/pine habitat (Figure 1.5). Dry Brook and Big Brook watersheds contain a variety of stands that include red oak, white and red pine, as well as hemlock, spruce-fir, sugar and red maple, yellow and paper birch. Many of these stands lack openings to provide sunlight to the forest floor, resulting in a species change to more shade-tolerant species such as beech, red maple, striped maple and spruce/hemlock in the understory. Both oak and pine regeneration are disturbance oriented, requiring partial to full sunlight to obtain quick growth necessary to compete with these more shade-tolerant species. Maintaining oak and pine in these stands to meet Forest Plan habitat objectives requires release or introduction of younger trees (regeneration) to promote younger age classes. Single-tree and group selection treatments would open up the forest canopy for sunlight to reach the forest floor, encouraging oak and pine regeneration. When implemented during snow free seasons, these treatments would also provide the soil scarification needed to foster germination of oak acorns, and improve survival of oak and pine seedlings. These treatments are also used to increase other hardwood browse and softwood understory (wildlife cover habitat) within

15 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

important deer wintering areas. Silvicultural treatments in oak and pine habitat would be augmented by landscape level prescribed fire.

Single tree selection treatments are also needed to remove hazard trees and enhance public safety in recreation areas, such as campgrounds, and to remove poorly formed, damaged and overcrowded trees to improve and maintain the health of mature forest stands.

Hand thinning, or “release, treatments are used to remove undesirable competing vegetation from openings created by timber harvest. Release treatments are needed to enhance regeneration, establishment and survival of desired tree species, such as red oak, white pine, hemlock, red spruce, balsam fir, sugar maple, aspen, paper birch and yellow birch.

Prescribed Fire Prescribed burning in oak-pine communities within the project area is needed to help achieve Forest Plan goals for wildlife habitat management and to reduce hazardous fuel loading (USDA Forest Service, 2005a. pg. 1-19). Prescribed burning is also needed to help maintain and improve plant community composition by influencing the scale and pattern of vegetation across the landscape, including changing successional patterns (USDA Forest Service, 2005a. pg. 1-19). Oak-pine natural communities require periodic disturbance like fire to regenerate and successfully compete with the more vigorous northern hardwood communities. Field observation indicates that young oak and pine are not regenerating naturally in the project area. Fire is beneficial to oak-pine communities in several ways- fire removes accumulations of dead branches and leaves from the forest floor to provide a seedbed; fire opens up the understory and mid canopy layers increasing sunlight and warmth; and fire can reduce the more vigorous shade tolerant northern hardwoods that compete with oaks and pines for light and growing space. Red oak, red pine, and to a lesser extent eastern white pine have all developed adaptations that help them survive or reproduce in association with fire. With the absence of wildfire and failure of oak/pine natural regeneration, oak and pine communities in the project area are gradually converting to northern hardwood/hemlock community types.

16 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 1.6 - Charred snag located within the project area is a reminder of a fire in 1946.

Oak-pine natural communities are fire prone. The leaves and needles of oak and pine are resistant to decay and compaction and therefore dry quickly and provide fuel during wildfires. Wildfires in oak-pine communities spread more rapidly and consume more area than those occurring in other WMNF habitat types. In the distant past, large wildfires and intensive logging occurred in portions of the project area, providing disturbance needed to perpetuate oak-pine communities. Since the mid-1900’s, fire has been aggressively suppressed in these oak-pine communities and intervals between timber harvests have increased. As a result, fuel loads (material that will burn) in some of these areas have accumulated to unnaturally high levels. An uncontrolled wildfire in these fuels would likely exhibit a rapid rate of spread and could adversely impact local communities, timber resources, and the soils, wildlife, and air quality in the area. Using prescribed fire and other fuel reduction methods in oak-pine communities in the project area is needed to provide the disturbance needed to retain this valuable habitat on the landscape, and to reduce the effects and intensity of future wildfires in these fire- prone areas.

Recreation One of the recreation management goals of the Forest Plan is to provide a range of quality recreation opportunities to help meet public demand for motorized, non- motorized, developed and dispersed recreation. This goal is reinforced by those in the conservation and recreation agenda outlined in the report America’s Great Outdoors: A

17 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Promise to Future Generations (USDI, 2011). Many popular recreation resources are located within and immediately adjacent to the NE Swift Project Area including Lower Falls, Rocky Gorge, Dugway, and Covered Bridge Day Use Areas, Covered Bridge Campground, South Moat and Boulder Loop Trails, and four Nordic ski trails including the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail. The Kancamagus Scenic Byway (NH State Highway 112) is a popular scenic drive that follows the Swift River, providing access to a variety of recreational opportunities. Activities to maintain and improve the following recreation opportunities within the project area were identified by the project interdisciplinary planning team and have been incorporated into project design.

Nanamocomuck Ski Trail This trail is popular with Nordic skiers, and also receives moderate levels of use by mountain bikers and hikers in summer. Two segments of this Nordic ski trail are persistently wet, even in winter. There is a need to relocate these two wet sections and install one new trail bridge in order to address resource and safety concerns and provide for multiple use of the trail corridor.

Snowmobile and Nordic Ski Trail parking The portion of Bear Notch Road north of the intersection with Forest Road 209 is gated and used in winter as a snowmobile trail. The portion of the road below the gate is plowed in winter and accesses several Nordic ski trails. Currently parking is very limited along this road for winter trail users. There is a need to provide additional parking and turning space for winter trail users, especially snowmobiles, near the winter road closure on this road.

Developed Camping Weakened trees located in forested stands within and adjacent to Covered Bridge Campground are posing a potential hazard to campers and other recreation users. There is a need to remove hazard trees in the immediate vicinity of this high use campground to protect public safety and maintain forest stands in a healthy condition.

Watershed Restoration Healthy riparian areas provide habitat diversity, filter sediments, dissipate energy associated with high flows and protect stream banks from scour. When riparian areas are disturbed, these benefits are diminished and stream banks may become unstable, potentially causing sedimentation. Field visits identified a need to improve stability of

18 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

streambanks and riparian areas at three sites located within the project area that have been disturbed by roads and stream crossings, some of which are no longer in use.

Transportation System The Forest Transportation System is designed to provide safe and efficient transportation that facilitates use and management of the Forest. Forest Plan goals include decommissioning roads not needed to meet management objectives, as well as maintaining the roads needed for use and management to meet Forest standards and the requirements of the Highway Transportation Safety Act. It was determined during Forest Plan revision, that the Forest would use project level transportation analysis in conjunction with environmental analysis to determine the final disposition of the remaining miles of roads on the Forest. Decisions whether to add these roads to the Forest transportation system, or permanently close and decommission them need to be made through project-level NEPA. An analysis of the existing transportation system in the Northeast Swift Project Area was completed to determine transportation needs for roads and trails for current and long- term management (project record). There are nine existing roads in the project area that are not included in the Forest Transportation System. Five of these were identified in the transportation analysis as needed to provide access for long-term forest management activities, and are proposed to be maintained or improved, and included in the Forest Transportation System. One was identified as needed for recreation use, and is proposed to be added to the Forest Transportation System as a trail. The other three existing roads in the project area were identified in the transportation analysis as not needed, and are proposed to be decommissioned.

1.4 Decision Framework

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to provide the Responsible Official with sufficient information and analysis to make an informed decision about the Northeast Swift Project. In addition to the information in the EA and project record, the Responsible Official will consider public comments to decide: • If the analysis and project record adequately address the issues and the Forest Plan objectives. • Which of the alternatives best addresses the relevant issues raised by the public and the interdisciplinary team?

19 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• Which of the alternatives would best move the Northeast Swift project area toward desired future conditions outlined in the Need for Action?

• Would the Proposed Action and its alternatives pose a significant environmental impact that would warrant the need for an environmental impact statement?

1.5 Public Involvement

Scoping for this project was conducted during 2009-2010. An Invitation to Comment was published in the Conway Daily Sun on March 24, 2010. A letter inviting public comments on the project was mailed to more than 200 elected officials, federal, state and local government agencies, Native American tribes, permittees, persons and groups who have expressed interest in other WMNF vegetation management and recreation projects and numerous private landowners with properties located adjacent to the project area. Twenty-seven people attended a project Open House held at the Saco Ranger District office on March 31, 2010. Fifteen people participated in a field trip to the project that was held on April 22, 2010. A Scoping Report for the project, complete with maps, was posted on the Internet at the WMNF website (www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain). Hard copies of the project Scoping Report were distributed to those who requested them. This project has been listed in the WMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since October 2009. Nearly 4,350 responses expressing a wide range of comments were received in response to project scoping efforts. More than 4,200 of these responses consisted of identical “form” letters expressing concerns over the effects of timber harvest and road management activities on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, a portion of which is located within the project area. All comments received in response to scoping were analyzed and used to identify the issues and environmental effects analyzed in the EA for this project. The original comments are included in the project record.

A 30-Day public comment period pursuant to 36 CFR 215 Notice and Comment regulations was initiated on June 28, 2011. An Open House with the Responsible Official and members of the project interdisciplinary team was conducted on July 14, 2011, which 23 members of the public attended. A field trip was also conducted on July 18, 2011, which 3 members of the public participated in. Twenty-four responses were

20 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

received during 30-Day Public Comment period. The original comments are included in the project record, and Forest Services responses are located in Appendix D.

1.6 Issues

An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of implementing the proposed action. Issues were identified by the interdisciplinary team from comments received in response to project scoping. Some issues were identified as being outside the scope of the project or were resolved through the incorporation of project design features; others are addressed by management direction provided by law, regulation, or the Forest Plan. The remaining issues were sorted into two groups: “Issues Addressed by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines” and “Issues Used to Develop Alternatives”. For the “Issues Used to Develop Alternatives” “measurement indicators” were identified to help track how well each alternative addresses the issue. These measurement indicators are displayed by Alternative in Chapters 2 and 3

Issues Used to Develop Alternatives Four issues identified from comments received in public scoping were used to develop alternatives.

• Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities would adversely impact the scenic quality of the Swift River and jeopardize its eligibility for Wild and Scenic River status. Measurement Indicator: Acres of new clearcuts/even aged regeneration harvest areas and cumulative openings within ¼ mile of the Swift River

• Concerns that the cumulative effects of proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities and other timber harvest projects in the vicinity would adversely affect scenic quality along the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, and could result in decreased recreation opportunities and associated tourism revenue to local communities. Measurement Indicator: Acres of new clearcuts/even aged regeneration harvest areas and cumulative openings viewed from selected viewpoints along the Kancamagus Highway.

21 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities would adversely impact the roadless character of one of the areas inventoried during Forest Plan revision as having roadless characteristics (Table Mountain) and jeopardize future consideration of this area for Wilderness designation. Measurement Indicator: Acres of new clearcuts/even aged regeneration harvest areas and miles of new road construction within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area.

• Concern that construction of the proposed parking lot along Bear Notch Road would increase snowmobile and other recreation use in the area, and could result in adverse impacts to water sources and systems, as well as increased trespass and disturbance on abutting private lands. Measurement Indicator: Distance in miles of new parking lot from abutting private land.

Issues addressed by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines The following issues are addressed by project design features and the environmental effects described in Chapter 3 of this document. The issues listed in this section are limited in context, duration and intensity and most were resolved primarily through meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines during project design and implementation (CEQ § 1500.4(c)(d)). These issues were not used to generate alternatives.

• Suggestion that firewood opportunities be provided for the public. • Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities would adversely impact scenic characteristics of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail.

• Concern that proposed relocation of segments of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail would adversely impact terrain features.

• Concern about potential for escaped prescribed burn onto adjacent private lands in the Passaconaway area.

• Concern regarding adverse impacts of proposed timber harvest activities on public safety, especially recreation users on roads, trails, and other recreation areas.

• Concern regarding the suitability of Passaconaway Road for timber hauling.

• Concern regarding bridge construction across Big Brook.

22 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Concern regarding adverse impacts on vernal pool located on the old Big Brook Road from road improvement activities.

• Concern regarding impacts from project activities on drainage culvert currently maintained by Johnson development abutters.

• Concern that timber harvest may not be economical.

• Concern about adverse impacts of timber harvest on scenic character along Bear Notch Road.

• Concern that proposed new road construction, skid trails, landings, etc would improve access for motorized use on trails.

• Concern that new road construction, skid trails, landings, etc would improve access for trespass onto abutters’ property.

• Concern that timber harvest would damage abutters’ water line. • Concern that project activities would adversely impact peregrine falcons (Rainbow Slab).

• Concern that the historic Covered Bridge would be adversely affected from blasting ledges, damage to footings/abutments.

• Concern regarding project impacts on climate change. • Suggestion to consider creation of early successional habitat in younger rather than mature stands.

• Suggestion to consider prescribed burning prior to harvest, rather than after, to “mimic natural disturbance”.

• Concern that proposed timber harvest would remove old forest (>100 years).

23 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Chapter 2. Alternatives 2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Alternative 1, referred to as the “No Action” alternative, proposes no new management activities within the Northeast Swift Project Area at this time. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are “Action Alternatives”. They each propose vegetative management, recreation and transportation system management and restoration projects within the NE Swift project area. Each action alternative responds to varying degrees to the Need for Action and to public issues for this project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are incorporated into the design of all three action alternatives. Most of the proposed project activities in all action alternatives analyzed are expected to be implemented within the next 3 to 5 years. Funding for projects will be dependent upon budgets; therefore, implementation of activities will be scheduled over time as funds become available.

2.2 Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action The term “No Action” means no new management actions at this time. While this alternative would not meet the Need for Action, it does provide a basis for analyzing the effects of conducting no new management activities in the NE Swift project area, and comparing these effects with the action alternatives. This alternative would not harvest trees, construct or improve any roads or trails, or accomplish wildlife habitat or recreation facility improvements. Ongoing routine maintenance work on roads, recreation sites, trails and facilities in the project area would continue. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The proposed action for the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project was designed to promote desired forest vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat conditions outlined in the Forest Plan; provide a wide range of recreational opportunities; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs.

24 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest proposes to implement the actions described and shown on the following maps (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2), in the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project.

Wildlife Habitat and Forest Vegetation Management The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would implement the following vegetation management treatments shown in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1, to accomplish Forest Plan habitat management and other resource objectives on approximately 1,740 acres within the Northeast Swift Project Area:

• Clearcut approximately 305 acres and patch clearcut approximately 95 acres to regenerate forest stands and create early successional forest habitat;

• Remove overstory trees from approximately 35 acres of softwood and mixedwood stands to release existing softwood regeneration.

• Regenerate approximately 55 acres of forest stands with “seed tree reserve” and “shelterwood” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition;

• Thin approximately 130 acres of forest stands to improve growth and vigor, timber quality and species composition;

• Regenerate portions of approximately 910 acres of forest stands with “group selection” treatments, 125 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 85 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat;

• Cut or girdle non-commercial sized trees (trees under 5 inches diameter at breast height, or DBH) in up to 400 acres of timber harvest units, using hand tools, chainsaws or other mechanical methods, in order to foster establishment of red oak, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen and softwood regeneration, and

• Plant northern red oak seedlings on approximately 20 acres following timber harvest in unit 43.

Vegetation management treatments included in the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and shown in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, and would provide an estimated 8 million board feet (MMBF) of forest products from approximately 1,740 acres of treatment areas. A glossary of terms and additional details on proposed wildlife habitat and vegetation management treatments can be found in Appendices A and B.

25 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

ystem Management ystem Vegetation & Transportation S & Transportation Vegetation

- Alternative 2 Proposed Action Action Proposed 2 Alternative

– Figure 2.1

26 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Recreation & Transportation System Management, Management, System & Transportation Recreation

- Prescribed Fire & Watershed Restoration Watershed & Fire Prescribed Alternative 2 Proposed Action Action Proposed 2 Alternative

– Figure 2.2

27 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 2.1 - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Vegetation Management Silvicultural Treatment Harvest Method Estimated Acres ** Clearcut/Patch clearcut (CC/PC) 400 Even-Aged Regeneration Overstory Removal (OSR) 35 490 acres Seed Tree Reserve (SD TR RS) 35 Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 20 Even-Aged – Intermediate Thinning (THIN) 130 130 acres Group Selection (GS) 910 Uneven-Aged Regeneration Single Tree Selection (STS) 125 1120 acres Single Tree Selection/Group 85 Selection Combined (STS/GS) **Includes reserve patches of uncut trees, as well as protective buffers around vernal pools, cultural artifacts and nest trees as needed

In order to access proposed vegetation management treatment areas and conduct timber harvesting operations, this alternative also includes use of 19 existing landings and construction of 13 new landings, approximately 0.5 acres in size or less, and 5 short (each 500 feet or less in length) temporary spur roads, or driveways, needed to access these landings (Figure 2-1).

Prescribed Fire The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would apply prescribed fire to underburn up to 750 acres to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations on the forest floor, increase oak and pine regeneration and reduce the amount of hardwood sapling competition for oak seedlings, sapling and poles in the understory (Figure 2-2). Proposed underburning areas would include approximately 230 acres in portions of 12 proposed timber harvest units. Underburning treatments would be implemented following harvest in these areas. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak seedling establishment, reduce competing hardwoods, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape.

Watershed Restoration The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would also implement the following watershed restoration activities (Figure 2.2):

• Reinforce a short section of stream bank where an old skid trail crosses Cilley Brook using large woody material;

28 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Replace riprap and revegetate disturbed areas along the Swift River adjacent to Deer Brook Road; and

• Reduce bank and channel erosion on an unnamed intermittent tributary to the Swift River south of Passaconaway Road by placing natural materials such as boulders or large woody debris to dissipate energy during high flows.

These activities would occur on up to one acre at each of the sites identified above.

Recreation Management The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would implement the following recreation improvements shown in Figure 2.2:

• Relocate two short segments of the Nanamocomuck Nordic ski trail, totaling up to 1.3 miles in length, and construct one new trail bridge and up to 250 feet of bog bridging and/or constructed boardwalk in order to avoid wet areas that are causing resource concerns;

• Construct a new year-round parking on Bear Notch Road near Falls Pond Road (Forest Road 209) designed to accommodate ten vehicles with trailers and totaling about 3 acres in size; and

• Remove hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground to improve visitor safety.

Transportation System Management The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes implementation of the following Forest Transportation System management activities shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 that are designed to provide access necessary to meet resource management objectives in the project area:

• Construct 2 new Forest Roads, totaling approximately 1 mile in length; • Reconstruct an estimated 5.2 miles of five Forest Roads (FSR 5174, 26B, 28, 28A, and 602);

• Reclassify five existing roads (5158, 5164, 5174, 5244 and 5245), totaling approximately 1.5 miles in length, and add them to the Forest Transportation System as intermittent service, or closed, roads, and

• Decommission three existing roads that are not included on the Forest Transportation System (5426, 28-UNK1 and 602-UNK1), totaling about 0.9 miles in length.

29 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed primarily in response to concerns that proposed timber harvest and connected transportation system management activities, as well as prescribed burning, would adversely impact scenic quality along the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway and the Swift River. This alternative was designed to minimize impacts from vegetation management and connected activities, including prescribed burning, on the scenic quality of important viewsheds located within and in close proximity to the project area, including the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway, the Swift River, and developed recreation sites such as Boulder Loop Trail, Covered Bridge Campground and Rocky Gorge Scenic Area.

Alternative 3 was also developed in response to concerns that proposed timber harvest and connected transportation system management activities, prescribed burning and construction of a new parking lot on Bear Notch Road may result in adverse impacts to water sources and systems and increase trespass and disturbance on abutting private lands.

Wildlife Habitat and Forest Vegetation Management Alternative 3 would implement the following vegetation management treatments shown in Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2, to accomplish Forest Plan habitat management and other resource objectives on approximately 1,690 acres within the Northeast Swift Project Area:

• Clearcut approximately 210 acres and patch clearcut approximately 105 acres to regenerate forest stands and create early successional forest habitat;

• Remove overstory trees from approximately 35 acres of softwood and mixedwood stands to release existing softwood regeneration;

• Regenerate approximately 50 acres of forest stands with “seed tree reserve” and “shelterwood” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition;

• Thin approximately 130 acres of forest stands to improve growth and vigor, timber quality and species composition;

• Regenerate portions of approximately 955 acres of forest stands with “group selection” treatments, 125 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 80 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat;

30 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Cut or girdle non-commercial sized trees (trees under 5 inches diameter at breast height, or DBH) in up to 400 acres of timber harvest units, using hand tools, chainsaws or mechanical methods, in order to foster establishment of red oak, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen and softwood regeneration, and

• Plant northern red oak seedlings on approximately 20 acres following timber harvest in unit 43.

Vegetation management treatments included in Alternative 3 and shown in Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, and would provide an estimated 7 million board feet (MMBF) of forest products from approximately 1,690 acres of treatment areas. Alternative 3 would also include use of 19 existing landings and construction of 13 new landings, approximately 0.5 acres in size or less, and 5 short temporary spur roads (each 500 feet or less in length) or driveways, needed to access these landings (Figure 2-3).

Table 2.2 - Alternative 3 Vegetation Management Silvicultural Treatment Harvest Method Estimated Acres ** Clearcut/Patch Clearcut 315 (CC/PC) Even-Aged Regeneration Overstory Removal (OSR) 35 400 acres Seed Tree Reserve (SD TR RS) 30 Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 20 Even-Aged – Intermediate Thinning (THIN) 130 130 acres Group Selection (GS) 955 Uneven-Aged Regeneration Single Tree Selection (STS) 125 1160 acres Single Tree Selection/Group 80 Selection Combined (STS/GS)

• **Includes reserve patches of uncut trees, as well as protective buffers around vernal pools, cultural artifacts and nest trees as needed

31 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Vegetation & Transportation System Management System & Transportation Vegetation

- Figure 2.3 Alternative 3 2.3 Alternative Figure

Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Recreation & Transportation System Management, Management, System & Transportation Recreation

- Prescribed Fire & Watershed Restoration Watershed & Fire Prescribed Figure 2.4 Alternative 3 2.4 Alternative Figure

33 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Prescribed Fire Alternative 3 would apply prescribed fire to underburn up to 500 acres to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations on the forest floor, increase oak and pine regeneration and reduce the amount of hardwood sapling competition for established oak seedlings, sapling and poles in the understory (Figure 2-4). Areas that are visible from important viewsheds, as well as areas within the immediate vicinity of abutting private lands would not be underburned. Proposed underburning areas would include approximately 160 acres in portions of 11 proposed timber harvest units. Underburning treatments would be implemented following harvest in these areas. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak seedling establishment, reduce competing hardwoods, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape.

Watershed Restoration Alternative 3 would implement the same watershed restoration activities in the same locations as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

Recreation Management Alternative 3 would implement the following recreation improvements shown in Figure 2.4:

• Remove hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground to improve visitor safety; and

• Construct a new year-round parking lot designed to accommodate ten vehicles with trailers that would be about 3 acres in size, on Bear Notch Road. Under Alternative 3, this parking lot would be located on the west side of the road approximately ¼ mile north of the existing gate. This gate would be relocated to a site just north of the new parking area.

34 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Transportation System Alternative 3 includes implementation of the following Forest transportation system management activities shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 that are designed to provide access necessary to meet resource management objectives in the project area:

• Construct 2 new Forest Roads, totaling approximately 1 mile;

• Reconstruct an estimated 5.2 miles of five Forest Roads (FSR 5174, 26B, 28, 28A, and 602);

• Decommission three existing roads that are not included in the Forest Transportation System (5426, 28-UNK1 and 602-UNK1), totaling about 0.9 miles in length.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was developed in response to concerns expressed that proposed timber harvest and connected transportation system management activities would adversely impact roadless values of areas identified as part of the roadless area inventory for the 2005 Forest Plan revision, precluding their consideration for wilderness designation in the future. This alternative was designed to minimize impacts from wildlife habitat and vegetation management and connected transportation system management activities on the roadless characteristics of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, such as old forest, relatively undisturbed, unfragmented landscapes, habitat suitability, water quality, scenic beauty, and solitude. Alternative 4 would not implement any new road construction or even-aged regeneration treatments, ie. clearcutting, patch clearcutting, overstory removal, shelterwood or seed tree reserve harvest, within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area in order to reduce impacts on roadless characteristics.

35 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Wildlife Habitat and Forest Vegetation Management Alternative 4 would implement the following vegetation management treatments shown in Figure 2.5 and Table 2.3, to accomplish Forest Plan habitat management and other resource objectives on approximately 1,425 acres within the Northeast Swift Project Area:

• Clearcut approximately 120 acres and patch clearcut approximately 35 acres to regenerate forest stands and create early successional forest habitat;

• Regenerate approximately 25 acres of forest stands with “seed tree reserve” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition;

• Thin approximately 130 acres of forest stands to improve growth and vigor, timber quality and species composition, and

• Regenerate portions of approximately 900 acres of forest stands with “group selection” treatments, 125 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 85 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat, and

• Cut or girdle non-commercial sized trees (trees under 5 inches diameter at breast height, or DBH) in up to 200 acres of timber harvest units, using hand tools, chainsaws or mechanical methods, in order to foster establishment of red oak, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen and softwood regeneration. Vegetation management treatments included in Alternative 4 and shown in Figure 2.5 and Table 2.3 would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, and would provide an estimated 6 million board feet (MMBF) of forest products from approximately 1,425 acres of treatment areas. Alternative 4 would also include use of 19 existing landings and construction of 11 new landings, approximately 0.5 acres in size or less, and 5 short temporary spur roads (each 500 feet or less in length) needed to access proposed timber harvest areas and conduct harvesting operations (Figure 2-5).

36 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Vegetation & Transportation System Management System & Transportation Vegetation

- Figure 2.5 Alternative 4 2.5 Alternative Figure

White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

tershed Restoration tershed Recreation & Transportation System Management, Management, System & Transportation Recreation

- Prescribed Fire & Wa & Fire Prescribed Figure 2.6 Alternative 4 2.6 Alternative Figure

38 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 2.3 - Alternative 4 Vegetation Management Silvicultural Treatment Harvest Method Estimated Acres ** Clearcut/Patch Clearcut 155 (CC/PC) Even-Aged Regeneration Overstory Removal (OSR) 0 180 acres Seed Tree Reserve (SD TR RS) 25 Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 0 Even-Aged – Intermediate Thinning (THIN) 130 130 acres Group Selection (GS) 900 Uneven-Aged Regeneration Single Tree Selection (STS) 125 1110 acres Single Tree Selection/Group 85 Selection Combined (STS/GS) **Includes reserve patches of uncut trees, as well as protective buffers around vernal pools, cultural artifacts and nest trees as needed

Prescribed Fire Alternative 4 would apply prescribed fire to underburn the same locations as in the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) (Figure 2-6). Proposed underburning areas would include approximately 175 acres in portions of 8 proposed timber harvest units. Underburning treatments would be implemented following harvest in these areas. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak seedling establishment, reduce the amount of competing hardwoods in the understory, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape

Watershed Restoration Alternative 4 would implement the same watershed restoration activities in the same locations as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

Recreation Management Alternative 4 would implement the same recreation improvements in the same locations as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

39 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Transportation System Alternative 4 would implement the following Forest Transportation System management activities shown in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 that are designed to provide access necessary to meet resource management objectives in the project area:

• Construct one new Forest Road, totaling approximately 0.5 miles;

• Reconstruct an estimated 5.2 miles of five Forest Roads (FSR 5174, 26B, 28, 28A, and 602);

• Reclassify one existing road (5174), totaling approximately 0.8 mile in length, and add it to the Forest Transportation System as an intermittent service, or closed, road, and

• Decommission three existing roads that are not included in the Forest Transportation System (5426, 28-UNK1 and 602-UNK1), totaling about 0.9 miles in length.

2.3 Project Design Features

In addition to the activities described above, all three action alternatives analyzed incorporate a variety of project design features intended to define where and how Forest Plan Standards and guidelines are applied to this project. The following design features are integrated into all action alternatives, ie Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, for this project: • Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Chapters 2 and 3), and

• State of New Hampshire Best Management Practices (NH DRED, 2004a,b).

The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for water resources are emphasized for this project:

• Use effective, proven runoff and erosion control methods during construction activity (Forest Plan, Water Resources S-3, p. 2-30). This includes State Best Management Practices for erosion control during timber harvest, trail maintenance and road maintenance (NH DRED, 2004a,b; NH DOT, 2001).

• New or reconstructed features (e.g., ditches and water bars) intended to capture runoff water should be designed to drain into areas suitable for trapping sediment and not directly into streams, wetlands or vernal pools. (Forest Plan, G- 1, p.2-31)

40 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge unimpeded (Forest Plan, S-5, p. 2-31).

• Temporary stream crossings on perennial streams should be designed to withstand at least a 25-year flood and pass bankfull flows (Forest Plan, G-5, p. 2- 31).

• All appropriate state and federal permits must be acquired prior to implementing management activities within wetlands, floodplains, streams, or ponds (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats S-1, p. 2-24).

• Tree cutting and harvest should not occur within 25 feet of the bank of mapped perennial streams, the high water mark of a pond, or a identified natural vernal pool, unless prescribed to benefit hydrological or ecological function of the associated stream, pond, or riparian area. Exceptions to this include tree removals needed to clear a designated stream crossing, maintaining an existing road or previously cleared skid road that cannot be relocated, or protecting human safety or infrastructure. (Forest Plan, p. 2-24). Mapped perennial streams include those identified as perennial on USGS topographic maps.

• In addition, a Riparian Management Zone (RMZ), 75 feet wide for 1st and 2nd order streams as well as lakes, ponds and vernal pools and 275 feet wide for third order streams (the Swift River within the project area) would be implemented beyond the no-cut buffer. Uneven-aged practices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). Regeneration group cuts should be limited to less than one acre in size within this zone. (Forest Plan, p. 2-25 and 2-26). Exceptions may apply in areas deemed important for maintaining beaver colonies. (Forest Plan, p. 2-24 and 2-25) Site-specific design features in this document delineate the RMZ for unmapped perennial streams.

The following Best Management Practices (BMP) for water resources are emphasized for this project:

• Stabilize stream crossing approaches with brush or similar materials, before and during operations. Maintain approaches in a stable condition through close out (UNH Cooperative Extension, 2005, p. 42).

41 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• Trail grades approaching stream crossings shall be broken and surface water dispersed so it will not reach the water course. Silt fencing, haybale erosion checks or water diversions shall be used to prevent soil from skid trails from entering streams and other surface waters (NH DRED, 2004a, p. 19).

• Locate roads, landings and skid trails to minimize the number of stream crossings needed and maximize the harvest area accessed by each crossing. (UNH Cooperative Extension, 2005, p. 38).

• Minimize disturbance to the stream banks, channel and streambed during installation, use and removal of stream crossings (UNH Cooperative Extension, 2005, p. 42).

• Design bridges using solid decking or other features to minimize the amount of material that falls through the deck and into the stream (UNH Cooperative Extension, 2005, p. 43).

• Trail grades approaching stream crossings shall be broken and surface water dispersed so it will not reach the water course (NH DRED, 2004a, p. 19).

• Silt fencing, haybale erosion checks or water diversions shall be used to prevent soil from skid trails from entering streams and other surface waters (NH DRED, 2004a, p. 19).

• When closing out a stream crossing, remove temporary structures from the stream, leave brush in place on approaches and banks, and stabilize exposed soil in approaches to the riparian area using brush, hay or seeding and mulching (UNH Cooperative Extension, 2005, p.51).

The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices for soil resources are emphasized for this project:

• Where exposure of mineral soil is expected, skid trails would generally be located on grades of less than 20 percent, with only short steeper pitches (Forest Plan, G-5, p.2-30).

• Log landings would be the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements of the equipment, the quantity and type of forest products, and safety in order to limit the area subject to soil disturbance and compaction. (NH DRED, 2004b).

42 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Upon completion of operations at a landing, the area of disturbance would be graded and stabilized as needed to prevent erosion before the site can revegetate and to accelerate recovery from temporary soil compaction. (NH DRED, 2004b)

• The operating period for timber sale activities would be limited to the specific season of harvest and/or ground conditions specified in the timber sale contract to minimize adverse soil and water environmental effects. This would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator (Martin, 1988).

• Skidding patterns would be designed to fit the terrain to control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in a manner that would minimize erosion and sedimentation. This preventative practice would be achieved by minimizing the length of skid trails, locating the skid trails in advance, adding drainage features such as waterbars, and designing skid trails to cross streams at right angles (NH DRED, 2004b). This would be implemented by the Timber Sale Administrator.

• Harvested trees may be skidded whole to landings; some tops and limbs will be scattered on landings and skid trails to reduce compaction and erosion during and after operations, during snow-free season and otherwise as needed; and remaining tops and limbs will be returned and scattered on all harvested stands to retain soil nutrients (Forest Plan, S-2, p.2-29).

• Upon completion of harvesting operations, skid trails would be closed and bare ground seeded as needed in areas where soil erosion potential occurs, such as steep ground and near stream crossings (NH DRED, 2004b). The Timber Sale Administrator would designate the areas of disturbed soils that must be treated and monitor effectiveness of the treatment. Water-barring and seeding needed sections of skid trails has proven to work on the White Mountain National Forest, and in other places implementing Maine and NH BMPs (see NCASI 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2007e, 2009e, 2010h, 2011c).

In addition, the following project specific design features were developed to provide resource protection and address public safety concerns, and have also been incorporated into all action alternatives for this project.

Timber Harvest

• No group selection cuts would lie within 25 feet of unmapped perennial streams occurring within units 45, 67, 69, 71 and 72

43 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• No clearcuts would lie within 50 feet of unmapped perennial streams occurring adjacent to units 11, 22 and 23

• Reserve patches of uncut trees would be retained in clearcuts, and protective buffers around vernal pools, cultural artifacts, and nest trees would be maintained where necessary.

• Raptor nest trees, heavily-used bear clawed beech, and decadent “wildlife” trees would be retained in harvest units.

• An average of 6 cavity and/or snag trees per acre would be retained while single tree marking.

• Known heritage sites located in proposed units would be protected by marked reserve areas. Harvesting and equipment would not be allowed in these known heritage reserve areas.

• Caution signs or closure signs would be placed as necessary along trails, at trailheads and where logging operation occur to alert visitors to logging operations and ensure public safety.

• Weekend haul restrictions would be implemented on Bear Notch Road (FR 26) from Dec 15 to April 15. This road is closed and used as a snowmobile trail in winter. During logging operations, only one lane of this road would be plowed to accomodate logging traffic, while the other lane would continue to provide access for snowmobile traffic.

• Falls Pond Road (FR 209) would be posted and trails in the area may be closed when logging activities are occurring in harvest units serviced by this road.

• Weekend haul restrictions would be implemented for Deer Brook Road, Big Brook Road, and Dugway/Passaconway road.

• Harvest slash within 50 feet on either side of hiking and Nordic trails and forest roads would be lopped and scattered to lie within three feet of the ground.

• Trees to be cut within a distance of 100 feet from Nordic and hiking trails, Covered Bridge Campground, Bear Notch Road and Passaconaway Road would be marked on the back side to reduce the visibility of paint, except stump marks which are required on the downhill side of trees.

• Skid trails would cross hiking and Nordic ski trails at approximate right angles and cross a minimum number of times.

44 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Logging operations would be restricted to weekdays on units abutting or containing the Nanamacomuck Nordic Trail.

• Roughly ¼ mile of the South Moat Mountain Trail would be temporarily relocated as it departs the parking area to re-route the trail around a haul road and log landing.

• To minimize damage to residual trees, skid trails would be planned to include trees marked for removal while providing an adequate working space for logging equipment.

• Opening size within group selection units would be limited to ¼ acre when groups are located within 100 feet of Nordic trails, hiking trails and the Passaconaway Road, except where groups are placed for scenic enhancement.

• Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) control efforts would begin prior to forestry operations to eliminate large fruit producing individuals, thereby reducing the risk of transporting NNIS propagules into uninfested areas.

• If only a portion of a stand is infested, where feasible harvest shall progress from the uninfested to the infested areas to reduce spread of NNIS.

• If NNIS infestations and/or previously unknown populations of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) are discovered, where feasible harvest operations will cease until the Forest Botanist can evaluate the extent and severity of the infestation and make recommendations for mitigation.

• The waterline located within Unit 66 will be protected by an approximately 50 ft. wide buffer (25 ft. on each side. The well located within unit 66 will be protected by an approximately ¾ acre buffer. Heavy equipment and timber harvest will not be permitted within these buffers.

Prescribed Burning • Prior to implementation of prescribed burning, burn plans would be prepared and approved by qualified Forest personnel. All prescribed burning would be implemented by trained firefighters in accordance with approved burn plans. • The public would be notified prior to ignition of the prescribed burns. • Firebreaks would be constructed, and/or natural barriers would be used, to contain prescribed fire to intended underburn treatment areas. Fire control lines would be placed at terrain breaks to ensure protection of private property,

45 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

streams and any associated wildlife corridors. Past prescribed burns have shown that fire control lines, in conjunction with fire control pumps and hose, engines, and personnel, will ensure the prescribed burn remains within the prescribed area. (Forest Plan G-1, p 2-33). • In areas where prescribed fire would be used to treat understory vegetation in forest stands, brush and branches would be pulled away from trees with desired characteristics to prevent scorch damage. • During prescribed fire treatments in areas adjacent to hiking trails, brush and branches would be pulled away from stone walls that are visible from the hiking trail. This would ensure that charring of the rocks in the stone wall would be minimal, and lessened visual impacts to the area. • Particulate levels would be monitored during prescribed burning • Only low intensity fire would be used in Riparian Management Zones (RMZ) practices appropriate to the site would be employed. Keeping high intensity fires out of riparian areas would preserve vegetation and duff layers, which serve as a buffer against water quality changes by preventing sediment movement into streams (Elliot and Vose, 2005). These practices include: ° Using low intensity backing or flanking fires ° Using streams as natural firebreaks only when the Keetch-Byrum Drought Index (KBDI) is 500 or less, so that soil moisture will be sufficient to keep organic layers and duff present in riparian areas. ° Reducing accumulation of leaf litter using leaf blowers in a line at least 25 feet from the streambank.

• Activities that disturb mineral soil, such as fireline construction, shall occur outside the RMZ, and firelines shall be constructed to avoid channeling water directly into streams.

• Prescribed fire would not occur within units proposed for timber harvesting until logging operations are completed. Understory species composition and fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter) would be evaluated following harvesting to determine the need for prescribed fire.

• Prescribed fire would be delayed for several years following a substantial acorn crop or when oak seedlings are small, of low vigor, or recently established (Brose et al., 2006; Dey et al., 2007).

46 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Prescribed fire would include small areas outside of units proposed for timber harvesting, as necessary, for implementation purposes.

• Prescribed fire would preferentially be applied in the spring just before or during leaf expansion to reduce competing vegetation (Brose et al. 2006). However, prescribed fire may be applied in the fall, as necessary, to reduce the litter layer (Dey and Fan, 2008).

• Stands and inclusions of stands containing desirable vegetation would be excluded from fire if operationally feasible.

• Pre- and post-burn forest conditions would be monitored. Monitoring would include an assessment of fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter), tree mortality and understory species composition. Monitoring of oak reproduction would include the following measurements: height, diameter (root collar), and number of oak seedlings per acre.

• Stands and inclusions of stands containing desirable vegetation would be excluded from fire if operationally feasible.

• Decisions related to implementation and monitoring of prescribed fire would involve coordination among IDT members of the project.

• Areas containing known occurrences of RFSS plants shall be reserved from prescribed fire unless the Forest botanist determines such action would be beneficial to the RFSS plant population.

Recreation Improvements

• New parking lots will not be located within 100 feet of perennial streams or the high water mark of a pond.

• New parking lot construction will employ stormwater management practices to promote infiltration or disperse runoff into vegetated areas rather than directing runoff into surface waters.

47 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

2.4 Monitoring

Water Resources

• The Timber Sale Administrator will visually monitor stream crossing sites, roads, skid trails, landings and Riparian Management Zones to catch and rectify any problems in the early stage. This monitoring shall continue until the area has successfully stabilized.

• Established water quality monitoring sites within the project area will be monitored after completion of harvest to inform future management in this area.

• Water quality and burn intensity will be monitored when a burn unit encompasses more than 20% of a perennial watershed. Parameters to be monitored include turbidity, conductivity, pH and burn intensity in the watershed. Further burning in the watershed will only occur when conditions are within normal range of variability for the stream and watershed conditions (such as organic layers and canopy cover) are sufficient to preserve hydrologic function.

Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)

• Any stand containing documented occurrences of NNIS which is proposed for harvest would be monitored annually for a period of five years following close out to ensure that NNIS has not spread. Additionally all skid roads, haul roads and log landings associated with any infested stand would monitored for five years to ensure the same.

Soils

• The Forest Soil Scientist would make periodic checks during and after the project to monitor the effects of the project to see if the effect matches what is written in the soils section of the EA, and if the effects are not within those anticipated adaptive management would be to improve the soil condition.

Vegetation

• Pre- and post-burn forest conditions would be monitored. Monitoring would include an assessment of fuel conditions (particularly litter), tree mortality and understory species composition.

48 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• All proposed regeneration treatments would be monitored approximately three growing seasons following completion of timber harvesting. Monitoring would include an assessment of the abundance and distribution of trees.

2.5 Other Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

1) Develop a snowmobile trail that would connect the Bear Notch system with the trails on the east side of the Moat Mountains and Corridor 19.

The State of NH Trails Bureau suggested locating a snowmobile trail that would connect the Rob Brook/Bear Notch Snowmobiling area with existing areas east of Moat Mountain and thus provide access to Corridor 19. The NH Trails Bureau submitted a proposal to connect the Bear Notch Area to the Bowles Trail on the south side of the Swift River. This proposal would include National Forest lands that are not within the study area for this project, and would require a bridge crossing of the Swift River. At this time, the goal for this project is to address the need for additional parking at the south end of the Bear Notch snowmobile route. Increased use of the Nanamocomuck ski trail has also increased the need for parking at this location. In addition, Forest Plan standards allow for limited additional trail miles, so a larger analysis of trail needs and locations would need to be completed in a separate planning and analysis effort.

2) Exclude clearcut treatments from the project

An alternative that would have excluded all clearcut and patch cut treatments from the project was considered by the Interdisciplinary Team. This alternative would not meet an important component of the Need for Action. The Need for Action for this project specifically includes creation of early successional regeneration habitat, which is one of the habitat types widely used by wildlife species on the forest. A detailed discussion regarding the need for early successional regeneration habitat is presented in the Need for Action section of Chapter 1 and in the Wildlife section in Chapter 3. To remove from consideration all clear cuts and patch cut treatments would not move the project area toward the age class diversity of the desired future condition. For these reasons, an alternative that would have eliminated clearcuts and patch cuts from the project was dropped from further study.

49 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

3) Exclude all timber harvest within areas identified as part of the roadless area inventory for the 2005 Forest Plan revision. This alternative would have proposed that no harvest activity of any kind, including thinnings or selection (uneven-aged) harvests, be conducted within any portion of the Northeast Swift project area that was identified as part of the roadless area inventory for the 2005 Forest Plan revision. This corresponds with the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area further described in Pages C-171-179, Appendix C, Forest Plan FEIS.

The primary reason for not including this alternative is that excluding all harvest within the inventoried roadless area would fall far short of meeting the Purpose and Need of this project, which is to achieve a range of habitat and forest conditions within Management Area 2.1 (General Forest Management), as described in the White Mountain NF Forest Plan. Such an alternative would essentially manage over half of the MA 2.1 land in this project area as though it were MA 6.1, or semi-primitive forest land. During Forest Plan revision, the balance of management areas and emphasis was considered extensively. In the Record of Decision for the revised Forest Plan, the Regional Forester stated that “While I could have chosen Alternative 3 and moved more of the Forest into roadless character, I did not think this was needed to provide a Plan that was responsive to all the ecological, social, and economic demands placed on the Forest.” (USDA Forest Service, 2005e) He determined that the balance of management areas in the revised Forest Plan would provide ecological benefits, desired recreational experiences, and allow for a diversity of uses. Implementing an alternative that excludes harvest from lands in MA 2.1 that were identified as suitable for timber harvest in the Forest Plan would alter that balance and affect our ability to achieve management objectives for wildlife habitat and vegetation management. More than 65 percent of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is in management areas that do not allow harvest or road construction. This alternative would essentially increase that even more, adding lands that are on slopes and ecological landtypes that are appropriate for harvest and can help attain Forest habitat objectives.

Public comments suggested that habitat objectives for the HMU could be met under this alternative by only treating MA 2.1 lands that were not included in the roadless area inventory for the 2005 Forest Plan revision (Table Mountain). Habitat Management Units (HMU) are a strategy used to help attain Forest Plan habitat goals and objectives, and to provide diverse habitats that are well distributed across the forest landscape. Habitat goals for individual HMUs are developed based upon the ecological capability of lands that are available (MA 2.1) and suitable for vegetation management. Timber

50 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment harvest is the most effective and economic method of achieving forest habitat diversity goals. Approximately 7,100 acres, or about 70%, of the NE Swift River HMU (project area) is allocated by the Forest Plan to MA 2.1 and available for timber harvest. Only about 2,730 acres of all MA 2.1 lands within the HMU (project area) are located outside of lands included in the 2005 Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory (Table Mountain), and some of this area is not suitable for timber harvest due to various topography, soil and vegetation conditions. If a comparable amount of habitat could be treated under this alternative through timber harvest in this area, habitat diversity would only improve on about 25% of the HMU, rather than on about 70% of the HMU as proposed under the three action alternatives analyzed in detail.

In addition, this project was designed to maximize opportunities to improve habitat diversity within the HMU. Stands that are silviculturally appropriate and logistically feasible to harvest were identified using forest inventory data and professional forester field reconnaissance and judgment. These stands were reviewed by resource specialists. The proposed action included all stands that were identified as ecologically appropriate, accessible, consistent with the Forest Plan, and that were not likely to result in substantial adverse resource impacts. Trying to meet habitat and forestry objectives outside of roadless areas inventoried during the 2005 Forest Plan revision (Table Mountain) would not be consistent with the Forest Plan or sustainable natural resource management principles. Furthermore, on the White Mountain NF, recent harvest has not prevented areas from being included in the inventory of roadless areas completed for the Forest Plan. For example, the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, which was not part of the inventories for the 1986 Forest Plan or 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, was identified as having roadless characteristics in the Forest Plan revision inventory, despite two large timber sales (Red Moat Timber Sale 1997-2001 and Bear Timber Sale 2002-2006) and additional harvest in the interim.

51 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

withinArea Project Swift NE Areas identified during Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory inventory area roadless revision Plan Forest during identified Areas – Figure 2.7

52 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Harvests rarely, if ever, were a significant factor or led to excluding land from an inventoried roadless area because areas continued to meet the criteria for roadless areas in the east (USDA Forest Service, 2007b, Chapter 70). The handbook recognizes the unique characteristics of eastern National Forests and their recuperative abilities. Hence, it allows identification as “roadless” under a wide range of conditions, including: “Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within the past 10 years.” Even clearcuts have not exempted areas from inclusion. In fact, several large 15-year old clearcuts were included within the area that was added to the Sandwich Range Wilderness in 2006, indicating that recent timber harvest does not preclude Wilderness designation.

The Northeast Swift project proposes a total of up to 1,740 acres of harvest, of which approximately 1100 acres lies within the 15,600-acre Table Mountain inventoried roadless area (Figure 2.7). This represents 7% of the inventoried roadless area, which falls far short of the 20% threshold. Even when considered with cumulative harvest elsewhere in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area this decade, the area will not exceed 20%, barring an unforeseeable catastrophic weather event. In summary, Alternative 4 removes all clearcuts and road construction within the inventoried area, which are the most visually evident activities proposed, and the ones most likely to have an influence on the area’s consideration during future roadless area inventories. An alternative that removes all activities would not significantly improve or preserve its roadless character beyond that, or add quality to its “untrammeled” condition. It would, however alter the balance of management activities from that described in the Forest Plan and reduce our ability to implement wildlife habitat and vegetation management objectives.

53 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

2.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2.4 - Alternative Comparison

Project Activities Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Vegetation & Habitat Management (Acres) Timber Harvest Clearcut w/Reserves/Patch Clearcut 0 400 315 155 Overstory Removal 0 35 35 0 Seed Tree Reserve 0 35 30 25 Shelterwood Seed Cut 0 20 20 0 Thinning 0 130 130 130 Group Selection 0 910 955 900 Single tree Selection 0 125 125 125 Single Tree Selection & Group Selection 0 85 80 85 Total 0 1740 1690 1425 Non-commercial Release thinning 0 400 400 200 Planting 0 19 19 0 Prescribed Burning 0 750 500 750 Watershed Restoration # of sites 0 3 3 3 Recreation Management Nanamocomuck Ski Trail reconstruction (miles) 0 1.3 1.3 1.3 CB Campground vegetation treatment (acres) 0 38 38 38 Bear Notch Road Parking Lot (miles from private land) N/A 0.3 1.0 0.3 Transportation Management New road construction (miles) 0 1 1 0.5 Road reconstruction (miles) 0 5.2 5.2 5.2 Road decommissioning (miles) 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Roads added to Forest Transportation System (miles) 0 1.5 1.5 0.8

54 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 2.4 - Alternative Comparison (cont.)

Project Effects Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Scenery – New openings visible from Kancamagus Scenic Highway (# harvest units/acres) Kancamagus - East 0/0 1/12 0/0 0/0 Kancamagus - Northeast 0/0 6/80 2/22 3/35 Kancamagus – Lower Falls (Northwest) 0/0 4/53 3/38 0/0 Kancamagus - Northeast 0/0 2/22 2/17 2/22 Wild and Scenic River Eligibility – activities within ¼ mile of Swift River Timber harvest (acres) 0 540 533 516 Regeneration harvest (acres) 0 26 12 3 New Road Construction (miles) 0 0.5 0.5 0 Prescribed Burning (acres) 0 184 152 184 Table Mountain IRA – activities within IRA Timber harvest (acres) 0 817 810 531 Regeneration harvest (acres) 0 288 251 0 New road construction (miles) 0 0.5 0.5 0

55 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources found in the Northeast Swift Project Area resulting from Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Analysis of effects to resources is summarized from detailed Specialist Reports that are located in the project record.

3.1 Recreation

Affected Environment Recreation resources within and immediately adjacent to the Northeast Swift Project Area include Lower Falls, Rocky Gorge, Dugway, and Covered Bridge Day Use Areas, Covered Bridge Campground, South Moat and Boulder Loop Trails, and four Nordic ski trails including the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail. The Kancamagus National Scenic Byway, Passaconaway and Bear Notch Roads are used to access the project area and its various recreation activities. The Kancamagus National Scenic Byway is a popular visitor destination offering access to a variety of recreational opportunities and experiences and is a favorite scenic road for many.

The Northeast Swift project area has been managed for multiple uses since inception as a National Forest including the coexistence of recreation and timber management. Evidence of past timber management activities is apparent in existing skid trails, Forest Service roads, and in the existing vegetation types and stand ages. To the average observer these past harvest treatments may be evident, yet the forest has a remarkable ability to regenerate new stands with a diversity of tree species, understory conditions, and wildlife habitat including foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of native wildlife species. Higher elevation forests and steep areas retain timber stands that regenerated following extensive harvesting that occurred prior to 1910. Existing hiking and Nordic ski trails within the project area often lie on former skid trails and secondary or abandoned logging roads. Occasional stone foundations found in the eastern sector of the project area, are remnants of a bygone era.

56 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The recreation setting is described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). ROS defines a range of unique recreation experiences as Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural/Urban (Forest Plan, 2005, p.1-10 and Map 1-11). Lands within this project area are identified as Management Area 2.1 (General Forest Management), 6.1 (Semi-Primitive Recreation) and 8.5. (Scenic Area). The areas where harvest is proposed are within Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural ROS classes, and are within MA 2.1 lands.

Semi-Primitive Motorized is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentrated use is generally uncommon, but there is evidence of human uses. The area is managed with minimum on-site controls and restrictions. Snowmobile use on designated trails is allowed. Roaded Natural is characterized by a predominately natural appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment.

Rural/Urban lands abut or are in close proximity to private lands. They are characterized by natural appearing environment with strong evidence of human presence. Interaction between users and evidence of resource uses may be high. Hiking Trails

Summer and fall are the primary use seasons but hiking trails also receive winter use. The largest concentration of people traveling to the White Mountains occurs during summer and fall foliage season. Boulder Loop and South Moat hiking trails receive high use during the summer and fall. These two trails are frequented by both experienced hikers and families or individuals out for a moderate hike.

Lovequist Trail is a one mile gentle hike around Falls Pond within Rocky George Scenic Area. It receives low to moderate use in summer and winter.

Six proposed harvest units lie near two of these hiking trails. No units are near Lovequist Trail. The South Moat Mountain Trail crosses through Unit 45. Adjacent to trails are the other 5 units; 14, 42, 43, 44, and 85 (Figures 2.1; 2.2). Table 3.1 provides a brief description of these hiking trails including use levels.

57 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.1. Hiking Trail Use and Description

Trail Name Use Length Description Level* (miles) Boulder Loop High 3.1 Popular day hike easily accessed from the Kancamagus round Highway and Covered Bridge Day Use Area. Receives high use trip during the summer and fall seasons, with low winter use. Moderate climb that provides excellent views from the trail’s upper ledges to the south, east and west. Day hikers and families use this trail as a pleasant short hike.

South Moat High 2.3 Most frequently used during the summer and fall season. Mountain one way Receives high use during the summer and low use in winter. Its steep ascent affords pleasant views from the 2749 foot South Moat Mountain, or further along from Middle Moat or North Moat (3196 ft.). The trail head accommodates up to ten vehicles.

Lovequist Low to 1.0 Lovequist Trail is a short hike around Falls Pond. It maintains a moderate round gentle gradient, with 50 feet of elevation gain and returns to the trip start point at Rocky Gorge.

*Use level is people per day (ppd) during peak use (e.g. school vacation weeks, holiday weekends). Range of use of levels is: Low = 0–6 ppd; Moderate = 7–25 ppd; High = 26–50 ppd; Very High = 51+ ppd; Data from WMNF Trail Use Levels 2002 Nordic Ski Trails

Four Nordic ski trails are within the project area (see Table 3.2). Portions of these trails pass through some of the proposed units containing partial harvest prescriptions and may be directly or indirectly affected. Portions of these trails are located on existing skid trails, and other sections were constructed to provide skiing near the Swift River.

58 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.2. Nordic Ski Trail Use and Description.

Trail Name Use Length Description Level* Nanamocomuck moderate 7.0 One of few lengthy Nordic Trails on the Forest not associated Ski Trail (Nana) miles with a permitted commercial Nordic Ski Area. Offers access near Lily Pond, Bear Notch Road, Rocky Gorge and Covered Bridge. Section within the project area is from Bear Notch Road east to Albany Covered Bridge. In good snow years is packed for Nordic skiing using a snow machine and drag. Winter use is generally low, with moderate use on weekends when snow conditions are good. Summer mountain biking use within the project area is low. Foot traffic on the 1 mile section west of covered bridge (also referred to as FSR 28) is moderate during the summer.

Wenonah Low 1.0 Used by skiers, mountain bikers, and occasionally hikers, in miles conjunction with portions of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail.

Wenunchus Low 1.0 Provides an alternative route to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, miles especially for mountain bikers as the portion of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail in the area of Falls Pond is closed to mountain bikes. Receives use by skiers, hikers, bikers and snowshoers.

Paugus Ski Trail Low 0.4 Departs from the Nana and touches upon FS Road 209 for a and Paugus Link miles short segment, connecting to the Nana in two locations. Receives low use during all seasons. On good snow years this trail is packed using a snow machine and a drag for Nordic skiing.

*Use level is people per day (ppd) during peak use (e.g. school vacation weeks, holiday weekends). Range of use levels are: Low = 0–6 ppd; Moderate = 7–25 ppd; High = 26–50 ppd; Very High = 51+ ppd; Data from WMNF Trail Use Levels 2002 Developed Recreation Sites

The NE Swift project area has a number of popular developed recreation sites including Covered Bridge campground, Covered Bridge Day Use Area, and Rocky Gorge Scenic Area. Covered Bridge and Lower Falls Day Use Areas are just outside the project area. These two sites are included in the discussions because they are immediately adjacent to the project area boundary at the Swift River.

59 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Rocky Gorge Scenic Area includes a foot bridge across the Swift River and an ABA accessible trail to Falls Pond, including a fishing platform, and provides access to the Nanamocomuck Ski and Lovequist Trails. South Moat Mountain and Boulder Loop trailheads, and Dugway Picnic Area are also within the project area. Dispersed Recreation

Low levels of dispersed camping, walking, hunting, and rock climbing within or near the project area occur. Local rock climbing enthusiasts occasionally use cliffs known as Rainbow Slabs, Painted Walls, Sundown, Craig Y, Table Mountain Slab, and Woodchuck to access numerous climbs. There are no official trails accessing these climbing areas and the light amount of use has not yet led to a need to establish designated trails. The Kancamagus Highway has a ¼ mile Forest Protection Area that prohibits camping within this corridor.

Swimming on the Swift River along the Kancamagus Highway is very popular in summer. Visitors park along the shoulders of the Kancamagus Highway, Passaconaway Road, and at the developed recreation sites to access the river. During the spring the Swift River receives a low level of recreational kayaking during periods of snowmelt when the river is high and consistent.

Hunting opportunities for whitetail deer, black bear and game birds are present, however population densities of these species are low (see the Wildlife Report). Fishing in the Swift River is primarily for stocked brook trout. Snowmobile Trails

Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail provides access to Meadow Brook Trail, which leads to Sawyer River Road on Highway 302. Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail also extends to the town of Bartlett, where a large trailhead under State ownership is located. Current parking within the project area on Bear Notch Road is limited to two to three vehicles, and is shared with Nordic skiers using the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail. Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on recreation is defined as the Northeast Swift project area, with the addition of Covered Bridge and Lower Falls Day Use Areas. The time frame is 2–10 years based on the potential effects including scenery modifications shown to be apparent for up to 10 years, after which they become a natural-appearing forest cover (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p 3-447). However, direct effects related to harvesting are expected to last for the duration of harvest activities,

60 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

approximately 1 to 2 years in any one area and potentially four years total for this project, depending on the alternative selected and on sale operations.

This analysis area and time duration were selected because once the management action ceases, so do the majority of the effects; with the exception of scenery modification that may persist for up to ten years.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 1 would not alter current recreation opportunities. Existing trail conditions, stream conditions and scenery would remain as is. Proposed projects listed under the action alternatives would not take place. This eliminates the proposed vegetation treatments, the relocation of two wet sections of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail and one bridge that is needed, it does not provide for a much needed trailhead parking area on Bear Notch Road for snowmobile and Nordic skier parking, and it would not improve public safety using forestry techniques in Covered Bridge Campground that would not result in changes and improvements to wildlife habitat, which can lead to increased wildlife observations.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have the most short-term direct and indirect effects on recreation experiences within the analysis area. In the short-term, timber harvest activity would affect hiking, Nordic skiing, and to a lesser degree other dispersed uses. However, several timber harvests have occurred in the analysis area in recent decades, and the long-term recreation experience is not expected to change dramatically from current conditions and use levels as a result of the proposed actions.

Recreation oriented improvements proposed as part of this alternative would enhance recreation experiences for some. Others might prefer more primitive conditions, rougher trails, limited parking, etc. However, these conditions and uses remain readily available within this project area and in other adjacent National Forest lands.

Alternative 2 has 1697 acres of harvest. Approximately 680 of these acres are in Group Selection units that lie within a half mile of hiking and Nordic ski trails. The entire unit acreage is quoted here even when only part of the unit is within that distance. Because of the nature of group selection prescriptions, only 20% of the acres (136 acres) are to be harvested.

61 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The harvested “groups” are small openings averaging quarter acre in mixedwood stands and openings in pure hardwood stands averaging approximately 1 acre.

Within the half mile distance of these trails are 272 acres of thinning and single tree selection units where relatively dense forested stands would remain. Finally, there are 125 acres of patch cut, clear cut or seed tree cut proposed within that half mile distance from trails.

Alternative 2 also includes the construction of up to one mile of new road and reconstructing an estimated 5.2 miles of existing roads. Nineteen existing landings would be used and thirteen new landings would be constructed. The effects of these actions on trails, developed and dispersed recreation are displayed in the individual sections below.

Traffic control signs would be installed to alert forest users, whether on foot, bikes or skis, and vehicle traffic where it coincides with logging operations. Dual use on Forest System roads is a concern when both truck traffic and the public would be sharing the same corridor. Forest roads within the project area are closed to public vehicular use, but allow foot traffic. Some trails may be subject to intermittent closures during harvest operations (see below for specific effects to trails). For example, a closure to foot traffic on Deer Brook Road (FSR 28) to the west of Covered Bridge would affect the greatest number of users during the summer. However, this road is shared by the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail so moderate numbers of skiers would potentially be affected in winter. A mitigation measure restricting any logging and hauling activities on weekends/holidays would reduce most of these impacts.

Dual use is expected along Bear Notch Road with harvest contractors plowing one lane and snowmobiling use occurring on the other lane. This is the type of area that would receive traffic control signs. Other areas such as Big Brook and Deer Brook Roads, and FS Road 209 (Falls Pond Road) are not wide enough for dual use and would be posted with traffic control signs warning the public of the potential for logging traffic and active harvesting. Public foot traffic use on these roads would not be prohibited except when public safety would be compromised. Noise

All of the proposed activities are within a mile of one of more hiking or Nordic ski trails except for units 47-51, 54, 56, 57 and 20. Noise associated with harvest operations could occur during any season except spring.

62 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Noise from road construction road re-construction, logging, and hauling must be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors including the vehicular and motorcycle traffic on the Kancamagus Highway, low level flights, snowmobile use on Bear Notch Road, and human noise and activities associated at popular recreation sites.

Operational noise is generally not normally audible beyond 1 mile in forested situations (Timerson, 1999; Neitzel and Yost, 2003). This estimate is based on data and analysis gathered by a recent forestry noise study that measured the decibel levels of various harvesting machinery, and professional experience specific to field observations in New England (Neitzel and Yost, 2003). The distance is generally based on assumptions of average decibels produced by specific machinery and measured over distance. The sound to distance estimate does not take into account the buffering effects of vegetation, wind, topography, nor sounds such as those from vehicular traffic on the Kancamagus Highway which would further reduce or mute the effects from sounds created during logging (Timerson, 1999). With this in mind, this project considers the effects of noise associated with harvest where recreation features are within one mile of harvest units.

Noise within this one mile zone could indirectly affect users on trails, in developed sites, and along the Swift River. Noise effects are short-term in nature (temporary) and would be limited to the actual operating periods when construction and vegetation management activities are occurring (intermittent noise). Noise effects generally occur during daylight hours. They occur in one or two specific locations at a time and do not occur across the project area simultaneously. Noise effects cease when the project is complete.

Noise generated from the harvest activities are muted where topographic features block or reduce sounds. Harvest noises tend to be low pitched, intermittent and as the source of sound is further away from the listener, or is blocked by topography, or is covered by other sounds, the fewer are the effects. A more constant noise is generated near landings.

Unit treatments and landing activities near Bear Notch and Passaconaway Roads have the greatest potential to affect nearby residents. The majority of the noise to area residents would be from log truck traffic, but landings in Units 33, 37, 46 and to a lesser degree in Unit 66 would generate a more constant noise at nearby residences. Units and landings near the Swift River from Falls Pond east to South Moat Mountain Trailhead have the greatest potential to affect recreation users along the Swift River, where use is higher. Upper elevation units and landing activities could be audible to recreation users

63 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

when at a distance from the covering noise of the Swift River, nearby brooks, wind, and from the Kancamagus Highway. Hikers on upper elevation trails along the Moat, Attitash, and Table Mountains would likely be able to hear some harvest related sounds, but at background noise levels similar to the noise of truck and motorcycle traffic on the Kancamagus Highway, and Route 302. Hiking Trails

The actions proposed in this alternative relative to hiking and ski trails are summarized in the tables below and shown on the alternative maps in Chapter 2. Under this alternative, six trails present in the project area would be affected to some degree by harvest activities and road work, log hauling, and indirect effects from the other proposed activities including parking lot construction, timber stand improvement (hand treatments), and preparation work for prescribed fire. Foreground views along hiking trails

Foreground views along Bear Notch Road, Passaconaway Road, and some hiking trails would be slightly altered due to partial harvest prescriptions near these features. The prescriptions are group or single tree selections and one small clearcut. Units adjacent to these trails include units 12, 45, 66, 73, 75-77, and 85. However, due to group placement and size, and the retention of much of the stand in these partial harvests, the visual effect is expected to be acceptable or even beneficial, opening views into the forest. Within a few years regenerating vegetation, the settling of logging debris, and the covering of leaf litter would mute most residual effects. Effects of harvest disturbance near these travel ways are muted through the use of thoughtful design considerations, including placement of skid trails and harvest areas (groups), designating equipment crossings of hiking trails, requiring slash removal in areas near a trail, and creative use of land features to create a mosaic harvest pattern where applicable. No trail crossings of Boulder Loop Trail are anticipated, however there may be one to three skid trail crossings required for each of the other hiking and ski trails. Trail crossings by skidders would be minimized and would be situated perpendicular to the trail corridors to protect the trail’s character.

64 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

South Moat Mountain Trail

South Moat Mountain trailhead and the first 400 feet of trail would receive logging traffic. This section of trail (about 400 feet), located on an old logging road, is proposed for use again to access a landing near the trail in unit 45. A proposed temporary trail relocation directing hikers away from the landing area and off the road, would insure their safety. Noise from the landing activities would be audible along this trail. Additionally, while harvesting in units 42, 43 and 44 is not adjacent to the South Moat Mountain Trail, the landing operations (bucking, loading, and hauling) for these units would occur at the landing in unit 45 and would affect hikers due to noise and log trucks on the access road to the landing.

Table 3.3 - Direct and indirect effects on South Moat Mountain Trail

Length of trail within or Unit Harvest Units in Vicinity Treatment immediately adjacent to Acres Season unit

45 * 52 Group Selection ** S/F 1800 feet

42 * 18 Group Selection F/W None - landing activities only

43 * 18 Shelterwood Seed Cut *** S/F None - landing activities only

44 * 9 Single Tree Selection W None - landing activities only

Prescribe Burn 6 Prescribed S/F Light treatment along trail Understory Burn

* Proposed access to the landing for these units is through the South Moat trailhead parking lot where the first 400 feet of trail lies on an existing logging road. ** Quarter acre openings would occur near this trail and throughout unit 45, treating 20 percent of the unit. A 50 foot slash disposal zone and thoughtful placement of groups when near this trail would reduce visual impacts. Evidence of logging would generally reduce in intensity as vegetation grows into the created openings and leaf litter accumulates on the ground. *** No treatment under Alternative 4

Group selection treatments are dispersed quarter acre openings. Eighty percent of the unit acres would remain untreated and few group openings are expected immediately adjacent to the trail itself. Where openings occur near the trail they would appear to the general public as natural openings within a decade due to rapid natural regeneration.

Table 3.5 below shows the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from landing activities while using the South Moat Mountain Trail. Intermittent trail closures for two to three days may be needed when tree felling activities occur immediately adjacent to a trail and are included in the total.

65 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Boulder Loop Trail

Harvest unit 85, a 13 acre clearcut, is the only harvest treatment adjacent to this trail. The unit has a corner that approaches within 150 feet of the trail. The period of direct impact to the trail would be short for this 13 acre unit. Prescribed burning is not proposed near this trail.

Table 3.4: Direct and indirect effects on Boulder Loop Trail

Length of trail within or Unit Harvest Units in Vicinity Treatment immediately adjacent to Acres Season unit

13 17 Group Selection S/F/W 0

14 10 Group Selection S/F/W 0

85 13 Clearcut w/Reserves S/F/W 100 feet

Units 13 and 14 would generate little evidence of harvesting from the trail because of the distance from the trail and because only 20 percent of the unit is treated, with 1/4th acre scattered ‘groups’. No skid trails would cross Boulder Loop Trail. The character of Boulder Loop Trail would only change at the immediate location where unit 85 would be noticeable. A short hike west of the trail could afford a view of surrounding landscapes until the new regeneration blocks the view.

Travel on the trail would not be interrupted during any season, because the removed trees would be skidded away from the trail to a landing on Deer Brook Road.

The Boulder Loop trailhead would not be directly impacted because no activities other than hauling would occur near it. Because of the concentrated facilities located here, log trucks would be required to enter this area at a low speed and hauling would be limited to weekdays.

Table 3.5 below shows the estimated number of weekdays that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest activities adjacent to the Boulder Loop Trail. These effects would be intermittent, occurring when operations are active. Effects would include noise from diesel engine equipment and chainsaws operating at landings and within units immediately adjacent to trails. Log hauling on Forest Roads are included in these estimates. Temporary trail closures would occur when equipment is working within 200 feet of a trail, and are also included in these estimates.

66 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.5: Effects of Noise from Harvest Activities on Hiking Trails

Estimated# of weekdays when noise effects would occur * Trail Name Alternative 1 2 3 4 Boulder Loop 0 9 9 9 South Moat 0 26 26 22 Mountain

*Combined unit acres divided by estimated production rate Road management and winter harvesting

The haul route for all units east of Falls Pond is Deer Brook Road to Passaconaway Road and into Conway. Passaconaway Road is not normally plowed of snow near the Covered Bridge area in winter, effectively closing over a mile of this road to vehicles. It is not a designated snowmobile route. Passaconaway Road would be plowed in winter when harvest operations are active east of Falls Pond. There may remain opportunity for public foot traffic on Passaconaway Road as normal, similar to the dual uses on Bear Notch Road. Log haul on Passaconaway Road would be restricted to weekdays. Passaconaway Road would remain open to public traffic as normal during spring, summer and fall.

Falls Pond Road (FSR 209) is the egress for units along the Swift River west of Falls Pond. It receives very light amounts of mountain bike use in summer and fall and low use in winter. Falls Pond Road would be plowed in winter when harvest operations are active. There is little opportunity or demand for dual uses of logging and public foot traffic here. Therefore, FSR 209 would be closed to public use when harvest activities along it are active.

These roads would be adequately signed for public safety during operations. Nordic Ski Trails

The Nanamocomuck (Nana) and Paugus Ski Trails, Paugus Link, and Wenonah and Wenunchus Trails are primarily used during the winter season. Sections of these trails could remain open even when logging is occurring near other sections. When temporary closures are needed to insure public safety, “out and back” options from Rocky Gorge or Bear Notch Road exist.

Reconstructing and extending FSR 5174 includes widening the road surface and placing a temporary bridge at Haskell Brook. Two short sections of FSR 28 near Covered Bridge would be widened and Deer Brook Bridge upgraded to handle log trucks. Therefore,

67 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

widening of the ski trail where this trail shares the same template as FSR 5174 and FSR 28 would occur but other sections of the trail would not be widened.

Based on the narrowness of FSR 28 (Deer Brook Road) and FSR 5174 (unnamed), truck traffic and Nordic skiing cannot safely occur at the same time. Therefore, temporary closures to portions of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Trail would be needed. However, a weekend logging and hauling restriction on Deer Brook Road may allow some uses to occur on weekends.

Portions of the Paugus Ski Trail, Paugus Link, Wenonah, Wenunchus, and sections of the Nanamocomuck west of Falls Pond may also be temporarily closed when harvest operations occur immediately adjacent to them. These trails are not coincident with a haul route.

Walking and other dispersed uses on FSR 28 and FSR 5174 along the Swift River west of Albany Covered Bridge could be similarly affected by logging operations in the summer and fall. These interruptions may be intermittent and could occur over one to two seasons. Specific closures may last for a single season depending on the rate of harvest. Harvest operations here would be prohibited on weekends and holidays. These roads would remain open for foot traffic when harvest and road work is not active.

Work done to improve FSR 5174 would improve conditions for all uses. Drainage improvements and improved road surfaces would enhance the condition of the trail, possibly extending the ski season, and reducing long term resource impacts. These road improvements would also improve mountain biking conditions. Road improvements would widen the road from its current condition. Where co-located with the road, the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail’s character would change. However, these road improvements would be made with trail character in mind. Considering the associated Nanamocomuck Ski Trail relocations and bridge improvement work proposed in this alternative, the overall long term changes to the recreation experience on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail would be beneficial.

Harvest prescriptions adjacent to the Paugus Ski Trail, Paugus Link, Wenonah, Wenunchus, and Nanamocomuck Ski Trails are primarily group selection, with some single tree selection and thinning prescriptions. Trail closures may be needed. Clearcut units 2, 4, and 6 would not be seen from the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail due to topography, but the proposed landing for units 2, 3, and 4 are near the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail and would affect solitude this trail provides.

68 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

It is anticipated within a decade the stand treatments and skid trails would be largely unnoticeable because road and landing closures upon sale completion, the use of uneven aged harvest prescriptions along these trails, and the rapid growth of vegetation in harvested areas would conceal evidence of the harvest activities.

Table 3.6 shows the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest activities adjacent to these Nordic trails. Noise effects would be intermittent, occurring only when operations are active. Effects include noise from engine equipment and chainsaws operating at landings, and within units located immediately adjacent to trails. Temporary trail closures would occur when equipment is working within 200 feet of a trail and were included in the estimates.

Topography dictates that the timber harvested from units located to the west of Falls Pond would be skidded to and hauled on FSR 209, and that the timber harvested from units located to the east of Falls Pond would be skidded to and hauled on FSR 5174 and FSR 28. Log haul from landings on FSR 209 is not expected to directly affect Nordic skiing or recreation users on ski trails located to the west of Falls Pond. Log haul on FSR 5174 and FSR 28 would be limited to weekdays, however road surfaces would be cleared of snow and sanded in winter when harvesting is active. Table 3.6: Effects of Noise from Harvest Activities on Nordic Ski Trails Estimated# of weekdays when noise effects would occur *

Alternative 1 2 3 4 + Nordic Trails west of Falls Pond 0 31 31 31 ** Nordic Trails east of Falls Pond 0 49 44 68 ++ Roads East of Falls Pond 0 81 59 55

* Combined unit acres divided by estimated production rate + Nanamocomuck, Wenonah and Paugus Ski Trail and Paugus Link Nordic Trails. ** Nanamocomuck and Wenunchus Nordic Trails. Note: 19 days added under alternative 4 to account for additional skid distance and time for units 75, 76, and 77 ++ estimated days for log hauling only Developed Recreation Sites

The NE Swift project area has a number of popular developed recreation sites including Covered Bridge Campground, Boulder Loop Trailhead, and Rocky Gorge Scenic Area. Just outside the project area are Lower Falls and Covered Bridge Day Use Areas. These two sites are included in this discussion because they are immediately adjacent to the project area.

69 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Lower Falls Day Use area

Lower Falls is the most popular day use area on the Kancamagus Highway. The parking lot and river banks are commonly full on busy summer weekends and hot days. The site has several picnic tables, a rest room and a small building staffed by an employee to manage the site and its visitors during the busy summer season. The falls are quite spectacular and even dangerous following heavy rain. Normal summer flows are perfect for splashing and swimming in pools and shallows. The falls create a sense of beauty, and mute sounds of autos and motorcycles on the nearby highway.

Harvest activities and road reconstruction are planned across the Swift River from Lower Falls. Deer Brook Road (FSR 28), a landing on FSR 28, and units 1-6 and 12 are nearby. Reconstruction of portions of FSR 28 is proposed. Reconstruction and new construction of Forest Road 5174 is also proposed under this alternative.

Harvest units 75 - 79 and all units in Deer Brook drainage would come down the Deer Brook Road across the Swift River from Lower Falls. Landing activities, road reconstruction activities, and harvesting of nearby units could be audible from Lower Falls. However, the noise would most likely be background noise due to the constant noise of the falls and the Kancamagus Highway. During a summer drought, the water in the Swift River may get low enough to allow the sound of harvest activity to be more noticeable. Rocky Gorge Scenic Area

Rocky Gorge is a picturesque natural site along the Kancamagus Highway. Swimming is prohibited in the gorge, but allowed above it and below it. The footbridge below the gorge accesses Falls Pond, including an accessible path and fishing platform. This site has parking for 16 cars and a pull out for a bus. The scenic walk along the river to the bridge is enjoyable in all seasons and the site is plowed during winter. Most sounds of logging noticeable at Rocky Gorge would be distant and somewhat muted because the closest units (72 and 73) are nearly a half mile away. The immediate foreground and middle ground zones would not change (see Scenic Section). The proposed road work and associated units are over half mile away to the northwest (FSR 209 extension), and over one mile distant for new construction on FSR 5174. Covered Bridge Day Use Area and Campground

Covered Bridge Campground and day use areas are popular and remain open from Memorial Day to Columbus Day. No activities are planned at the Day Use Area. The activities planned within and near Covered Bridge Campground result from a need to

70 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment provide long term public safety and to maintain a healthy stand condition adjacent to the campground. The intent is to continue to provide a “big tree” character within and adjacent to the campground by applying single tree selection harvest. Campground infrastructure would be protected during project implementation and consideration will be given to the maintenance of trees for screening. Harvest slash would be chipped and removed from the campground.

Due to topography, activities in most units beyond a half mile from the campground would be marginally detectable (noise). Harvest units 21 – 26 and 28 are summer units and while nearly a mile distant, could be heard faintly from the campground. Units 29, 36 and 82 are winter logging only, and units 30 thru 35 are partial harvests slated for fall or winter harvest. These units would not be harvested during the summer camping season. It is unlikely that harvest activities outside of Big Brook drainage would be heard at the campground. The exception here may be for units 13, 14 and 85 which are beyond a ridge to the west and could be harvested in summer, fall or winter. Only units harvested in summer or early fall would directly affect the campground users. Dispersed Recreation

The effects to dispersed recreation within the project area are largely included in discussions about effects to individual trails. Disturbance associated with noise on off trail travel would be temporary in nature, ceasing at the termination of operations. Disturbances within treated areas may discourage dispersed users temporarily, but also serve as access points and travel routes once vegetation begins to grow back. Most dispersed use seems to occur during hunting seasons, and during mid winter by snowshoers traveling on the logging roads and along the brooks. The proposed harvest treatments, road construction, and road reconstruction are compatible with the dispersed activities occurring in the project area, excepting the immediate area of activity during operations.

Little known dispersed camping occurs within the project area. The Kancamagus Highway has a quarter-mile Forest Protection Area that prohibits camping. Areas beyond the quarter-mile are available for dispersed camping. The only known dispersed camping is at a site along Deer Brook that receives occasional use.

Swimming occurs within the project area on the Swift River including several popular swimming holes. Short term access restrictions to the Swift River on Deer Brook Road west of Covered Bridge may occur during log hauling. Alternative access to the Swift

71 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

River would remain available from the Kancamagus Highway. Alternative 2 will not substantially affect recreational swimming or boating opportunities on the Swift River.

Harvested areas provide increased hunting opportunities for whitetail deer, black bear and game birds over the current condition (No Action Alternative). See the Wildlife Report for additional wildlife information. Snowmobile Trails

Effects to Snowmobiling are limited to effects along Bear Notch Road. While winter logging and therefore plowing of snow from one lane of this road would likely occur for two seasons, the other lane of this State Highway would remain open for snowmobile use. Plowing would occur from the closed gate to the origin of FSR 26B, beyond which no additional effects to snowmobiling would occur. The “dual use” arrangement is not new for Bear Notch Road and this arrangement has worked for past sales without incident. The proposed parking facility under this alternative would provide parking for up to ten vehicles with trailers near the junction of the 209 road. This would enhance the snowmobile opportunities along this trail system.

Table 3.7 shows the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest activities adjacent to this snowmobile trail. The estimated number of weekdays where effects to snowmobiling would occur includes the estimated time for winter harvesting and landing activities only. Noise effects would be intermittent, occurring when operations are active. Effects include noise from equipment operating at landings and within units immediately adjacent to this snowmobile trail. Effects to snowmobiling are relatively minor because no trail closures are anticipated. Table 3.7 -Effects of Noise from Harvest Activities on Snowmobile Trails Estimated# of weekdays when noise effects would occur * Trail Name Alternative 1 2 3 4 Bear Notch 0 26 26 25

*Combined unit acres divided by estimated production rate

Log haul on Bear Notch Road is also included in these estimates. Bear Notch Road is wide enough to allow both log hauling and snowmobile uses. So the effect to riders is that they would be operating in an area where logging is nearby and occasional log trucks share the road width, each with their own lane.

72 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning may inconvenience some forest users if they arrive planning to hike or hunt on the day a prescribed burn is planned. Nearby residents may be affected, but burning prescriptions designate air quality and wind direction requirements prior to ignition. Adequate pre-burn communication and notification would occur.

Burning would have limited effects on recreation because spring and fall burning periods occur when public use is low. Most adjacent private landowners are primarily summer and intermittent weekend residents. Prescribed burning would occur when Covered Bridge Campground is closed. South Moat Mountain Trail is open year round, but would be closed for two or three days when nearby burning is conducted. Burning would be conducted in accordance with burn plans which account for wind direction and air quality. There is a potential for secondary (visual) effects within the burn areas, such as adjacent to Covered Bridge Campground and along both sides of the South Moat Mountain Trail. These effects include charring of the stems of small saplings and some blackening at the base of trees. Other Recreation Components

The audible, visual, and traffic impacts to other recreation uses such as mountain biking and hunting would be the same as discussed above for trails. Traffic control signs would be installed at trail and road access points to alert people on foot, bikes, skies and vehicle traffic near logging operations. Summary of effects on recreation due to logging and hauling activities for all Alternatives

The following table brings together tables 3.3-3.7, combining the total days estimated where direct and indirect effects of logging, hauling and temporary trail closures would be likely. The final line totals the days effected by alternative.

73 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.8: Effects of harvest and log haul on trails Estimated # of Days when effects would occur Trail Name Alternative 1 2 3 4 Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail 0 26 26 25 Nordic trails west of Falls Pond 0 31 31 31 Nordic trails east of Falls Pond 0 49 44 68 Roads East of Falls Pond 0 81 59 55 Boulder Loop hiking trail 0 9 9 9 South Moat Mountain hiking trail 0 26 26 22 Total for the Alternative 0 222 195 210

Alternative 3 This alternative would have very similar but fewer direct and indirect effects as Alternative 2 because there are 45 fewer acres proposed for harvest treatment. Additionally, a change in location for the Snowmobile/Nordic parking lot, and a reduction in burn acres is proposed. The season of harvest, road access and landings, and the Nanamocomuck Trail relocations and bridge construction would remain the same as for Alternative 2.

There are subtle differences between this alternative and Alternative 2. In Alternative 3, some clearcut units are omitted, reduced in size, or changed to Group Selection treatments. The reduced treatment acres would primarily mean that the duration of the harvest activities, and consequent effects on recreation, would be slightly reduced. All the road reconstruction and landing requirements, much of the associated logging activity, log hauling, possible road and trail closures, dual use on Bear Notch Road, sharing of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail with FSR 5174, and much of the prescribed burning would still occur. Effects on trails, developed and dispersed recreation under this alternative are therefore similar to Alternative 2. Noise

The noise effects of the proposed activities would be somewhat less than in Alternative 2 due to the reduction of 45 acres of treatments and the change of some units from clearcutting to group selection. This reduction in acres treated and volume harvested would effectively reduce the intensity or duration of logging activities and the associated noise. Despite the reduced acres, harvest proposals near recreation areas and the associated road work in Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2, and therefore associated effects of Alternative 3 on recreation would also be similar.

74 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Hiking and Nordic Trails

Alternative 3 includes 16 fewer acres of harvesting than Alternative 2 in group selection treatments adjacent to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail. Alternative 3 omits 8 acres of unit 75 south of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, effectively treating about 1.6 fewer acres and eliminating the need for a trail crossing at this location. It also changes the prescription for units 2 and 4 from clearcut and patch cut to group selection, also reducing by 80% the acres treated in these two units. While these two units cannot be seen from the trail, the landing activities for these units would occur near the trail, adjacent to FSR 5174. The South Moat Mountain and Boulder Loop Trails have the same proposed harvest treatments and road requirements near them, so are similar in effects to Alternative 2.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 (under Alternative 2) show the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest and landing activities while using the hiking trails and the Nordic Trails. Intermittent trail closures on two to three days may be needed and is included in the total.

It is anticipated that the treated areas near the hiking and Nordic trails would be largely naturalized within a decade. Where treatments occur along these trails, rapid vegetation growth combined with the partial harvest prescription would greatly reduce visible changes within that timeframe. Also refer to the scenery analysis for visual effects along trails.

The change in forest appearance (foreground views) from forest management and prescribed burning near hiking trails, and the beneficial effects from relocations of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, forest road reconstruction, and watershed improvements would be nearly identical to those in Alternative 2. Developed Recreation

The effects to developed recreation sites would be identical to Alternative 2 except for the change in location of the proposed parking lot. The location change has little effect on existing recreation, but the location in this alternative is not as conducive for access to the Nana or to Rob Brook Road for skiing or biking because the location under Alternative 3 is nearly a quarter mile distant from where these two features intersect Bear Notch Road.

Effects from the proposed prescribed burning would be slightly less than under Alternative 2. South Moat Mountain Trail would be temporarily closed when burning is conducted, but the burning is proposed only west of the trail, not on both sides,

75 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

reducing the potential effects to the trail. Burning in this alternative is moved east of Big Brook, eliminated burning near Covered Bridge Campground. Secondary effects such as blackened bark at tree bases would be less likely to be viewed from the campground or South Moat Mountain Trail. Temporary closures in the immediate vicinity of the burn would still be needed.

See the scenic effects and air quality effects sections for more detail regarding this type of short term and temporary effects to forest visitors. Dispersed Recreation

The effects to dispersed recreation sites in this project area would be similar to Alternative 2. The reduction in acres harvested will not notably change the effects of the project on dispersed recreation. The effects on trails, climbing areas, recreation in the Swift River, hunting, and fishing opportunities would be the same as Alternative 2. Snowmobile Trails

Effects to snowmobiling are limited to effects along Bear Notch Road. Effects to snowmobiling would be very similar to Alternative 2. The proposed parking facility under this alternative, providing parking for up to ten vehicles with trailers, is about one half mile further north on Bear Notch Road from the junction of the 209 road. This would enhance the snowmobile opportunities along this trail system, but would not provide ready access to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail or to the Rob Brook area as would the location proposed under Alternative 2 (See Snowmobile Trails Effects under Alternative 2).

Table 3.7 (under Alternative 2) shows the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest and landing activities while using the Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail. Intermittent brief trail closures on two to three days may be needed and is included in the total. Prescribed burning

Effects would be essentially the same as those described under Alternative 2. Prescribed burning may inconvenience some forest users if they arrive planning to hike or hunt on a day when prescribed burning occurs. Nearby residents may be affected, but burning prescriptions designate air quality and wind direction requirements prior to ignition. Adequate pre-burn communication and notification would occur.

Burning would have limited effects on recreation users and residents because spring and fall burning periods occur when public use and residential home occupation is low.

76 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Effects to use of the South Moat Mountain Trail, dispersed use such as hunting, and secondary (visual) effects are slightly less than that shown for Alternative 2 because fewer acres would be treated. Other Recreation Components

The audible, visual, and traffic impacts to other recreation uses such as mountain biking, rock climbing, and hunting would be the same as Alternative 2. Traffic control signs and other mitigations such as weekday hauling are the same as for Alternative 2. The reduction in acres harvested will not notably change the effects of the project on other dispersed recreation.

Alternative 4 This alternative would have fewer short-term direct and indirect effects on recreation than Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the reduced acreage of vegetation management proposed, and the elimination of road construction extending FSR 5174. There are 314 fewer acres treated in this alternative than Alternative 2, and 260 of those acres are clearcuts and patch cuts. New road construction is not proposed for Forest Road 5174. The treatments included in this alternative require reconstruction and use of the same 5.2 miles of roads, and all of the proposed landings except one.

The effects of this alternative on trails, developed and dispersed recreation are similar to those of Alternative 2, but are reduced as shown in the individual sections below.

Alternative 4 includes parking on Bear Notch Road, improvements to the Nana, and prescribed burning as proposed in Alternative 2. Noise

The sound effects of harvesting and skidding, and landing activities such as bucking, limbing and loading, and log haul would be reduced somewhat in this alternative because several harvest units within the IRA are omitted. Noise disturbance would be less overall. However, the proposed treatment units are nearly the same in the primary use areas such as Bear Notch Road, the Nanamocomuck and other Nordic ski trails, along two hiking trails, and at Covered Bridge Campground. The elimination of even age management units under this alternative would primarily reduce effects to dispersed recreation and due to reduced noise. Other effects may include a shorter contract period, less logging traffic on roads, and fewer skid trails and treated areas in the general forest areas. Effects would still occur, but the duration would be less than under Alternatives 2 and 3.

77 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Hiking and Nordic Trails

Because Alternative 4 reduces clearcut, seed tree, and patch-cut units within the Forest Plan IRA, the duration of harvest activities would be reduced. However, the proposed treatment units are nearly the same along the Nanamocomuck and other Nordic ski trails, and along the two affected hiking trails. The reduced harvest acres would likely reduce the duration or intensity of noise impacts to trail oriented recreational uses.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 (under Alternative 2) show the number of days that users would potentially be affected by noise from harvest and landing activities while using the hiking and Nordic Trails. Intermittent trail closures lasting two or three days on a given trail may be needed and is included in the total.

The Nanamocomuck and Paugus Ski Trails, Paugus Link, Wenonah, and Wenunchus Trails have nearly identical harvest and road activities proposed near them as in Alternative 2. One difference for the Nanamocomuck Ski and Wenunchus Trails is that units 2, 4, 6, 78 and 79 (4 clearcuts and a group selection) are omitted. Other distant units omitted from this alternative would result in additional reductions in indirect effects of noise from landing and hauling activities versus Alternatives 2 and 3. This would reduce the direct and indirect effects and shorten the duration of effects on these trails.

Alternatively, dropping road construction for the extension of FSR 5174 under this alternative would increase the duration of activities adjacent to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail because skidding logs from units 75 – 77 would be needed in lieu of truck transport where FSR 5174 would not be extended. Skidding this distance rather than constructing the 0.5 mile road would result in approximately 19.25 additional days of skidding. A truck can haul an equivalent volume of from five to seven skidder loads. This equates to five to seven times the number of passes needed with a skidder and the associated exhaust, noise and brushing in of the skid trail for these three units. This alternative treats fewer acres but requires additional time to remove the volume where FSR 5174 is not extended. The net effects to trails is an estimated 7 fewer days affected under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 2, and 20 additional effected days than under Alternative 3.

Harvest prescriptions in units with trails (12, 45, 66 and 73-77) are identical to Alternative 2. Indirect short term effects (noise) from distant harvest treatments would also occur, albeit for shorter duration. Long term effects for trails under this alternative even though fewer clearcut and patch-cut openings would be created, and a half mile road not constructed, would be different than for Alternatives 2 and 3 by only very

78 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

slight degrees. This is due to the recovery factor of these forest types whereby harvest and skid trail openings revegetate within a decade, combined with the fact that the main skid roads, landings, and haul roads are similar in all action alternatives. For Alternative 4, the half mile less road constructed (FSR 5174) would have the narrower imprint of a skid trail instead. A skid trail used for this volume of skidding would recover within a decade or two, but is nearly the same initial and short term impact as the road would be.

Establishment of vegetative species in skid trails and in adjacent harvest units would allow these features to blend in with other existing vegetation over time, leaving a mosaic of vegetative species and structures. The permanent road system, one half mile less than for Alternatives 2 and 3, would remain intact for future uses and travel corridors (See Trails Effects Table under Alternative 2). Prescribed Burning

The prescribed burning effects are the same for this alternative as for Alternative 2. Developed Recreation Sites

The effects to developed recreation in Alternative 4 would be slightly reduced from Alternatives 2 and 3, because reduced harvest acreage would reduce the amount of associated trucking adjacent to Covered Bridge Campground, Boulder Loop Trailhead, and at the Covered Bridge site. While the same effects as in Alternatives 2 and 3 are present, the intensity and duration would be reduced in Alternative 4. Dispersed Recreation

The effects to dispersed recreation would be slightly less than under Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the reduction in acres treated and the associated landing operations and hauling. The audible and visual impacts to dispersed recreation uses would be somewhat reduced. The effects on climbing areas, swimming and fishing in the Swift River would be nearly the same as Alternatives 2 and 3. Snowmobile Trails

Effects to snowmobiling are limited to effects along Bear Notch Road. Effects to snowmobiling would be very similar to Alternative 2. The proposed parking facility under this alternative, providing parking for up to ten vehicles with trailers, is at the junction of the 209 road. This would enhance the snowmobile and Nordic skiing opportunities as well as for mountain biking access to the Rob Brook area the same as is proposed under Alternative 2.

79 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.7 (under Alternative 2) shows the number of days that users would potentially be affected by harvest and landing activities while using the Bear Notch Snowmobile Trail. Intermittent brief trail closures on two to three days may be needed and is included in the total. Other Recreation Components

The audible, visual, and traffic impacts to other recreation uses such as mountain biking, rock climbing, and hunting would be less than under Alternatives 2 and greater than that under Alternative 3. This is because Alternative 4 treats fewer acres but requires additional time to remove the volume where FSR 5174 is not extended. The net effects to trails is an estimated 7 fewer days effected under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 2, and 20 additional effected days than under Alternative 3. Traffic control signs would be installed to alert people on foot, bikes, skies and vehicles to nearby logging operations as is proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on recreation includes the Northeast Swift River Habitat Management Unit. The cumulative effects analysis area is approximately 10,400 acres, bounded on the eastern side by the Forest Boundary near the South Moat Mountain Trail, the northern side by the height of land along Moat Mountain to Bear Mountain, on the west by Douglas Brook, and on the southern side by the Swift River. Past, ongoing and future projects within and immediately adjacent to this area are included. This boundary was chosen to include all recreation activities accessed through or within the NE Swift project area. This boundary includes private land along Bear Notch and Passaconaway Road. The time frame includes the past (10 years), ongoing activities, and projects known to be planned for the foreseeable future (10 years; 2001– 2021). This time frame was chosen because it is a reasonable length of time for measuring past effects and for projecting upcoming projects.

80 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.9 Applicable Past, Ongoing, and Future Projects 2001–2021.

Year Project Name Comments/Acres

2004 Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Parking area redesigned and rebuilt Road relocated away from the river ABA trail to Falls Pond Relocated foot bridge spanning Swift River

2005 South Moat Mountain Trail Relocation New quarter acre parking lot and trail relocation

2004-2008 Kancamagus Highway Improvements Straightening and widening of the byway

2004 /2008 Bear Mountain Vegetation Management including 176 acres CC, 216 acres thin and single tree selection (STS), 79 acres salvage (ice storm), located between Falls Pond and Douglas Brook .

2009 DOT Kancamagus Highway Replacement of roadside guardrails Improvements

2009-2012 Nanamocomuck Ski Trail Bridge Three ski trail bridge replacements have been Replacement completed, and one more is planned.

2007-2010 Boulder Loop Trail Improvement Tread improvement, rock work, drainage

2008 and Dugway Picnic Area Decommissioning Removal of the pavilion, privy, and complete the ongoing decommission the picnic area

2010 Moat Mtn Mountain Bike Trail System Designated 1.4 miles of existing trail to system and expanded existing parking lot for access.

2011 and Lower Falls Site Improvement Begin planning to re-vegetate compacted areas, beyond and create defined access trails Parking lot and pavilion redesign

Past and future recreation projects are displayed in Table 3.9 above. These are projects that may have the potential to adversely or favorably affect recreation opportunities or experiences. Many of these projects were designed to improve existing recreation experiences and opportunities including minor trail and trailhead construction, improvements to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, South Moat Mountain and Boulder Loop trails, at several of our developed sites, and improvements to the Kancamagus Highway completed by the NH Department of Transportation. The Bear Mountain Timber Sale is complete. No other future logging operations are planned in the analysis area.

81 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

None of the Northeast Swift projects’ action alternatives would change the long-term recreation opportunities described in the Forest Plan (2005) even when considered cumulatively with these listed projects. Proposed harvest activities would likely occur in one general area at a time, leaving other areas and their recreation opportunities largely unaffected. Log haul routes on FSR 209, FSR 5174, and FSR 28 may place some restrictions on public use during logging. Temporary trail closures may interfere with recreation uses when harvesting occurs immediately adjacent to a trail. Recreation and vegetation management activities have co-existed in this area previously as evidenced by the existing roads and managed stands. Many of the roads and some of the skid trails are now used as Nordic trails or dispersed travelways. Restricting weekend and holiday harvesting and hauling along popular trails and use areas would reduce the impacts.

The proposed, past and ongoing projects listed above in the table above have minor short term adverse effects, and many of the projects have beneficial effects to recreation.

As with direct and indirect effects, Alternatives 2 and 3 have similar cumulative effects. Alternative 4 has fewer cumulative effects due to the reduced acres treated and 0.5 miles less road construction.

There are no other foreseeable temporary closures within the cumulative effects area. Beneficial cumulative effects from these projects include improved public safety, improved wildlife habitat, improved access and parking, Overall the quality of the recreation experience is enhanced once these projects are (and were) implemented.

Some visitors may experience inconvenience and distant noise in the short term, but most recreation activities are not adversely affected except during temporary closures.

Many of the harvested areas from the Bear Mountain sale are beginning to blend into the landscape because foliage has established and is from 4 to 12 feet in height. Meanwhile, traditional recreation uses within the analysis area have been consistent with past years despite nearby vegetation management projects or the Department of Transportation’s reconstruction and realignment of the Kancamagus Scenic Highway.

Although the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail would be intermittently and temporarily affected, portions of the Nanamocomuck will remain open for “out and back” trips from Rocky Gorge, Bear Notch Road, and to the west of Bear Notch Road on the ‘upper’ Nanamocomuck. Short term trail closures east of Falls Pond may occur in summer, fall or winter, and may affect up to 130 days cumulatively, though 123 days are affected under Alternative 4 and 103 days under Alternative 3. Other Nordic skiing

82 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

opportunities are available at Downes Brook/UNH and Oliverian Brook trailheads, and at commercial Nordic areas in the Mt. Washington Valley.

Adverse direct and cumulative effects on the availability of hiking opportunities under each of the action alternatives are minor when examined in the context of recreation opportunities near the project area. Several available nearby hikes and mountain climbs access the Moat Mountains and the Sandwich Range south of the Kancamagus Highway. While minor and short term direct effects to Nordic skiing, hiking and dispersed recreation would occur under the action alternatives, the least affects occur under Alternative 3, at 194 affected days cumulatively (see Table 3.8). This compares to 220 days for Alternative 2 and 209 days for Alternative 4.

Finally, beneficial cumulative effects are anticipated in the long term due in part to the proposed trail and parking improvements under this project. Beneficial effects to mountain biking opportunities on trails and roads are likely. Swimming, kayaking, and other dispersed recreation along the Swift River would not likely be affected except where FSR 28 is aligned immediately adjacent to the river.

The projects’ anticipated effects are limited in area, scale, and in duration. The anticipated schedule of operations would likely require operations in one area at a time. The proposed project does not conflict with the ROS classes identified in the Forest Plan and would not result in a considerable change to recreation conditions in the analysis area in the long term.

3.2 Scenery

Affected Environment The viewed landscape for this project includes the Northeast Swift Project Area as well as the surrounding mountain backdrops or outlying valley bottom areas or both. The project area is geographically separated from its surroundings and visually recognizable due to the boundaries created by the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway in concert with the Swift River, and the continuous ridgeline of the mountains to the north. The project area is characterized as being located on mountainsides and within a watershed consisting of a mosaic of color, form and texture. On the whole, the area appears blended and continuous, but upon close inspection, traces and shadows of openings created from past agricultural activities are evident.

83 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The overall scenery of the project area can be described as a collaged or quilted valley bottom cradled by mountain peaks. The quilted valley and lower mountainsides consist of a combination of naturally occurring and human altered and or influenced open areas, forest, and constructed features. A blanket of softwood trees covers the highest of elevations while sharing the lower elevations and ridges with a mixture of softwood and northern hardwood. Draping over the slopes and extending into the lower elevations are similar sloping fields of softwood trees and hardwood trees as well as a mixture to the two. Other features include the granite outcrops interspersed throughout the upper elevations and the sparatic meadow like past and current openings; made up of river valley, low meadow and past agriculture areas.

Vegetation textures stem from the underlying geology and soils that determine forest types. Influencing the mosaic pattern of color and texture is the history of forest agriculture upon these slopes and lowlands. A keen eye is required, in some circumstances, to identify older harvested openings (clearcuts) and partial harvests (group selection) that are more difficult to detect than the larger old openings. The existence of older harvested areas influences the visible pattern. More recent clearcuts and large groups are noticeable on the landscape, and their patterns, textures, and shadow lines are reminiscent of cleared forest agricultural lands of days past as well as those still in use within and beyond the boundary of the project area in the more distant views. The most noticeable past openings occur on the southern facing slopes of the project area. These are visible from nearly all possible viewsheds (lower and superior). Due to the overall scale of these openings, as well as their distribution and proximity to what appears as undisturbed areas, there is a pattern on the landscape that is recognizable as treatment areas to the keen observer. To the casual observer, some of these more recently treated areas that are not obvious by directly facing the viewpoint, are at still noticeable as being “out of the ordinary” or as an unnatural feature.

The project area is unique compared to other regions of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF), due its proximity to the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway (SR 112) and the recreation sites located along this route, such as Rocky Gorge Scenic and Recreation Area, Lower Falls Scenic and Recreation Area, Blackberry Crossing Campground, Albany Covered Bridge Scenic Area, and Covered Bridge Campground. The region, within and bordering the project area, receives intense use year round from both tourists and local residents for recreational activities, as well as employment in the forestry, recreational and hospitality industries. The Kancamagus National Scenic Byway is one of the most prevalent of all National Scenic Byways and is also unique in

84 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

that it is also part of the White Mountain Trail, National Scenic Byway; a 100-mile continuous loop. This route attracts travelers to drive for scenic enjoyment and take in the natural and culture beauty of the surrounding landscapes. SR 112 is also a major artery for commerce, as it is one of the few routes that run east to west through the White Mountain region of New Hampshire. Direct and Indirect Effects Background for the Analysis

Methodology

The surrounding summits and the ground level, direct viewpoints within and opposing the project’s boundaries provide the most distinct views of the proposed treatment areas. From within the project area’s many trails and the few roads, views of stands proposed for treatment are predominately blocked by foreground vegetation (except where the stand is bisected by one). Therefore, both ground level open and direct viewpoints as well as superior viewpoints (rock outcrops or mountain tops with open views) were concentrated on for analysis.

Ten key viewpoints were selected for use in the analysis of scenery for this project. These include locations that provide the broadest range of view, the most direct views, and views from different and opposing angles and distances. They also represent areas with the greatest potential visitor use, thereby providing greater viewing opportunities. The viewpoints selected for analysis are: stationary viewpoints 1 (Middle Sister Mountain), 2 (Allens’s Ledge on Mount Hedgehog), 3 (North Moat Mountain), 7 (Bear Notch Overlook), 8-10 (Boulder Loop Trail) and then the 3 vehicular viewpoints (4,5,6) are from the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, between Rocky Gorge and Lower Falls Scenic and Recreation Areas (Figure 3.1). Detailed descriptions and panoramic photos for all viewpoints analyzed are available in the project record.

The changes to the landscape in the project area that would be most evident and affect the most observers are from the key viewpoints of the 11 that were analyzed. All of them have importance, but several have a greater impact. The three key superior viewpoints (1-Middle Sister, 2 – Allen’s Ledge, 3 – North Moat) each show the greatest amount of activity in one viewpoint. Individually they show a large portion of the project area; combined they cover the entire project area. Due to their greater distances from the stands and the overall project area, there cone of vision encompasses quite a bit more than there closer counterparts.

85 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Satellite Model) Satellite Figure 3.1 Aerial Overview of Viewpoint Locations and Proposed Action ( ViewpointLocationsFigure and ofProposed Action Aerial 3.1Overview

86 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

These three perspectives are complimentary of one another as they peer from opposite sides of the viewshed toward each other at oblique angles. This angle aids in reducing the visibility of some stands while peering down the openings of others. Each perspective has multiple stands within the middleground (0.6 to 4.0 miles distant) of the viewshed. They also share intense usage and a variety of user groups and are therefore important viewsheds in the consideration of effects of the project area. Viewpoint 1, Middle Sister, is the vastest and closest of the superior viewpoint overlooking nearly the entirely of the project area and beyond. Viewpoint 3 (North Moat) has distance zones to visible stands that range from just beyond foreground (1/2 mile distant or less) to background views. Viewpoint 2 - Allen’s Ledge is the furthest and looks at the project area from a unique perspective and a highly visited location, providing value and variety to the viewpoints.

Although fewer observers hike and experience these views than those that drive the Kancamagus, it provides a quality superior viewshed completing the range of potential views for the project.

It should be noted that in the winter, all stands, regardless of viewshed distances will be much more evident with snow highlighting the opening until new vegetation emerges 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, due to the shadow and texture being accentuated as limited color exists to blend the eyes focus, particularly from Viewpoint 1, 2 and 3. Scenic Integrity Objectives1 (SIOs) of the Forest Plan

The Northeast Swift Project Area is highly regarded for its scenic values. The Forest Plan’s goal for scenery management states, “the WMNF will conduct all management activities to be consistent with assigned Scenic Integrity Objectives, realizing the importance to local communities and Forest users of the natural-appearing landscape, distinct from the human-made environments dominant in the East.” (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 1-16). “SIO’s [scenic integrity objective] provide an indication of the alternation or disturbance allowed in the viewed landscape.” (USDA Forest Service 2005a, page 2-26).

1 Scenic Integrity Objective: Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Scenic Integrity Objectives are the final Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) management allocation of scenic integrity objectives.

87 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

There are five scenic integrity objectives identified in the Forest Plan. The Northeast Swift Project Area contains three of the five levels of the scenic integrity objectives:

High (appears unaltered) - Retention

Moderate (slightly altered) - Partial Retention

Low (moderately altered) - Modification

Areas of “High” scenic integrity objectives relate to Guideline 3 of the Forest Plan. This guideline strongly suggests, but does not mandate, where applicable, created openings be minimally evident from trails, roads, or use area vantage points. The maximum observed size for each opening should also not be in excess of four to five acres. They should appear as natural occurrences and be well distributed in the viewed landscape (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 3-6).

Areas of “Moderate” scenic integrity objectives relate to Guidelines 4-5. It suggests, but does not mandate, where applicable, observed openings, of up to approximately 10 acres, normally meet the guideline (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 3-8).

Some stands in the project area cross more than one scenic integrity objective and were analyzed by the approximated acreage that falls into each scenic integrity objective.

The Forest Plan also states that “observed opening acreages will vary under different situations and in relationship to the viewing position” (USDA Forest Service 2005a p. 3- 8). In other words, depending on the distance of the opening from the viewpoint, combined with the angle at which the stand lays on the landscape and its proximity to past openings (that still produce a noticeable change in color, texture, or shadow), a more conservative approach than that of the guidelines or a more relaxed approach than that of the guidelines maybe appropriate. Therefore each stand was analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Analysis of the proposed treatments showed that under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, there would be a total of up to fifteen (15) units that would exceed Forest Plan visible acre guidelines for high and moderate sensitivity levels from six of the eleven viewpoints analyzed.

Relative distances of the observed opening are more critical when in foreground or middleground views than when in background views. For example, a 9 acre opening for unit 30 visible from Boulder Loop Trail, at 0.3 mile distant, may be more critical than a 20 or 30 acre observed opening visible from Middle Sister, at 3.5 miles distant. Guidelines

88 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment were exceeded under all action Alternatives (2,3 and 4) to varying degrees in order to meet silvicultural and wildlife objectives for fourteen (14) units mapped within High and/or Moderate Sensitivity levels and located within middleground or background views from Middle Sister and Allen’s Ledge. Viewing distances to these units ranges from about 3 to 5 miles from Middle Sister and 3 to 8 miles from Allen’s Ledge, therefore effects on scenic resources would appear noticeably less visually obtrusive.

During development of Alternative 3, the ID Team assessed the visible acreage of units using the key viewpoint information. Four units located within foreground views and immediately apparent to the casual observer, i.e. units 2, 20, 30, and 50, were modified with unit boundary changes and/or changes to prescriptions to reduce the visible acreage. In addition, units 4 and 16 were eliminated from Alternative 3 in order to further reduce visual impacts on the landscape as viewed from key viewpoints. Distance Zones

The amount of visible opening, or seen acres, in the future would be a result of the treatments proposed within the project area and the distances from which they may be viewed. The Northeast Swift Project Area includes only a few foreground viewsheds (0– 0.5 miles) but contains many middleground and background views. Middleground viewsheds are those visible from one half mile to four miles distant. Background viewsheds are those visible from four miles to the horizon. The relationship of distance and size of visible openings dictates that the further into the background the opening exists, the less it is visibly intense.

Middleground viewsheds are most prevalent in the project area, and would contain most of the visible proposed treatment areas. Although many middleground viewsheds analyzed may appear to be foreground from the viewer’s perspective, actual distances were used in the analysis as per direction in the Scenery Management System, and supported by the Forest Plan. Tables in the project record contain details regarding distances to areas of treatment (stands) from each of the viewpoints analyzed. Types of Treatment

The analysis concentrated on the scenic effects of the alternatives in which clearcut, patch cut, overstory removal, seed tree with reserve and shelterwood treatments are proposed and are visible from the viewpoints. Because these types of treatments completely remove a portion of canopy from the stand, they would create the most visual disturbance to the landscape for the longest duration of time.

89 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Clearcuts proposed in this project would range in size from 10 to 30 acres and result in the complete removal of canopy from that stand, exposing bare ground. Patch cuts are smaller than clearcuts (<10 acres) and larger than group selection openings. They were analyzed similarly to the clearcut treatments, as they share similar characteristics. Patch cuts may appear as multiple sizable openings in a stand, rather than one very large opening. Overstory removal seed tree with reserve and shelterwood treatments result in a similar appearance to that of a clearcut or patch cut from a middleground or further view, and were therefore analyzed similarly in the analysis.

Group selection openings would not be as noticeable from the majority of far middleground and background viewpoints due to the angle of the line of site (repose) combined with the leading edge of untreated vegetation that would conceal the small- scale openings (typically less than ½ acre within this project area). When considering the distances from the viewpoints analyzed, these small openings should be more difficult to detect, except where they are below the superior viewpoint.

Thinning and single-tree selection treatments would result in naturally-appearing stands, which would be barely noticeable from most foreground views and not noticeable at all from further middleground and background views. Although immediate foreground views, such as bordering or along a trail, could appear slightly altered in the first year or so following harvest activities, they would quickly take on a more naturalized appearance with more open space and light entering the stand. Thinning and single-tree selection treatments would not create visible openings in the forest canopy, and were therefore not included in the scenic analysis. Visibility of Treated Areas

Views differ according to their location, elevation, proximity to the units, as well as aspect, slope, season and weather. The intensity of scenic impact of a view is also affected by the duration of the view while traveling along a route or standing stationary at a given viewpoint. From a stationary viewpoint, the intensity of effects from new, visible openings are a function of distance and the size (acres) of the opening seen. The intensity of scenic impact diminishes with distance and time.

Estimated visible (seen) area generated by the models used in this analysis would almost always be less than the treated area due to natural screening by topographic features, leading edge vegetation of the viewed opening, and by visual barriers created by any reserve, or untreated, areas placed within these openings.

90 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Seasons and weather conditions play an intricate role in how viewsheds appear and the features that are visible or recognizable within them. Leaf-on seasons, ie late spring, summer and early fall, were used in this analysis because that is the time when the majority of observers would be expected to be viewing the project area. Scenic effects of harvest activity and openings would likely be highlighted and/or magnified during the winter season. Weather is also a key factor determining visibility. On many days, treated stands would go unnoticed from even the closest middleground viewpoints due to limited visibility from cloud cover, snowstorms, rain, haze, fog, etc.. Clear weather conditions were used in this analysis. Modeling

Field observations, photographs, and GPS points were taken from viewpoints during the fall of 2010. GIS, LIDAR2, and photographic computer image modeling were then used to create a simulated environment from which to begin the analysis.

Visibility modeling was applied to each GPS viewpoint in order to provide a base reference as to which stands in the project area would be visible from that given point. This GIS and LIDAR created map (visibility model) was produced with contrasting colors representing areas of visibility and those blocked from view. The stand boundaries were overlaid to determine which of the proposed openings, (clearcuts, patch cuts, overstory removals, seed tree with reserves and group selection treatments), shown in blue, would fall within the visible area from a particular viewpoint (Figure 3.1). This technique limits visibility modeling by displaying only bare earth or terrain. Tree height and other foreground vegetation, as well as physical and/or architectural barriers were incorporated into the analysis by interpreting field data collected, such as photographs. In addition, use of a two-dimensional model of treatment areas together with a three-dimensional model of vegetation, resulted in estimates of up to 20 percent more canopy opening than would likely be actually visible.

Although the best available science has been applied to the gathering and modeling of data, the models are only graphical conceptual representations of the effects of proposed treatments. Implementation of treatments would be based upon these models, as well as scenic design features and mitigations incorporated in the project, yet variation in results following treatments could occur due to topographic and/or water features such as ledges, drainages or steep slopes.

2 LIDAR: A method of detecting distant objects and determining their position, velocity, or other characteristics by analysis of pulsed laser light reflected from their surfaces. LIDAR operates on the same principles as radar and sonar .

91 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

For most of the views analyzed, the project area was used to analyze direct and indirect effects of the project on scenic resources, because this is the zone within which proposed management activities would alter the scenery. The viewshed for the majority of the views analyzed 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 that a majority of the project area’s viewsheds are largely contained by several mountainsides. When viewed from the superior viewpoints however, the viewshed, and corresponding direct and indirect effects analysis area used, extends beyond the project area to include the lower valley bottom lands, river, highway and opposing mountain sides and peaks.

The timeframe used for the direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis was 30 years. This period of time was selected to allow for harvested openings to become fully restocked with vegetation and develop a full forest canopy that would provide shadow and textural differences and would begin to 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.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

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, natural occurring changes and disturbances, such as microburst wind events, ice storms, or pockets of insect or disease mortality, would continue and could create openings and other changes in shadows, color and texture on the landscape in the project area. Small-scale, localized high-intensity disturbances, such as multiple tree-fall gaps associated with tree mortality due to lighting strike, storm damage or pathogens, also have the ability to create openings, shadow and color as well as texture changes to the landscape.

92 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 Table 3.10 - New Visible Treatment Areas (Openings) by Viewpoint - Alternative 2 New Visible New Visible Treatment Treatment Areas Viewpoint Areas (openings) Meeting Forest Plan Guidelines # of units acres # of units acres 1. Middle Sister 26 343 18 224 2. Allen’s Ledge 19 270 12 146 3. North Moat Mtn 12 142 10 110 4. Kancamagus NE 1 12 1 12 5. Kancamagus E 6 80 5 68 6. Kancamagus Lower Falls NW 4 53 3 38 6.5 Kancamagus NE 4 34 4 34 7. Bear Notch Road 4 49 3 31 8. Boulder Loop 1 NE 5 53 5 53 9. Boulder Loop 2 SE 1 9 0 0 10. Boulder Loop 3 W 3 42 3 42

Table 3.11 - New Visible Treatment Areas (Openings) Exceeding Forest Plan Size Guidelines by Viewpoint - Alternative 2 Viewpoint Units SIO Distance Guide- Alt 2 Visibility from line in Acres Sensitivity Full (F) Level viewpoint acres (miles) Partial (P) 2 H/Mod 3.9 P 5,10 12 4 H/Mod 4.0 F 5,10 15 11 Mod/H 4.7 F 10,5 22 21 Mod 4.4 P 10 20 Middle Sister 64 Mod 3.4 P 10 20 78 Mod 3.7 F 10 15 84 Mod/H 3.7 F 10,5 30 89 H 2.9 F 5 15 20 Mod 8.1 P 10 17 50 H 4.0 F 5 18 56 H/Mod 4.0 F 5,10 8 Allen’s Ledge 59 H/Mod 3.5 F 5,10 24 63 H/Mod 3.2 F 5,10 21 64 Mod 3.6 P 10 20 87 H/Mod 3.4 F 5,10 16

93 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

4 H/Mod 2.2 P 5,10 15 N Moat Mtn 20 Mod 0.6 F 10 17 Kancamagus 2 H/Mod 0.5 F 5,10 12 Highway 4 H/Mod 0.5 F 5,10 15 Bear Notch Rd 50 H 0.4 P 5 18 Boulder Loop 30 H/Mod 0.3 F 5,10 9 Trail

Viewpoint 1 – Middle Sister

Figure 3.2 Visual Simulation Model – Middle Sister –Alternative 2

Viewpoint 1 peers directly at the entirety of the project area from a southern point of view. Alternative 2 contains the highest amount of treated acres overall and the largest amount of clearcuts and patch cuts. This viewpoint manages to expose just about all of them. A few are less noticeable due to the angle at which they face (not directly toward the viewpoint) or their shape allows for greater blending with the topographic features surrounding them or provide for a higher amount of leading edge to conceal some of the feature. Modeling results indicate that under Alternative 2, a total of 26 treatment areas would be visible from this viewpoint (Table 3.10). Individually and in lower lying areas, the openings do not necessarily attract a lot of attention, as is supported by the Forest Plan. However, Alternative 2 contains a larger number of occurrences, in close proximity to one another that attract the eye and bring attention to the amount, shape, scale and overall change to the existing landscape. The openings, shown in blue, are distinctly clustered in three areas. The southwest region of Bear Mountain, the Deer Brook Watershed below Big Attitash Mountain and the Big Brook Watershed between the Moats and the knoll and rock outcrops of Boulder Loop. Back to back openings such as Stands 64 and 88 make for a very large opening.

94 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Modeling results indicate that 8 of the 26 openings visible from this viewpoint potentially would not initially meet the Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) guidelines under Alternative 2 (Table 3.11).

Larger stands located higher on the hillsides also have a less “natural appearance”. The valley bottom is historically a place of agricultural practices (forest and food). This will only continue the tradition and follow the culture of the area, the use and appearance of the landscape.

There are also existing openings visible from previous harvest activity throughout these zones as well. The visibility of these older openings is beginning to fade, but would be highlighted again by proposed activity under Alternative 2. This combination may attract the attention of a greater number of visitors and be perceived as a detraction from the visual quality of the landscape as it does not allow for the natural context of the landscape to come through to the observers senses. After the initial years of regeneration, smaller openings will fade off into the mosaic of colors and textures covering the valley floor. The larger openings are more indicative of historic agricultural openings and will easily blend as such after the first few years of revegetation bring back color and texture in context with the surrounding. The keen observer would likely notice age differences between the new and old openings, but since the area has been manipulated over time, it would not seem that out of place.

Viewpoint 2 – Allen’s Ledge

Figure 3.2 Visual Simulation Model – Allen’s Ledge –Alternative 2

The changes to the landscape under Alternative 2, as visible from Viewpoint 2 would initially be distinct and ranging in scale. The observer’s eye looking across the valley bottom is meeting with the mountainous backdrop. That backdrop is not too distant at 3.5 miles considering the size, shape, angle and orientation of many of the proposed

95 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

openings. Again, when the openings appear near one another or in a perceived pattern that can attract the eye, the overall appearance is less natural and more of a landscape that has been manipulated.

Due to the sensitivity of the scenic quality of the National Scenic Byway, as well as the entire area for recreation, a more natural appearance is desirable to a portion of the public.

Modeling results indicate that under Alternative 2, a total of 19 treatment areas would be visible from this viewpoint (Table 3.10). Larger openings would be less obtrusive should they fall lower in the project area, on or near the valley floor. Modeling results indicate that 7 of the 19 openings visible from this viewpoint potentially would not initially meet the Forest Plan SIO guidelines under Alternative 2 (Table 3.11). Large clearcuts such as Stand 59, 87 and 63 are highlighted in the landscape due to their angle of repose, proximity to one another, proximity to other proposed openings and their elevation on the slope. Their shapes and size maybe better received lower in the landscape and without as much activity near to it. Stands such as 64 and 88 being abutted with one another and abutted with a large existing opening, creates the appearance of a single large opening. One without the other would allow one of the stands to meet the Forest Plan’s Guidelines. The ridgeline extending from Bear Mountain to South Moat appears as a line of harvest activity. The distance and elevation tricks the eye into blending the openings almost one into the next rather than fading into the backdrop. The further distant openings have the advantage of appearing less noticeable, despite their size. Distance reduces scale and due to their shapes and angle on the slopes, the most distant of the cuts will fade more rapidly and reduce the overall effect of disturbance.

Viewpoint 3 – North Moat Mountain

Figure 3.3 Visual Simulation Model – North Moat Mountain –Alternative 2

96 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Changes to the landscape visible from Viewpoint 3 are not as bold as the same alterations appear from the two opposing perimeter superior viewpoints. The downslope viewshed of Viewpoint 3 provides for an aspect of slope and increased leading edge of vegetation allowing many of the openings to appear less visible and less constructed on the landscape. Modeling results indicate that under Alternative 2, a total of 12 treatment areas would be visible from this viewpoint (Table 3.10).

Each stands geographic location and elevation in relation to the slope and the perspective from which they are being observed results in a far less complicated landscape than when viewed from the other viewpoints. The caveat is Stand 20, as it exceeds the SIO guidelines and is only 0.6 of a mile distant from the viewpoint.

Modeling results indicate that 2 of the 12 openings visible from this viewpoint potentially would not initially meet the Forest Plan scenery management guidelines under Alternative 2 (Table 3.11). Although Stand 84 exceeds the SIO guidelines for acreage, the lower hillside slope that it is located on is more in context for an opening of its scale. It would take on the look and feel of a meadow or field from past agriculture. Guidelines being meet or at the very least, closer related to, allow the landscape to appear more natural or neutral based on historical resemblances. Stand 89 also exceeds the Scenic Integrity Objectives for its acreage visible however at 5.4 mile distant from the observer its perceived scale is greatly reduce and is located on lower lands which is preferred to meet Forest Plan guidelines and local context acceptance.

Viewpoint 4 – Kancamagus (Northeast)

Figure 3.4 Visual Simulation Model – Kancamagus (Northeast) - Alternative 2

97 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Under Alternative 2, there would be only one new opening created that would be partially visible from Viewpoint 4, Stand 2 (Table 3.10). Although Stand 2 is 0.6 of a mile distant and a clearcut, foreground vegetation blocks a majority of the opening from view, and therefore the visible opening size would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines. It sits on the midsection of the hillside on the north side of the highway and will have the appearance, after regeneration takes hold, of a change in texture, color and shadow on the hillside. Viewpoint 5 – Kancamagus (East)

Rounding the corner and leaving Viewpoint 4, the traveler enters Viewpoint 5. The view is a longer duration and looks directly, indirectly and directly again at the proposed clearcuts covering the adjacent hillside as well as at the others ahead. Modeling results indicate that under Alternative 2, a total of 6 treatment areas would be visible from this viewpoint (Table 3.10). Stand 2 a 12 acres clearcut, is partially visible as foreground vegetation causes a leading edge to shadow out at least a third of the 12 open acres, meeting Forest Plan SIO guidelines. Behind Stand 2 is Stand 4, which is located in the foreground, only 0.5 of a mile distant from the observer. Some of this 15 acre treatment area would be hidden by the aspect of the slope as well as foreground vegetation; however as proposed under Alternative 2, this new opening would not meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines and would be located within the foreground, only 0.5 of a mile distant from the observer.

Figure 3.5 Visual Simulation Model – Kancamagus (East) –Alternative 2

98 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Further on the hillside to the east is a 13 acre clear cut, Stand 19. It faces partly down slope with its aspect just offline to the northwest. Due to its angle on the slope approximately ¾ of the acreage appears as an opening on the mountainside; however it would meet the Forest Plan’s guidelines for a moderate Scenic Integrity Objective.

Stand 18 and 16 are in line with one another. Nearly all of Stand 16’s, 9 acres appears as a visible opening in the canopy due to the stands aspect on the slope; however it too would meet Forest Plan’s guidelines for a moderate Scenic Integrity Objective Viewpoint 6 - Kancamagus Lower Falls (Northwest)

Viewpoint 6 could arguably be one of the most viewed of all the viewpoints in the project area and therefore has possibly heightened importance. Lower Falls sees some of the highest visitation on the White Mountain National Forest and combined with those traveling the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway; this viewpoint receives an astonishing amount of potential observers. Modeling results indicate that under Alternative 2, a total of 4 large and visually distinct clear cuts, Stands 4, 6, 7 and 11, would be visible from this viewpoint (Table 3.10). These would all be located in the foreground at only 0.5 miles distant from the observer and very visible from this viewpoint. Due to the proximity and aspect of the slope, Stands 4 and 6 nearly appear to create a single opening in the scale of perhaps 10-14 visible acres. Stand 4, at 15 acres, is the only opening that potentially would not meet the SIO guidelines of the Forest Plan (Table 3.11). The stands are also located directly behind the falls and would backdrop the scenery for some duration as this is a fairly straight section of highway leading up to the turn.

Figure 3.6 Visual Simulation Model –Kancamagus (Northwest) –Alternative 2

99 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Stand 7 is a little further away at 1.5 miles and is approximately 3-4 acres of visible opening. It would blend off into the shadows of the slideslopes on its own but being directly behind Stands 4 and 6, the observer’s eye is attracted in its direction.

Stand 11, 22 acre clear cut is 1.2 miles distant from the observer and partially visible. A small amount of foreground vegetation adjacent to the highway filters the view. Thus the visible acreage is slightly reduced but when considering its aspect on the slope, in combination perhaps only half or less of the acres maybe open and visible. It would still be a distinct feature on the landscape and be very noticeable considering the amount of time visitors spend in this recreation and scenic area.

Viewpoint 6.5 - Kancamagus (Northeast)

Viewpoint 6.5 is a direct view of the mountain slopes in the Big Brook watershed of the Moat Mountains. Alternative 2 proposes 4 treatments that would be visible from this viewpoint; Stands 30 (9 acre seed tree), 25 (7 acre) and 26 (5 acre) patch clearcuts and Stand 28, a 12 acre clearcut. Fortunately, Stands 25 and 26 are narrow and fall on the slope such that it is very unlikely that they would be visible as more than a change of texture and shadow in the canopy. Stands 30 and 28 are partially visible and are only 0.6 of a mile and 1.4 miles from the observer. Due to its shape and the angle in which it lays on the slope, Stand 30 shows perhaps up to 5 visible acres. Stand 28 is shaped and lays on the landscape such that only half or less of the acreage maybe visible following treatment. It would soon appear more as a strong shadow and change in texture than as an opening. All of the four new visible openings created by treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

Figure 3.7 Visual Simulation Model –Kancamagus (Northeast) –Alternative 2

100 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Viewpoint 7 – Bear Notch Road Overlook

Under Alternative 2, Viewpoint 7 would contain a total of 4 new visible openings. Two of these would be located in foreground views; Stands 49 (3 acre overstory removal) and Stand 50 (18 acre clearcut). The proximity of these proposed treatment areas to the observer is very close; Stand 49 is only 0.2 mile and Stand 50 is 0.4 mile distant from this viewpoint. Although the distance is so near, the foreground vegetation immediately south of the overlook would shade out much of the effects. The higher elevation and southern reaches of Stand 50 would be visible, as it would extend beyond the masking of the foreground. Although most of the changes observed would be that of hard shadow, texture and color, and it would be unlikely that much bare ground would be noticed, modeling results indicate that the size of the visible opening would still exceed Forest Plan guidelines for High SIO. Although Stand 59 is a proposed 24 acre clearcut, it is located in the near middleground view at 1.5 miles distant, with the same aspect of the slope and foreground vegetation as noted above that would shade effects from the view. It would not be expected to appear as more than a line of shadow, color and textural change.

Figure 3.8 Visual Simulation Model– Bear Notch Rd Overlook –Alternative 2

Viewpoint 8 – Boulder Loop 1 (Northeast)

Under Alternative 2, Viewpoint 8 would contain near foreground and very near middleground views of 2 proposed clearcuts and 3 proposed patch cut treatments. Modeling results indicate that all of these openings would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines (Table 3.10). Stand 23, an 8-acre patch cut, would be located 0.4 mile distant from the viewer and within the central focus of the viewshed. Its length would follow the drainage, creating some concealment by being narrow in the view and having a long leading edge of vegetative cover. The effects would most likely be a strong shadow line,

101 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

color and texture change after the initial regeneration years. Some bare ground could be evident initially.

Stand 21, a proposed 20 acre clearcut located just north of Stand 23 and 0.6 mile distant from the viewpoint, would follow the same path and would be a similar shape. Due to its length tracing the edge of the visible foreground ridge and rock outcrop, Stand 21 would be mostly hidden and would very likely be seen much like Stand 23, a strong line of shadow, color and texture.

Stand 25 would be a foreground (0.5 mile distant), 7 acre patch cut with its angle of repose facing directly at the observer. At least half of the acreage would be visible due to its shape and positioning on the landscape. The organic flow of the shape would allow for a fair amount of leading edge which would shadow out nearly half of the acres of the stand.

Figure 3.9 Visual Simulation Model –Boulder Loop 1 (Northeast) –Alternative 2

The observer’s eye would next be summoned to Stand 28, an upper elevation, 13 acre clearcut, 0.7 of a mile away. Again this aspect would provide a direct view at this stand and its undulation and high rising reaches in elevation would make it very visible. Much of the acreage would be visible and some bare ground could be seen in this opening. It would meet the suggested guidelines of the Forest Plan for Moderate SIO but would be located in direct view and just out of the foreground. Stand 26, a proposed 5-acre patch cut, would also be in a fairly direct view but would be mildly obscured by some immediate foreground vegetation on the overlook. The shape would follow the contour of the land to some degree which would provide a length of leading edge vegetation to conceal most of the acres of the opening. In all likelihood, ground disturbance would not be seen but a hard shadow, color and line of texture would be very evident.

102 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Due to the viewing distance and aspect of the slope facing the observer, it is worth mentioning Stands 27 and 29, group selection treatments that abut and surround parts of Stands 25 and 26. The patch cuts would attract ones attention to the groups area and thus the groups alternation to the exiting landscapes textures, colors would be more evident than usual. They probably would not be seen as much more than shadow and texture changes splashed through the mountainside but would have the potential to be fairly evident at this angle and distance. Parts of Stand 29 would be concealed by foreground vegetation of the overlook itself obscuring some of the view.

Viewpoint 9 – Boulder Loop 2 (Southeast)

Figure 3.10 Visual Simulation Model –Boulder Loop 2 (Southeast) –Alternative 2

The observer standing on Viewpoint 9 has a commanding view of the majestic surrounding, with a depth of field that ranges the full spectrum. The view from this location peers down on the project area, providing an oblique view into several stands. Modeling results indicate that only one new opening, Stand 30, a proposed 9-acre seed tree with reserve treatment under Alternative 2, would be visible from this viewpoint. They also indicate that this new opening would not meet the Forest Plan SIO for High sensitivity zones, because it would have more than 4-5 open acres visible from this vantage point. This stand is located in the immediate foreground view, a mere 0.3 mile down and away. Due to its shape being wider and the opening moving up the elevation of the landscape, the observer would have a clear and open view down and into the stand, and would be able to see most of the opening and a fair amount of bare ground. Also worth noting are the three group selection stands in the foreground of the viewshed and on the border of the project area and the Swift River. Due to the viewing angle, near distance of eye-attracting features (lines of Swift River and Kancamagus) to them and hillsides framing them, Stands 33, 32 and 31 would be observed regularly by

103 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

visitors on this popular short hike. Again the viewpoint peers directly into these stands and the alterations to the landscape would be evident (mostly as small “holes” in the canopy with distinct changes to shadow, texture and color). Being the openings are typically small, it would not be expected that bare ground would be visible. The leading edge of vegetation and back edge should conceal the ground from view. Leaf off and early winter and early spring conditions would certainly highlight the intensity of this viewshed.

Viewpoint 10 – Boulder Loop 3 (West)

Figure 3.11 Visual Simulation Model –Boulder Loop 3 (West) –Alternative 2

Modeling results indicate that treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would create 3 new openings that would appear visible in middleground view from Viewpoint 10. Stand 2, a proposed 12-acre clearcut located 1.2 miles distant, Due to the angle of the slope, this clearcut would appear to lay lengthwise upslope, and the leading edge would provide concealment of a portion of the opening. This same angle of repose would also tilt the face of the slope slightly towards the observer, exposing some open acres. It is not unlikely that some bare ground would be visible. Stand 4, a proposed 15-acre clearcut located 1.1 miles distant, would only have a fraction of an opening visible due to vegetation on the overlook that would screen the view in that direction. The portion that would be visible would be almost entirely open acres, as the face of the slope would point almost directly toward the viewpoint. The only concealment this stand would have would be provided from vegetation on the overlook which could change at anytime due to natural erosion and weather related conditions.

104 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Glancing off to the south end of the viewshed, a portion of the opening that would be created by proposed treatment in Stand 89 could be evident. This stand is located approximately 3.9 miles distant and is proposed as a 15-acre seed tree treatment. Most of the resulting opening would be concealed from view by topography.

None of the three stands mentioned above would exceed the Forest Plan’s SIO guidelines for its zone (mostly in or all in High). Some of the open acreage would be concealed due to vegetative screening on the sides of the overlook.

Prescribed Burning (All Viewpoints)

The proposed prescribed burning under Alternative 2 would occur predominantly within the High Scenic Integrity Objective area. Proposed prescribed burning areas would also touch upon Moderate SIO areas in burn units 3 and 6 and Low SIO areas in burn units 3 and 1. The proposed burning is planned as a ground level only disturbance, and visual quality issues from superior viewpoints should be minimal for a majority of the proposed burn areas, since in most cases observers would be viewing forest canopy, tree branches and trunks, rather than charred ground or the bases of trees. Visual effects of prescribed burning would likely be more noticeable during early spring and late fall, or “leaf-off”, seasons. For the first 3-5 years, burned areas would show signs of color, texture and lighting differences in comparison to un-burned surroundings as ground vegetation regenerates and covers blackened surfaces. Visual effects of prescribed burning would be particularly noticeable from Boulder Loop Viewpoints, which are near the proposed burn areas and look down upon burn units 1, 2 and 3. From these superior viewpoints burned areas would stand out in “leaf-off” seasons when contrasts in color and lighting would be more likely to catch the viewer’s attention. Harvest units 39 and 41 are the only proposed clearcuts located within the proposed burn areas. They would fall within burn unit 5. Although these two units could offer some glimpses of charred surfaces, it would be highly unlikely. From Viewpoint 1, Middle Sister, modeling indicates that proposed harvest unit 39 would be partially visible, but since this unit would be located 4.3 miles distant from the viewpoint, the likelihood of a noticing a moderate change to the ground surface color and texture is not probable. It is unlikely that travelers on the Kancamagus Scenic Byway or recreationalist utilizing the Swift River would be able to see or notice the ground level disturbances in burned areas from their vantage point.

105 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

From the ground itself, hikers, bikers, hunters, etc would be likely to notice changes to the low level landscape following burning. The South Moat Mountain Trail crosses through proposed burn unit 6 and Forest Road 602 crosses through proposed burn units 3 and 1. Charring would certainly be visible from these areas. This effect would be temporary since within a few years ground vegetation would mask blackened surfaces on the ground level. Charred trunks would be noticeably visible for up to 30 years; however this effect of fire activity is common and natural in this area.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 slightly would reduce the impacts of proposed harvest treatments on scenic values, as compared to Alternative 2, by eliminating 84 acres of clearcut treatments. The scenic effects of harvest treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would result in only a slight visual change to the immediate future appearance of the landscape.

Table 3.12 - New Visible Treatment Areas (Openings) by Viewpoint - Alternative 3

New Visible Treatment New Visible Treatment Areas Meeting Forest Areas (openings) Viewpoint Plan Guidelines

# of units acres # of units acres 1. Middle Sister 24 325 19 233 2. Allen’s Ledge 17 219 11 118 3. North Moat Mtn 10 107 10 107 4. Kancamagus NE 1 12 1 12 5. Kancamagus E 4 47 4 47 6. Kancamagus Lower Falls NW 3 38 3 38 6.5 Kancamagus NE 4 32 4 32 7. Bear Notch Road 4 43 4 43 8. Boulder Loop 1 NE 5 51 5 51 9. Boulder Loop 2 SE 1 9 1 9 10. Boulder Loop 3 W 3 40 3 40

106 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.13 - New Visible Treatment Areas (Openings) Exceeding Forest Plan Size Guidelines by Viewpoint - Alternative 3

Viewpoint Units SIO Visible Alt 3 Distance Visibility Acres Treat from Sensitivity Full (F) Level Guide- ment viewpoint Partial (P) line Acres (miles) 11 Mod/H F 10,5 22 4.7 21 Mod P 10 20 4.4 Middle Sister 64 Mod P 10 20 3.4 78 Mod F 10 15 3.7 89 H F 5 15 2.9 50 H F 5 12 4.0 56 H/Mod F 5,10 8 4.0 59 H/Mod F 5,10 24 3.5 Allen’s Ledge 63 H/Mod F 5,10 21 3.2 64 Mod P 10 20 3.6 87 H/Mod F 5,10 16 3.4

Viewpoint 1 – Middle Sister

Figure 3.12 Visual Simulation Model –Middle Sister –Alternative 3

The overall visual impression from Viewpoint 1 under Alternative 3 would be a more modestly modified canopy and landscape than that of Alternative 2. With the conversion of 2 stands from clearcut to group selection treatments, as well as the elimination of 1 clearcut and 1 patch cut stand, there would be a slight reduction in activity, and a corresponding improved visual quality of the view in the Deer Brook watershed. Proposed treatments in the remaining stands would have most of the same visual effects as described under Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would reduce the total amount of visible treated area from 343 to 325 acres, and reduce the total number of visible openings from 26 to 24 (Table 3.12). The observer

107 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

from viewpoint 1 would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the duration of effects would be slightly less than under Alternative 2. Visual effects created by treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would fade and blend with the untreated surroundings more readily due to the decreased density of harvest areas.

Viewpoint 2 – Allen’s Ledge

Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 19 to 17, and the total acres of visible openings from 270 to 219 acres (Table 3.12). The reduction in acreage of visible openings from Viewpoint 2 would have the greatest benefit in the latter half of the mountain backdrop at the furthest distance. A 34-acre proposed reduction in 4 clearcut treatments and elimination of one proposed patch cut in the Deer Brook watershed would increase the geographic separation between openings, allowing visual effects created by these openings to blend in much sooner than under Alternative 2. The smaller openings would be for the most part aligned against the slope, following the contours. This would create a larger leading edge of foreground vegetation to screen more of the opening. Modeling results indicate that 11 of the 17 visible openings created under treatments proposed in Alternative 3 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines. The 6 visible openings that would exceed SIO size guidelines would be created by proposed clearcuts, patch cuts and one overstory removal treatment located in the vicinity of Bear Notch Road. The reduction of clustering of openings in that same area would make it less of a focal point, allowing observers attention to drift to other more distinct and unmodified features in the landscape.

Figure 3.13 Visual Simulation Model –Allen’s Ledge –Alternative 3

108 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Viewpoint 3 - North Moat Mountain

Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 12 to 10, and the total acres of visible openings from 142 to 107 acres (Table 3.12). These changes stem from a 25 acres reduction in the size of Stand 84 and a change in proposed treatment from clearcut to group selection in Stand 19. Stand 4, a 15 acres clearcut, would be eliminated from the viewshed under Alternative 3. Changes to the landscape visible from Viewpoint 3 would be slightly reduced from that of Alternative 2. There would be no other changes that would be of much consequence to this viewpoint in Alternative 3. All new visible openings created by treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

Figure 3.14 Visual Simulation Model– North Moat Mountain –Alternative 3

Viewpoint 4 - Kancamagus (Northeast)

Under Alternative 3, only one group selection treatment areas would be partially visible from Viewpoint 4, resulting in little to no scenic effects.

Viewpoint 5 - Kancamagus (East)

Figure 3.15 Visual Simulation Model – Kancamagus (East) –Alternative 3

109 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternative 3 would provide a significant improvement to the visual quality that can be expected from observing this viewpoint. Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 6 to 4, and the total acres of visible openings from 80 to 47 acres (Table 3.12). All openings created by proposed treatments under Alternative 3 that would be visible from this viewpoint would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

The conversion of Stands 2 and 19 from clearcut to group selection treatment would mitigate the resulting visual effects on the landscape as compared to Alternative 2. There would be a 5 acre reduction in acreage visible in Stand 20 that would make the stand blend as a line of shadow or color variation and texture. It would not attract the eye, rather it would fade into the context of its surroundings. The same can be said for Stand 18. The 4 acre reduction would narrow the stand and allow it to follow the contour of the mountainside. The resulting visual effect may not end up being much more visible than a line or shadow with variations in texture that would only be noticeable in direct lighting. In addition, Stands 16 and 4 were eliminated under Alternative 3.

Viewpoint 6 - Kancamagus Lower Falls (Northwest)

Figure 3.16 Visual Simulation Model –Kancamagus (Northwest) –Alternative 3

Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 4 to 3, and the total acres of visible openings from 53 to 38 acres (Table 3.12). Under Alternative 3, Stand 4, a proposed clearcut, would be eliminated. Stands 6, 7 and 11, two proposed patch cuts and a clearcut, would all create visual effects as described in Alternative 2. Despite proposing treatments that would create a fair amount of visible openings that would alter the landscape behind an

110 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

important scenic feature of the area, Alternative 3 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

Viewpoint 6.5 - Kancamagus (Northeast)

Alternative 3 only varied from the previous alternative in that clearcut Stand 28 is reduced in size by 2 acres. The overall visual effects would not be much different than that described in Alternative 2.

Viewpoint 7 – Bear Notch Road Overlook

Figure 3.17 Visual Simulation Model – Bear Notch Road Overlook –Alternative 3

Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total acres of visible openings from 49 to 43 acres (Table 3.12). Under Alternative 3, Viewpoint 7 would contain the same two near foreground views of Stands 49, a 3 acre overstory removal, and Stand 50, a proposed clearcut which would be reduced from 18 to 12 acres, as Alternative 2. The higher elevation section of Stand 50 would be eliminated under Alternative 3, thus reducing the visibility. The changes observed would be that of shadow, some texture and color. It is not very likely that bare ground could be seen. The result would be that this visible opening, as well as the other 3 created by proposed treatments under Alternative 3, would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines

Viewpoint 8 - Boulder Loop 1 (Northeast)

In Alternative 3, Viewpoint 8 would contain the same viewed openings and would have identical effects to scenery as described under Alternative 2. The only differences between Alternative 2 and 3 is that under Alternative 3, Stand 28 would be reduced by 2 acres. This reduction would allow for the stand to clearly meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives of a moderate zone.

111 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Viewpoint 9 - Boulder Loop 2 (Southeast)

Viewpoint 9 landscape as seen under treatments proposed in Alternative 3 would be similar to that described for Alternative 2, with one exception. Stand 30, a 9-acre visible opening that would be created by proposed seed tree treatment, would be reduced to 6 acres under Alternative 3 in order to meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines. There would be no other changes to the stands shapes, sizes, presence or treatments that would affect the scenery to any degree.

Viewpoint 10 - Boulder Loop 3 (West)

Figure 3.18 Visual Simulation Model –Boulder Loop 3 (West) –Alternative 3

Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 4 to 3, and the total acres of visible openings from 55 to 40 acres (Table 3.12). Alternative 3 also varies from Alternative 2 in that the proposed treatment for Stand 2 would be changed from clearcut to group selection, thus negating most of the possible associated scenic impacts. Group selection treatment at this distance, due to the angle of slope facing the view, would not be completely benign to the viewshed however. Holes in the canopy would be identifiable but they would only appear as hard shadows and changes in texture and color, not as open acres. The canopy would have visible interruptions rather than appearing as a smooth blanket. In addition, Stand 4, another proposed clearcut under Alternative 2, would be eliminated under Alternative 3, negating any associated visual impacts.

Prescribed Burning (All Viewpoints)

Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that the proposed burn units would be reduced in size and quantity (4 units). Effects of prescribed burning on scenery under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under Alternative 2, but would

112 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

provide much less acreage of potential visibility. The overall disturbances that could be noticed would be reduced by nearly half.

From the ground, only the east side of Forest Road 602 and the west side of the South Moat Mountain Trail would be affected and visible for a reduced distance in comparison to Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 Table 3.14 - New Visible Treatment Areas (Openings) by Viewpoint - Alternative 4

New Visible Treatment New Visible Treatment Areas Meeting Forest Areas (openings) Viewpoint Plan Guidelines

# of units acres # of units acres 1. Middle Sister 12 140 9 76 2. Allen’s Ledge 7 106 7 106 3. North Moat Mtn 7 75 7 75 4. Kancamagus NE 0 0 0 0 5. Kancamagus E 3 35 3 35 6. Kancamagus Lower Falls NW 0 0 0 0 6.5 Kancamagus NE 4 34 4 34 7. Bear Notch Road 0 0 0 0 8. Boulder Loop 1 NE 5 52 5 52 9. Boulder Loop 2 SE 1 9 0 0 10. Boulder Loop 3 W 2 28 2 28

Table 3.15 - New Visible Openings Exceeding Forest Plan Size Guidelines by Viewpoint - Alternative 4 Viewpoint Units SIO Guide- Alt 4 Distance Visibility line in Acres from Sensitivity Full (F) Level acres Seen viewpoint Partial (P) (miles) 1. Middle Sister 21 Mod P 10 19 4.4 84 Mod/H F 10,5 30 3.7 89 H F 5 15 2.9 9. Boulder Loop 30 H/Mod 5,10 9 0.3 F 2 SE

113 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Viewpoint 1 – Middle Sister

Under Alternative 4, there would be a far greater reduction in visible openings from Viewpoint 1, as compared to Alternative 3. Treatments proposed under Alternative 4 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 25 to 12, and the total acres of visible openings from 325 to 140 acres (Table 3.12). Alternative 4 would be more sensitive to visual quality while maintaining diversity on the landscape. Over half of the openings would be eliminated, and the amount of clearcut acres would be reduced by an additional 160 acres. Modeling results indicate that openings created by proposed clearcut and seed tree treatments in Stands 21, 84 and 89 under Alternative 4 would exceed Forest Plan SIO size guidelines.

Figure 3.19 Visual Simulation Model –Middle Sister –Alternative 4

The visual impression from Viewpoint 1 under Alternative 4 would be that of a modestly modified canopy and landscape. It no longer would have the strong detraction created by an area clustered with openings. The observer from viewpoint 1 would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the lasting effects would be reduced in comparison to that of Alternatives 2 and 3 and would fade and blend with the untreated surroundings more readily due to the decreased harvest density.

Viewpoint 2 – Allen’s Ledge

Viewpoint 2 in Alternative 4 depicts immense reductions in the visual openings in and around the entire Bear Mountain area. Treatments proposed under Alternative 4 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 18 to 7, and the total acres of visible openings from 219 to 106 acres (Table 3.12). The scenic attractiveness would be maintained as it presently exists throughout that entire part of

114 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment the project area. Modeling results indicate that all visible openings created by proposed treatments under Alternative 4 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

The Deer Brook area, however, would see an increase in visual impacts to nearly the same level as under Alternative 2. The angle and orientation on the landscape as well as the number and proximity of openings to one another would lead the eye to the mass of change. These openings would be, however, over 6 miles distant from the observer. This distance and less than perfect weather would allow those openings to fade over time. After 10-15 years, the openings should be sufficiently regrown that the texture changes and amount of shadow would diminish and the colors would blend with the surroundings.

Figure 3.20 Visual Simulation Model –Allen’s Ledge –Alternative 4

Viewpoint 3 - North Moat Mountain

With proposed reductions in clearcuts treatments under Alternative 4, changes to the landscape visible from Viewpoint 3 would be slightly reduced from that of Alternative 2. Treatments proposed under Alternative 4 would reduce the total number of openings visible from this viewpoint from 10 to 7, and the total acres of visible openings from 107 to 75 acres (Table 3.12). Stand 6, 9, 11 and 20 would be eliminated, improving the visual quality of the slopes to the south and west. The removal of Stand 20 would be the biggest visual improvement. Stand 84 would be increased by 25 acres, back to 30 acres as proposed under Alternative 2. The resulting visual impacts would not be a major concern because the scale of the opening in that location would appear “meadow like”. There would be no other changes of much consequence to this viewpoint, and modeling results indicate that all openings created by proposed treatments under Alternative 4 that would be visible from this viewpoint would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

115 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Figure 3.21 Visual Simulation Model –North Moat Mountain –Alternative 4

Viewpoint 4 - Kancamagus (Northeast)

Stand 2 would be eliminated from Alternative 4, and therefore no new openings visible from this viewpoint would be created by treatments proposed under Alternative 4.

Viewpoint 5 - Kancamagus (East)

The elimination of clearcut treatments in Stands 2, 4 and 20 would improve the scenic quality of the observed landscape under Alternative 4. Proposed treatment in Stand 19 would be changed back to a clearcut, resulting in the same visual impacts as described in Alternative 2. The same mitigations would be employed to reduce the overall visibility of this opening, and modeling results indicate that it would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines. The additional acreage in Stand 18, and adding Stand 16 would create visual impacts comparable to that described for these treatments in Alternative 2. Design features would reduce visual impacts and allow these openings to potentially blend into the landscape better. Modeling results indicate that all the openings created by proposed treatments under Alternative 4 that would be visible from this viewpoint would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

116 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.22 Visual Simulation Model – Kancamagus (East) –Alternative 4

Viewpoint 6 - Kancamagus (Northwest)

Alternative 4 is the visually sensitive solution to the viewshed observed at Lower Falls. All of the clearcut prescriptions that would be visible from this viewpoint would be eliminated under Alternative 4, there would be no overall visual and scenic effects and the backdrop to the falls would not change.

Viewpoint 6.5 - Kancamagus (Northeast)

The only change under Alterative 4 from Alternative 3 is that clearcut Stand 28 would be changed to its original proposed size of 12 acres under Alternative 2. Therefore the visual effects would not be any different than those described in Alterative 2.

Viewpoint 7 - Bear Notch Rd Overlook

Treatments to Stands 49, 50 and 59 would be eliminated under Alternative 4. No new openings would be created that would be visible from this viewpoint under Alternative 4, and there would be no noticeable alterations to the existing landscape.

Viewpoint 8 - Boulder Loop 1 (Northeast)

Under Alternative 4, Viewpoint 8 would contain the same viewed openings and would have identical effects to scenery as described under Alternatives 2 and 3. The only differences between Alternative 2, 3 and 4 is that under Alternative 4, Stand 28 would increase by 2 acres, to 13 acres total as described in Alternative 2. Stand 21 would be reduced by 1 acre under Alternative 4, but this change would have only minor improvements to the scenic value. For the most part, effects described under Alternative 2 for this viewpoint would apply under Alternative 4 as well. All 5 visible openings

117 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

created by treatments proposed under Alternative 4 would meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

Viewpoint 9 - Boulder Loop 2 (Southeast)

Viewpoint 9 as seen with Alternative 4 applied would be no different than that described for Alternatives 2. There would be no changes to the stands shapes, sizes, presence or prescriptions that would affect the scenery to any degree. Modeling results indicate that the one 9-acre visible opening that would be created by proposed seed tree treatment in Stand 30 would not meet Forest Plan SIO guidelines.

Viewpoint 10 - Boulder Loop 3 (West)

Under Alternative 4, clearcut treatments in Stands 2 and 4 would be eliminated, thus negating any of the possible scenic impacts that would result from proposed treatments in these stands under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Prescribed Burning (All Viewpoints)

The prescribed burning proposed under Alternative 4 is identical to that proposed under Alternative 2. Effects on scenery from prescribed burning proposed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area includes views into the project area and surrounding landscape as seen from the Middle Sister viewpoint. This viewpoint was selected for the cumulative effects analysis because it represents the most superior viewshed of all eleven viewpoints analyzed, and it encompasses an estimated 6,865 acres of the project area; more area than any of the other viewpoints analyzed. The analysis considered existing harvested openings and wildlife openings created within the past 30 years within the project area, listed in Appendix C and the project file. Existing wildlife openings would be maintained in an open condition for wildlife purposes. No additional timber harvest or prescribed burning actions within the cumulative effects analysis area are reasonably foreseeable within the timeframe analyzed.

118 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1

There would be no cumulative effects to the landscape under Alternative 1 because there would be no direct or indirect effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Texture, color changes and shadow lines throughout the viewshed are a result of natural features, variety in vegetation types, rock outcrops and slides, and from aspect. Specific openings that pose a cumulative effect include regeneration harvest units from timber sales that occurred within the cumulative effects analysis area, as well as several maintained wildlife openings. Openings created by partial and even-aged regeneration harvests activities over the past 30 years remain visible on the slopes of Bear Mountain, and in the Deer Brook and Big Brook watersheds. These regeneration harvest areas quickly re-forested, returning to a green color within two to three years. The oldest of these openings are marginally evident when viewed from the Middle Sister viewpoint at distances of over three miles. The textures of the foliage of these older harvest units are smooth, and leaf color may be a lighter green, and although there is a shadow line evident, the general look appears natural to most casual observers. Many of the oldest permanent openings appear as natural meadows, and add to the diverse landscape. Although the visibility of these openings has faded over time, they may be highlighted by proposed harvest activities under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.

Under the action alternatives cumulative scenic effects of newly created openings with those of the past is of a dynamic landscape where vegetation changes blend with the landscape. The former openings blend with the existing landscape to an extent, more so when leaves are on the hardwoods. Forest Plan guidelines for evaluating cumulative effects on landscape scenery in MA 2.1 include the following: In evaluating cumulative effects for viewed landscapes from established concern level 1, open, higher elevation viewpoints affording expansive or large scale views, no more than 9 percent of the acreage within the view should be treated with regeneration vegetation management activities within a 30 year period. Total area affected during any one entry period with new regeneration treatment should not exceed 4 percent of the acreage. (Forest Plan Pg. 3-6, G-1).

The table below shows total acres that are visible from the Middle Sister viewpoint, which includes the project area, as well as cumulative openings seen on the landscape from past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions for all alternatives. The

119 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

cumulative effects are expressed as a percent of the total viewed area. There are no cumulative effects under the No Action alternative because there would be no direct or indirect effects. For the action alternatives, total acres viewed are well below Forest Plan guidelines of 4 and 9 percent (USDA Forest Service 2005a., p. 3-6).

Alternatives 3 and 4 would be less obtrusive to observers over a shorter duration than Alternative 2, and overall would blend into a much more natural appearing landscape. Of all the action alternatives analyzed, Alternative 4 would best meet Forest Plan guidelines for scenery, because it would create the fewest number of visible new openings, and resulting impacts on visual and scenic quality would fade and blend with the untreated surrounding landscape more readily.

Table 3.16 - Cumulative Openings seen from Middle Sister Viewpoint

Visible Area Estimated Acres

Within Project Area 6,865 acres

Within View (includes project 13,046 acres area)

Existing Regeneration 763 acres Treatment Openings (< 30 yrs)

Existing Wildlife Openings (3) 42 acres

Proposed Regeneration Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Treatment Openings 0 343 325 140

% Within View 0 2.6 2.5 1.1

Existing + Proposed 805 1,148 1,130 945 Openings

% Within View 6.2 8.8 8.7 7.3

In summary, former openings from regeneration treatments in past sales generally blend with a mosaic pattern on the landscape. The views from Middle Sister incorporate the greatest number of openings viewed due to the angle of repose of the landscape. However, the viewing distance is approximately 3-5 miles, so the individual openings viewed will appear much smaller than their true size.

120 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

All alternatives would be compliant with the Forest Plan. Scenic effects of newly created openings under all action alternatives would initially be very evident, but over time would blend with the existing landscape, eventually becoming nearly unnoticeable to most observers, especially during seasons of the year when leaves are on the hardwoods. A fair portion of the changes that would be visible under all action alternatives would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings indicative of the region. Over time, establishment of forest regeneration, in some cases combined with careful placement of openings on the landscape, would ensure that the scenery would remain intact under all action alternatives analyzed, consistent with the Forest Plan.

3.3 Vegetation

Affected Environment During the late 19th and early 20th centuries intensive harvesting occurred throughout the WMNF. Relatively large fires also occurred during this period due in part to large fuel accumulations, drought and man-made ignition sources (e.g. wood and coal burning locomotives). Since then, vegetation on the WMNF has been actively managed (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 2-6). Additionally, natural disturbances (e.g. wind storms, ice storms, fire, insects and disease) continuously influence vegetative communities across this landscape. Current vegetative communities within the project area reflect these legacy practices and disturbances. Today, the project area contains a mosaic of forest stands comprising a diversity of tree species and age structure. Most of these stands are in a stage of development that could support commercial timber harvesting. Their canopies are closed or partially closed and although light may be limiting on the forest floor tree species tolerant of shade, particularly American beech, grow in abundance below the overstory canopies. Additionally, very few stands (approximately 1% of the project area) are young (0-9 years old). The current forest cover types consist of a mosaic of spruce-fir, hemlock, northern hardwoods, aspen/birch, oak/pine and mixedwood forest type groups. Additionally, a small portion of the project area contains non-forested openings dominated by grass and/or shrubs, ponds, wetlands, or rock outcrops. Many stands contain trees exhibiting wind and ice damage to crowns, insect and disease, and tree injury from past management activities and natural disturbances (field reconnaissance and stand exams).

121 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Analysis of recent forest inventory data suggests it is appropriate to treat some stands at this time. Due to the lack of open forest conditions species that require abundant sunlight, such as paper birch, are lacking throughout the project area. The lack of open forest conditions tends to foster continued development of the shade tolerant species such as American beech. Enhancing tree species diversity, in the absence of stand replacing disturbances, is limited by these current light regimes. Sustaining other forest types such as paper birch, aspen and northern red oak is thus limited in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for the Analysis

The Forest Plan used the best available science to develop goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for vegetation management on the WMNF. These include: • Managing vegetation using an ecological approach to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer; • Managing for commercial products using well-integrated prescriptions that protect biotic and abiotic resources and are compatible with the high level of recreational use on the Forest, and • Using timber harvesting as a tool to attain wildlife habitat and other resource objectives. Monitoring on the WMNF has demonstrated that timber harvesting is the most effective means to manage diversity of vegetation and is consistent with meeting wildlife objectives (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, pg 2-6). The rationale for applying silvicultural treatments on the WMNF is based largely, though not exclusively, on research conducted by the USDA Forest Service’s Northern Research Station.

The Northeast Swift River Project Area contains approximately 10,400 acres of land, of which, 68% (7,095 acres) is within the General Forest Management Area (MA 2.1) identified in the Forest Plan. Proposed vegetation management involving commercial timber harvesting is largely limited to lands within MA 2.1 of the project area. A maximum amount of 1,738 acres of land is proposed for commercial timber harvest in Alternative 2, representing approximately 25% of MA 2.1 land and 17% of the project area. Non-commercial treatments proposed within the timber harvest units include release treatments, planting and prescribed burning. Additionally, prescribed burning is

122 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

proposed outside of timber harvest unit boundaries within MA 2.1 and within the Semi- Primitive Recreation Management Area (MA 6.1) of the project area.

Silvicultural prescriptions developed for this project were based upon recent stand exam data (project record), field reconnaissance by the project interdisciplinary team (IDT), experience from past management projects and a review of current peer-reviewed literature. All regeneration cutting methods proposed in this project were designed to ensure adequate natural regeneration of a stand in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements. In addition, all proposed commercial and non commercial timber harvest treatments associated with this project were designed to meet all pertinent Forest Plan vegetation management standards and guidelines. The methodology for determining optimal silvicultural cutting methods for treating stands in this project involved several steps. First, an inventory of stands was conducted by one or more professional foresters. Next, the data from the inventory was processed and analyzed by a Forest Service silviculturist. The silviculturist then assigned an initial treatment prescription to each stand analyzed, based upon the silvical characteristics of tree species, existing stand and site conditions and guidance from the Forest Plan. Special consideration was given to wildlife habitat needs as guided by objectives associated with the Habitat Management Unit (HMU). These initial stand treatment prescriptions were then reviewed by the project interdisciplinary team (IDT). The IDT evaluated site specific resource concerns, as well as issues identified through public involvement. Finally, in some cases initial stand treatment prescriptions were modified to address site-specific resource concerns identified by the IDT, such as visual or water quality, and to respond to the issues identified from public comments. Effects to vegetation in the project area are analyzed in terms of forest health and productivity. This refers to the mix of forest conditions such as age, density, diversity and land suitability that contribute to a forest’s susceptibility to injury and disease and its ability to thrive with optimum growth. Measuring effects to forest health and productivity is primarily a qualitative prediction based on the typical vegetative responses of various silvicultural treatments, other proposed activities, or natural forces. The extent of effects to vegetation in terms of forest health and productivity can also be measured quantitatively by comparing the estimated volume of timber proposed to be harvested and the number of forested acres proposed to be treated with optimal silvicultural cutting methods.

123 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on vegetation is MA 2.1 in addition to a small portion of MA 6.1 land where prescribed burning is proposed within the project area (Figure 1.3). This analysis area was chosen because the proposed activities are suitable and permitted within these management areas and any noticeable direct and indirect effect on vegetation would be in or near treated stands. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is zero to five years post treatment. This time period was chosen because it represents the time during which stands naturally regenerate with forest vegetation. Note: there are no proposed commercial treatments pertaining to timber harvesting in MA 6.1.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, all stands in the project area would continue to grow and mature; however, the opportunity to enhance growth, yield, and forest health would be foregone. Additionally, the Forest Plan’s goal of providing high quality sawtimber and non-sawtimber products on a sustained yield basis would not be met. No forest products would be available to local markets and no income would be generated. Some trees would die from natural causes related to competition, age, stress and/or natural disturbances. Other more shade-tolerant trees would replace these trees. There would be a gradual species shift from stands containing birch species, aspen species, pine species, northern red oak, and white ash to stands dominated by beech, maple species, eastern hemlock and red spruce. Natural disturbances such as wind and ice events would influence succession by temporarily providing smaller forest openings, encouraging the establishment of shade-tolerant species. A direct effect of Alternative 1 is that no regeneration age stands would be created. An indirect effect of this alternative is that stands would continue to age. Some trees would die from senescence (old age). As shorter-lived species (aspen species, paper birch and balsam fir) grow older they become more susceptible to ice damage, windthrow, insects, and disease. Over time, these agents contribute to tree mortality that may occur in small pockets or over larger areas. Overall, stand vigor may decline because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone. Dominant and co-dominant red oak and white pine would continue to control site conditions; however, without periodic disturbances or silvicultural treatments oak and pine regeneration would fail to become established. Many existing seedlings would

124 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

stagnate in the understory and eventually die. The indirect effect of no action would be a continuing conversion of oak and pine stands to northern hardwood stands dominated by shade-tolerant species such as beech.

Untreated stands dominated by small-diameter beech would likely become infected with beech bark disease as they age and many trees would incur early mortality. Numerous sprouts from roots would subsequently develop and thereby perpetuate the disease, leading to unhealthy and unproductive stands. These numerous sprouts would create dense understory conditions that would reduce the ability of other tree species to regenerate due to reduced resources such as light. Over time there would be a loss of species diversity within these stands as they gradually shift to northern hardwoods with substantial components of beech.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action alternative would maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions and improve species composition by increasing the amount of oak-pine, aspen-birch, and softwoods. Alternative 2 would include treatment of approximately 1,738 acres that would yield an estimated 8 million board feet of timber products (Table 3.13). Proposed vegetation treatments are categorized as either even- or uneven-aged management. Effects on vegetation are directly related to the silvicultural system and specific cutting method that would be implemented in each stand/unit. In addition, some effects on vegetation are related to the season of year in which timber harvesting operations would occur (operating season) and the context of openings created by proposed treatments.

125 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.17 - Comparison of proposed silvicultural treatments by alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Silvicultural Volume Volume Volume Volume System Cutting Method Acres (MBF)* Acres (MBF) Acres (MBF) Acres (MBF) Clearcut (CC) 0 0 305 2,898 209 1,986 119 1,131 Patch Cut (PC) 0 0 94 940 106 1,060 37 370 Overstory Removal (OSR) 0 0 33 330 33 330 0 0 Seed Tree w/ Even-Aged Reserves (SD TR RS) 0 0 33 264 30 264 24 1,008 Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 0 0 19 114 19 114 0 0 Commercial Thin (THIN) 0 0 132 528 132 528 132 528 Group Selection (GS) 0 0 911 1,822 957 1,914 901 1,802 Single Tree Uneven- Selection (STS) 0 0 126 630 126 630 126 425 Aged Single Tree & Group Selection (STS/GS) 0 0 85 510 78 468 85 510 Total 0 0 1,738 8,036 1,690 7,294 1,424 5,774 Note: Values listed are estimates and subject to change as new information is gathered *MBF - thousands of board feet

Timber Harvest

Even-Aged Management

Clearcuts - Clearcutting is a silvicultural cutting method that focuses on the removal of all the trees in a stand. Approximately 305 acres of clearcuts are proposed in stands containing poor quality, low vigor and/or mature trees. Uncut patches of trees totaling five percent of the harvest area would be retained per Forest Plan standard. This type of treatment has the direct effect of creating a large opening (>10 acres) that allows high levels of sunlight to reach the forest floor. Clearcut areas would provide regeneration- age forest habitat and increased species diversity (within stands and across the project area), while salvaging timber value. Compared to other silvicultural treatments clearcutting would produce the most productive early-successional habitat. Indirect effects of clearcutting include germination and establishment of fast-growing shade-intolerant tree species such as paper birch, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen. The abundance of light and corresponding warming of the forest floor following clearcutting treatments would also stimulate the germination of woody and/or

126 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

herbaceous vegetation that have seeds with a relatively long period of dormancy, such as raspberries, blackberries, pin cherry, and various forbs and grasses. This herbaceous cover would remain an important component of the new stand until the tree canopy of the new trees begins to close.

Another indirect effect of clearcutting would be the promotion of root suckers and stump sprouts of northern hardwood species such as trembling aspen, bigtooth aspen and red maple. According to a study on four sites in New England (Pierce et al. 1993), stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings begins in the first growing season after harvesting. This study found young, dense stands were established on all four sites within five years after cutting. Recent monitoring of regeneration on the WMNF has shown rapid establishment of hardwoods three years post treatment in clearcuts (stocking surveys 2009 and 2010, project record). Stands adjacent to proposed clearcuts would be subjected to changes in micro-climate conditions along their perimeters. Likely changes include increased sunlight, lower humidities, and increased evapo-transpiration.

Patch Cuts - Patch cuts differ from clearcuts with respect to the amount of area treated. Patch cuts result in openings between two and ten acres. Approximately 94 acres of patch cuts are proposed for stands with conditions similar to those found in stands proposed for clearcuts. However, the reduced size of openings created by patch cuts would result in some important differences. Indirect effects on neighboring stands related to changes in micro-climate conditions would be reduced compared to clearcuts. Additionally, these smaller size openings would limit the quality of early successional habitat created compared to that created by clearcuts.

Overstory Removal - 33 acres of overstory removal is proposed in stands containing a layer of desirable advanced reproduction growing beneath a mature overstory. A direct effect of this treatment is the increased sunlight to the smaller trees in the understory. An indirect effect would be the expected increase in growth rates (diameter and height) of the smaller trees following the overstory removal. This would be due to reduced competition for light and other resources following the treatment. The residual stand would contain a desirable mix of small trees that would be free to grow.

Seed Tree With Reserves -This treatment involves the removal of most but not all trees within a stand. Thirty-three (33) acres of Seed Tree treatments are proposed in the project. A sparse number of mature trees would be retained throughout the stand for the primary purpose of providing seed to aid in the establishment of a new generation of

127 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

trees. A direct effect of this treatment would be the influx of light to the forest floor. The amount of light provided to the forest floor following a seed tree with reserves treatment would be somewhat less than clearcuts, patch cuts and overstory removals, however this marginal difference in light dynamics suggests that any potential differences in vegetative response would be negligible or non measurable. The retention of overstory trees for the purpose of seed dispersal however, would increase the chance that those tree species would be regenerated and retained in the future stand. The retention of overstory trees would also provide an important structural component to these stands for wildlife habitat

Shelterwood Seed Cut - This type of treatment involves the removal of about half the overstory of a stand. Only one stand, approximately 19 acres in size, is proposed to be treated with this prescription. The goal of this prescription in this stand is to establish an adequate number of oak seedlings that are well distributed throughout the stand. A study conducted in the Ozarks found that red oak needs considerably more light in order to recruit into the overstory than is afforded by single tree selection or a combination of single tree and group selection (Kabrick et al. 2008). Shelterwood seed cut treatments create growing conditions for the regeneration of species that are moderately intolerant of shade such as northern red oak and eastern white pine. The disturbance of leaf litter and exposure of mineral soil (incidental scarification) associated with logging operations would also provide favorable conditions for the establishment of oak (and pine) seedlings. The amount of light reaching the crown is critical to oak development, as reduced light affects the acorn crop by inhibiting floral initiation, fruit set, and fruit development. Because both seed number and size can be reduced by inadequate direct sunlight, oaks in suppressed and intermediate crown positions usually produce negligible seed crops (Gysel 1956). The focus of trees targeted for retention would be mature oak exhibiting good quality and health. Removing approximately half the tree stems (mainly suppressed and/or poor quality trees) would open the forest canopy, stimulate acorn development, and create favorable conditions on the forest floor to establish oak reproduction.

Commercial Thinning - 132 acres of commercial thinning is proposed to improve species composition, growth and quality of even-aged stands. Commercial thinning would focus on the removal of poor quality and/or low vigor trees while providing an opportunity for residual trees to increase growth rates. This treatment would provide

128 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

adequate growing space for the highest value trees (Leak et al. 1987). Trees targeted for retention would include dominants or codominants that are well distributed throughout the residual stand. Commercial thinning would also facilitate the harvest of timber that would otherwise be lost due to mortality associated with overstocked stand conditions, and potentially increase future production and yields of sawtimber.

Uneven-Aged Management

Group Selection - 911 acres of group selection treatment is proposed in softwood, mixedwood and northern hardwood stands. Approximately 20 percent of the acreage of each stand proposed for group selection would be treated. This treatment would result in the creation of openings approximately 1/10 to 2 acres in size within stands for the purpose of releasing advanced reproduction or regenerating new trees. Groups would be created in areas where desirable advanced reproduction could be released from competition or where advance reproduction is currently lacking. Additionally, group locations would target areas containing poor quality, low vigor and/or mature overstory trees. Each future entry into a stand proposed for group selection would potentially involve treating an additional 20 percent of the stand’s area. Group selection would facilitate 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 in treated stands, or those originating from nearby seed trees, would have an opportunity to germinate and grow under varied light conditions created by this type of treatment. Some variation in species would be expected due to variation in seed periodicity, seed dispersal and other silvical characteristics. Present advanced reproduction in areas designated for group selection would comprise a proportion of small trees within each group immediately following treatment. Within groups of residual stands small or regeneration-age trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space within five years following the treatment. Trees around the perimeter of groups would expand their crowns and also begin to occupy a portion of the groups within this five-year period.

Single Tree Selection - 126 acres of single tree selection treatment is proposed to release advanced reproduction and/or regenerate hardwood or softwood tree species through removal of poor quality, low vigor and/or mature trees. Approximately 1/3 of the trees would be removed to create space for residual trees to grow and to provide light for tree seeds to germinate. Trees would be cut from all size classes, with those substantially affected by physical damage, insects and/or disease targeted for removal. Trees

129 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

exhibiting good quality and favorable health would be retained, improving the quality of shade-tolerant growing stock in treated stands. Residual stands would contain trees of variable sizes (heights and diameters). Though small gaps would be created, trees within residual stands would restrict and filter sunlight thereby favoring shade-tolerant plants. Trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space created by the individual harvest of trees within five years following the treatment. The presence of tree species considered intolerant of shade (e.g. paper birch, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen) would decline following single tree selection treatment. There would be a shift in species composition toward American beech, sugar maple, red maple, eastern hemlock and red spruce. Single tree selection would create or maintain an uneven-aged stand condition, as well as stimulate stand regeneration, leading to a diversity of age classes within treated stands.

Single Tree and Group Selection - 85 acres of stands would be treated with a combination of both single tree and group selection treatments. Group selection would occur on up to 15% of the acreage, and single tree selection would occur throughout the remainder of each stand proposed for treatment. Direct and indirect effects pertaining to this treatment would be the same as those described in the two preceding subsections, i.e. Group Selection and Single Tree Selection.

Effects of Operating Season

Effects pertaining to the operating season include damage to residual trees from logging operations (direct effect), scarification (soil disturbance) of the forest floor and the expected vegetation response (indirect effect). Harvesting is not proposed in the spring due to anticipated wet conditions that could result in adverse impacts to soil, water and vegetation. Some residual tree damage would occur from timber harvesting operations. The operating season influences the amount of residual tree damage. Tree bark is most vulnerable to damage from logging operations in spring and early summer. Treatments that remove most or all trees from a site are generally planned for summer or fall operating seasons. These include clearcuts, patch cuts, seed tree with reserves and group selection in hardwood stands. These treatments result in relatively large openings in the forest compared to commercial thinning, single tree selection and group selection in softwood stands. Consequently, less residual tree damage would be expected following implementation of the former treatments compared to the latter.

130 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Harvesting in the summer or fall also facilitates the direct effect of maximizing scarification of the forest floor. Treatments that would create relatively large openings would facilitate more extensive and less intensive soil scarification because harvesting equipment would not be limited to travel on skid trails. In contrast, treatments that would create small openings would facilitate less extensive and more intensive soil scarification. Plant species whose seeds benefit from direct contact with mineral soil (e.g. paper birch) are thereby likely to regenerate throughout the residual stand following a logging operation conducted in the summer or fall. In contrast, a winter operating season is generally planned for units that would benefit from timber harvesting occurring on snow and/or frozen ground conditions. These conditions reduce the amount of disturbance to soil and/or understory vegetation.

Effects of Openings

Windthrow is a potential indirect effect of timber harvesting related more to opening size than to silvicultural system. There would be potential for windthrow to occur within or adjacent to treated stands. Specifically, areas of stands adjacent to openings created by timber harvesting could experience increased potential for windthrow compared to untreated stands. Many factors influence the potential for windthrow. These include opening size, orientation and shape; stand condition (structure, composition, age(s), health and vigor); soil; topography; landform; elevation; and slope. Following harvests, trees adjacent to openings tend to expand their crowns and increase root development. Treatments that involve the creation of small openings in the forest, such as commercial thinning, single tree selection or group selection in softwood stands, are generally less likely to result in increased windthrow compared to other treatments, such as clearcuts, patch cuts, overstory removals and seed tree with reserves, which create larger size openings. In addition, the potential for windthrow would last longer following treatment in stands with larger openings than in those with smaller openings.

Other Vegetation Management Activities

Release Treatments

Release treatments are non commercial treatments involving the mechanical removal of submerchantable midstory and/or understory trees. Submerchantable trees include those less than 5.0 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) where dbh is the diameter of a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. The goal of these treatments is to provide adequate growing space for desirable trees to grow free from competition. Though all native tree

131 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

species are considered desirable on the WMNF, dense midstories and understories of some species (primarily American beech) currently inhibit regeneration of many other species in the project area.

Release treatments would include the mechanical cutting or girdling of some or all submerchantable trees within units proposed for commercial timber harvests. Mechanical control of American beech has been found to be effective at promoting the development of desirable advanced reproduction (Smallidge and Nyland 2009). Trees specifically targeted for release include desirable seedlings and saplings of northern red oak, eastern white pine, red pine, paper birch, trembling aspen, bigtooth aspen, sugar maple, yellow birch, red spruce, and eastern hemlock. Due to beech’s ability to reproduce prolifically through root suckering and stump sprouting the effect of cutting beech would be temporary. Within five years beech would likely regenerate and become well established in the understories proposed for release treatments. However, during this time other trees would respond to the release treatments and occupy a greater height and vigor in the treated stands’ understories or midstories. Areas targeted for release treatments include units proposed for commercial timber harvests. If implemented, release treatments would be conducted following the completion of logging operations. Specific units targeted for release treatments would depend on the vegetative response following the commercial harvest operations. One or more release treatment per unit may be implemented, as necessary, to achieve the desired conditions outlined in the silvicultural prescriptions (project record).

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire would be applied on up to approximately 750 acres in the eastern portion of the project area to reduce accumulations of fuels on the forest floor, and to enhance oak/pine regeneration. The primary objective of this treatment in areas outside of units proposed for timber harvesting would be fuels reduction, and it would be oak/pine regeneration in areas proposed for timber harvesting. A summary of the type of vegetation and the amount of area that would be affected by prescribed fire is included in Tables 3.14 and 3.15. As noted in these tables, the amount of area proposed for prescribed fire is distinguished by Forest Type Groups. Forest type groups are broad categories of forest types which, in turn, are based on species composition in accordance with Forest Type Definitions of the WMNF (project record). It is important to note that while species composition within a stand may be variable; forest types are assigned to stands based upon the professional judgment of a forester. In the context of this project,

132 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment the best available science suggests oak/pine regeneration would be most successful where timber harvesting, release treatments and prescribed fire are proposed in conjunction with one another in areas characterized as oak/pine forest type.

Direct and indirect effects to vegetation would depend, in part, on the season of the prescribed fire. Prescribed fire conducted in the spring, just before or during leaf expansion, would be most effective at top-killing vegetation. Top-kill mortality implies the portion of a plant above the root surface would die but its root system would remain alive. Species capable of asexual reproduction via root suckering and/or stump sprouting (e.g. American beech and red maple) would thus be temporarily impacted by prescribed fire. Due to the abundance of small beech in the areas proposed for prescribed fire, this species would likely suffer the greatest amount of top-kill mortality. Within a few growing seasons resprouting of beech and other hardwoods would be expected. The temporary reduction of beech in midstories and/or understories would provide a beneficial opportunity for other vegetation (including oak and pine species) to germinate on the forest floor. In contrast, small, thin-barked trees incapable of reproducing asexually would likely suffer the highest mortality and thus be most adversely impacted. Examples include red spruce, eastern hemlock, and eastern white pine. To the extent operationally feasible, stands and inclusions of stands containing desirable vegetation would be protected from fire.

Table 3.18 - Area (acres) Proposed for Prescribed Fire and Timber Harvesting

Goal Unit Forest Type Group Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 29 hemlock 0 19 1 19 33 hemlock 0 34 16 34 42 hemlock 0 18 18 18

37 mixedwood 0 34 34 34 45 mixedwood 0 45 31 45 30 northern hardwood 0 9 0 9 39 northern hardwood 0 11 1 0 41 northern hardwood 0 14 14 0 34 oak/pine 0 6 6 6

Oak/Pine Regeneration 38 oak/pine 0 9 9 0 43 oak/pine 0 19 19 0 44 oak/pine 0 9 9 9 Total 0 227 158 174

133 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.19 - Area (acres) Proposed for Prescribed Fire and No Timber Harvesting

Goal Forest Type Group Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 oak/pine 0 166 103 191

mixedwood 0 140 83 140 northern hardwood 0 98 54 122 hemlock 0 91 56 91 aspen/birch 0 23 14 23 Fuel Reduction Fuel Total 0 520 310 567

Prescribed fire would reduce fuel accumulated on the forest floor including small twigs, branches, coarse woody material and the litter/duff layer. An excessive amount of litter can limit the capability of seeds obtaining adequate contact with mineral soil. Thick litter can thus reduce the probability of a seed’s chance to germinate and develop into a seedling. Top-kill mortality of trees, particularly beech, and reduction of litter/duff on the forest floor can benefit many species, including oak and pine, by providing two elements necessary for their successful regeneration: adequate light and soil scarification (disturbance). Due to complexities involved with northern red oak regeneration several design features were incorporated into the project to increase the chances of success (see Design Features in Chapter 2). Monitoring of post burn conditions on the WMNF has demonstrated relatively low mortality (less than 20 percent) in mature northern red oak and eastern white pine (Spradlin and Spradlin 2006). However, some mortality and damage to mature trees would be expected. Mature trees exhibiting low vigor and/or stressed by insects, disease, or damage would be particularly vulnerable to mortality. Additionally, thin bark mature trees of some species (e.g. paper birch) would also be vulnerable to mortality from fire.

Artificial Regeneration

Northern red oak seedlings would be planted (approximately 250 per acre) within unit 43, as necessary, depending on the regeneration response following application of the shelterwood seed cut. Planting would occur following the completion of timber harvesting and, if necessary, release treatments would be conducted prior to planting to reduce competition for resources (particularly light). These seedlings would be obtained from a local source to the extent possible.

134 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Connected Actions and Other Proposed Activities

Road Construction

Approximately 1.0 mile of new road would be constructed in this project. Road construction would involve the removal and/or trimming of vegetation to accommodate equipment and prepare the road bed. Road construction would involve the trimming of some lower, overhanging tree limbs but higher limbs would continue to occupy space above the road surface. Although the anticipated width of a road is expected to be approximately 20 feet, additional disturbance of approximately 6 feet on each side may be necessary; and therefore the total amount of area affected by road construction would thus be approximately 4 acres. Because the removal of trees would be limited to stands located adjacent to this activity, forest stands located outside these areas would not be impacted. Road Reconstruction

Road reconstruction would be implemented on approximately 5.2 miles of forest roads within the project area. Road reconstruction would involve the removal and/or trimming of vegetation in some areas to accommodate equipment and improve the road bed. Road reconstruction would include the trimming of some lower, overhanging tree limbs but higher limbs would continue to occupy space above the road surface. Though the anticipated width of a road is expected to be approximately 20 feet, additional disturbance of as much as 6 feet on each side may be necessary; therefore the total amount of area affected by road reconstruction would be approximately 22 acres. Because the removal of trees and vegetation for road reconstruction would be limited to areas adjacent to roads, forest stands located outside these areas would not be impacted.

Trail Relocation

Approximately 1.3 miles of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Trail would be relocated. The new trail segments would be constructed in conjunction with timber harvest activities and would initially serve as a primary skid trail to accommodate logging operations. The proposed location for the new trail segments are currently well vegetated. However, the portion of this trail proposed to be decommissioned would revert to forest vegetation over time, and any net effects to vegetation from this activity would thus be considered incidental.

135 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Parking Lot Construction

Construction of the new parking lot on the Bear Notch Road would involve the removal of approximately 3 acres of vegetation. Around the perimeter of the parking lot some lower, overhanging tree limbs would be trimmed, but higher limbs would continue to occupy space above the parking lot surface. Because removal of trees and vegetation would be limited to areas adjacent to the parking lot, forest stands outside of this immediate vicinity would not be impacted.

Other Activities

Other activities proposed in Alternative 2 would result in incidental effects to vegetation, creating less than one acre of disturbance at a particular location. Examples of these activities include pre-haul maintenance of forest roads, temporary access roads to landings; construction and maintenance of landings; utilization of primary skid trails, installation and maintenance of culverts and bridges; stream bank stabilization projects, and temporary relocation of the South Moat Mountain Hiking Trail.

Alternative 3

Direct and indirect effects on vegetation pertaining to proposed treatments in Alternative 3 would be similar to those described in the preceding section under Alternative 2. Details pertaining to differences in treatments proposed under Alternative 3 may be found in Table 3.13 and Chapter 2. Important differences include: • The total amount of forest vegetation affected by commercial timber harvesting would be reduced by approximately 48 acres, and the associated timber volume harvested would be reduced by approximately 742 MBF. • There would be 96 acres less of vegetation treated by clearcuts and patch cuts, and an increased amount of vegetation treated by group selection and single tree selection combined with group selection. • The amount of vegetation affected by prescribed fire would be reduced by approximately 250 acres.

136 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4

Direct and indirect effects on vegetation pertaining to proposed treatments in Alternative 4 would be similar to those described in the preceding section under Alternative 2. Details pertaining to differences in treatments proposed under Alternative 4 may be found in Table 3.13 and Chapter 2. Important differences include: • The total amount of forest vegetation affected by commercial timber harvesting would be reduced by approximately 314 acres, and associated timber volume harvested would be reduced by approximately 2,262 MBF. • No artificial regeneration would occur. • The total amount of vegetation removed by new road construction would be reduced to approximately 2 acres.

Cumulative Effects The area used for the cumulative effects analysis on vegetation encompasses all land (10,400 acres) within the project area and approximately 98 acres of private inholdings in the town of Albany. The private inholdings are located east of Big Brook and west of the eastern boundary of the project area. This analysis area was chosen for the following reasons: 1) Habitat objectives for the Northeast Swift River HMU (equivalent to the project area) provide a measurable assessment of how the proposed action and its alternatives contribute to habitat objectives on the WMNF, as defined by the Forest Plan. 2) This area includes activities that could affect, or may be affected by, other vegetation management on National Forest and other lands near the project area. The temporal scope used to analyze cumulative effects on vegetation management is twenty years in the past and ten years following implementation of the proposed vegetation treatments (1990 – 2026). This analysis period was chosen for the following reasons: 1) Past timber harvests and natural disturbances such as the 1998 ice storm remain evident on the landscape today. These disturbances influence proposed management activities associated with the current project. 2) Regeneration following timber harvesting is a gradual process. Though most stands successfully regenerate within a few years following harvesting, stand development patterns become more predictable as stands’ age and the amount of shade increases. Ten years following an even-aged regeneration treatment also represents a transition period when a stand,

137 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

classified as regeneration age, shifts toward a young age class as defined by HMU classification.

Information pertaining to effects to vegetation within the analysis area since 1990 was obtained from WMNF timber sale records and interpretation of aerial photography. Some information pertaining to past vegetation management on private lands was provided by the Town of Albany, however information on past effects or future actions pertaining to changes to vegetation on private land within the analysis area and temporal scope (1990-2026) was not available.

Alternative 1

This alternative would not contribute incrementally to the any effects on vegetation from timber harvesting over the 30-year period (1990 – 2026). In the absence of natural stand-replacing disturbances there would be a slight increase in the probability that stands would begin to resemble their respective climax vegetation types. There would also be a greater likelihood that a species shift would occur from stands containing birch species, aspen species, pine species, northern red oak, and white ash to stands dominated by beech, maple species, eastern hemlock and red spruce. Additionally, in 10 years no stands would be classified as regeneration age in the absence of a large natural disturbance or timber harvesting.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Table 3.16 summarizes timber harvesting that has occurred since 1990 on National Forest lands located within the cumulative effects analysis area. In total, approximately 9% (972 acres) of this area has been managed using even- or uneven-aged cutting methods. No known adverse effects to vegetation, as a result of these management activities, have occurred during this time period. Additionally, no commercial timber harvesting is anticipated on FS land within the cumulative effects analysis area in the next ten years.

138 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.20 - Timber harvests within the past 20 years in the cumulative effects analysis area. Silvicultural Decade Cutting Method Total System 1990-1999 2000-2009 Clearcut 82 90 172 Even-Aged Thin 164 116 280 Group Selection 62 0 62 Uneven- Single Tree Selection 263 109 372 Aged Single Tree and Group 0 86 86 Selection Total 571 401 972

The cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 of this project would be the same as the direct and indirect effects described previously in this report. These effects are also consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-73 to 3-164). Implementation of any one of these alternatives would promote continued vegetation management of stands within the project area. The degree of enhancement to forest health and productivity would be relative to the number of acres and the optimality of silvicultural treatments proposed for each stand in each alternative.

Climate Change

Climate change will have an influence on vegetation, water, disturbance frequencies, and forest pests. These changes will each influence one another, making it difficult to predict what changes will occur and when. Within the 30-year period of this 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 (Millen, 2009a). Monitoring of regeneration, as required by National Forest Management Act at the project and Forest Plan level, would lead to reconsideration of silvicultural treatments if climate-related influences were detected.

It is important to improve forest resiliency to better withstand 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 (USDA Forest Service, 2008). Management actions such as thinning, prescribed fire, or altering species composition through final harvesting and planting could create

139 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

these characteristics that increase resiliency in the face of climate change (Millen 2009a). Some literature indicates there are already small elevational shifts in tree species and changes in seedling abundance occurring in some northern tree species. The rate of noticeable changes in tree species composition is uncertain. Best estimates are that it will be very slow unless insect or disease outbreaks cause disturbances that precipitate faster rates of change (USDA Forest Service, 2009b). Two climate change studies particularly relevant to the analysis of the Northeast Swift Integrated Vegetation Management Project include “A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont”(Beckage et al., 2008) and “Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications” (Leak, 2009). 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 Northeast Swift Integrated Vegetation Management Project validate the effects analysis and the predicted changes over the next 10 years. The Forest Service expects to be successful in regenerating the stands proposed for regeneration treatments. The time scale for regeneration (0-5 years) is shorter than the time scale over which species distributions may change in response to climate (90-years) according to some tree distribution models (Shugart et al., 2003). Stocking surveys conducted on the WMNF three years after regeneration harvests indicate that similar treatments result in the successful establishment of a diversity of tree species. These treatments help to create stand conditions relatively resilient to longer-term trends, especially if stands are maintained and insect and disease outbreaks are treated.

3.4 Soils

Affected Environment The North East Swift Project has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately-well drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes. The project area is too low on the landscape and gentle in slope to have dry debris slides that would lead to mass movement of shallow gravelly soils. It is low enough on the landscape to have deep soil slumps; however, field review of the units proposed indicates that this potential soil hazard does not exist here (Colter 2010).

140 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The project area is a mix of northern hardwood and softwood Ecological Land Types (ELTs). Ecological Land Typing is useful for making management decisions about which treatment method of harvesting to use (even- or uneven-aged management) and in which seasons harvesting should occur to minimize soil disturbance. Land use records in the early 1900s indicate the project area was a mixture of heavily and lightly culled (meaning a portion of trees were removed from the area, some areas more so than were others), including softwoods. Since those early times, there have been conventional, bole-only harvests in this vicinity (the tops and limbs of the trees having been left in the forest), which means that approximately 35 percent of the calcium that could be taken from the forest through harvesting has been left on-site. Field examinations indicate that all stands previously harvested to regenerate new forest have met agency requirements for adequate stocking of forest regeneration at three and five years post-harvest (see project record). This is consistent with forest wide re-stocking surveys, which show all clearcut and selection harvests on a variety of soils, aspects, and topographic positions. This is important because restocking is the first step in the re-accumulation of biomass, which is the measurement used by the Forest Service to assure that long-term soil productivity has not been foregone. It is also indicative that the forest response to harvest treatment is consistent with the expectations of silvicultural guides referenced in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan desired condition is to protect the long-term sustainability of the soil resource with an emphasis on maintaining appropriate soil nutrients and to ensure soils are stabilized around management activities. The desired soil conditions are tiered to the Forest Plan Standards and Guides and the Forest Service Soil Quality Standards (SQS) (USDA Forest Service, 2005g). Implementation of SQS and relevant BMPs to all phases of the project would ensure that long-term soil productivity is maintained in this area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for Analysis

Soil Productivity

Soil conditions were analyzed with respect to processes that affect long-term soil productivity (soil erosion, soil displacement, soil compaction, soil cover, and nutrient cycling). The Forest Plan FEIS 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 communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in

141 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

a variety of ways, including volume, weight/unit/area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation (USDA Forest Service, 1991). 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.

Soil Erosion

Surface soil erosion is typically a concern related to roads, skid and hiking trails. 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 Plan 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 practices (BMPs).” (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, 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 (MDOC 2005a,b; MDOC, 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. Roads and skid trails are a concern for soil erosion because they may expose mineral soil (Patric 1976) which can cause detrimental soil disturbance. The act of cutting trees is not a source of soil erosion because it does not expose mineral soil (Stone et al. 1978). Classified, all-season roads in the stand area are maintained to Forest Service standards that help prevent the concentration of water on the road surface. BMPs would be followed to minimize erosion on skid trails during and after harvesting operations. Slash from de-limbing trees at the log landings would also be spread on skid trails, where needed, to reduce potential for erosion (and compaction). Harvesting timber during winter months and during frozen soil conditions would reduce the potential for soil erosion because less mineral soil would be exposed.

142 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Previously-used temporary roads and landings that were observed on this project have stabilized, and several are revegetated, indicating no detrimental disturbance. Waterbars (i.e., BMPs) are in place on skid trails and there is no evidence of detrimental accelerated soil erosion on those skid trails (Colter 2010).

Soil Compaction

Improper harvesting operations have the potential to reduce forest productivity of subsequent timber stands by compacting soils to the extent that germination and root growth are inhibited. It could also create nutrient deficiencies. However, other than compaction from skid roads, this is seldom a concern on properly managed logging operations (Hornbeck and Leak, 1992). Although more intensive mechanized harvesting systems can cause soil disturbance over more of a harvest unit (Martin 1988), the timber sale administrator would monitor mechanized systems for evidence of increased compaction and take measures to mitigate this effect if it appears likely to occur (see Design Features). Soil compaction can also become more of a concern if skid trails are used while wet. BMPs recommend planning harvest operations during appropriate soil and weather conditions. Slash from de-limbing trees at the log landings would also be spread on skid trails to reduce potential for compaction (and erosion). Research shows that immediately following winter harvesting, increases in bulk density occur in the upper 8 cm of soil on skid trails, but bulk density in these areas was not significantly different from control values three years following logging (Donnelly et al., 1991; Holman et al., 1978), worked in areas near a spruce-fir site in Maine and concluded that the top three inches of mineral soil were compacted to a greater degree than the three-to-six-inch depth. They also concluded that compacted soils can be restored to their original bulk density by freezing and thawing, wetting and drying, root penetration, and animal activity. They found that in non-skid trail areas of the harvest area, bulk density returned to pre-cut levels within one year. Bulk density of skid trails in winter harvest areas returned to normal after two winters. Field investigation on this project, using the shovel test method for compaction on some of the previous skid trails, confirmed these results in the analysis area: none of the main skid trails exhibited residual detrimental effects of compaction from harvesting activity in the last sale occurring in the late1990s, (there has been cutting in this area in 2008 and 2009 but this is to recent to be able to measure for long term impacts), which was the last time some of these skid trails were used (Colter, 2010).

143 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Existing log landings looked at from previous sale activity are well located and stabilized, and field inspection of some of the landings found little sign of soil erosion or effects from soil compaction as a result of the last harvest activity in the late 1990s, indicating no detrimental soil disturbance (Colter, 2010). Landings are not considered a significant source of soil erosion (Stone et al., 1978), but may sometimes present concerns about soil compaction. However, research reveals that bulk density of soil returns to pre-harvest levels two to three years after harvest (Donnelly et al., 1991).

Soil Nutrient Cycling

The Forest Plan FEIS identifies a general concern for, and analyzes in detail, the potential impacts of acid deposition and timber harvesting on soil productivity, including the cumulative impacts of these factors. Based on research on watershed studies (Federer, 1989; Likens et al., 1998; Bailey et al., 2003), experimental watershed acidification (Fernandez et al., 2003), and retrospective soil analysis (Lawrence et al., 1997; Bailey et al., 2005), the main focus of this analysis is on soil calcium. This analysis for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 incorporates, by reference, the soil productivity analysis in the FEIS, and summarizes below key points relevant to this project level analysis (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-7 to 3-28). • Estimated loss of soil calcium raises concerns about possible changes in forest health (dieback or decline), productivity, and forest species composition (FEIS, p 3- 7). • Factors affecting soil nutrients (including calcium) and long-term soil productivity include: • Soil physical and chemical characteristics: soils between 1,000 and 2,500 feet in elevation are generally considered acidic with relatively low base saturation; however, recent work is revealing a more complex situation, with a likely range in the concentration of soil calcium (FEIS, p 3-10). • Land use history: intense early harvest may have removed one to two percent of the total calcium supply in some forest soils; however, areas below 2,500 feet in elevation on the White Mountain National Forest today support a well-stocked and growing forest with an average age of 80 to 85 years old or older (FEIS, p 3-11). • Soil mineralogy: mineral weathering is the major source of long-term soil calcium to support forest growth, and it mitigates the impacts of acid deposition (FEIS, p 3- 11).

144 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Atmospheric deposition: acid anions entering the soil via deposition may lead to the displacement of soil calcium and its replacement by aluminum, as well as loss of soil calcium to streams. Since 1955, research suggests there may be a net loss of soil calcium at some sites ...; however, research at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, using far more intense harvest than is practiced on the White Mountain National Forest, indicates no short-term loss in exchangeable soil calcium fifteen years after whole-tree clearcutting in northern hardwoods (FEIS, pp 3-11, 3-12). • Despite concern about calcium loss, there is no peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that acid deposition affects the health or productivity of the northern hardwood forest on the White Mountain National Forest. Long-term biomass accumulation studies in hardwood (and softwood) forest starting in 1931 indicate no observable change in biomass accumulation trends (FEIS, p 3-13). • Examination of forest regeneration success at all clearcut and selective cut sites on the White Mountain National Forest since 1986 indicates no instances of failed regeneration. This is particularly significant because restocking is the first step in re-accumulation of biomass, and therefore an important first step to indicating that long-term soil productivity has not been foregone or irreversibly impacted (FEIS, p 3-15). • Changes in forest species composition may be an indicator of changes in soil nutrients. Current evidence does not indicate that change is occurring in species composition. The available evidence indicates that composition is a successional process based on site, and natural succession has been the dominant factor affecting species trends (FEIS, p 3-16). In measuring effects, the FEIS states “estimated losses of soil calcium may be attributed to acid deposition, declining contributions of calcium from atmospheric deposition, and forest harvesting. Losses are buffered by mineral weathering in the soil and some continuing calcium deposition. Biochemical modeling reveals that atmospheric deposition (especially sulfate) had the greatest effect on estimated calcium loss, while forest harvesting led to only a slight decrease in exchangeable soil calcium.” (FEIS, p 3- 17) “No impact on long-term soil productivity is expected … given …; 1) the available evidence on exchangeable soil calcium impacts from timber harvest; 2) long-term observations about forest productivity; 3) long-term evidence about forest species composition; 4) the absence of inciting factors that affect forest health; 5) no link made

145 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

on the White Mountain National Forest between forest health and soil calcium; and 6) the indications that long-term impacts are not irreparable, though it would take time.” (FEIS, p 3-26) “The driving force in possible change is atmospheric deposition, due to the fact that the best modeling available indicates that harvesting is a small factor.” (FEIS, p 3-27) Potential effects analyzed for all the stands and the general project area to meet the regional and Forest Plan soil quality standards were soil erosion, compaction, puddling3, displacement, and impaired nutrient cycling. The shovel test method and ocular measurements were used to address these effects. The two types of effects of most concern within this project are erosion and compaction, because these have the most potential to be detrimental based on the literature. Impaired nutrient cycling is not a concern here because whole tree harvesting is not proposed in this project. The best available science was used to address the findings on the land. The rational used for selecting units for field review is based on interdisciplinary team discussions. ELT layers for soils mapped in the project area, a slope layer, area photos, LiDAR, a soil survey, GIS, and finally professional judgment were used to select representative sites for this project. These resources provided the most accurate information for the project area and were used to identify areas with potential slope, wetness and regeneration concerns. The soil testing methods used have been proven in past use in this area and are allowed in the regional soil quality standards. Prior use of the soil penetromenter test for soil compaction has shown that it is not very accurate on this forest due to the rocky nature of the soils which generates a false compaction reading. Over the past three years, soil scientists have spent considerable time field reviewing soils in the project area. In 2009, a soil survey of this project area was conducted by Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS). The final maps are in the process of being correlated at this time and will be published at a later date. Monitoring of the effects of previous harvests has been evaluated, and integration with the other interdisciplinary team specialists has occurred to review potential effects of this project. GPS points and tracks were recorded to document survey locations. The issue indictors related to this project that affect long-term soil productivity are soil erosion, soil compaction, and nutrient cycling. The indictors are measure in terms of percent disturbed, bulk density and nutrient status.

3 Puddled soil (poached soil) Soil in which the structure has been destroyed by the physical impact of rain drops, by tillage when wet, or by trampling (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-puddledsoil.html - 07/16/10)

146 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

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 North East Swift Project. The area has been selected because the expected effects are limited to the area within the proposed treatment area. Under Alternative 2 the stand analysis area totals approximately 1738 acres, Alternative 3 approximately 1693 stand acres and Alternative 4 the total stand analysis is approximately 1424 acres. 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 6th level Middle Swift River (HUC 010600020202) and Lower Swift River (HUC 010600020203) subwatersheds (24,960 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 eleven 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 late 1990s there has been cutting in this area in 2008 and 2009 but this is to recent to be able to measure for long term impacts). 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 future activities. Evidence of erosion and compaction beyond the expected timeframe 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.

147 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Early harvesting is considered because land use may affect soil nutrients, including soil calcium (Hornbeck et al, 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) 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. In the absence of the relocation of the Nanamocomuck Trail there will be a continuation of soil erosion and soil slumping into the Swift River creating soil sedimentation into the river. No indirect effects to soil erosion or compaction are expected from Alternative 1.

Soil Nutrient Cycling

Alternative 1 would have no direct impact on long-term soil nutrient cycling or forest health. The indirect impact of no timber 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). (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-18) Given that acidic deposition is the primary mechanism affecting soil acidification, deferring treatment is likely to exert little impact on soil cycling or forest health. No indirect effects to soil nutrient cycling are expected from Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Direct Effects

Soil Erosion and Compaction

Approximately 5.2 miles of existing road are proposed for reconstruction activities in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Reconstruction would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road

148 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

resurfacing. Although road maintenance may initially cause ground disturbance, improving and maintaining roads to their level of anticipated use could prevent future soil erosion. Research has shown that maintenance, such as resurfacing roads with a layer of gravel, reduces sediment losses (NCASI, 2000). Road resurfacing and replacing culverts would help maintain the road and prevent future soil erosion problems (Moll et al., 1997). This is also true for access to log landings.

Approximately 1.5 miles in Alternative 2 and 3 and 0.8 miles in Alternative 4 of unauthorized existing roadbed are proposed for reclassification to a forest system road. No ground disturbing activities are anticipated with these newly classified system roads.

Alternative 2 and 3 proposes approximately 1.0 miles and Alternative 4 proposes 0.5 miles of new designated road construction. For the purpose of the soil effects discussion, these road segments are considered new construction because they are currently productive sites, as they grow forbs and grasses, and other biological processes are intact during the periods between forestry conservation activities. The new construction road segments would be added to the White Mountain National Forest inventory of roads, and would be managed as such on a maintenance level like the current closed timber haul road segments that are currently in place on this forest. Construction would be approximately 1.0 miles (Alternative 2 and 3) and 0.5 miles (Alternative 4) long with a 20-foot wide zone of surface compaction of the soil. As long as these roads exist, soil under the road is detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed by workers for up to six feet out from the new road on either side. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site verses before the soil disturbing construction activities, decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion control at road sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling road drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. Five new driveways are proposed in all action Alternatives of approximately 300 feet in length (0.72 acres). During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed by workers for up to six feet out from the new road on either side. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site verses before the soil disturbing construction activities, decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and

149 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

BMPs related to surface erosion control at road sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling road drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. Following use of the driveways, they would be decommissioned following BMP’s, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. The majority of the activity area is gently to moderately sloped, and harvesting would occur on slopes suitable for timber management. The lengths of these slopes are short enough to limit potential for notable soil erosion. The combination of moderately-sloped terrain with post-harvesting measures in accordance with Forest standards and guidelines and BMPs, such as soil stabilization and waterbars, should prevent soil erosion and promote revegetation (NH DRED, 2004b; MDOC, 2005b and 2006; Stafford et al., 1996). Some stands would be harvested only in the winter months, while some stands have the option of summer/fall harvesting based on the soils or other resource needs. With frozen soils, proper skid trail location, and careful closeout at the end of operations, minimum surface soil erosion or soil compaction is likely to occur (NH DRED, 2004b; MDOC, 2005b and 2006; Stafford et al., 1996). Frozen operations should produce very little compaction since operations would not have direct contact with mineral soil and any effects from compaction should disappear by the following winter. Harvesting and skidding on stands during summer or fall would most likely expose mineral soil, particularly on the main skid trails, and it is likely there would be site-specific instances of surface soil erosion and compaction from loss of organic cover. Planned layout and management of skid trails, utilizing breaks in terrain and avoiding steep slopes in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p 2- 30), and limiting operations to dry soil conditions (NH DRED, 2004b; MDOC, 2005a) would largely minimize or avoid detrimental soil erosion. Some temporary compaction would be expected on main skid trails, but this would be minimized by design features, and the soils should fully recover from any compaction within three years of the end of operations (Donnelly et al., 1991). A watershed project is proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 to include bank stabilization on Cilley Brook, the Swift River and an unnamed tributary to the Swift River, totaling less than one acre of activity. To minimize any new ground disturbance, access to the sites would either be by roads or skid trails. BMPs would be followed to reduce chances of sedimentation to the streams (refer to the water resources report). Little if any soil effects are anticipated with this project.

150 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Thirty two log landings are proposed for use during harvesting in the Alternatives 2 and 3 and thirty one log landings are proposed in Alternative 4. The log landings are well placed because of their gentle terrain. The combination of careful site selection and management of the log yard during use would limit the extent of erosion and prevent long-term soil erosion impacts even though truck traffic and skidder operation would churn the soil surface and expose mineral soil leading to on-site soil erosion within the boundary of the log yard. To prevent erosion before log landings could revegetate and to accelerate recovery from temporary soil compaction (USDA Forest Service, 1986, Section 6.38), the log landings would be graded and stabilized at the time of sale closeout.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose to relocate approximately 1.25 miles of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Trail higher up on the hillside than the current trail location to avoid wet, poorly drained areas and move it away from a potential slump next to the Swift River. The trail would be relocated, and 1.25 miles of new trail construction would occur along a side hill alignment just to the north of the trail’s current location. It would be constructed during timber harvesting since the location is suited for a skid trail, and then used for Nordic travel thereafter. Following completion of the work, this location would become part of the primary trail. The new Nanamocomuck Trail is not expected to have a loss in soil nutrient cycling because the nutrients would still be in the soil and the trail would be revegetated. Following construction of the new trail, the approximately 1.25 miles of existing Nanamocomuck Trail would be decommissioned, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. Under all Action Alternatives, approximately 0.25 miles of the Moat Mountain hiking trail would be temporarily relocated to provide for public safety during harvest operations. This temporary relocation would be expected to have direct effects on soil quantity by some compaction occurring while the trail is in use. After the timber activities the relocated section would be moved back to the original trail and the temporarily decommissioned, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. Removal of hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground is proposed under all Action Alternatives. Activities are proposed to occur on the main roads. No soil effects expected with this project. Approximately seven hundred and fifty acres is proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 and approximately five hundred acres are proposed in Alternative 3 for prescribed fire. Prescribed burning would occur either in late spring, when the snow cover has melted, or in late summer/early fall, when temperatures have cooled. While some surface soil

151 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

organic matter may be lost, actual experience indicates that prescribed burning does not affect rainfall infiltration rates. This is because most of the site would continue to remain covered by organic matter, and mineral soil aggregation would not be changed. The magnitude of the potential effects after prescribed fire is less than those of wildfires, since the prescribed fire is typically of a lower severity (Landsburg and Tiedemann, 2000). Based on past monitoring, the fires on this forest do not get hot enough to burn all of the surface organic material. In fact, these units may need to be burned more than once to achieve the desired results.

A fire line may be constructed, if the fire conditions warrant the use of one, up to 18 inches wide around the perimeter of the burn area, consisting of a breakup of the organic matter layer. However, the fire line would be designed to have minimal impact, and no erosion is expected.

Soil Nutrient Cycling

The direct effect of timber harvesting is the removal of calcium through the removal of forest products (tree boles). In general, harvesting that removes only the bole of a tree, removes only a portion of the calcium in the tree. Tree species vary in the amount and distribution of calcium. Sugar maple is one of the most calcium rich trees, and the tops, limbs, and leaves equal about 35 percent of the calcium within a tree (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-17). Whole-tree harvesting removes calcium that would otherwise be recycled to the forest floor. Whole-tree clearcut harvesting removes the most calcium from a site (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-18, 3-19, 3-27). The action alternatives are summarized in Chapter 2, which is organized by harvesting activity, including clearcut, selection, group, and thinning. This distinction is made because the quantity of calcium removed in harvesting varies by area and by harvest method. Clearcutting, for example, removes about 350 Kg/ha of calcium when a bole- only harvest is used, and 539 Kg/ha when a whole-tree harvest is proposed the other methods, such as a thinning or selective harvesting, remove about 25 percent of this, or 88 Kg/ha with bole-only and 134 Kg/ha when whole-tree harvest is proposed. Proposed harvesting in the Northeast Swift Project is bole-only tree harvesting. The 25 percent for other harvest methods represents the proportion of an area in the project actually harvested. For example, thinning removes the trees from approximately 25 percent of an acre because about 70 percent of the stand’s basal area is left after the thinning. These estimates of calcium removed in forest products indicate that, in general, clearcuts have a greater potential direct impact on calcium removed, especially if whole-tree harvesting

152 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

is used, compared to bole-only clearcut harvesting or selective or thinning harvesting. Thinning and selective harvesting have less impact than clearcutting. However, over time, even-aged harvesting removes the same amount of woody material as uneven-age harvesting methods. So, the cumulative impact of calcium removal of even- and uneven- aged harvesting methods is nearly the same.

Table 3.21 - Estimated Calcium Removal Cumulative Effect total loss by Harvest Practice

Activity Estimated Ca loss

No Action with One Previous Bole-only Clearcut Harvest 5.5%

Bole-only Clearcut and One Previous Clearcut Harvest 8.7%

Bole-only Thin and One Previous Bole-only Clearcut Harvest 5.6%

Bole-only Uneven-Age and One Previous Bole-only Clearcut 6.3% Harvest

Bole-only, clearcut harvesting would remove an estimated two percent of the calcium from a site, and a whole-tree clearcut harvest would remove approximately four percent of the total calcium that resides in the soil. The other bole-only harvesting methods would remove up to one percent of the calcium of the total calcium that resides in the soil. (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-19). Based on these measurements, harvest activities in Alternative 2 would remove a greater percent of the available soil calcium than would harvest activities in Alternative 3. A watershed project is proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 to include bank stabilization on Cilley Brook, the Swift River and an unnamed tributary to the Swift River, totaling less than one acre of activity. To minimize any new ground disturbance, access to the sites would either be by roads or skid trails. BMPs would be followed to reduce chances of sedimentation to the streams (refer to the water resources report). Little if any soil nutrient effects are anticipated with this project. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose to relocate approximately 1.25 miles of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Trail higher up on the hillside than the current trail location to avoid wet, poorly drained areas and move it away from a potential slump next to the Swift River. The trail would be relocated, and 1.25 miles of new trail construction would occur along a side hill alignment just to the north of the trail’s current location. It would be constructed during timber harvesting since the location is suited for a skid trail, and then used for Nordic travel thereafter. Following completion of the work, this location

153 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

would become part of the primary trail. The new Nanamocomuck Trail is not expected to have a loss in soil nutrient cycling because the nutrients would still be in the soil and the trail would be revegetated. Following construction of the new trail, the approximately 1.25 miles of existing Nanamocomuck Trail would be decommissioned, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. Under all Action Alternatives, approximately 0.25 miles of the Moat Mountain hiking trail would be temporarily relocated to provide for public safety during harvest operations. This temporary relocation would be expected to have direct or indirect effects on soil quantity by some compaction occurring while the trail is in use. After the timber activities the relocated section would be moved back to the original trail and the temporary trail decommissioned, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. Removal of hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground is proposed under all Action Alternatives. Activities are proposed to occur on the main roads. No soil nutrient effects expected with this project. Alternative 2 and 3 proposes approximately 1.0 mile and Alternative 4 proposes 0.5 miles of new designated road construction. Soil nutrient cycling would be impacted while the road is in place. This impact will consist of the soil not being allowed to collect nutrients by vegetation not being on the road to complete the soil nutrient cycle. Approximately 1.5 miles in Alternative 2 and 3 and 0.8 miles in Alternative 4 of unauthorized existing roadbed are proposed for reclassification to a forest system road. No ground disturbing activities are anticipated with these newly classified system roads. Five new driveways are proposed in all action Alternatives of approximately 300 feet in length (0.72 acres). Soil nutrient cycling would be impacted while the driveway is in use. This impact will consist of the soil not being allowed to collect nutrients by the vegetation not being on the driveway to complete the soil nutrient cycle while in use but after use the driveway will be decommissioned, following BMP’s in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. The prescribed burning of the oak/pine habitat treatments proposed in the Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would occur either in late spring, when the snow cover has melted, or in late summer/early fall, when temperatures have cooled. Some surface soil organic matter would be lost due to burning, but some nutrients are not affected. For example, soil calcium would not be reduced by burning, but it could be removed from a site by erosion. Some soil nitrogen would be lost when the organic matter burns, but nitrogen is

154 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

not considered to be a limiting factor in plant growth on the White Mountain National Forest so no detrimental effect to soil nutrient cycling is expected with prescribed burning.

Indirect Effects

Soil Erosion and Compaction

Indirect effects of soil erosion or compaction are based on the rate and success of revegetation of skid trails and log landings. Studies in Maine and Vermont found that soil compaction on log landings and skid trails lasts two to three years after operations cease (Donnelly et al., 1991; Holman et al., 1978). Restocking surveys and field reviews on the White Mountain National Forest indicate that skid trails and log landings are revegetating and naturally. Well-distributed rainfall, abundant seed sources, and favorable seedbeds all contribute to this rapid revegetation. Log landings typically revegetate first with raspberries and other herbaceous species and then with forest tree species. Skid trails typically revegetate with forest tree species because the trails are narrow enough that sunlight is limited, so herbaceous plants do not generally revegate these locations.

Soil Nutrient Cycling

The indirect effect of timber harvesting includes possible changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium, base saturation, and possible impacts on forest health, such as tree mortality and decay, productivity, or species composition that are attributed to forest harvesting (as compared to acid deposition). (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-18) No impact is expected on forest health or productivity related to the timber harvesting program across the White Mountain National Forest during the next two decades based on actual on-site measurements at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest — over a period of fifteen years at sixty soil pits — soil exchangeable calcium was not lost due to forest harvest (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-20). All former clearcuts in the project area have regenerated since prior harvest, and new clearcuts would be expected to do the same following the implementation of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Sometimes there is a concern that organic matter may be lost, causing indirect nutrient consequences. However, it has been found that soil organic matter is not lost but rather is redistributed in the upper mineral layers during harvest (Johnson et al., 1991; Johnson et al., 1997). Therefore, indirect effects from proposes harvesting are not expected under Alternatives 2, 3 or 4.

155 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Cumulative Effects Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Management activities in the next ten 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.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Soil Erosion and Compaction

There would continue to be localized erosion related to ongoing maintenance of Forest Service System roads, recreational trails, private roads, timber harvesting on public and private lands and the potential for erosion into the Swift River from the Nanamocomuck Trail.

Soil Nutrient Cycling

Atmospheric deposition may remove calcium from the soil irrespective of timber harvesting. The most recent small watershed studies suggest that the cumulative loss of calcium due to atmospheric deposition, considering the buffering effect of mineral weathering, is about four percent over 120 years. (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-24) Given the cumulative effects time period it is possible that up to three percent of the total soil calcium may have been removed during that time due to atmospheric deposition, and another less than one percent due to early harvesting methods (Fay 2003). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-26),therefore, an estimated four percent soil calcium may have been lost over 120 years (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-24). On-site evidence during timber and other inventories has not revealed any unusual dieback or mortality. Stands previously harvested in this vicinity have adequately regenerated (project record). As previously noted, no change in biomass accumulation has been documented at the nearby Bartlett Experimental Forest. Thus, based on on-site evidence and the previously discussed research on biomass accumulation, it does not appear there are issues with soil nutrient cycling.

156 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Soil Erosion and Compaction

Soil compaction can accumulate resulting from repeated activities. However, by using the shovel test method to check some of the harvest units (the last timber sale in this area occurred in the late 1990s) on National Forest lands (Colter 2010), there is little or no evidence of compaction from previous harvesting activities, implying that the soil has effectively recovered from this activity. Use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMPs would minimize the hazard and duration of effects due to soil erosion and compaction (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-29; MDOC, 2005b and 2006; Stafford et al., 1996). By utilizing existing skid trails and landings, activities would occur where the soil has already demonstrated the ability to recover quickly from short term effects of harvesting, due possibly to location, soil type, or post-harvest treatments. Use of BMPs during timber harvest on private lands adjacent to the National Forest lands within the analysis area is expected to limit areas of soil disturbance and soil erosion and compaction. Impacts of residential development depend on the amount of clearing, excavation, and landscaping for each site. Given the moderately-sloped terrain of the cumulative effects analysis area, the potential for steep, erosive access roads and building lots is less than might be encountered elsewhere within and adjacent to the National Forest. Landscaping and erosion control measures would determine whether effects of residential development are short-term or long-term. Land management activities such as harvesting, road building, and permanent wildlife openings typically result in site-specific soil erosion that is generally limited to the area of impact. However, since the effects of soil erosion are often of greatest concern in streams and rivers, this analysis of cumulative effects considers cumulative incremental impacts on watersheds.

The North East Swift project would result in a short-term increase in the amount of soil disturbance in the analysis area. Table 3.18 - Ground Disturbance by Alternative, shows soil disturbance under Alternative 2 on approximately 102.3 acres, or 5.9 percent of the 1740-acre stand analysis area, 101.8 acres, or 6.0 percent under Alternative 3 and 85.2 acres or 6.0 percent under Alternative 4. The cumulative effects watershed is the Middle Swift River (HUC 010600020202) and Lower Swift River (HUC 010600020203) subwatersheds totaling approximately 24, 960 acres, with privately-owned lands within the watershed totaling approximately 3055

157 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

acres or 12.2 percent of the watershed. For adverse impacts to occur (15 percent disturbance of the land), approximately 3744 acres would need to show disturbance over the life of the cumulative effects period. This means all of the private land could be disturbed including the 102.3 acres in the most impactive alternative (Alternative 2) on the North East Swift project, and the watershed would still be under the disturbance threshold in ten years. Given what we know of the plans of the private land owners, this disturbance is unlikely to happen.

Table 3.22 - Ground Disturbance by Alternative

Alternative Activity 1 2 3 4

19 Existing and 13 New Landings (acres)1 0 22.5 22.5

19 Existing and 12 New Landings (acres)1 0 21.75

Hiking Trail Relocation(miles/acres)2 0/0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0

Moat Mountain Temporary Trail 0/0 0.25/0.15 0.25/0.15 0.25/0.15 Relocation (miles/acres)3

Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 0.6 0.6 0.6

Roads Construction (miles/acres)2 0/0 1.0/2.4 1.0/2.4 0.5/1.2

Road Maintenance (miles/acres)2 0/0 5.2/12.5 5.2/12.5 5.2/12.5

Road Decommission (miles/acres)2 0/0 0.9/2.2 0.9/2.2 0.9/2.2

Road Reclassification 0/0 1.5/3.6 1.5/3.6 0.8/1.9

Skid Trails (miles/acres)1 0/0 28.5/68.4 28.3/67.92 21.8/52.32

Snowmobile Trailhead Parking Lot 0/0 3 3 3 Relocation; (acres)

Hiking trail decommissioning (miles/ 0/0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0 acres)2

Prescribed Fire (acres) 0/0 750 500 750

158 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative Activity 1 2 3 4

5 New Driveways 300 ft (acres)2 0/0 0.72 0.72 0.72

Total Disturbed Acres 0 102.3 101.8 85.2

Total % of Project Area Disturbed 0% 5.9% of 6.0% of 6.0% of 1740ac. 1695ac. 1425ac.

a Landing size =0.75 acres 2 1 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance with of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile c Hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles

Soil Nutrient Cycling

The cumulative effects are the impact of past, present, and foreseeable future actions, which in this case includes consideration of early land use (forestry, agriculture), long- term changes in atmospheric deposition (sulfate, nitrate, particulate matter), and future land uses (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-18). Effects of atmospheric deposition would be no different in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 from Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have the potential to add new harvesting impacts with the removal of trees and their biomass. Alternative 2 would remove the most calcium, because it proposes 484 acres of clearcut, seed tree, overstory removal and shelterwood bole-only tree harvesting and 1254 acres of thinning, single tree and group selection bole-only tree harvesting. Alternative 4 would remove the least amount of calcium, because it proposes 180 acres of clearcut and seed tree bole-only tree harvesting and 1244 acres of thinning, single tree and group selection bole-only tree harvesting acres, versus Alternative 3 which proposes 400 acres of clearcut, seed tree, overstory removal and shelterwood bole-only tree harvesting and 1293 acres of thinning, single tree and group selection bole-only tree harvesting. However, modeling of soil exchangeable calcium and base saturation for a northern hardwood forest at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest has shown little long-term effect on these factors as a result of timber harvesting. Changes in exchangeable soil calcium and soil base saturation from 1850 to 2000 were nearly the same with and without forest harvesting (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-23 to 3-25).

159 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 1.0 miles and Alternative 4 proposes 0.5 miles of new designated road construction. Soil nutrient cycling would be impacted while the road is in place in each Alternative. This impact will consist of the soil not being allowed to collect nutrients by vegetation not being on the road to complete the soil nutrient cycle. Climate change was researched and analyzed in regards to soil productivity with no detrimental effects expected within the cumulative effects time period (Colter, 2009).

Summary

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, 2005g) before being considered a detrimental soil disturbance. Alternative 2 would have up to an approximately 102.3 acres. Alternative 3 would have an approximately 101.8 acres of soil disturbance and Alternative 4 would have 85.2 acres of soil disturbance. This project meets this standard because the project proposes no more than approximately 5.9% soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 2, no more than approximately 6.0% soil disturbance for the land unit in the Alternative 3 and no more than approximately 6.0% soil disturbance for the land unit in Alternative 4. However, there would be 2.4 acres in Alternative 2 and 3 and 1.2 acres in Alternative 4 of permanent cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction related to the proposed road building; this is the soil that sits directly under the proposed roads. This soil would be compacted and would not produce plants and other microorganisms that allow the soil to continue to develop until the road is decommissioned. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is maintained as a road but the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 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.

Soil Nutrient Productivity

Following the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, tiering to the FEIS, and using best available science, 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

160 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment plants and other microorganisms that would allow the soil to continue to develop. Soil productivity would be lost as long as the soil is maintained as a road surface but the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 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.

No detrimental effects to Soil Productivity are anticipated with this project.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans 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, 2005g, Section 2.2) before being considered a detrimental soil disturbance. Alternative 2 would have up to an approximately 102.3 acres. Alternative 3 would have an approximately 101.8 acres of soil disturbance and Alternative 4 would have 85.2 acres of soil disturbance. This project meets this standard because the project proposes no more than approximately 5.9% soil disturbance for the land unit in Alternative 2, no more than approximately 6.0% soil disturbance for the land unit in Alternative 3 and no more than approximately 6.0% soil disturbance for the land unit in Alternative 4. However, there would be 2.4 acres in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.2 acres in Alternative 4 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, p. 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.

161 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

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 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, p. 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.

3.5 Water Resources

162 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.23 - Third and fourth order streams in project area

Stream name Stream order Upstream transition point Swift River 3 Juncture of Pine Bend Brook Swift River 4 Juncture of Pequawket Brook

Water quantity in streams in the Project Area is directly related to the amount of precipitation that occurs throughout the year. At Hubbard Brook, an experimental Forest within the White Mountain National Forest, 62 percent of approximately 130 cm of precipitation becomes streamflow (Likens and Bormann, 1995) and most of the rest is lost to evapotranspiration. The research at Hubbard Brook is in a forested environment similar to the environment found in the NE Swift Project Area. Therefore, the results of this research can be applied to the Proposed Action and the alternatives.

Figure 3.23 Perennial streams in the Northeast Swift Project effects analysis area Names were assigned to unnamed streams for the purpose of this analysis.

163 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Basic water quality data and water samples were collected from streams in or near the Project Area. The Swift River and Douglas Brook have been monitored from 1999 to present. All other streams were monitored on one to three dates in 2009 and 2010. A complete record of sampling locations and dates is in the NE Swift project record. The results are summarized in Table 3.20. The pH values of less than 6.5, in combination with low alkalinity, indicate these waters are somewhat poorly buffered, particularly in the case of the Swift River, 209 Brook and Cilley Brook. Total aluminum values in some waters within the analysis area exceed New Hampshire’s chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life, which is 87 parts per billion (ppb). However, these values are within the range of values typically seen on the White Mountain National Forest (Hornbeck et al., 2001). The low baseline pH value and high aluminum concentration may be due to naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of these watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids, and human-caused acid deposition effects. With the exception of aluminum and pH, these waters meet State Water Quality Standards related to the use of aquatic life, such as fish and macroinvertebrates.

Table 3.14 - Selected water chemistry parameters in the NE Swift Project area

Specific Total Alkalinity Turbidity Stream/lake pH conductance aluminum (mg/L) (NTU) (uS/cm) (ppb) 209 Brook 6.0 2.2 0.0 13.9 163 Big Brook 6.5 5.6 0.0 15.5 58 Cilley Brook 6.4 3.5 0.0 16.9 102 Douglas Brook 6.6 4.1 0.9 26.4 142 Falls Brook 6.4 4.2 0.0 21.3 97 Haystack Brook 6.4 5.6 0.0 16.0 64 Swift River at 6.2 2.7 0.8 33.0 274 Annis Field Swift River below 6.5 2.7 0.8 30.4 229 Lower Falls Swift River at 6.6 2.8 0.7 31.1 203 Dugway

164 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The pH values of less than 6.5, in combination with low alkalinity, indicate these waters are somewhat poorly buffered, particularly in the case of the Swift River, 209 Brook and Cilley Brook. Total aluminum values in some waters within the analysis area exceed New Hampshire’s chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life, which is 87 parts per billion (ppb). However, these values are within the range of values typically seen on the White Mountain National Forest (Hornbeck et al., 2001). The low baseline pH value and high aluminum concentration may be due to naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of these watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids, and human-caused acid deposition effects. With the exception of aluminum and pH, these waters meet State Water Quality Standards related to the use of aquatic life, such as fish and macroinvertebrates. As the low turbidity values in Table 3 indicate, streams in the project area are generally free of suspended sediment. Sedimentation is generally limited to a localized area near a disturbance source. Within the project area, the section of the Swift River in the Middle Swift River Watershed is listed as impaired on New Hampshire’s 303(d) list due to aluminum. Outside the project area and downstream from the National Forest boundary, a short section of the Swift River is listed as impaired for aluminum, lead, pH and E. coli (NH DES, 2010a). The source of these impairments is listed as unknown. All freshwaters in New Hampshire have an impaired Fish Consumption Use due to mercury from atmospheric deposition; these waters are listed in Category 4A due to development of a Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load for New England states in 2007 (NH DES, 2010a). Human alterations to the watershed include a network of roads and trails, which have associated stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts). Riprap has been placed along the Swift River for bank stabilization. Stream banks are also impacted in places by foot traffic, particularly along the Swift River. A head cut (abrupt change in stream grade) occurs on an intermittent, unnamed tributary to the Swift River, south of Passaconaway Road. The unnamed stream lacks large material to reduce stream energy during high flows and may have been straightened in the past (Johnson, 2010). This condition results in ongoing erosion of the stream bed and banks, which is likely to extend upstream.

165 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Five public water supplies are located in the project area. All of them are transient, non- community water supply wells associated with picnic areas or campgrounds (NH DES, 2010b). No public water supplies using surface water are in the project area (NH DES, 2010b).

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 surface waters that constitute ORW (NH DES, 1999). 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. Activities may not result in water quality lower than what is necessary to protect the existing and designated uses in the Outstanding Resource Waters. The State of New Hampshire designates stream reaches within the Project Area as Class B. Class B is the second highest quality with the designated uses including fishing, swimming, and other recreational purposes and after adequate treatment, as a water supply. The Swift River is designated as a “natural river” under the New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program (RSA 483:15).

In accordance with the Forest Plan, temporary and short-term degradation shall only be allowed after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are implemented (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-30). 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 implemented in all action alternatives analyzed for this project.

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for Analysis

Water Quantity

Research has shown that removal of vegetation through timber harvesting can alter evapotranspiration rates. These altered evapotranspiration rates result in changes in streamflow. The magnitude of this change depends on the extent of change in the vegetation (Hornbeck et al., 1997). Research at Hubbard Brook indicates that when reductions in basal area reach 25 percent of the watershed, a measurable response in annual water yield may be seen (Hornbeck et al., 1993). Most of the increase in water

166 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment yield occurs during summer low flow periods, and channels with increased discharge adjust by changing their bankfull width and depth (Hornbeck et al., 1997). Removal of less than 25percent of the basal area in a watershed is a surrogate measure for thresholds of effects of vegetation management on water quantity. Percent basal area removal is calculated for subwatersheds of perennial streams at least 200 acres in size using information from stand exams and silvicultural prescriptions. Since only merchantable timber is considered in these exams, the estimates may be higher than the actual percentage of basal area removed, particularly when the prescription is intended to release understory growth.

An indirect effect of activities that affect the quantity, timing, duration, or direction of flow is altered stream stability. Stream channels adjust their shape based on flow (volume of water over time) and sediment load (including particles from silt to boulders). If stream flow increases over historic levels, it will tend to carry more sediment and scour the stream bottom and banks. If stream flow decreases, the stream will tend to deposit sediment. Thus, changes in water quantity affect streambed and bank stability. Other activities that may affect water quantity or stream stability through direct manipulation of water volume, velocity, or channel shape will be evaluated based on potential to change the stream flow-sediment balance.

Water Quality

There are two primary aspects of water quality that may be affected by proposed activities in the project area. There may be effects on water chemistry from changes that occur in streams after vegetation is removed or pollutants are introduced. The second aspect is sedimentation related to the roads, skid trails, and other disturbed surfaces that cause erosion and subsequent transport of sediment into water bodies. The potential for temperature change in project area streams is discussed in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats report. Research at Hubbard Brook has indicated that intensive forest harvesting practices, such as whole-tree harvest of an entire watershed, have the potential to lower the pH in water (Lawrence and Driscoll, 1988). This is a concern in areas already affected by acid deposition. Acidity has been shown to mobilize chemicals such as nitrate and inorganic aluminum in the soils, which then enter stream water (Lawrence and Driscoll, 1988). Inorganic monomeric aluminum is of particular concern, since it is harmful to aquatic life at sufficient concentrations (Baldigo et al., 2005). Since the pH of the sampled streams in the project area indicates they are already slightly acidic (below a neutral pH

167 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

of 7), further decreases in pH are a concern. Though most studies focus on a higher level of basal area removal than that proposed in this project, a compilation of research on water quality effects of timber harvesting in the northeastern U.S. showed no change in downstream water chemistry when as much as 15 to 19% of the basal area within a watershed was removed (Martin et al., 1986; Wang et al., 2006; Baldigo et al., 2005; Lawrence and Driscoll, 1988). Based on water chemistry in the analysis area and design features such as riparian buffers, a 17 percent threshold for basal area removal was selected to evaluate effects on water chemistry. This is a conservative value that can be applied to project area watersheds with confidence that no detrimental effect on water quality will occur. It is likely that higher levels of basal area could be removed from a watershed without causing water chemistry changes, but further research is needed to determine the precise relationship between watershed factors, vegetation removal, and water chemistry effects (McHale et al., 2008). Percent basal area removal is calculated for subwatersheds of perennial streams at least 200 acres in size using information from stand exams and silvicultural prescriptions. Since only merchantable timber is considered in these exams, the estimates may be higher than the actual percentage of basal area removed in the watershed, particularly when the prescription is intended to release understory growth. The Forest Plan EIS stated that impacts to temperature and water chemistry are minimized through the use of Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices. These include the use of riparian buffers, watersheds being only partially harvested and staggering harvest activities (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-51). In particular, riparian buffers are considered the most effective factor for preventing nutrients and sediment from reaching water resource features (Gilliam 1994). Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al., 1994). The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to area of disturbance. Areas that lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. Area of disturbance, including number of stream crossings, relative to watershed area, will be used as an indicator of potential sediment transport. Research in Maine indicates watersheds with less than 10 percent disturbed area are unlikely to have water quality impaired by impervious surfaces (Morse and Kahl, 2003), so this threshold will be used as an indicator of cumulative effects on water quality.

168 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.25 outlines the Forest Plan water resource objectives and indicators of compliance, and the key surrogate measures used in this analysis. Potential effects not captured by surrogate measures were qualitatively weighed against the issue indicators.

Table 3.25 - Factors used in effects analysis

Factor Indicator Surrogate Measures Removal of less than 17% of basal area in a perennial Water quality is maintained subwatershed. Water quality meets state or improved to protect Acres of watershed disturbed standards or is as naturally existing and designated do not exceed soil erosion and occurs. instream water uses. compaction standards. Less than 10% of watershed is impervious area. Stream flow does not Treatments remove less than significantly increase or 25% of the basal area in a The Forest Service will decrease due to management watershed. manage streams at proper activities. Implementation of Forest Plan functioning condition (PFC). Riparian condition and standards and guidelines, and stream stability are applicable state BMPs. maintained or improved.

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on water resources is the 6th level Middle Swift River (HUC 010600020202) and Lower Swift River (HUC 010600020203) subwatersheds (24, 960 acres). While the focus of this analysis is streams within the 10,400-acre Project Area, some lands outside this boundary will be included to analyze complete watersheds. This area was chosen because it includes all streams draining the project area. The analysis period for direct and indirect effects is 10 years in the past and 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).

Alternative 1 (No Action) Water Quantity

Direct and indirect effects on water quantity from implementation of Alternative 1 would mainly continue along current trends. Current and on-going management activities would continue, consistent with the Forest Plan; but no new management activities would be initiated as a result of this proposal.

169 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Effects on water quantity and stream stability in project area streams would be absent as a result of Alternative 1. Water quantity would remain similar to the present state. Unstable stream reaches may become increasingly unstable.

Water Quality

Direct and indirect effects on water quality from implementation of Alternative 1 would mainly continue along current trends. Ongoing Forest activities would not change water quality or impact existing uses through the use of New Hampshire Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and site specific Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Under Alternative 1, localized erosion and sedimentation around wet trail sections and disturbed stream banks would continue, and may affect water quality in short stream reaches. Sedimentation from disturbance along roads and trails would continue at present levels, which have not resulted in water quality impairment. Water quality in project area streams would be unlikely to be affected by other aspects of Alternative 1 and would remain similar to the present state.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Water Quantity

Timber Management

Timber management or any other vegetation removal can increase water quantity in streams due to reduced uptake of water by living plants. The potential for this direct effect was evaluated using the threshold of 25 percent basal area removal in a watershed, which has been found to be appropriate for this area (Hornbeck et al., 1993). No subwatershed approached the 25 percent basal area removal threshold under Alternative 2, 3 or 4 (Table 3.26). The greatest amount removed in any complete watershed was 13 percent under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 7 percent under Alternative 4. Based on this analysis and best available science, any localized increase in water tables and headwater stream flow would be virtually undetectable in the mainstem of first order or larger perennial streams. This increase would mainly occur during low flow periods and would dissipate within about 3 to 5 years due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al., 1993). Therefore, no detrimental direct or indirect effect on water quantity or stream stability is expected from vegetation management under either alternative.

170 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.26 - Percentage of basal area removed by subwatershed. Watershed size Watershed name Percent basal area removed (acres)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Rob Brook 2738 0% 0% 0% 0% Tributary to Douglas Brook 362 0% 11% 11% 2% Douglas Brook 3327 0% 5% 5% 1% 209 Brook 305 0% 13% 13% 1% Falls Brook 641 0% 2% 2% 2% Cilley Brook 484 0% 1% 1% 1% Haskell Brook 378 0% 5% 5% 0% Middle Swift 1 South 5434 0% 0% 0% 0% (intershed4) Middle Swift 2 South 6140 0% 3% 2% 2% (intershed) TOTAL MIDDLE SWIFT 19447 0% 2% 2% 1% RIVER Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Deer Brook East 1441 0% 4% 2% 3% Deer Brook West 842 0% 5% 5% 1% Deer Brook (total) 2382 0% 5% 3% 3% Big Brook 1242 0% 7% 6% 7% Haystack Brook 264 0% 13% 13% 4% Dry Brook 978 0% 1% 1% 1% Red Eagle Brook 1924 0% 0% 0% 0% Lower Swift 1 South 6897 0% 1% 1% 1% (intershed) Lower Swift 2 (intershed) 1420 0% 0% 0% 0% TOTAL LOWER SWIFT 15108 0% 2% 2% 2% RIVER Upper Swift River 21184 0% 0% 0% 0% TOTAL SWIFT RIVER 55739 0% 1% 1% 1%

Planting oak seedlings in unit 43, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, would have little or no effect on water quantity. It may slightly offset localized effects of harvest in the immediate area, causing water tables to be closer to pre-harvest levels.

A map of subwatersheds used in analysis is shown in Figure 3.24, and detailed calculations are in the NE Swift Project Record.

4 Intersheds are incomplete watersheds comprised of hillslopes that drain directly into a larger water body (in this case, the Swift River).

171 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Prescribed Fire

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose prescribed fire to underburn up to 750 acres of oak/pine habitat to increase oak and pine regeneration, reduce competing hardwoods and reduce fuel accumulations on the forest floor. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak seedling establishment, reduce the amount of hardwood sapling competition for established oak seedlings, sapling and poles in the understory, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape. Alternative 3 includes up to 500 acres of prescribed burning for the same purposes. All the proposed burning would take place in four subwatersheds. The percentage of each watershed burned under each alternative is summarized in Table 3.27.

Figure 3.24 Subwatersheds used in analysis of water quantity and water quality effects. Watershed names correspond to tables of calculations in project record.

172 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

In contrast to wildfire, prescribed fire typically has minimal effects on hydrologic processes like canopy interception, infiltration, runoff and evapotranspiration because the canopy is relatively undisturbed and much live vegetation remains in place (Baker, 1998). Burning only part of a watershed further reduces the likelihood of hydrologic effects. The watershed with the highest percentage of burning is Haystack Brook, with up to 64% burned in Alternatives 2 and 4, and up to 53% in Alternative 3. This area is divided into two separate burn units, which cover 41% and 23% of the watershed in Alternatives 2 and 4. A design feature includes monitoring stream and watershed conditions when over 20% of a watershed is burned, and delaying further burning in the watershed until any effects have abated. This further reduces the chance of a detrimental change in water quantity, particularly if the burn is more intense than expected. Because monitoring of past burns showed riparian buffers were generally unburned and vegetation regenerated quickly (S. Johnson, personal observation), any change in water quantity would be expected to be highly localized and abate within one year. All other subwatersheds will have 10% or less of their area burned, making effects on water quantity extremely unlikely. Therefore, no detrimental effect on water quantity or stream stability would be expected under any alternative.

Table 3.27 - Prescribed burning by subwatershed.

Watershed % of subwatershed burned Watershed Name Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Big Brook 1242 0% 9% 1% 9% Dry Brook 978 0% 10% 6% 10% Haystack Brook 264 0% 64% 53% 64% Lower Swift 1 South 6898 0% 5% 4% 5% Total for analysis area 34555 0% 2% 1% 2%

Watershed Restoration

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include bank stabilization on Cilley Brook, the Swift River and an unnamed tributary to the Swift River, totaling less than one acre of activity. These activities would not have a direct effect on water quantity because they would not consume or divert water. They would have a direct effect of increasing stream stability, by using rock, logs, rootwads or other natural materials to dissipate the energy of high flows that would tend to scour stream banks.

173 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Recreation Management

The approximately 1.25 miles of Nanamocomuck ski trail relocation proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not be expected to have a direct or indirect effect on water quantity. Two sections of the trail would be relocated to routes used as skid trails further from the Swift River. No additional perennial stream crossings would be required on the new route; a crossing on 209 Brook may be relocated. The existing trail corridor would be rehabilitated to ensure that streams flow unimpeded. Crossing structures would be sized to accommodate bankfull flows, as specified in Forest Plan Standard S-5 for Soil and Water Conservation (p. 2-31). No change in stream flow or stability around these crossings would be expected. Since portions of the trail are located in riparian areas, moving the trail out of this area may slightly improve stream stability by restoring a vegetated buffer zone and removing skiing activities from the bank’s edge. Therefore, no effect on water quantity and a slight improvement in stream stability would be expected. Under all Action Alternatives, construction of one bridge and approximately 250 feet of bog bridging or boardwalk are proposed in wet or swampy areas on the Nanamocomuck ski trail. These activities will have no effect on water quantity because they will allow water to flow below them and across what is now the trail surface. Properly sized and constructed stream crossings allow channel-forming (bankfull) flows and flood flows to pass unimpeded and prevent years of scouring and changes in channel shape (University of New Hampshire, 2009). Under all Action Alternatives, approximately 0.25 miles of the Moat Mountain hiking trail would be temporarily relocated to provide for public safety during harvest operations. This temporary relocation would not be expected to have direct or indirect effects on water quantity. The relocated section would not require crossing structures to be placed in streams and would be rehabilitated once no longer in use. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, a parking lot approximately three acres in size would be constructed on Bear Notch Road near Falls Pond Road (Forest Road 209). This location would be over 300 feet from Douglas Brook, the nearest perennial stream, on the opposite side of Bear Notch Road. Based on the location and implementation of design features, no direct runoff from the parking lot would be expected to enter the stream and affect water quantity. Under Alternative 3, a parking lot approximately three acres in size would be constructed on Bear Notch Road near an existing landing site on the west side of the road. This parking lot would be at least 100 feet from Douglas Brook and a perennial tributary to Douglas Brook. Based on the distance to the stream and

174 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

implementation of design features, no direct runoff from the parking lot would be expected to enter the stream and affect water quantity. Under all Action Alternatives, the construction of a three-acre parking lot would not exceed the threshold of 10 percent impervious cover in the Douglas Brook subwatershed. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water quantity is expected under any Action Alternative. Removal of hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground is proposed under all Action Alternatives. This area is in the Lower Swift 1 South subwatershed draining into the Swift River. Less than 1% of the basal area in this intershed (partial watershed) is proposed for removal. Therefore no effect on water quantity is expected. No perennial or large intermittent streams occur within the campground, so tree removal would not be expected to affect stream stability.

Transportation System Management

Transportation system work differs by alternative and includes the following activities: road construction, road maintenance/reconstruction, road widening, road decommissioning, landing use and construction, and skid trail use. The amount of work and total disturbance under each Action Alternative is summarized in Table 3.24. Total ground disturbance (including trail and watershed activities) would be slightly greater under Alternatives 2 and 3 than under Alternative 4 (Table 3.24).

Table 3.28 - Potential disturbance of mineral soil and stream banks by alternative Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 0.6 0.6 0.6

Ski Trail Relocation(miles/acres)1 0/0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0 1.25/3.0

Moat Mountain Temporary Trail 0/0 0.25/0.15 0.25/0.15 0.25/0.15 Relocation (miles/acres)1

Snowmobile Trailhead Parking Lot 0/0 3 3 3 Construction (acres)

Existing and New Landings (acres)2 0 24 24 23.3

Road Construction (miles/acres)3 0/0 1.0/2.4 1.0/2.4 0.5/1.2

Road Maintenance (miles/acres)3 0/0 5.2/12.5 5.2/12.5 5.2/12.5

Unauthorized Roads added to 0 1.5/3.6 1.5/3.6 0.8/1.9 System (miles/acres) 3

Road Decommission (miles/acres)3 0/0 0.9/2.2 0.9/2.2 0.9/2.2

175 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Skid Trails (miles/acres)3 0/0 28.5/68.4 28.3/67.9 22.2/53.3

5 New Driveways 300 ft (acres)3 0/0 0.72 0.72 0.72

Perennial haul road crossings 1 10 10 9 (number)

Perennial skid trail crossings 0 4 4 4 (number)

Total Disturbed Acres 0 114.8 114.3 97.8

Total % of 24,960- acre Analysis 0% 0.46% 0.46% 0.39% Area Disturbed

1 Hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles 2 Landing size =0.75 acres 3 1 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance with of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile

Addition of unauthorized roads to the system and road decommissioning were not included in this total because this would be a database change with no activity on the ground at this time. All of these would disturb less than 1% of the 24,960-acre analysis area. No detrimental effect on water quantity or stream stability would be expected related to overall level of disturbance under any action alternative.

The Action Alternatives include use of 32 landings in Alternatives 2 and 3, and 31 landings in Alternative 4, each approximately 0.75 acres in size. All of these landings are located over 100 feet from perennial streams in well-drained areas. In all action alternatives, approximately 19 of these landings would be in existing landing locations from previous entries. Based on observations of landings used in the past, these areas would revegetate within a few years of close out, promoting normal hydrologic function. Because of landing locations, reuse of former landing sites and temporary nature of disturbance, no direct or indirect effects on water quantity would be expected under any alternative. Road, driveway and skid trail construction would affect more acres in Alternatives 2 and 3 than in Alternative 4, as shown in Table 3.24. Construction of new roads, which may concentrate flow in ditches or constrict flow in stream crossings, would normally be expected to have the greatest hydrologic effect. The effects of new road construction in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be offset somewhat by use of an existing Nordic ski trail corridor for approximately 0.3 miles of the proposed route. Design features (including Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State Best Management Practices) to minimize

176 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment effects on hydrology include limiting slope of roads and skid trails, constructing cross drainage at specified intervals, dispersing water bar or ditch relief outflow to vegetated areas, and leaving a buffer between roads or skid trails and streams. These practices reduce concentration of flow, formation of gullies and impacts to riparian areas.

Under all action alternatives, 5.2 miles of existing road beds would be maintained (reconstructed). Because this would use an existing footprint and maintain or upgrade drainage features, no negative effect on hydrology would occur from road maintenance and use. The proposed addition of unauthorized roads to the system would result in no change in water quantity, since the road beds exist and would remain in a closed state during the analysis period. It would result in a slightly higher system road mileage under Alternatives 2and 3 than under Alternative 4. The road decommissioning proposed under all action alternatives would result in no activity on the ground that would affect hydrology, since these roads are already unused or will remain part of the trail system. Therefore, under any action alternative, road and skid trails would not be expected to directly or indirectly affect water quantity or stream stability to a measurable extent.

Water Quality

Timber Management

As described in the Affected Environment section, there is a high level of confidence that no effect on water chemistry would occur if less than 17 percent of the basal area is removed from a watershed. As Table 3.22 shows, all subwatersheds are well below this threshold in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected due to timber management. Research on timber management effects indicates that riparian buffers are effective in preventing sediment and associated pollutants from reaching streams (Gilliam, 1994; Brown and Binkley, 1994). In addition to State of New Hampshire basal area law and Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Guidelines G-1 and G-2 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (pp. 2-24, 2-25 and 2-26) would be implemented to protect water quality. These design features and site-specific modifications are described in the Design Features section of Chapter 2. Site-specific design features define riparian buffers to be left on unmapped perennial streams.

177 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Though intermittent streams may not have riparian buffers in some areas, they are often in boulder or bedrock settings and relatively stable stream types. Forest Plan Guideline G-15 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (p.2-26), which prescribes no harvest of trees that directly stabilize banks, would reduce sedimentation by preventing bank erosion. A review of ten years of water monitoring data did not find sediment or turbidity concerns in managed watersheds (USDA Forest Service, 2010h). The limited extent of basal area removal also indicates that much riparian cover would remain in headwater areas. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on sediment is expected from timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 or 4. Transportation systems associated with harvest are considered in a separate section.

Planting oak seedlings in unit 43, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, would have little or no effect on water quality. It may slightly offset localized effects of harvest on water chemistry in the immediate area by accelerating regeneration. The small area of temporary disturbance around the seedlings would not be expected to result in sedimentation due to the ability of water to infiltrate the soil and the presence of riparian buffers. See the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats report for a discussion of stream temperature changes and their influence on aquatic species.

Prescribed Fire

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose prescribed fire to underburn up to 750 acres of oak/pine habitat to increase oak and pine regeneration, reduce competing hardwoods and reduce fuel accumulations on the forest floor. Alternative 3 includes up to 500 acres of prescribed burning for the same purposes. All the proposed burning would take place in four subwatersheds. The percentage of each watershed burned under each alternative is summarized in Table 3.27.

Fire can cause releases of nutrients into stream water, but properly conducted prescribed fire is unlikely to produce a detectable change (Richter et al., 1982; Elliot and Vose, 2005). It is difficult to estimate additive effects of harvesting and burning in a watershed, but prescribed burns are expected to remove only a portion of vegetation and forest floor material. Design features would maintain low fire intensity or fire extinction in the riparian zone, maintaining a buffer that would prevent sediment or nutrient changes after burning (Elliot and Vose, 2005). This is consistent with monitoring of previous burns on the National Forest, which were characterized by only partial consumption of organic matter and minimal soil movement throughout the burned area (USDA

178 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

ForestService, 2010h). Burning only part of a watershed further reduces the likelihood of water quality effects (Beche et al., 2005). The watershed with the highest percentage of burning is Haystack Brook, with up to 64% burned in Alternatives 2 and 4, and up to 53% in Alternative 3. This area is divided into two separate burn units, which cover 41% and 23% of the watershed in Alternatives 2 and 4. A design feature includes monitoring water quality when over 20% of a watershed is burned, and delaying further burning in the watershed until any effects have abated. This further reduces the chance of a detrimental change in water quantity, particularly if the burn is more intense than intended. All other subwatersheds will have 10% or less of their area burned, making effects on water quantity extremely unlikely. Therefore, no detrimental effect on water quality would be expected under any alternative.

Watershed Restoration

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include bank stabilization on Cilley Brook, the Swift River and an unnamed tributary to the Swift River. These three activities would occur within up to 0.3 acres of riparian area, which may be temporarily disturbed. An additional 0.3 acres of access route may be temporarily disturbed for this activity. The use of native material such as logs and rootwads from local trees and implementation of BMPs for spill prevention would minimize or eliminate direct and indirect effects on water chemistry. Use of existing access routes and hand work whenever possible would minimize disturbance for access and transport of materials. Direct and indirect effects on sedimentation would be minimized by use of construction Best Management Practices required by the Forest Plan, such as working “in the dry” and using silt fences. As an indirect effect, small amounts of sediment may be scoured from the bed and banks of Cilley Brook and the unnamed tributary as they adjust to placement of woody material. No measurable channel adjustment would be expected on the Swift River due to the small dimensions of riprap relative to the channel size. Sedimentation would be expected to be less than under Alternative 1, in which bank instability and failure could increase sediment loading above natural levels.

Recreation Management

Approximately 1.25 miles of Nanamocomuck ski trail relocation are proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Two sections of the trail (between Cilley and Haskell Brooks and between Douglas and 209 Brooks) would be relocated to routes used as skid trails further from the Swift River. No additional perennial stream crossings would be added, though the crossing on 209 Brook may be relocated. The existing trail corridor would be

179 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

blocked and allowed to revegetate, with any existing stream crossing structures removed. A direct effect of new trail construction includes disturbance of 3 acres of soil for new trail construction (Table 3.28). An associated indirect effect may be localized, short-term sediment movement to streams, particularly near stream crossings. This effect would be minimized by application of construction and trail maintenance Best Management Practices. No sedimentation would be expected in relation to decommissioning due to the minimal activity required. In the long term, the trail relocation is intended to reduce trail mileage in wet areas and riparian corridors, with an indirect effect of decreasing sedimentation in the Swift River. Therefore, an overall slight reduction in sedimentation would be expected.

Under all action alternatives, construction of one bridge and approximately 250 feet of bog bridging or boardwalk are proposed in wet areas on the Nanamocomuck ski trail. An associated indirect effect may be localized, short-term sediment movement to streams during construction, particularly near stream crossings. This effect would be minimized by application of construction and trail maintenance Best Management Practices. No new area would be disturbed and a reduction in sediment movement would be expected due to removal of foot and bike traffic from these wet areas. Under all action alternatives, approximately 0.25 miles of the Moat Mountain hiking trail would be temporarily relocated to provide for public safety during harvest operations. Though 0.15 acres of soil disturbance would occur, this temporary relocation would not be expected to have direct or indirect effects on water quality due to the lack of streams in the area. The relocated section would not require crossing structures to be placed in streams and would be rehabilitated once no longer in use. No direct or indirect effects on water chemistry and would be expected from the trail- related activities described above because of design features that minimize equipment work in the water and vegetation clearing.

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, a parking lot approximately three acres in size would be constructed on Bear Notch Road near Falls Pond Road (Forest Road 209). This location would be over 300 feet from Douglas Brook, the nearest perennial stream, on the opposite side of Bear Notch Road. Under Alternative 3, a parking lot approximately three acres in size would be constructed on Bear Notch Road near an existing landing site on the west side of the road. This parking lot would be at least 100 feet from Douglas Brook and a perennial tributary to Douglas Brook. Design features requiring a riparian buffer of at least 100 feet and stormwater management practices to promote infiltration or dispersion of runoff would result in no direct or indirect effect on water quality under

180 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2, 3 or 4. Under all Action Alternatives, the construction of a three-acre parking lot would not exceed the threshold of 10 percent impervious cover in the Douglas Brook subwatershed. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water quality is expected under any Action Alternative.

Removal of hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground is proposed under all Action Alternatives. This area is in the Lower Swift 1 South subwatershed draining into the Swift River. Less than 1% of the basal area in this intershed is proposed for removal. Therefore no effect on water quality is expected. Tree removal would not occur on or near stream banks and would be selective in nature. Therefore, no effect on sedimentation would be expected. Transportation System Management

Table 3.28 describes the length and areas of work associated with transportation activities, including landing development, road construction, road maintenance, road decommissioning and skid trail development. Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, there is a small chance of leakage or spills of lubricants or fuel from vehicles for recreation, transportation or construction equipment. The risk to water resources is minimized by implementation of riparian buffers, locating roads and landings away from riparian areas, and using construction BMPs. Work would follow all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State of New Hampshire BMPs for road and trail maintenance and construction (NH DOT, 2001; NH DRED, 2004a,b). Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected from landing development, road construction and maintenance, and skid trail development. Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al., 1994). The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to area of disturbance. Areas which lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. The area of disturbance associated with transportation systems and trails is shown in Table 3.28. Total ground disturbance (including trail and watershed activities) would be 114.8 acres under Alternative 2, 114.3 acres under Alternative 3 and 97.8 acres under Alternative 4. The difference between alternatives is a result of additional road, skid trail and landing construction in Alternatives 2 and 3, which pose a slightly higher risk of sedimentation than Alternative 4. An increase in short-term, localized sediment inputs may occur. Since this level of disturbance does not exceed soil erosion and

181 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

compaction limits under the Forest Plan, no indirect effect on sedimentation is expected under either action alternative (see Soil Resources report).

The activities listed in Table 3.28 pose varying levels of short- and long-term risk of direct effects on sedimentation based on design and proximity to stream networks. The log landings proposed in all alternatives are in well-drained, gently sloping locations. In accordance with Forest Plan guidelines, landings would not be located within 100 feet of a perennial stream or pond as a default (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-25). If a landing needs to be within 100 feet, additional measures would be taken in consultation with soil and/or water specialists to avoid sedimentation. Review of landings used in past sales as well as Forestwide monitoring indicates that carefully selected sites with application of BMPs would be expected to recover and revegetate within a few years. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose 1.0 miles (2.4 acres) of road construction, while Alternative 4 proposes 0.5 miles (1.2 acres). All action alternatives propose 0.72 acres of driveway construction. As a result, soil disturbance in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be slightly greater than Alternative 4. Careful selection of road corridors, use of existing ski trail corridors, road construction BMPs and proper stream crossing design would be expected to minimize direct effects on sedimentation due to road construction. Since most new construction would use an existing trail footprint, indirect effects on sedimentation due to hydrologic alteration on road beds would not be expected. In all action alternatives, 5.2 miles (12.5 acres) of road maintenance (reconstruction) are proposed. Maintenance would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. While road maintenance and increased use may mobilize sediment on a short-term basis, activities such as resurfacing and improving drainage reduce sediment loss (NCASI 2000). Alternatives 2 and 3 would add more unauthorized road mileage to the system than Alternative 4. No activity would take place on the ground, but the roads would be available for future use. In case of future use, the activities and effects would be the same as those described for road maintenance. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 6 more miles of skid trail than Alternative 4 (Table 3). New skid roads would not be located within the stream or pond management zone (within 50 feet of the bank, or a greater distance in high slope areas), as defined in Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guideline G-5 (p. 2-25), except in the immediate vicinity of stream crossings. If skid roads must be in the stream management zone, additional sedimentation measures must be taken. State BMPs such as water bars,

182 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment ditches with cross drainage, erosion barriers, properly sized stream crossings and slope limitations would be used to prevent water from draining down skid trails and carrying sediment to streams (see Soil Resources report for further description of Best Management Practices). Skid trails would be expected to revegetate within 2 to 3 years and have no more than a temporary impact. Because of application of Forest Plan guidelines and State Best Management Practices, direct and indirect effects on sedimentation due to skid trails would be expected to be negligible in all areas except stream crossings under both alternatives.

The transportation system proposed for use in Alternatives 2 and 3 involve approximately 10 perennial stream crossings on haul roads and 4 perennial stream crossings on primary skid trails. Alternative 4 includes 9 perennial stream crossings on haul roads and 4 perennial stream crossings on skid trails. Within the proposed transportation system, stream crossings have higher potential than other road segments for effects on sedimentation based on water quality monitoring in Maine (MDOC, 2009). Several factors contribute to minimizing this effect. Some of the proposed roads and skid trails are on existing footprints with crossings in place. Skid trail systems would be laid out to minimize the number of stream crossings. New or replacement crossing structures on perennial streams would be designed to pass bankfull flows, expected flood flows, sediment and wood loads in accordance with Forest Plan Guidelines (p. 2- 31). Temporary crossing structures would follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State BMPs for stream crossings (NH DRED, 2004b). These measures include keeping road and skid trail stream crossings as close to perpendicular to streams as possible and at designated locations. This would keep the stream bed and banks intact and minimize sediment input. Following harvest, temporary crossing structures would be removed, stream banks restored (graded and seeded) as necessary. The 0.9 miles (2.2 acres) of road decommissioning proposed in all action alternatives would have no measurable effect on water quality. These roads are currently either unused or used as hiking trails, and their condition on the ground would not change relative to the No Action alternative.

The effectiveness of Maine’s Water Quality Best Management Practices for forestry has been monitored and documented, with particular consideration given to transportation systems. Monitoring in 2008 indicated that “of the 615 opportunities to observe soil conditions, 87 percent showed no sediment reached the waterbody” (p. 2), and most cases of sedimentation were “trace” or “minor” (MDOC, 2009). The Forest Plan standards and guidelines require larger Riparian Management Zones (pp. 2-24 and 2-25)

183 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

than the Maine Best Management Practice “filter areas” (MDOC, 2005a). They also impose more stringent requirements for stream crossing size and design (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-31). Given the additional design features in place, direct effects on sedimentation from transportation systems would not be expected to exceed a few instances of trace sediment input on a temporary basis. This would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, which allows effects of limited extent and duration that do not permanently degrade water quality, if all appropriate measures have been taken to minimize effects.

Summary of direct and indirect effects

In summary, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are not expected to have a measurable, negative impact on water quantity. Harvest is below the 25% threshold where effects on perennial streamflow may occur. Impervious areas would comprise a very small portion of the watershed, and would be designed to direct runoff away from streams and wetlands. There would be no new, permanent stream crossings on roads, and a new trail bridge would be designed to accommodate bankfull and flood flows. The action alternatives would not be expected to detrimentally affect water quality. The limited extent and intensity of timber harvest, prescribed fire, transportation, recreation and watershed management activities would prevent changes in water chemistry. Riparian area protections are in place for harvest, prescribed fire, roads, trails and parking areas to prevent sedimentation of streams. Some localized, trace sediment may reach streams in association with ground-disturbing work, but this would be within allowable disturbance limits and would not permanently degrade water quality. Short- term sediment movement would also be offset by long-term reductions due to watershed restoration and trail relocation. These activities are not expected to affect public or private water supplies. Mobilization of detrimental amounts of chemicals to groundwater or surface water has been avoided as described in this analysis. Most of the proposed activities do not involve use of toxic chemicals. Log landings and parking lots, where petroleum products may occur, would be located at least 500 feet from public water supply wells. Servicing of vehicles using petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, etc. must also be done in compliance with appropriate state BMPs for spill prevention and waste disposal.

184 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on water resources is the Swift River watershed (5th-level HUC 0106000202), which is approximately 55,722 acres. This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effect of activities in other parts of the Swift River along with the proposed activities. Effects of project activities would be expected to be masked by dilution further downstream, as the Swift River empties into the Saco River. The analysis period for cumulative effects is 10 years in the past and 10 years into the future (2000-2020), because water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management would be expected to subside in this period due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al., 1993; Martin et al., 2000). This project proposes a small amount of new infrastructure (e.g. new roads, trails, culverts and parking lots) that could contribute to cumulative effects of watershed development, but trends should become apparent within the ten-year timeframe.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities between 2000 and 2020 that are most relevant to water resources are listed in Table 3.25. Areas affected are approximate based on records or existing footprints and include only areas within the cumulative effects analysis area and time frame.

Table 3.29 - Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities for Water Resources

Project Name Years Description Area affected PAST PROJECTS

Rocky Gorge Site parking lot reconstruction, road 2004 relocation, trail construction and 2.5 acres Improvement Project bridge relocation Sabbaday Brook Improved surface, widened to ADA 2004 0.25 acres Trail Reconstruction standards Construction of parking area and Russell-Colbath Barn 2004 barn. Included 3 acres of vegetation 3 acres and Parking Area clearing. S Moat Trail Construction of new parking lot 2005 0.75acres Relocation and Pine Bend Brook 2005 Trail improvement 1 acre Reconstruction

185 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Project Name Years Description Area affected Sabbaday Brook Improve trail stability and stabilize Watershed 2008 stream bank on a tributary to the 1 acre Improvement Project Swift River Dugway Picnic Area 2008 Removal of the pavilion .5 acres USGS Water 2008 Installation and maintenance 0 acres Gauging Station DOT Kancamagus 2004/ Straightening and widening Unknown Hwy Improvements 2008 Conway Scenic Riprap installed upstream of the Railway Bridge 2004 0 acres bridge Maintenance Rail and River Trail Replace 1 bridge and improve 2 2008 3 bridges Bridge Replacement others to ADA standards Nanamocomuck Bridge replacement 2 bridges bridge replacement CC – 94 acres 2002- Thin – 89 acres Bear Mountain Timber Harvest 2008 Salvage – 75 acres STS – 131 acres Red Eagle 2005 Timber Harvest Thin- 44 acres Red Moat 2001 Timber Harvest CC- 67 acres Steam Mill II 2001 Timber Harvest CC- 46.4 acres 2000- Allard Brook Timber Harvest CC- 53.9 acres 2002 Notice to cut on 2000- Timber harvest on private land 4 acres private land 2010 Home- 43 Building permits on 2000- Building permits issued by towns Additions- 4 private land 2010 Garages- 4 PRESENT PROJECTS

Habitat for 2007- Home building on private land unknown Humanity ongoing CC – 182 acres OSR – 6 acres Kanc7 Forest Timber harvest, road reconstruction STS – 90 acres 2009- Resource & decommissioning, campsite GS – 439 acres ongoing Management Project closure STS & GS – 600 acres Thin – 270 acres Nanamocomuck Ski 2009- Trail Bridge Ski trail bridge replacements 12 bridges 2012 Replacement

186 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Project Name Years Description Area affected REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS

Lower Falls Site Re-vegetation, trail construction Unknown; 2011 Improvement Project parking area redesign estimate 3 acres

Moat Mountain Trail Add 1.4 miles of existing trail to Project 2011 NFTS; expand parking area by 0.5 1.0 acre acres Road and Trail Ongoing road, trail, and recreation maintenance Annual site maintenance are ongoing varies

Wildlife opening Annual Prescribed burning, mowing 10 acres/year maintenance Town of Conway annual Prescribed burning, mowing Unknown field maintenance

Alternative 1 Water Quantity

Cumulative effects on water quantity and stream stability could occur in relation to climate change. Increasing intensity and frequency of large precipitation events occurred in the United States from 1910 to 1995 (Karl and Knight, 1998) In the Northeastern U.S., climate models project a five to eight percent increase in annual precipitation and a eight percent increase in number of heavy precipitation events by mid-century (Huntington et al., 2009; USC, 2006). A summary of past and projected climate trends related to hydrology can be found in the NE Swift Project Record. More precipitation, particularly in the form of intense rainstorms, would exacerbate the instability of streambanks during high flows. Not stabilizing banks on the Swift River, Cilley Brook and an unnamed intermittent stream could have a cumulative effect of greater stream instability when combined with the effects of high flows due to climate change. Effects to Cilley Brook and the intermittent stream would likely be somewhat localized due to watershed size, stable substrate downstream and floodplain storage along the Swift River. Bank instability on the Swift River could result in noticeable changes in channel location or shape, though the chance of this is small within the next decade. Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quantity are expected under Alternative 1, no other cumulative effects are expected.

187 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Water Quality

A cumulative effect of climate change and taking no action to stabilize stream banks would be increased risk of sudden bank failure. This would have an indirect effect of increased sedimentation linked to storm events and high flows. These three locations alone would be unlikely to cause water quality impairment within the next ten years, but would be part of a trend toward increasing sediment mobilization during more frequent, intense storms.

Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quality are expected under Alternative 1, no other cumulative effects are expected. Alternative 1 would comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as well as all laws, regulations, policies and plans relevant to National Forest water resources.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Water Quantity

Timber Management

Timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not have a detrimental cumulative effect on water quantity. Basal area removal from past and ongoing timber harvests in the Swift River watershed since 2000 was analyzed in combination with each Action Alternative. Based on studies at Hubbard Brook, any effects on water quantity would subside within seven to nine years after harvest as vegetation regrows (Hornbeck et al., 1993). Basal area removal in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (CEA) as a whole would be 3.1 percent under Alternative 2 and 2.9 percent under Alternative 3, and 2.6 percent under Alternative 4, far below the level at which water quantity effects are expected. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the combination of proposed harvest with past timber harvest would exceed the 25 percent threshold in the subwatershed of one unmapped perennial stream, named “209 Brook” for this project. All other subwatersheds were below the 25 percent threshold. An estimated 20 percent of basal area in the 209 Brook subwatershed was harvested between 2002 and 2008, in stands that are not proposed for treatment in this project. This subwatershed would have a cumulative total of 33 percent basal area removed under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 21 percent removed in Alternative 4. Though research at Hubbard Brook found a slight increase in water yield when approximately 25 percent of the basal area was removed, several circumstances decrease the likelihood of a detrimental effect on water quantity in this watershed. Effects on

188 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment hydrology would be mitigated by the fact there would be at least three years of regrowth in the previously harvested stands before any further cutting in the watershed. In an experimental watershed in Massachusetts, removing 32 percent of the basal area over three years resulted in only one year of increased stream flow (Bent 2001). In addition, allowing natural regrowth (no herbicide use), conducting uneven-age treatments in some areas, leaving riparian buffers, and distributing cuts throughout the watershed would be expected to further prevent changes in water quantity (Bent 2001, Hornbeck et al., 1993; Hornbeck et al., 1997). When water yield changes due to vegetation removal, much of the change occurs during the growing season as baseflow (Hornbeck et al., 1993), making interactions with climate change effects on stormflow less likely. Therefore, only short-term, minimal cumulative effects on water quantity and no effect on stream stability would be expected. Basal area calculations are available in the NE Swift Project Record.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire may be used on approximately 10 acres per year to maintain approximately 97 acres of wildlife openings in the CEA. All of these wildlife openings are in different subwatersheds than the burn areas proposed in this project. No cumulative effect of prescribed fire on water quantity is expected under any Action Alternative because one percent or less of the CEA would be burned under any alternative.

Watershed Restoration

No cumulative effects on water quantity are expected from stream bank stabilization because no effect on water quantity and an increase in stream stability would result from these activities.

Recreation Management

189 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

All action alternatives include a parking lot, which would add up to three acres of impervious area in the Douglas Brook subwatershed. This activity would not cause the Douglas Brook subwatershed or the entire CEA to exceed the 10 percent impervious area threshold, above which increases in runoff may occur. Further consideration of impervious area in the CEA is included in the Transportation cumulative effects analysis of this report.

Transportation System Management

The road work proposed in all action alternatives would not be expected to directly or indirectly effect water quantity in itself. However, a cumulative effect could occur if too much of the watershed is covered by impervious surfaces. Impervious cover affects water quantity by increasing runoff and peak flows, particularly if the watershed exceeds 10 percent impervious cover (Center for Watershed Protection, 2003). Considering the estimated existing impervious surface in conjunction with the action alternatives, about 2 percent of the CEA would have impervious cover under Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.9 percent under Alternative 4. This is a small increase over the 1.8 percent impervious cover estimated for the no action alternative. Furthermore, these are high estimates, since landings and skid trails are expected to be minimally compacted (see Soil Resources Report). The 3,065 acres of private land were assigned an average 15 percent impervious value based on aerial photos and levels of development. Even if development were to make this area 100 percent impervious, the CEA would only have 6.5 percent impervious cover. Because of the small change in impervious cover, and the presence of riparian buffers and vegetative cover in most of the watershed, no cumulative effects on water quantity are expected under any action alternative. Calculations of impervious cover are in the NE Swift Project Record.

Water Quality

Timber Management

Timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not have a measurable, detrimental cumulative effect on water quantity. Basal area removal from past and ongoing timber harvests in the Swift River watershed since 2000 was analyzed in combination with each Action Alternative. Changes in water chemistry due to timber harvest become greatly reduced three to five years after harvest, and undetectable in subsequent years (Martin et al., 2000). Basal area removal in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (CEA) as a whole would be 3.1 percent under Alternative 2 and 2.9

190 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment percent under Alternative 3, and 2.6 percent under Alternative 4, far below the level at which water quality effects are expected.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the combination of proposed harvest with all timber harvest in the past 10 years would exceed the conservative 17 percent threshold in the subwatershed of one unmapped perennial stream, named “209 Brook” for this project. All other subwatersheds were below this threshold. An estimated 20 percent of basal area in the 209 Brook subwatershed was harvested between 2002 and 2008, in stands that are not proposed for treatment in this project. This subwatershed would have a cumulative total of 33 percent basal area removed under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 21 percent removed in Alternative 4. Considerable uncertainty is involved in relating the potential for water quality effects to the amount of harvest (McHale et al., 2008), particularly since several years have passed since prior harvest in the watershed. Since at least three years would pass between the end of treatments in 2008 and beginning of proposed activities, it is likely any small effect from the prior harvest would have dissipated. Though water samples taken in 2010 indicate that 209 Brook had a relatively low average pH (6.0) and alkalinity (2.2 mg/L) and moderately high total aluminum (163 ppb), these values are typical of first order streams in this area with small watersheds (Palmer et al. 2005, Hornbeck et al. 2001). These aluminum concentrations are also lower than the average concentration found in the Swift River. Though data is available for only one sample date, the inorganic monomeric aluminum concentration was 13 ppb in April 2010, below the level at which sensitive fish species such as Atlantic salmon experience stress (McCormick et al., 2009). It would appear that this stream has not been impaired by prior cutting. Therefore, the proposed timber harvest, which in itself would not be expected to affect water quality, is unlikely to lead to a cumulative effect on this brook. No increase in aluminum concentrations in the Swift River would occur, due to the small magnitude of the flow in 209 Brook and its relatively low current aluminum concentration relative to the Swift River. No cumulative effects on sediment would be expected under either alternative because implementation of State Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other design features would minimize sedimentation to a negligible amount.

191 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire may be used on approximately 10 acres per year to maintain approximately 97 acres of wildlife openings in the CEA. All of these wildlife openings are in different subwatersheds than the burn areas proposed in this project. No cumulative effect of prescribed fire on water quality is expected under any Action Alternative because 1 percent or less of the CEA would be burned under any alternative.

Watershed Restoration

No negative cumulative effects on water quality are expected from stream bank stabilization proposed under all Action Alternatives. By reducing stream bank instability, the potential for bank failure and associated sedimentation would be reduced relative to the no action alternative. An overall reduction in sedimentation in the CEA would be expected to result from implementation of this bank stabilization, in conjunction with trail bridge replacements and past watershed improvement work.

Recreation Management

The trail relocation, temporary trail construction, bog bridging and bridge construction activities proposed in all action alternatives would not be expected to have a cumulative effect on water chemistry or sedimentation. These activities would not have negative direct or indirect effects on water quality in themselves due to implementation of BMPs and relocation of trails away from riparian areas. They would also not result in a net increase in impervious area, since the temporary Moat Mountain trail and abandoned trail sections would be allowed to revegetate within a few years. All action alternatives include a parking lot, which would add up to three acres of impervious area in the Douglas Brook subwatershed. Based on design features in place, this lot would not affect water chemistry or sedimentation. This activity would not cause the Douglas Brook subwatershed or the entire CEA to exceed the 10 percent impervious area threshold, above which changes in water quality may occur. Further consideration of impervious area in the CEA is included in the Transportation cumulative effects analysis of this report.

192 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Transportation System Management

Like water quantity, water quality can change if impervious cover in the watershed becomes too great. Increased impervious cover may be accompanied by decreased dissolved oxygen and increased nitrogen and phosphorus, particularly as the watershed exceeds 10 percent impervious cover (Morse and Kahl, 2003). Considering the estimated existing impervious surface in conjunction with the action alternatives, about 2.0 percent of the CEA would have impervious cover under Alternatives 2 and 3, and 1.9 percent under Alternative 4. This is a small increase over the 1.8 percent impervious cover estimated for the no action alternative. Furthermore, these are high estimates, since landings and skid trails are expected to be minimally compacted (see Soil Resources Report). Because impervious cover is well below the 10 percent threshold for water quality effects, no cumulative effects on water quality are expected under either alternative. The potential for cumulative effects on sedimentation and turbidity due to ground disturbance were evaluated, including past, present and foreseeable activities known to cause ground disturbance. Approximately 241 acres (0.43 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternatives 2 and3, while approximately 224 acres (0.40 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternative 4. The difference is related to additional road and skid trail construction in Alternatives 2 and 3. Under any action alternative, this is a small increase in ground disturbance relative to the 126 acres (0.23 percent) under the no action alternative. No cumulative effect on sedimentation would be expected due to design features such as riparian buffers, location of landings and skid trails away from water and appropriate season of operation (see Soil Resources Report). Additionally, most of the acreage disturbed in the action alternatives is due to landings and skid trails, which are expected to revegetate within a few years. Because new skid trail and haul road stream crossings would be temporary and follow applicable BMPs, no cumulative effect on water quality is expected from these crossings. Permanent crossings on the relocated Nanamocomuck ski trail would replace those on the decommissioned trail and be more in appropriate locations with stable banks and smaller channel widths. Therefore, the capacity of stream crossing structures to accommodate potential high flows under climate change would be the same or improved under all action alternatives.

193 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Climate Change

As described in the cumulative effects analysis for the No Action Alternative, climate change is expected to affect hydrology within the analysis period. Changes within the next decade will likely be small and will be subject to short-term climate patterns which produce year-to-year variability. It is reasonable to expect a continuation of trends that have been observed over the last century. These trends include more frequent, intense storms, a greater proportion of precipitation falling as rain, and a slight overall increase in annual precipitation. Changes in water quality are quite uncertain. Higher peak flows may result in increased sediment loads due to runoff and stream channel scour, but it is uncertain whether any measurable change would occur over the analysis period. See the summary of climate trends for water resources in the NE Swift Project Record for more information. The activities proposed in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are not expected to have a cumulative effect on water quantity when considered in light of climate change because they are not expected to measurably increase streamflow or runoff. Short-term, localized sediment inputs due to disturbance would be offset by long term decreases in erosion due to recreation and watershed work. Therefore, no cumulative effect on water quality would occur.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 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 features. Streams are expected to remain in Proper Functioning Condition or improve due to restoration projects.

The proposed activities would not change water quantity to an extent that would affect instream flows or water supplies.

194 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The proposed activities would comply with State of New Hampshire water quality standards for Outstanding Resource Waters in that no more than temporary and short- term changes in water quality would occur. Waters in the analysis area would continue to support designated uses. Where water quality is currently not meeting State standards for pH and aluminum, the proposed activities are not expected to cause further degradation.

3.6 Wildlife

Affected Environment Wildlife Habitat

Best available science was used in the development of 2005 Forest Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines for management of wildlife species and their habitats. The Forest developed a wildlife strategy based on Habitat Management Units (HMU) to provide habitat diversity necessary to maintain wildlife populations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pg. 1-20 to 1-21). An HMU is an area of land in which habitat composition and age class objectives are 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 (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). HMUs vary in size from about 6,000-49,000 acres, and contain a variety of habitat types and land in a mix of Forest Plan Management Areas. These habitat conditions include a variety of stand types and age classes. HMU boundaries on the Saco Ranger District were based primarily upon watersheds and/or subwatersheds. Existing road access and other management constraints were also considered in establishing these boundaries. The rationale describing how HMU boundaries are delineated is outlined in (USDA Forest Service, 2007d).

The management of HMUs involves two major habitat parameters: (1) spatial distribution of community or vegetative types (also called habitat types or forest types) over the landscape and (2) relative proportions of successional stages, or age classes, within these vegetative or community types. Changes in community types occur in response to either natural succession over long periods of time or disturbances that are initiated by natural events or human actions. These concepts provide the foundation used in management of HMUs on the Forest.

195 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The project area is located within the Northeast Swift River HMU. The manageable area of this HMU is currently composed primarily of northern hardwoods, softwoods and mixedwoods. There is a small amount of hemlock and oak/pine. Aspen/birch exists only on about 20 acres, none of which are in MA 2.1. In the oak/pine type, both white pine and red pine exist, however there is no large component of oak, even though its presence can be recognized. The Ecological Land Types (ELT), or capability of the land, indicate this area should predominantly be composed of more softwoods and fewer acres of mixedwoods (USDA Forest Service, 2010g).

The Northeast Swift River HMU contains somewhat of a diversity of forest types and age classes due to past harvesting history, including harvest that was done prior to the inception of the WMNF. The HMU is currently skewed towards mature forest, as there is approximately 6100 acres of this age class (Table 3.30). In addition, of the 7,000 acres in MA 2.1 land almost 1,600 acres lies on ground considered unsuitable for harvest. This area was added to the mature habitat for analysis purposes. None of the mature habitat in the Northeast Swift River HMU is old growth forest as defined on page 21 of the Forest Plan Glossary.

Table 3.30 - Northeast Swift River HMU 2010 Habitat Conditions

Acres in MAs Acres in Management Area 2.1 2.1, 6.1, 8.5* Age Class** Current Current Unsuitable Habitat Regeneration Condition Condition Young Mature for Harvest*** (0-9 yrs old)

Hardwood 3152 2696 133 624 1939 262 Mixedwood 2680 1528 0 152 1376 396 Spruce-fir 2898 1371 0 0 1371 667 Aspen-birch 22 0 0 0 0 0 Hemlock 1020 935 0 0 935 141 Oak/Pine 583 521 0 30 491 111 Wildlife Opening 0 0 Non-forest 43 TOTAL 10,398 7051 133 806 6112 1577 *Most acres outside of MA 2.1 are mature forest, regardless of type, though natural disturbance may result in small amounts of regeneration and young age forest. **Age classes for habitat types are defined in Appendix D of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). ***Unsuitable for harvest = USDA Forest Service (2005a p.33). Added into Mature Age Class.

196 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Some of the northern hardwood and mixedwood forest, including some of the stands proposed for treatment in this project, are located on spruce-fir ecological land types (ELTs) that were converted from spruce-fir to northern hardwood or mixedwood after intensive past management, and currently have spruce-fir in the understory. These stands support wildlife species that prefer hardwood forest habitat, and may also be used by additional species that use spruce-fir understory habitat for food and cover. Half of the existing hemlock in the HMU occurs within MA 2.1. Much of this habitat occurs on soils that favor softwoods or mixedwood habitats including outwash soils. Some hemlock occurs on soils that favor hardwoods. These sites likely converted to hemlock because of past agriculture practices and would be difficult to maintain as hemlock in the future.

Figure 3.25 Current Habitat and Age Class

The oak/pine habitat in the HMU is generally split between oak and pine. Pine dominates the outwash soils along the Swift River, while red oak extends up the slopes of the eastern portion of the project area. This species is generally a dominant component of these stands, with smaller amounts of hardwood species mixed in.

No permanent wildlife openings currently exist in the NE Swift River HMU.

All of the streams located within the project area flow south into the Swift River. The waters in these streams are typically cold and support eastern brook trout along with other aquatic fauna such as salamanders and macroinvertebrates.

197 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Outstanding Natural Communities - The Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b p. 3-293 to 3-298) identified outstanding natural communities (ONC) that would receive additional protection (old growth enriched upland forest; montane circumneutral cliffs and talus; northern white cedar communities; and pitch pine-scrub oak woodland). Based on the NH Natural Heritage Bureau database, and FS multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific plant and wildlife surveys and forest inventories, there are no stands specifically identified as old growth forest and no other ONC within the Project Area. Thus, none of the Alternatives would cause a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on ONC, and they are not addressed further in this analysis.

Ecological Indicators - Ecological indicators (USDA Forest Service, 2005b p. 3-186) are used to gauge effects of Forest Plan implementation on biological resources, particularly related to recreation use. The peregrine falcon and cliff nesting habitat is the only ecological indicator within the NE Swift HMU. Breeding peregrine falcons are known to utilize cliff habitat within the NE Swift River HMU. The Project Area likely provides foraging habitat for hunting falcons. There are eight known rock climbing locations within the Project Area, Painted Walls, where the peregrines have nested for many years, being one of them (B. Johnston, personal communication). Numerous other cliffs and rocky outcrops exist within the project area, however peregrines have not been known to utilize them as eyrie sites. The NE Swift River HMU can probably only support 1 pair of peregrine falcons because the typical distance between active aeries is 3 to 35 miles (Foss, 1994; DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001). The NE Swift River project area is approximately 5 miles by 2.5 miles in size. There are two other peregrines nesting sites located within approximately 5 miles of the project area; one located approximately 5 miles to the southwest and another on Cathedral Ledge approximately 5 miles due east of Painted Walls. To date peregrines and rock climbers have been able to co-exist on Painted Walls, most likely because the rock climbers have aquiesced the cliff to peregrines during the nesting season until the young fledge.

Important Wildlife Habitats

Falls Pond and other Wetlands

Falls Pond, at 8 acres in size, makes up the largest permanent body of water in the HMU. This pond is very shallow (5 foot maximum) with wetland vegetation on the perimeter. It provides open water and riparian habitat for a variety of insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, waterfowl and songbirds. Beavers have been known to occupy the pond, and regulate the water level to some degree. Other wildlife breed, forage, and

198 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

drink from the pond. Woodland bats and birds forage on insects flying above the open water (an aerial foraging opportunity usually not present in a closed canopy forest). There is a hiking trail around the Pond that receives some use however most visitors view the pond from the observation area along the trail from Rocky Gorge. The NH Fish and Game (NHFG) stocks the pond annually with brook trout for recreational fishing.

A beaver flowage exists on Douglas Brook that has seen numerous impoundment and drainages over the past two decades. Several vernal pools have been documented in the HMU. Along the Swift River old oxbows have formed which provide unique habitat.

White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas

The availability of quality deer wintering areas provided by dense spruce-fir and/or hemlock stands can be a limiting factor in their survival during severe winter conditions. A management goal for wintering areas, regardless of species composition, is to intersperse mature softwoods with small openings to perpetuate critical softwood cover, maintain deer mobility and access throughout the wintering area during harsh winter months, and maintain high quality preferred accessible browse (Reay et.al.1990). Numerous field reviews and deer wintering area surveys by both WMNF and NHFG document a deer wintering area in the eastern portion of the NE Swift River HMU (NHFG 2010a; USDA Forest Service, 2005c, 2009d, 2010e). The western portion of the HMU is currently not being utilized by white-tailed deer as a wintering area. Softwood canopy exists however there is little softwood or browse at the ground level. The eastern portion of the HMU lies in a portion of the Red Eagle deer wintering area (USDA 2005g). Maintaining softwood cover interspersed with regeneration-age habitat and hard mast producing species would maintain this area for wintering deer. The NHFG manage white-tailed deer as a game species that is harvested annually. Their population is viable in the state and on the WMNF. NHFG (2006d) goals are to increase the deer population in the NHFG Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) E, which covers the Northeast Swift River Project Area.

199 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees

The Project Area contains American beech and red oak that produces beechnuts and acorns respectively; hard mast food source for black bears and other wildlife. Clawed beech trees have been observed in the Project Area. NHFG manages black bear as a game species that is harvested annually. Black bear populations are viable in the state and on the WMNF (NHFG, 2010b). Bear management goals call for a slight population decrease in NHFG WMU E, which includes the Project Area (NHFG, 2006d).

Wildlife Populations

Wildlife species known to occur in the area include moose, black bear, white-tailed deer, fox, coyote, fisher, beaver, weasels, and numerous species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species. Peregrine falcons and northern goshawks have been documented within the HMU.

Management Indicator Species

The White Mountain National Forest utilizes Management Indicator Species (MIS) to track five major habitats Forest-wide. These species, their corresponding habitats, Forest-wide monitoring and population trends are discussed in detail in the Forest Plan. Table 3.31 discloses the White Mountain National Forest MIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) that have potential to occur or have documented occurrence within suitable habitat located within the NE Swift River project area.

Table 3.31 - WMNF MIS within the NE Swift River Project Area Representative MIS Population trends Habitat Habitat and/or Species in the Project Area

Regeneration hardwoods (predominantly Breeding Bird Surveys seedling and sapling Chestnut sided warblers have been documented in Chestnut- shows a decline in stages of northern several clearcuts that cover 133 acres (2%) of population. Forest sided hardwoods, but could monitoring also shows a regeneration hardwood habitat in the Project Area warbler also include some decline in populations (USFS 2009c). scattered softwoods, seedling and sapling stages). Mature / old hardwoods 1939 acres 27%) mature hardwood habitat and 1376 (predominantly BBS shows a stable acres (20%) of mature mixedwood and 491 acres (7%) oak/pine habitat is present in MA 2.1 land in Scarlet northern hardwoods, population. Forest but could also monitoring shows no the Project Area. Additional habitat for this species Tanager include some statistical trend on the exists in the non-MA 2.1 lands of this HMU. This scattered softwoods, WMNF tanager has been heard in the Project Area, but no at least pole-timber surveys were conducted. stage, but also

200 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Representative MIS Population trends Habitat Habitat and/or Species in the Project Area

includes all-aged stands). Regeneration BBS shows a stable softwoods population with (predominantly There are no acres (0%) of regeneration-age fluctuations over 4 Magnolia spruce-fir, but could softwood and/or mixedwood habitat in MA 2.1 of decades. Forest also include some Warbler monitoring shows no the NE Swift HMU. Magnolia warblers have been scattered hardwoods; statistical trend on the detected in the HMU during routine field visits. seedling and sapling WMNF stages). Mature / old softwoods Blackburnian warblers have been detected in the BBS shows stable (Predominantly Project Area during routine field visits. There is a populations. Forest Blackburnian spruce-fir, but also combined 2747 acres (39%) of mature softwood and monitoring shows no includes some Warbler statistical trend on the mixedwood habitat in MA 2.1. Additional habitat scattered hardwoods; WMNF for this species exists in the non-MA 2.1 lands of at least pole-timber this HMU. size). Aspen / paper birch (Stands where the majority of the overstory is aspen Ruffed grouse have been detected 3 out of the past 7 and/or paper birch. BBS shows a gradual years on surveys along the Bear Notch Road (USFS Ruffed This habitat decline. Forest 2010d). There are no acres (0%) of aspen/birch community type is monitoring shows no Grouse different from the statistical trend on the within MA 2.1 land in the Project Area however hardwoods and WMNF. aspen and birch do make up part of the component softwoods above in of stands in the Project Area. that there is no distinction for age class). Suitable Habitat = Meets species’ life history requirements (food, cover / shelter, water, breeding, and young rearing). Range and suitable habitat definitions taken from USDA Forest Service 2005b; DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001. Also see Literature Cited and/or Reviewed for further consideration of MIS habitat needs. The determination of non-occurrence of MIS within the Project Area considers the potential for occasional incidental and infrequent travel through or flyover of a species within the Project Area BBS = Breeding Bird Survey. BBS data from USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-166 to 3-206; Forestwide Breeding WMNF bird surveys data results from MacFaden and Capen 2000.

Woodland Bats and White-Nose Syndrome (WNS)

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, affected bats move near the entrance to hibernation caves and often come out of caves and fly around in the middle of the day prior to the normal emergence time in the spring. These affected bats generally have reduced fat reserves, are non-responsive and have been found dead both inside and outside of their hibernacula. During the summer, bats have not been seen with observable fungus, but people have reported dead and dying little brown bats at their summer roosts in attics, barns and outbuildings outside of the HMU. Biologists now believe the fungus itself is the causal agent in WNS-related

201 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

deaths, and not a side effect of an opportunistic infection. WNS was first identified in 2006 in NY and has been associated with high mortality rates at most sites. WNS has been confirmed in hibernating bats from Canada to Tennessee and Indiana (Butchkoski, 2011) including New Hampshire. In March 2009, WNS was confirmed for the first time in three hibernacula in NH (off the WMNF), two of which are in Grafton County. In 2010, bats at Mascot Mine in Coos County tested positive for WNS (USDA Forest Service, 2010a). The Northeast Region of the USFWS maintains a web site on WNS with the most recent scientific information on this syndrome: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/white_nose.html.

There are 15 known small bat hibernacula in NH, however none are known to exist on the WMNF, or in Carroll County (Veilleux, 2010). Given the proximity of the WMNF to hibernacula affected by WNS, it is likely that bats using the WMNF may have been exposed to WNS-affected bats. At this time, the only recommendation developed by the USFWS and partners are aimed at preventing the spread of WNS. Efforts focus on human visitation or research in affected hibernacula, human visitation between affected and unaffected caves and mines and human handling of affected bats. Several woodland bat species have been recorded across the WMNF during bat surveys conducted in the early 1990s and 2000s (Krusic et al., 1996; Sasse, 1995; Chenger, 2002, 2004) and recent WMNF acoustic surveys (USDA Forest Service, 2010b). Bat species that may forage or roost in or near the NE Swift River HMU and may have been affected by WNS include little brown bat, northern long eared bat, eastern pipistrelle and eastern small-footed myotis. The Indiana bat does not occur on the WMNF. Unlike the eastern small-footed myotis, the other bat species that occur on the Forest commonly roost in trees, most often snags and partially dead trees near foraging habitat, or buildings. To date, no relationship between timber harvesting and WNS has been discerned and monitoring indicates bat species known to inhabit the WMNF remain present (USDA Forest Service, 2010a).

202 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects

Background for the Analysis

The National Forest Management Act requires that forest plans provide for plant and animal community diversity in a multiple use context. A wide array of wildlife species inhabit the White Mountain National Forest throughout all or part of the year (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). Managing for all the wildlife species that use the WMNF requires providing a broad range of habitat conditions across the Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2005a; p. 1-20 to 1-21; USDA Forest Service, 2007c). The analysis of effects on wildlife from proposed activities in this project incorporates by reference information from Forest Plan and FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005a; USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-73 to 3-112, 3-165 to 3-207; USDA Forest Service 2007c), as well as scientific literature. Results from monitoring and field reviews conducted on the WMNF were also used to assess effects. The relevant elements of wildlife and habitat in the NE Swift HMU are: HMU objectives – effects measured by changes in habitat types and age classes. MIS – effects measured by changes in habitat types and age classes maintained or created Ecological Indicators – effects measured by potential to eliminate or enhance Fragmentation – measured by effects to American marten Although MIS trends and changes to MIS habitats are noted in this analysis, conclusions regarding timber harvest effects on wildlife habitat are based on Forest-level monitoring of management indicator species. Project level discussions in this document are tiered to the FEIS. Project activities that could have a measurable effect on one or more of the wildlife elements above are: timber harvest, skidding, road and landing work, recreation projects, prescribed fire. Any activity that uses heavy equipment could potentially affect wildlife. The Analysis Area for direct effects on wildlife habitat is comprised of the acres and areas proposed for projects because implementation of the proposed activities would have some immediate effect on wildlife species and habitat conditions. The time frame for direct effects is from when implementation starts to when all actions are completed because direct effects would only occur during this time period.

203 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The Analysis Area for indirect effects on wildlife habitat is the approximately 6,800 acres of managed lands (MA 2.1) within the Northeast Swift River HMU. This was selected because proposed project activities could potentially generate impacts to wildlife in areas located outside of proposed treatment areas. The timeframe used in the indirect effects analysis is 10 years in the past through ten years in the future. This period of time was selected to include consideration of past project activities that have influenced current habitat conditions, incorporate the 0-9 year regeneration age class and to reflect the estimated time between this project and the next habitat management project in this HMU. These parameters were analyzed for all Alternatives.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under Alternative 1, no additional timber, recreation, wildlife, watershed or transportation system management activities would occur at this time. This alternative would not preclude ongoing or future management actions on these lands however. There would be no direct effects that would cause potential mortality, injury, displacement or disturbance to wildlife within the project area. Under this alternative no indirect effects to wildlife species or habitat would occur from timber harvest, prescribed fire or other proposed activities that would alter or destroy habitat, territories, nest, roost or denning sites, or change foraging habitats or locations. No new roads, landings, or skid trails would be constructed, reconstructed, restored, or authorized or decommissioned. There would be no change to public access to the project area, and therefore there would be no direct effects to wildlife from these activities. Maintenance would continue on trails, roads, and parking areas currently existing in the project area. Sediment would likely continue to be added to streams with localized areas of eroding streambanks, because watershed restoration projects would not be implemented in these areas. Aquatic species may be directly or indirectly impacted from increased sediment or eroding stream banks.

The two segments of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail that are proposed for relocation, as well as the new proposed trail bridge, traverse seepy, wet areas that are currently degraded from trail use. Seeps are important habitat for wildlife (DeGraaf et al. 2006). The No Action Alternative would eliminate the opportunity to protect this habitat from ongoing impacts caused by recreational activities.

204 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Since a new parking area would not be constructed along the Bear Notch Road under this alternative, there would be no impacts to wildlife from construction activities such as removing trees, compacting the soil, etc. in this area. In addition, increased human use and activities due to a new parking area, and consequent impacts to wildlife, would not occur. Removal of hazard trees in Covered Bridge Campground would not occur under this alternative, so wildlife species would not be impacted by removal of habitat features such as snags, dying trees and trees with defects such as cavities from this area.

Wildlife utilizing areas proposed for burning would not be impacted by the preparation activities prior to burning (line establishment, hose lay, etc), the fire itself, the smoke or the resulting ash and effects of the fire on vegetation, because no prescribed burning would occur under this alternative. In addition, existing forest types in the HMU would not be altered by prescribed burning. Leaf litter and tree sprouts would remain on the landscape.

Management Indicator Species

This alternative would favor wildlife species associated with mature northern hardwoods, mixedwoods and spruce-fir including scarlet tanagers and blackburnian warblers (Table 3.27). The existing early-successional habitat would mature into a young age class, removing habitat desired by species such as chestnut-sided warblers (MIS). Aspen-birch would not increase for species such as ruffed grouse. Without a diversity of habitat (forest) types and age classes created by harvest practices, populations of species that favor aspen-birch and regeneration forest habitat, such as chestnut-sided warbler, magnolia warbler and ruffed grouse, might begin to decline in the project area. Several MIS species may not find suitable habitat within this HMU, however no species is expected to have a viability concern with implementation of Alternative 1.

Fragmentation

American Marten is used to assess effects on landscape-scale fragmentation of habitat connectivity (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). Marten are wide-ranging and utilize their entire home range daily which includes all habitat types and age classes though they prefer mature softwood. They are vulnerable to habitat changes.

205 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The American marten has not been documented in the NE Swift River HMU, however it likely exists in this area, and was therefore assessed in this analysis. Red squirrel, which is the marten prey base, and their tracks have been noted by several resource specialists while visiting the HMU.

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to American marten because no habitat changes would occur eliminating any potential of fragmentation.

Ecological Indicator

The NE Swift project does not propose any change or actions at rock climbing locations in the project area, nor does it propose any overall management limitations of these sites. Rock climbing on the WMNF is expected to increase in the future (USDA Forest Service 2005b, 3-190). The No Action Alternative would not have direct, indirect or cumulative effects on cliffs and peregrine habitat. Continued monitoring of peregrine falcons on the WMNF would indicate if population breeding success begins to decline

Species Change

Under Alternative 1, only natural processes would influence changes in existing habitat conditions. Forest openings would result from mortality of individual trees or disturbance from other natural events (e.g. fire, hurricane, ice storm, drought, insect or disease infestation). The project area would continue to provide a mix of mature northern hardwood, mixedwood, and spruce-fir habitat with a small presence of oak- pine and hemlock. Conversion of mixedwood habitat to softwood habitat would progress naturally but would not happen within the analysis timeframe. Over time, there would be greater potential for development of large diameter cavity trees and accumulation of downed woody material for wildlife habitat under Alternative 1 as compared to the other alternatives analyzed. This would add to the numerous large diameter trees found in the non-managed lands within the HMU as well as on the lands unsuitable for harvest within the manageable lands. The No Action alternative would perpetuate a mature to old forested habitat condition and add to the existing mature condition on non-manageable lands within this HMU. Forest interior species and species preferring mature closed-canopy and climax forest conditions would benefit from the perpetuation of this age class. Species requiring other habitat types or age classes for all or part of their life would not find habitat in this HMU desirable.

206 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 would not increase habitat diversity within the HMU, therefore wildlife species richness would not increase and could decrease over the next 10 years. Alternative 1 would not contribute towards the Forest Plan goal of habitat diversity across the Forest. Alternative 1 would result in an adverse indirect effects due to declining habitat diversity and would therefore not meet the stated Purpose and Need for this project.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Timber Harvest

Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, active timber harvest operations and connected actions, such as road construction and reconstruction, would increase short-term human access to the project area. When operations are active, negative effects could include displacing wildlife, including nesting birds, or altering travel corridors or mobility of some species, including amphibians, small and large mammals. Beneficial effects of harvesting could include increased mobility for some species on snow compacted by skidder traffic, and additional browse for wildlife from residual treetops scattered on the ground (Campbell et. al, 2004). Chapter 2 displays the harvest types and acres proposed for each of the Action Alternatives. Removal of the trees may cause injury or death to species dwelling within them. Regeneration harvest (clearcutting, patch cutting, and seed tree h harvest) would create a shrub-scrub habitat for approximately two to ten years. Species desiring mature forest characteristics would be displaced. Site conditions on the forest floor of clearcuts, patch cuts and seed tree harvests would be hotter and drier for about 2 to 5 years after cutting with increased decomposition of leaf litter (Fay et al., 1994). This could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as the red-backed salamander (DeMaynadier and Hunter, 1998) and small mammals. Amphibians and small mammals in large unshaded openings may be more vulnerable to predation, they may burrow underground to escape an increase of temperature, or they may avoid the opening. This would be partially mitigated by leaving reserve patches of trees in openings 10 acres in size or larger (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Reptiles such as snakes would find the warmer conditions favorable. Species viability as a whole however would not be influenced

207 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

All harvest methods would cause the direct effect of an increase in the amount of limbs and tops on the ground from harvested trees that would provide a localized, short-term source of natural browse for white-tailed deer and other species that browse on twigs. Mobility patterns of large mammals traveling to, from, or within the project area during implementation may be temporarily disrupted. Large mammals such as moose and white-tailed deer have large home ranges, and appear to adjust quickly to displacement from harvesting activity (St.Louis et. al, 2000; Campbell et.al, 2004) and may adjust their foraging behavior from day to night to avoid harvesting activity. Noise from logging equipment could cause a direct effect of displacing white-tailed deer to other areas during the day, but they would return at night to feed on downed treetops (Campbell et.al, 2004). Other harvest methods such as commercial thinning, group selection, etc. would have similar direct effects to wildlife, such as displacement, mortality and increased forage, but at a lower intensity due to the fact trees are left within the harvest units. Wildlife species prefering mature-aged stands would continue to find these areas favorable. For approximately 10 years following harvest, there would a reduction in the number of large trees (>11” DBH) that would be available as future sources for the dead and down wood habitat components. Trees in areas not proposed for harvest would continue to supply standing and down woody habitat components. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines would retain wildlife trees in harvest units to provide a future source of large cavity trees and dead/down wood. This, in conjunction with the abundance of mature habitat within the managed and unmanaged portions of the HMU, should ensure that an adequate amount of cavity trees and dead and down wood would be available for wildlife associated with these habitat features (Fay et. al, 1994). Whole tree harvesting is not proposed under any alternative in this project. Trees would be skidded to the landing, limbed, and then the tops would dragged back into harvest units. Unless tops and branches are placed along skid trails and compacted, they could provide a source of winter browse for species such as moose and white-tailed deer. Pre-commercial thinning may be implemented, depending upon whether large amounts of undesirable trees remain or sprout following harvest, impeding treatment objectives. For example single tree selection units or group cuts may have a high density of undesireable, non-commercial saplings or stump sprouts after commercial harvest. Partial stand treatments may require sprout or sapling removal. The area impacted would have already been impacted by the previous logging. Precommercial thinning may further effect ground dwelling species via disturbance, soil compaction, or

208 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

complete removal of shading vegetation. Species such as northern goshawk that prefer an open understory for foraging would benefit in these areas.

The season of harvest may directly affect wildlife, especially during critical times of the species' life cycle. Breeding, young rearing, feeding, and winter survival are common critical times for most species. Individuals could be displaced, harassed or mortally affected during any season of operation. Summer harvest (typically June through mid- September) could affect species that utilize trees for nesting, cover, and foraging (such as breeding birds) and ground dwelling species (mammals, amphibians, and reptiles). Fall harvest (approximately mid-September through November or snow-cover) would affect fewer nesting species, but could potentially affect autumn breeding species including some amphibians, mast feeding species, such as black bear, and small ground-dwelling mammals. Certain species, such as owls that breed in winter, could be affected from harvest activities occurring from approximately mid-December through March, or spring thaw. White-tailed deer gather, or “yard”, in areas of lowland conifers in the winter, where cover and warmer temperatures provide protection from the elements, and they would be vulnerable to disturbance during this time of year. Species that utilize cavities, such as chickadees and nuthatches, or species that den, such as squirrels, fisher, raccoons, and bear, could be affected if roost or cavity trees were harvested. Viability for these species is not a concern as habitat for these species is abundant and well-distributed based on field observation and monitoring data (USDA Forest Service 2009c, 2009d, 2010c, 2010e). During any given season, effects on wildlife from harvest activities would be occurring on a relatively small portion of the 10,400 acre HMU, over a period of about 4 years. Alternative 2 would have the greatest potential for affecting wildlife species for which summer is a critical time (Table 3.28). Up to 772 acres of harvest would occur in the summer, affecting approximately 8% of the HMU. Alternative 3 would impact almost as many acres (up to 732 acres). Alternative 4 would impact up to 508 acres during the summer. For wildlife species that could be affected by winter harvest, Alternative 2 would affect up to 1201 acres, or 12% of the HMU, during this season. Proposed harvest under Alternative 3 would affect up to 1192 acres (12%) in winter, and under Alternative 4, up to 1106 acres (11%) would be affected during this season.

209 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.32 - Proposed Acres of Harvest by Season

Season Alternative 2 3 4

Summer 220 199 170 Summer/Fall/Winter 288 284 243 Summer/Fall 264 249 95 Fall/Winter 358 365 358 Winter 555 543 505 Fall 53 53 53

Prescribed Burning

Fire has little direct mortality on amphibians or reptiles in oak-type forests (Renken, 2006; Lyon et. al, 1978). Individuals with poor mobility (nestlings, bat pups, etc.) dwelling in snags could be mortally affected if snags burn. Smoke could cause mortality to these individuals, however prescribed fire rarely lasts more than a few hours in an area, with smoke dispersing quickly. No wildlife species impacts from prescribed fire would be expected to the degree that viability of the species would become a concern. Most species of wildlife that occur within the project area would be capable of leaving the area where fire is present (Anderson, 1994). Deer, moose, bear, fox, birds, etc. would have the ability to move out of the area while fire is present. This area of the HMU is has a population of wintering deer that depend on the existing softwood for shelter, as well as on acorns for forage. Both oak and pine habitats are minor habitat components of the HMU, providing special features for wildlife such as hard mast (DeGraaf et al., 2006). Oak/pine habitat occurs in the eastern section of the NE Swift River HMU, however much of it is actually a component of northern hardwood or mixedwood habitat types. A Forest Plan goal is to maintain existing oak/pine habitats or enhance their existence within the WMNF. An increase of oak within the area is desirable, as well as an increase of softwood, especially hemlock.

210 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Oak-pine habitat may benefit from prescribed burning. Fire can also kill young oak/pine seedlings and acorns as well as seedlings of hemlock, and many hardwoods. In mixedwood stands or where hemlock and softwood regeneration is present, prescribed fire would be conducted under conditions to ensure these seedlings survive.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would apply prescribed fire on up to 750 acres where oak and/or pine habitat or habitat components occur, while Alternative 3 would implement up to 500 acres of prescribed burning in these areas. Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in midstory vegetation removal over a greater area than in Alternative 3. This would impact species such as nesting birds and browsers, but would also benefit species that prefer an open midstory, such as northern goshawks.

Prescribed burning would occur following harvest, and consequently “re-set” the clock on the 0-9 year age class in early successional habitat. This would provide species preferring early succesional habitat a longer time frame of this age class in this HMU.

Precommercial site preparation

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose up to 400 acres of this treatment, while Alternative 4 proposes up to 200 acres. This treatment would be implemented where objectives of harvest treatments were not fully achieved. Occasionally, excessive amounts of non- commercial vegetation will remain on site following harvest, resulting in conditions that impede development of desirable early-successional wildlife habitat. Results of post- harvest monitoring would be used to determine if precommercial treatments are needed. There would be little to no additional effects on wildlife from implementation of this treatment because it would occur soon after commercial harvest.

Transportation System Management

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose construction of 1 mile of new roads, reconstruction of 5.2 miles of existing roads and use of 30 log landings (reuse of 19 existing landings). New road construction, including temporary roads, short driveways and new landings, would require the removal of trees, ground disturbance and compaction that may directly affect species dwelling directly in the proposed road corridor (Buckley et. al, 2002). Species such as salamanders have relatively small home ranges and are slow moving individuals. Construction of a road where individuals may be dwelling could result in death. Small mammals such as mice and shrews could also be fatally harmed during construction or reconstruction. Larger animals have the ability to escape from the immediate area. The potential for adverse effects would be largely dependent upon

211 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

the ability of the species to disperse from the area and the size of their home range. There is currently abundant habitat for small mammals, salamanders, and amphibians on the WMNF. Although individuals of a species could perish, no species would be affected by these activities to the extent that its viability would become a concern.

Road reconstruction would have minor temporary impacts to ground dwelling species. Trail and road improvements could contribute to a higher use of the area by humans, due to improved conditions in the area.

Human presence would increase in the project area during and following project implementation. There could be some impacts to wildlife movement. Species could be temporarily disturbed or displaced when roads, skid trails, and landings are being constructed and used. Following project implementation, recreationists would likely use roads for walking, mountain biking, Nordic skiing, etc., which could affect use of habitat or movement of wildlife within the HMU. The linear openings in the forest created by roads and trails would provide certain species desired features within their range. Deer, moose, bear, coyote, fox all utilize roads and trails to access parts of their territories. Most bats utilize roads and trails as travel corridors through the forest. Northern goshawks are known to nest adjacent to roads, openings, etc. Raspberries and strawberries grow along the roadsides and provide soft mast for many species. Under all action alternatives, all new forest roads within this HMU would be gated to public motorized access during and after implementation. Decommissioning approximately 1 mile of road under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 could decrease human presence slightly in the project area because these roads would slowly revegetate, however this effect would be minor due to the relatively small amount of road that would be decommissioned. Alternative 4 proposes 0.5 mile of new road construction and the use of 29 log landings. The same direct and indirect effects would occur as stated above for areas impacted. There would be reduced degree of impact under this alternative due to the smaller amount of new road construction and use of one fewer log landing.

Recreation

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all propose relocating two segments of the Nanamacomuck ski trail, totaling approximately 1.25 miles in length, to routes used as skid trails. The current trail corridor would be blocked and allowed to revegetate. No direct impacts would occur from this activity, as implementation of the skid trail would have caused any direct impacts to wildlife existing in this travelway. All of these alternatives also

212 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

propose constructing one bridge and approximately 250 feet of bog bridging or boardwalk in wet or swampy areas on the Nanamocomuck ski trail. Bridge construction activities could cause temporary sedimentation in the stream, however this effect would be localized and of short duration. Wildlife in the immediate area would be temporarily disturbed during implementation of these activities. Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would minimize any potential adverse impacts to riparian habitat. Design features for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include temporarily relocating approximately 0.25 miles of the Moat Mountain hiking trail to provide for public safety during harvest operations. This activity would create effects to wildlife similar to new trail construction, because soil disturbance would occur and wildlife dwelling in this area could be disturbed, displaced or harmed. Few trees, if any, are expected to be removed by this activity. The portion of trail that would be temporarily relocated is located near the trailhead parking area, so few, if any, large wildlife species would be likely to be residing in this area due to the disturbance from hikers and log truck traffic. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, a parking lot would be constructed on Bear Notch Road near Falls Pond Road (Forest Road 209). The area near Falls Pond Road is currently composed of mixedwood habitat. This action would permanently remove 3 acres of habitat available to wildlife for foraging, nesting, roosting, etc. This activity would generate similar effects to wildlife as new road construction; i.e. removal of trees and soil disturbance and/or compaction. Wildlife currently residing on the proposed parking lot site would be displaced or destroyed. Wildlife species that would be most likely to be impacted would be small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Larger animals would likely relocate when construction began. Bats may find the opening suitable for foraging for insects during the summer. Adjacent trees may provide suitable bat roost trees or perches for raptors.

Indirect effects of parking lot construction would include increased use of the area by snowmobilers and possibly Nordic skiers, due to the proximity of the Nanamacomuck trail to this location. This increased recreational use would impact wildlife by increasing disturbance and displacement (Miller et.al, 1998) during the winter season, when species need to conserve the most enegry to ensure survival. In addition, the proposed parking area would likely to result in increased recreation use of the area, and consequent impacts to wildlife, year round.

213 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Since Alternative 3 proposes to construct the parking area in an area further from private lands, it could result in slightly greater effects on wildlife. Dispersement of human activities displaces wildlife from a greater amount of habitat. While some species such as chickadees are well adapted to human presence, other species such as deer, bear, fox, moose, would be likely to temporarily or permanently vacate the area, depending upon the duration and extent of activities occurring.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all propose removing hazard trees at Covered Bridge Campground. Hazard trees are typically trees that are dead, dying or have a major defect. Over 25 species of birds and 18 species of mammals use these types of trees with natural or excavated cavities occurring in forested habitats for nesting, roosting, or denning (Bennet, 2010, section 6.2). Removal of these trees would negatively impact all individuals that utilize these trees.

Watershed Restoration

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all propose watershed restoration activities at 3 specific locations within the NE Swift River HMU. Implementation of these activities could harm species dwelling in these exact locations. Macroinvertebrates would likely be disturbed by removal of substrate and possible siltation during implementation. Fish may be temporarily displaced (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). All sites are small in area (less than 1 acre in size) and impacts would be localized and temporary. The use of native material such as logs and rootwads from local trees and implementation of BMPs for spill prevention would minimize or eliminate direct and indirect effects on aquatic individuals in these areas. Use of existing access routes and hand work whenever possible would minimize disturbance to ground dwelling individuals in the riparian area. Direct and indirect effects on sedimentation would be minimized by use of construction Best Management Practices required by the Forest Plan, such as working “in the dry” and using silt fences. An indirect effect may be small amounts of sediment that is scoured from the bed and banks of Cilley Brook and the unnamed tributary as they adjust to placement of woody material. No measurable channel adjustment would be expected on the Swift River due to the small dimensions of riprap that would be used relative to channel size. Any increased sedimentation resulting from implementation of these watershed restoration activities would be smaller than that resulting from implementation of Alternative 1, because bank instability at these sites could increase sediment loading above natural levels.

214 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Northern Hardwood Habitat

Northern hardwood comprises one third of the habitat of the NE Swift River HMU. Table 3.30 indicates this habitat type is mostly mature and that a variety of age classes is desired. Up to 150 species of wildlife will use mature northern hardwoods for all or part of their life cycle including MIS scarlet tanager (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001; DeGraaf et al, 2006). Breeding Bird Surveys show a stable population. Forest monitoring shows no statistical trend on the WMNF. Regional population trends for scarlet tanagers have declined over the past four decades with populations declining in some years and increasing in others (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). Breeding bird survey data collected on the Forest show a declining population trend for scarlet tanagers (USDA Forest Service 2002a). Up to 150 species use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle (DeGraaf, 1992; DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001). Recent studies indicate some mature forest species also benefit from regeneration-age habitat in that juveniles of mature forest birds have been found foraging in clearcuts prior to migrating south (Vitz and Rodewald 2006; Chandler, 2007). Under Alternative 2 mature habitat would be eliminated for approximately 50 years on 451 acres within this HMU. Habitat for species such as scarlet tanagers (MIS) would decrease. However, mature northern hardwood and mixedwood habitat is abundant within this HMU and across the Forest. Therefore, converting mature northern hardwood habitat to regeneration-age habitat would have little effect on the population of scarlet tanagers (MIS) while providing some habitat for chestnut-sided warblers (MIS). Monitoring conducted in past harvests indicates chestnut-sided warblers (MIS) and other species preferring shrub-scrub habitat would increase in numbers within this HMU while suitable habitat was available (Schlossberg and King, 2008; Chandler, 2006; Litvaitis, 2003). Numbers of individuals of any species may fluctuate in the project area due to implementation of this alternative however no population is expected to change to the extent the population trend of that species would change within its range. Habitat diversity would be enhanced as even-aged regeneration harvests increase the horizontal patchiness of the forest. Clearcuts are openings 10 to 30 acres in size. Patch cuts are openings 2 to 9 acres in size (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Glossary). Both create early successional habitat however opening size can impact wildlife use of the opening with the larger openings benefiting a higher number of species (Schlossberg and King,

215 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

2008; Chandler, 2006). Seed tree harvests also create regeneration-age habitat as long as the basal area is under 30. Overstory removal implies there is existing vegetation already regenerating and would be released to grow with removal of the canopy. Habitat on these released acres is converted to the young age class during HMU analysis. Table 3.29 indicates an overabundance of existing mature softwood, mixedwood and northern hardwood habitat and minimal regeneration-age habitat. This table also indicates existence of two less-common habitat types hemlock and oak-pine. All of the Action Alternatives propose to retain the softwood habitat, and diversify the northern hardwood and mixedwood habitat by converting a portion of the mixedwood to softwood and converting a portion of the northern hardwood mature stands to regeneration-age habitat.

Creation of regeneration habitat would benefit wildlife species favoring open habitats and displace species favoring mature habitats. Regeneration-age habitat would have beneficial effects on species such as ruffed grouse (MIS), snowshoe hare, deer, moose, chestnut-sided warblers (MIS), mourning warblers (MIS) and all other wildlife that utilize regeneration-age habitat (Trani et al, 2001; Conner and Adkisson, 1975; Dale et al., 1995; DeGraaf 1992; Thompson et al, 1992). White tailed deer remain within their home range or close to clear cuts while harvest is being conducted (Campbell et al., 2004). Within a few years after a clearcut harvest, many species are attracted to the area due to the increased amount of browse and other vegetative growth such as soft mast. There is typically an increase in small mammals such as rodents as well as insects. This in turn provides other species such as birds and fox with a prey base (Costello et al., 2000; King et al., 2001; Thompson et. al, 2001). While the proposed clearcut, patchcut, seed tree and overstory removal harvests would reduce the existing amount of mature northern hardwood in this HMU from approximately 87% to 80%, (59% to 54% within MA 2.1), there is an abundance (approximately 85%) of mature age class across the WMNF landscape (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) available as habitat to MIS scarlet tanager. As shown in Table 3.33, Alternative 2 would create the most regeneration-age habitat. This alternative has the most units larger than 9 acres that would provide more species with preferred habitat. Alternative 3 would create regeneration-age habitat but with more openings in the patch cut size and fewer openings larger than 9 acres. Alternative 4 would create the least amount of regeneration-age habitat among the action

216 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment alternatives. All alternatives would move in the desired direction of the Forest Plan by creating habitat diversity, however Alternative 2 would achieve the desired amount of regeneration-age habitat, and habitat diversity better than the other alternatives.

Site conditions in openings would be hotter and drier for about 2 to 4 years after cutting (Fay et al., 1994). This could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as red- backed salamander (DeMaynadier and Hunter, 1998). Individual salamanders in large unshaded openings would not likely survive. Amphibians and small mammals in newly created openings also might be more vulnerable to predation. This would be partially mitigated by leaving reserve groups of trees (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). Increased browse and soft mast (berries) in clearcuts would attract species within a few years after harvest. There would likely be an increase in insects, small mammals, and certain species of birds, and mammals such as fox, white-tailed deer, black bear, and moose would inhabit these areas for all or part of the year (Costello et al., 2000; Fuller and DeStefano, 2003; King et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 2001). Some stands are on ecological land types (ELTs) that indicate the vegetation would be of another type if not for past harvest actions. Where ELTs indicate the stand would be different, harvest proposals are planned that would result in this habitat type. Most harvest methods proposed to achieve this result are group selection, singletree selection and a mix of these methods. Commercial thinning is conducted to increase the value of the residual stand. In this project, commercial thinning is proposed on the same units at the same acreage (132 acres) for all three action alternatives and would have similar effects to wildlife across the three alternatives. Thinning would not change habitat (forest) type or age class and therefore would not alter the HMU. Single tree selection harvest and group selection harvest is proposed for some northern hardwood stands and could alter the forest type. These harvest methods would maintain the mature character of the existing stands and retain interior forest characteristics for species such as ovenbirds or thrush species (MacFadden and Capen, 2000; Yamasaki et al., 2000a; Holmes and Pitt, 2007). Some mature trees would be removed to allow the residual trees room to increase volume. For commercial thinning there would be no conversion to other community types. Under single tree selection or group selection harvest there could be a conversion to a different forest type and therefore habitat type. Wildlife would experience minimum indirect effects in these units but there would be an increase of daylight to the forest floor.

217 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Effects of the NE Swift River Project on Northeast Swift River HMU River Swift Northeast on Project River Swift NE the of Effects Table 3.33 - Table

218 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Over the short term there may be a more open understory that would benefit species such as northern goshawks. In single tree selection or group harvests, ground vegetation would increase thereby supplying forage or hiding/nesting cover to a variety of wildlife species. Habitat would be retained in all of these harvest units for scarlet tanager (MIS) in northern hardwood units and blackburnian warblers in softwood units with little to no effect on the population.

Mixedwood and Softwood Habitats

Mixedwood stands contain a mixture of both northern hardwood and softwood species. The analysis of the HMU (Table 3.30) indicates an overabundance of existing mature mixedwood, northern hardwood habitat and softwood. The objective as described in the Forest Plan is to convert some of the mixedwood acres to spruce/fir where soils indicate this should be the forest type. The WMNF has the potential to provide more softwood habitat than currently exists (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). One of the goals of the 2005 Forest plan is to increase the amount of softwood on the forest. Softwood provides habitat for a variety of wildlife, particularly during winter when thermal cover assists in survival. The eastern portion of the NE Swift River HMU is part of the Red Eagle deer yard (USDA Forest Service, 2005c, 2009d, and 2010e). Deer are known to congregate or “yard” in softwood areas or southfacing slopes because the softwood cover reduces the snow depth and increases thermal cover. South-facing slopes collect solar gain on sunny winter days. In addition red oak makes up a high component of this area and provides hard mast for forage. Softwood cover juxtaposed near mast producing trees is an ideal habitat for wintering deer. Maintaining softwood in this area is vital to deer as well as numerous other species such as red squirrels, rodents, and birds that feast on seeds within cones. An overstory removal harvest is a type of regeneration harvest, however young softwood currently exists in these softwood units (Unit 49, 64, and 65). These stands may not be classed as 0-9 years post harvest due to the existing regeneration. HMU results would show these acres to convert from a mature age class to a young age class within the HMU. The habitat would be suitable for species such as snowshoe hare and magnolia warbler (MIS for regeneration-age softwoods). Group selection harvest creates small openings up to 2 acres in size. The size group is determined by the desired tree species to regenerate. Softwood species appear to regenerate best with some soil scarification along with dappled sunlight. Groups of ¼ acre in size have been the typical size proposed to achieve softwood regeneration.

219 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Where aspen/birch or other hardwood species would be desired, larger group openings around 1 to 2 acres would be proposed (Groot et al, 2009; Leak, 1999). Larger group cuts (2 acres) would result in small patches of regeneration habitat intermixed with patches of mature habitat. While these patches might be used by bird species that favor regeneration habitat, research has shown that small patches of regeneration habitat do not provide quality habitat for this group of species (Costello et al, 2000; King et al, 2001; King and DeGraaf, 2004; Schlossberg and King, 2008.). This would not add to the desired regeneration age condition of the HMU, but may have a minor benefit to individuals of a species. Wildlife requiring vegetative forage, nesting or hiding cover would find these areas suitable. Group selection might increase edge habitat within mature forest resulting in higher predation rates on nests of forest birds (King et al., 1998 and 2001). Over the long term an uneven-aged stand containing all sizes and ages of trees would develop and wildlife preferring a mature-age stand would continue to find the area suitable. Where groups are small and softwood is promoted, immediate effects to wildlife is primarily in the shrub habitat that would grow within the small opening. Expectation is softwoods would tolerate the high amount of shade and regenerate. Species that prefer forage, nesting or hiding cover would utilize these areas. Compared to the No Action Alternative, group selection harvest would remove small groups of trees, but overall retain a canopied, interior forest condition in the stand. This management system requires entries on a 15-year average and results in a more frequent level of disturbance such as soil compaction, human presence, etc. that may have impacts on individuals of ground-dwelling species. Tops left on the ground would provide immediate though temporary forage for browse-eating species whose home range overlaps these units, while stump sprouting would provide browse for several years after harvest.

Single tree selection is the removal of individual trees across the harvest unit to create an uneven-age stand or a stand with all sizes and age classes of trees. There would be little indirect change immediately after the harvest. A mature stand would remain. There would be a reduction of hardwood trees and perhaps a decrease of wildlife species that prefer mixedwoods over softwoods. Scarlet tanagers prefer mature hardwood stands but utilize mixedwood stands. Converting the stand to softwood may reduce the number of tanagers utilizing these acres however blackburnian warblers may find these same acres more desirable over the long term.

220 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The objective is to maintain canopy cover while scarifying soil in some areas along with increasing sunlight to the forest floor in order to promote uneven-age stands or a stand that contains all ages and sizes of mostly softwood trees. Under this harvest method the expectation is the hardwood would be the primary target for removal and red spruce, balsam fir and hemlock would remain as well as regenerate. The reduction of the hardwood component causes the forest type to convert to softwood. It may take several harvest entries (approximately 15 to 20 years apart) to fully achieve the dense, uneven- age structure desired. These stands would provide softwood habitat that is desired by white-tailed deer for winter cover as well as the magnolia warbler (MIS for regenerating softwood habitat) along with many other species such as red squirrel and American marten. These treatments would remove some mature trees and release the understory to create more vertical structure and layers. In NE Swift River this would convert approximately 63 acres in this HMU from mixedwood to softwood habitat (Table 3) under any of the action alternatives with long-term benefits to species desiring mature softwood habitat such as blackburnian and magnolia warblers (MIS). The 996 acres of proposed group selection with individual tree selection harvests would maintain the mature character of the existing stands. Under Alternative 3 there would be 1035 acres managed this way and under Alternative 4 there would be 986 acres managed using these methods. Under all alternatives 190 acres of this would be within northern hardwoods. Softwoods would be increased on the remaining acres benefitting many species that utilize softwood habitat and cover. All of these treatments would create disturbance and open the canopy to partial sunlight. There would be minor changes to shading of the forest floor. The result would be to diversify stand structure and increase understory vegetation and browse availability for wildlife. Wildlife species preferring a closed canopy, dead trees or softwood cover (DeGraaf, 1992) would expect to be favored by these treatments compared to other harvest methods. All of the action alternatives increase softwood and reduce mature mixedwood and northern hardwood in the NE Swift River HMU almost to the same degree.

221 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Aspen/birch Habitat

A minimum of 10 harvest units (20,50, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 83, 87, 88) have the potential to be converted to aspen/birch. Units 68 to 73 are also on ELTs that would promote aspen/birch however proposed harvest prescriptions promote softwoods on these units. Currently no stands of aspen/birch exist within the HMU. Alternative 2 would create 120 acres of regeneration-age aspen/birch. Early successional paper birch is used by approximately 150 species of wildlife (DeGraaf, 1992). Clear-cutting has been shown to be the best method to regenerate and establish paper birch and aspen (Perala 1990; Safford and Jacobs, 1983; DeGraaf, 1992; Perala and Alm, 1990).

The potential for either of these species to become established increases whereever clearcuts are created. ELTs on some units may not favor aspen/birch, however the likelihood this species would become a component of the stand increases. There may not be enough of either species to be classified as an aspen-birch forest type, but many species of wildlife would find the presence of these species within other forest types beneficial. Several units (68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73) have the potential to produce paper birch as well as softwood. Increasing aspen/birch even as a component of a stand enhances the habitat for wildlife that utilizes aspen and birch. Creation of new stands of aspen/birch would offset the decline of this habitat occurring across the forest because of the reduction of clearcutting that occurred over the past decade (USDA Forest Service, 2009e). Alternative 3 would create the most acres (124) of this habitat type with Alternative 2 creating almost as much (1209). Alternative 4 would create just 8 acres.

Hemlock Habitat

Ninety-six bird and forty-seven mammal species are associated with the hemlock type in the northeastern United States (Yamasaki et al., 2000b). The Forest objective is to maintain less common habitat types such as hemlock on the Forest where ecologically feasible (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Successful regeneration of eastern hemlock involves a complex process that includes a reliable source of seed, a suitable seedbed, a partially shaded environment, and several years of favorable moisture (Goerlich, 1999). Harvest prescriptions where hemlock is present typically maintain canopy cover while scarifying soil in some areas along with increasing sunlight to the forest floor to enhance softwood regeneration. The component of red spruce, balsam fir and hemlock would increase and continue to provide softwood habitat for white-tailed deer winter cover and for many other species such as red squirrel, snowshoe hare and American marten.

222 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose to clearcut a stand (Unit 19) that contains a component of hemlock. Regeneration of hemlock may not occur in this unit unless several favorable conditions are present. Alternative 3 proposes a group selection harvest in this unit. This option may result in a higher degree of hemlock regeneration but reduces the amount of early-successional habitat created.

Oak-Pine Habitat

The Forest objective is to maintain less common habitat types such as oak-pine on the Forest where ecologically feasible (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Oak/pine stands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species associated with both softwoods and northern hardwood. The oak component of this habitat, in combination with beech in northern hardwood areas, also provides hard mast that is essential to a variety of wildlife species as a fall food component. The deer in the Red Eagle deer wintering area rely on oak mast to sustain them through the winter months. Mature oak/pine is used by approximately 150 species of wildlife (DeGraaf et al., 2006). Alternative 2 and 3 are identical in their proposals for these stands and therefore this habitat type. Under both of these Alternatives, Unit 43 would have a shelterwood harvest resulting in a basal area of approximately 50. The vernal pool near this unit would have the 25’ no-cut area and the shelterwood harvest within the 75’ outside the 25’ no-cut zone. The Forest Plan states uneven-age habitat should be applied within the 75’ zone (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-24 to 2-25) and the shelterwood method is considered an even-age harvest method. The overall intent of the Forest Plan regarding vernal pools is to “maintain a continuous forest canopy” within 100’ of the vernal pool. Reducing the BA to 50 would retain a canopied cover and therefore would have minimal effects to the vernal pool or species dwelling within it. Alternative 4 would defer harvest in Unit 43 and therefore eliminates an opportunity to regenerate a portion of this habitat type in this HMU. Units 31, 32, 43, 44, would be managed to promote red oak using group selection, singletree selection, seed tree harvest with reserves and shelterwood harvest along with several treatments post harvest. The objective is to retain most oak stems to maintain mast/seed production while opening up the stand to promote oak regeneration. Monitoring post harvest would be conducted to determine oak regeneration success as well as if additional treatments that may enhance oak seedling survival are required.

223 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

WMNF MIS would be affected differently by all of the proposed alternatives. None of the alternatives proposed in the NE Swift project would adversely affect population trends and viability of WMNF MIS within the forest-wide planning area. Direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 on MIS are discussed in the previous section. Project effects to MIS are summarized in Table 3.30 below. Alternative 2 would create the greatest diversity of habitat types and age classes for MIS (Figure 3.25). Alternative 3 would create almost as much diversity as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would not create the degree of diversity as in the other two action alternatives, nor would it establish the aspen birch habitat type. In addition, Alternative 4 would not diversify oak/pine or softwood habitat age classes as much as Alternative 2 or 3. Some northern hardwood regeneration age class would be created under Alternative 4, but not to levels that would meet Forest Plan goals. Habitat for scarlet tanagers would be maintained by Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, with Alternative 4 retaining the most acres. Habitat for chestnut sided warblers would be created under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, with Alternative 2 creating the most openings 10 acres or larger. Although Alternative 3 would produce the greatest number of small openings (<10 acres in size), research indicates that these smaller openings may not be as beneficial as the larger openings to species that prefer early successional habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would initiate development of the aspen/birch community, which would benefit ruffed grouse. Over time, as successive age classes of aspen/birch develop, many additional species of wildlife would benefit. Blackburnian warblers would benefit about equally under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, since there is only about 30 acres or less difference between these alternatives in the amount of softwood habitat created and hemlock retained (Table 3.30). Magnolia warblers would benefit about equally under Alternative 2 or 3, however there would be a lost opportunity to regenerate softwoods under Alternative 4.

224 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Project Effects to MIS Having Probability of Occurrence in NE Swift HMU Swift NE in Occurrence of Probability Having MIS to Effects Project

– 4 Table 3.3

225 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Ecological Indicators

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 do not propose to alter existing cliffs or the recreational activity of rock climbing, therefore they would not directly alter habitat for peregrine falcons. Rockclimbing is expected to increase in occurrence over the next 10 years, and may impact peregrine falcons. Monitoring of peregrine activity and nest success should continue. Monitoring of cliff vegetation would also indicate impacts to resource characteristics in peregrine habitat.

Fragmentation

Fragmentation occurs when large blocks of similar habitat are broken up or separated by different types of habitat, and can negatively impact species associated with one habitat type. An example of habitat fragmentation would be a woodlot of forested land surrounded by agricultural lands. The White Mountain National Forest and most surrounding private land are well-forested. Less than half of the WMNF is open to timber harvesting. Research has found no evidence of the negative aspects of forest fragmentation exhibited in isolated forest environments in large forested areas where active timber harvesting occurs and creates temporary unforested habitat (Askins et al., 1990; Askins, 1993; DeGraaf and Healy, 1988; Welsh and Healy, 1993; Villard et. al, 2007). No fragmentation would occur under Alternative 1 as no harvest would occur. Harvest would occur under all of the action alternatives. Alternative 2 proposes the largest amount of clear-cut, patch cut, seed tree and group selection harvest acres. Alternative 3 proposes fewer clearcuts, more patch cuts and the same number of seed tree and group harvest acres. Alternative 4 proposes the fewest acres of these treatments. In this project, mature timber would only be removed from proposed harvest areas, leaving large blocks of mature timber remaining in untreated areas and on unmanaged lands (non MA 2.1) within the HMU.

The Forest Plan selected American marten to evaluate effects on landscape-scale fragmentation (USDA Forest Service, 2005b). Marten in the Northeast U.S. show no preference for mature coniferous stands (Payer and Harrison, 1999). Marten may avoid clearcut areas, however clearcuts are defended as part of their home territory. Where some structure such as snags, wildlife trees, reserve areas, downed logs, slash, etc. would be retained within an opening, marten may utilize these areas (Kelly, 2005). Forest Plan Standards and guidelines provide for retention of mature trees, snags, etc. within clearcut units. Mature, canopy-covered forests are an essential part of a marten’s

226 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

home range, however structure may be more important. All of the action alternatives retain a large amount of mature forest within the NE Swift River HMU thereby providing American marten with suitable habitat and avoiding fragmentation. Marten are increasing in numbers on the WMNF (Kelly, 2005; NHFG, 2006b) indicating that habitat fragmentation is not occurring. Brown-headed cowbirds are also indicators of habitat fragmentation. Surveys for brown-headed cowbirds have shown this species is not dispersing to the interior portions of the forest (Yamasaki et al, 2000a) and none have been observed during project monitoring on previously harvested areas (USDA Forest Service, 2010c). The NE Swift project proposal would maintain suitable habitat for several forest interior bird species sensitive to habitat fragmentation, such as the scarlet tanager (MIS), blackburnian warbler (MIS) wood thrush and ovenbird.

Table 3.35 - Project Effects to Ecological Indicator Species Occurring in NE Swift HMU EFFECTS EFFECTS Ecological DETERMINATIONS DETERMINATIONS RATIONALE Indicator Species ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1 2, 3 & 4 Peregrine falcon No changes would Project Proposed recreation Falco peregrinus occur as no projects implementation projects do not alter anatum would be would not impact rock climbing implemented. cliff face. activities in the project area. Monitoring of the peregrine aerie will continue. American Marten No fragmentation Harvest would not Mature habitat Martes Americana would occur as no create fragmentation remains the projects would be to the degree marten dominant age class implemented would be impacted. under all alternatives.

227 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Public comments have expressed concerns about the creation of "edge" habitat resulting from even-age harvest methods implemented in past vegetation management projects on the WMNF. Clear-cutting creates an edge along the harvest unit boundary. Research has shown this "edge" effect created by clear-cutting in New England forests is short- term, lasting only a few years until the clearcut attains some vertical height (DeGraaf, 1991). No distinct bird communities are associated with these edges. (DeGraaf, 1991).

Species of Concern

Northern goshawks have been observed at several locations within the HMU during their nesting season. Concern exists for goshawks because of their association with large tracts of forested land (Yamasaki and Costello, 2005). As stated above, all alternatives would retain a large amount of mature forest within the HMU and would thereby retain suitable habitat for northern goshawks. The Forest Plan states all active raptor nests are to be protected. All goshawk observations within the project area would be surveyed for nest presence.

Comparison Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

The No Action alternative allows for existing mature forests to continue with natural succession to climax forest types, but would not increase habitat diversity over the next 10 years without a natural disturbance. The wildlife strategy under the Forest Plan is to provide a diversity of habitat types across the forest. Under this premise, all of the action alternatives increase habitat diversity. Alternatives 2 and 3 are about equal in the amount of habitat diversity created. Regeneration-age habitat is created via larger clear cuts in Alternative 2 (preferable to wildlife) while Alternative 3 has more patch cuts. Alternative 4 would create the least amount of diversity over the next 10 years. Alternative 2 would create the highest amount of habitat and species diversity and move the furthest towards attaining the wildlife habitat goals described in the HMU Rationale (USDA Forest Service, 2010g) as well as the overall wildlife goals described in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-20 to 1-22). Alternatives 3 and 4 move in the desired direction regarding the wildlife strategy of the Forest Plan but neither one would attain the level of habitat diversity needed to meet HMU habitat goals.

228 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.26 – Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat and Age Class

229 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Comparison of Effects to Wildlife Resources NE Swift project Swift NE Resources Wildlife to of Effects Comparison

Table 3.36 Table

230 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects

The area chosen for analysis of cumulative effects of all alternatives analyzed in this project on wildlife species and habitat is the entire HMU (10,400 acres), as well as the small area of private lands scattered in the Pasaconaway area and along the Swift River. This analysis area was selected because the HMU is used as a tracking tool for habitat changes and incorporates all Management Areas, including those where stand-altering management would not occur. Since this HMU is surrounded by National Forest land, effects from activities on commercial lands would be unlikely to occur. The time period used for analysis of cumulative effects of all alternatives analyzed in this project on wildlife species and habitat is 10 years in the past through 10 years into the future, i.e. from 2002 to 2022, and was based upon the assumption that proposed harvest activities in this project would commence in 2012. This time frame was selected because it incorporates the 0-9 year regeneration age class and it is the estimated time between the completion of this entry and the next entry to manage habitat in this HMU. Past projects within the NE Swift River HMU are described in Appendix C, and include the following: • Bear Timber Sale, • land acquisition in the vicinity of South Moat Trailhead, and • trail construction and footbridge relocation at Falls Pond Scenic Area. No timber harvest projects are planned on National Forest lands within the North East Swift River HMU in the foreseeable future. It is possible that within the next 10 years some timber harvest will occur on private inholdings within the HMU, however no Notices of Intent for timber harvest have been received by the town of Albany to date. Ongoing actions include recreation use, which is heavy in this HMU during all seasons and expected to increase over the next 10 years. There are currently no recreational projects being proposed in this HMU in the foreseeable future.

Alternative 1 (No Action) No direct or indirect effects, and consequently no cumulative effects, on any wildlife species and/or habitat occurring within the HMU would result from any new management activities, because none would occur under Alternative 1. The mature habitat already existing on two thirds of the HMU would continue to expand, and wildlife habitat diversity and species biodiversity within the HMU would continue to

231 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

decline.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Habitat created from the Bear Timber sale was incorporated into the HMU analysis for all Alternatives. Of the 133 acres of regeneration-age habitat created under this project, 58 acres would move into the young age-class in 2012. Another 50 acres would succeed into the young age class in 2014 and the last 25 acres would succeed in 2015. In addition, 100 acres of northern hardwood young would succeed into the mature age class and 22 acres of young mixedwood would succeed into the mature age class. Therefore under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 habitat diversity would continue to change within this HMU over the next 10 years as current age classes succeed into older age classes.

By 2016, assuming implementation of one of the Alternatives is completed, the habitat diversity of this HMU would appear as indicated in the following table.

Table 3.37 - Effects of the NE Swift River Project on Northeast Swift River HMU

Forest TOTAL MA 2.1 Regeneration Young Mature Type Acres Acres Acres Acres E D Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 NH 2696 2150 2527 2523 2619 252 196 114 657 657 657 1618 1670 1845

Mxd 1528 800 1358 1338 1375 56 24 42 130 130 130 1172 1184 1203

Being no other projects are proposed into his area and little private land and no commercial land is within the HMU, no other cumulative effects would occur

Climate Change

The WMNF has used sustainable ecosystem management 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, however 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 NE Swift Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2002-2022). Thus, climate change is not expected to affect wildlife resources or whether any of the alternatives described in this analysis document achieves the desired outcomes.

232 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Rare Communities

Affected Environment A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TEP), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) was completed for all Alternatives proposed for the NE Swift project in the Northeast Swift River HMU (Starke and Mattrick, 2011). The process used and the sources examined to determine potential occurrence of TEP or RFSS presence are listed in the BE. During Forest Plan Revision, best available science was used to evaluate TEPS/RFSS species and species viability. The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list was updated in December 2011 for Region 9 that includes the White Mountain National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2011a). Information gathered during the species viability analysis was used in updating the WMNF RFSS list (USDA Forest Service, 2006a). The BE for this project incorporates by reference information on species viability (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, Appendix F; USDA Forest Service, 2005d) and TEPS/RFSS species used during Forest Plan revision including the Biological Evaluation of the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005b, Appendix G). Based on a review of all available information, it was the District Biologist’s determination that potential habitat may occur within the Project Area for one Federally Threatened Species (Canada lynx) and fifteen Regional Forester Sensitive Species (eastern small-footed myotis, northern bog lemming, American peregrine falcon, Brown’s ameletid mayfly, third ameletid mayfly, boulder beach tiger beetle, warpaint emerald, Bailey’s sedge, piled-up sedge, autumn coralroot, Goldie’s woodfern, northern adder’s tongue, American ginseng, silverling, and nodding pogonia. The Analysis Area for direct and indirect effects to TEPS/RFSS is the Project Area, including stands proposed for treatment and the connected actions that facilitate treatment (roads, landings, etc.) along with the proposals for trail relocation, reconstruction, and watershed improvement. The Analysis Area for cumulative effects to TEPS/RFSS is the WMNF and the lands within the Northeast Swift River HMU and private lands in or abutting the project area. The temporal scale used for this analysis is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future (2002 -2022) as this captures the 0-9 year

233 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

old age class to assess early successional habitat and it is the approximate duration of the Forest Plan and therefore the time that many actions are foreseeable.

Effects Determination and Rationale Federally Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEP) Canada Lynx Determination: There would be no direct effect to Canada lynx under any of the Alternatives. All of the action alternatives would improve lynx habitat and would therefore have an indirect beneficial effect.

Rationale:

• There has been no evidence of lynx occurring within the project area therefore no direct effects would be anticipated in any alternative.

• Two Canada lynx tracks have been reported from the northern section of the WMNF; one on January 26, 2006 and one on March 21, 2006 (NHFG 2006c). At this time these are the only two confirmed reports of lynx on the WMNF in the past several decades. There is currently not enough information to determine number of individuals, if they are transient or resident, or whether or not they occur elsewhere on the WMNF.

• Communication between WMNF and USFWS is current and ongoing. • Softwood habitat would be maintained in Alternative 1 and enhanced under all Action Alternatives.

• Snowshoe hare foraging habitat would be maintained in Alternative 1 and increased under all Action Alternatives

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) Eastern Small-Footed Myotis (Bat) Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact and that the Action Alternatives may impact individual eastern small-footed myotis but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

234 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Rationale:

• Small-footed myotis have been documented on the WMNF. None have been documented within the NE Swift River HMU however suitable habitat is present.

• Harvesting trees should have minimal impacts on summer roosting habitat, as recent literature indicates that eastern small-footed myotis roost under rocks or hillsides and open ridges, in cracks and crevices in rocky outcrops and on talus slopes, as well as in buildings (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, Appendix G, p. 224-227; Erdle and Hobson, 2001; Veilleux, 2005, 2006, 2007). The likelihood that individual bats are roosting in trees in the Project Area is considered low.

• Prescribed fire that would occur when bats might be present could cause some temporary disturbance to roosting bats. Smoke could directly affect a roosting bat if it was in or near the burn area by displacing an individual or causing direct mortality. Effects would be of minimal duration as the fire would last less than one day.

• The amount of harvest proposed in this project and cumulatively across the Forest would not alter suitable habitat enough to cause a noticeable change in small-footed bat populations, especially if this species prefers rock ledges, outcrops and talus slopes.

• The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USFS 2005a, p. 1-20, 1- 21, 2- 24 to 26, and 2-33 to 2-36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that high quality summer habitat is maintained for eastern small- footed myotis to find adequate food, cover, roost sites, water, and other needs to survive and successfully reproduce on the Forest.

Little Brown Bat

This species was recently added to the Regional Foresters’ Sensitive Species list because of the recent population decline from White Nose Syndrome.

235 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact. Any of the Action Alternatives would have no impact if implemented between September 15 and May 15; otherwise Action Alternatives may impact individual little brown bats but would not likely adversely impact or cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species.

Rationale:

• Little brown bats would not be present and therefore not impacted if implementation were conducted between September 15 and May 15. September 15 has been selected because surveys conducted on the WMNF have indicated bat activity up to this date.

• The amount of tree removal proposed in this project and cumulatively across the forest would not alter suitable habitat enough to cause a noticeable change in little brown bat populations.

• The time period of highest risk is a maximum of 3 weeks when the young are unable to fly.

• Little brown bats continue to be the most common bat on the WMNF (USDA 2010b). • The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2005a, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24-26 and 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for little brown bats.

• The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines regarding reserve areas and wildlife trees were based on similar direction and approved by the USFWS as suitable mitigation for the Indiana bat, a federally listed tree roosting bat. (USDA 2005a).

• White nose syndrome is the greatest threat to this species. To date, no correlation between forest management activities and white nose syndrome have been documented.

236 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Northern Long-Eared Bat

This species has also been impacted by the outbreak of White Nose Syndrome and was recently added to the Regional Foresters’ Sensitive Species list.

Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact. Any of the Action Alternatives would have no impact if implemented between September 15 and May 15; otherwise any of the Action Alternatives may impact individual northern long-eared bats but would not likely adversely impact or cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species.

Rationale:

• Northern long-eared bats would not be present and therefore not impacted if implementation were conducted between September 15 and May 15. September 15 has been selected because surveys conducted on the WMNF have indicated bat activity up to this date.

• The potential exists that northern long-eared bats could be roosting in trees selected for removal however that potential is extremely small when the size of the project area in relation to the suitable habitat across the forest is considered.

• The time period of risk is a maximum of 4 weeks when the young are unable to fly. As roosts are changed often, the adult female has the ability to relocate the young for a portion of this time, reducing the potential period of risk.

• The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2005a., Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24-26 and 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for little brown bats.

• The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines regarding reserve areas and wildlife trees were approved by the USFWS as suitable mitigation for the Indiana bat, a federally listed tree roosting bat. (USDA 2005a.).

• White nose syndrome is the greatest threat to this species. To date, no correlation between forest management activities and white nose syndrome have been documented.

237 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Tri-Colored Bat

Formerly called the Eastern Pipistrelle bat, this species has also been impacted by the outbreak of White Nose Syndrome and was recently added to the Regional Foresters’ Sensitive Species list.

Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact. Any of the Action Alternatives would have no impact if implemented between September 15 and May 15; otherwise any of the Action Alternatives may impact individual tricolored bats but would not likely adversely impact or cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species.

Rationale

• Tri-colored bats would not be present and therefore not impacted if implementation were conducted after September 15. September 15 has been selected because surveys conducted on the WMNF have indicated bat activity up to this date.

• The potential exists that Tri-colored bats could be roosting in trees selected for removal however that potential is relatively small given these bats prefer roosts that attain solar gain and are considered very uncommon to rare on the WMNF.

• Being this species prefers habitat that includes non-forested habitat or openings, the proposed harvest may create suitable habitat.

• The time period of risk is a maximum of 3 weeks when the young are unable to fly. The adult female has the ability to relocate the young for a portion of this time, reducing the potential period of risk.

• White nose syndrome is the greatest threat to this species. To date, no correlation between forest management activities and white nose syndrome have been documented.

238 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Northern Bog Lemming Determination:

Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact and that the Action Alternatives may impact individual northern bog lemmings but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Northern bog lemmings are extremely rare in New England. The likelihood of an individual occurring in the project area or cumulative effects analysis area is considered low however suitable habitat is present and no surveys were conducted because a positive identification requires killing of the animal...

• Identifiable riparian habitat or wet areas are usually excluded from harvest units minimizing the risk of disturbing an individual animal or associated habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

• The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2005a) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for northern bog lemming.

• State guidelines provide sustainable management recommendations to private landowners managing their lands for timber (SPNHF, 1997). These guidelines should provide protection for wetlands on private lands for habitat that might be used by northern bog lemming.

239 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

American Peregrine Falcon Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on American peregrine falcon. Any of the Action Alternatives may have a beneficial impact on individual peregrine falcons by diversifying the prey base in the area but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• There is one aerie site within the Project Area that has been used by peregrine falcons for the past several decades.

• The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1- 20 to 1- 21, 2-33 to 2-34) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest may increase availability of different types of prey for this species over time and ensure that a suitable prey base is available for falcons should they occupy the cliff sites in the future. Some types of harvest on private land also might diversify the prey base for this species.

• Occupied aeries have increased on or near Forest lands and in the State of NH and have successfully fledged young (Martin, 2010).

• The level of timber harvest and associated activities that have occurred on the Forest and adjacent private lands in this area have not had an adverse effect on occupancy and nesting of peregrine falcons in the area.

Brown’s Ameletid Mayfly Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Brown’s ameletid mayfly. None of the Action Alternatives would impact Brown’s ameletid mayfly and therefore would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale: Brown’s ameletid mayfly has been documented in the headwaters of Douglas Brook above all proposed harvest units and activities.

• The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-24 to 2-26, 2-33 to 2-34) protects perennial streams from increased sedimentation by maintaining a 25-foot no-harvest buffer and a wider Riparian

240 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Management Zone with limited harvest (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-24 to 2- 25).

• Harvest activities are not expected to alter the pH, canopy, cover, gradient, etc. of Douglas Brook.

Third Ameletid Mayfly Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact on third ameletid mayfly. All Action Alternatives may impact individual third ameletid mayflies but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Third ameletid mayfly has not been documented within the project area (Chandler, 2009) however not all suitable habitat has been surveyed.

• The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 2-24 to 2-26, 2-33 to 2-34) protects perennial streams from increased water temperature and sedimentation by maintaining a 25-foot no-harvest buffer and a wider Riparian Management Zone with limited harvest (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 2-24 to 2-25).

• The potential and probability for A. tertius to recolonize if negatively affected is very high (Chandler, 2008).

Boulder Beach Tiger Beetle Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact on boulder beach tiger beetle. All Action Alternatives may impact individuals of this species but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Boulder beach tiger beetle has not been documented in the Swift River watershed during surveys conducted over the past 3 years however suitable habitat is present (Chandler, 2010).

• Adults prefer unvegetated sandy shores such as gravel bars. Larvae are completely terrestrial. (USDA Forest Service, 2001b).

241 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Warpaint Emerald Determination:

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Warpaint Emerald Dragonflies. All Action Alternatives may impact individuals of this species but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Rationale:

• Warpaint Emerald dragonflies may not be as scarce as believed to be (USDA, 2004). • This species has not been documented within the Project Area however it has been documented within 3 miles of the Project Area and suitable habitat exists within the Project Area.

Bailey’s Sedge (Carex baileyi) Determination:

Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact and all Action Alternatives may impact individual plants of Bailey’s sedge but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Bailey’s sedge is on the northern edge of its range in New England and may be naturally rare here being suitable habitat appears plentiful. (USDA Forest Service, 2003).

242 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• There are three recores of Bailey’s sedge on the Forest, one historic in NH, one current in NH, and one undocumented observation in ME. None of these locations are within the HMU. The likelihood of this species occurring in the Project Area is low however suitable habitat is present.

• Plant surveys did not identify this species in the project area

• The State of New Hampshire provides guidelines to private landowners to protect wetlands during active timber harvesting (SPNHF, 1997).

• Forest Plan standards and guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats and protect wet areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Roadside ditches, log landings, and wildlife openings would continue to provide suitable habitat for this species even if harvest occurs.

Piled-Up Sedge (Carex cumulata) Determination: Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact on piled-up sedge. All of the Action Alternatives may indirectly impact piled-up sedge and/or its habitat but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Piled-up sedge was not observed during botanical surveys of the project area however sedges are difficult to distinguish from each other, this species likes disturbance that has occurred within the Project Area and suitable habitat is present.

• The WMNF lies in the center of this species’ range however oak-pine forests tend to exist on the southern portion of the Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2002b).

• Prescribed fire to maintain oak-pine habitats may increase habitat suitability in the Project Area (USDA Forest Service, 2002b).

• Increase of recreational use particularly on rocky summits and outcrops will continue to degrade suitable habitat for this species (USDA Forest Service, 2002b).

243 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Autumn Coralroot (Corallorhiza odontorhiza) Determination: Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact and all Action Alternatives may impact individual plants of Autumn coral-root but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Autumn-coral root was not observed during botanical surveys of the project area however suitable habitat is present.

• The WMNF is on the northern edge of the range for autumn coralroot and was not observed during surveys of the NE Swift Project Area (USDA Forest Service, 2005f).

• The orchid may be naturally rare being suitable habitat appears plentiful (USDA Forest Service, 2005f).

• Autumn coralroot does not erupt every year (USDA Forest Service, 2005f). • Forest Plan standards and guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats and protect wet areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

Goldie’s Woodfern (Dryopteris goldiana) Determination: Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact and all Action Alternatives may impact individual plants of Goldie’s woodfern but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• The known population does not occur within any proposed harvest unit or near any proposed project activity.

• This fern appears to require only a small patch of suitable habitat to maintain viability (USDA Forest Service, 2002c) and other areas of suitable habitat are present.

• Goldie’s woodfern can tolerate open conditions as long as moisture is retained (USDA Forest Service, 2002c).

• Forest Plan standards and guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats and protect wet areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

244 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Northern Adder’s Tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum) Determination: Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact and all Action Alternatives may impact individual plants of Northern Adder’s Tongue but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Suitable habitat does exist in multiple locations in the Project Area, primarily along overgrown skid trails, log landings, and portions of the margins of Forest Roads. This species has never been documented in the Project Area. Plant surveys in the Project Area did not discover any new populations (USDA Forest Service, 2005d; Mattrick and Schori, 2008).

• Roadside ditches, log landings, and open areas would continue to provide suitable habitat for this species (USDA Forest Service 2005d).

American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) Determination: In view of all the information available, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would have no impact on American ginseng and any of the Action Alternatives may impact individual American ginseng plants but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• American ginseng is known to occur within the HMU however however other suitable habitat exists within the HMU.

• Harvest units have already been situated to avoid all American ginseng populations known. If more is located during harvest, additional protective actions would be implemented.

• Forest Plan standards and guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats and protect highly enriched and wet areas (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

245 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

White Mountain Silverling (Paronychia argyrocoma) Determination: Based on review of available information, it is my determination that the No Action Alternative would not impact individuals of this species and/or degrade suitable habitat. Any of the Action Alternatives may impact individuals of this species but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Rationale:

• Silverling is known to occur on the rocky cliffs within the HMU.

• Silverling typically grows in little to no soil on rocky outcrops and ledges. Crevices and shallow depressions that collect small amounts of soil in exposed areas can easily be trampled by unknowing recreationists (Schori 2001).

• There is an abundant amount of suitable habitat on the WMNF, yet this species occupies only a small percentage of it and populations appear to be in decline.

• It could take hundreds of years before degraded habitat become suitable again for this plant.

• Prescribe fire is not expected to impact this species as it is outside the burn units, however an escaped prescribed burn or wildfire may impact individual plants or the population.

• There are no standards and guidelines specific to silverling in the Forest Plan though there are standards and guidelines for RFSS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, Appendix G, p. G-159). There is some direction under rock climbing to protect vegetation at the cliff edge.

Nodding Pogonia (Triphora trianthophora) Determination:

Based on review of the best available science, it is my determination that the No Action would have no impact and any of the action alternatives may impact individual plants of nodding pogonia but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Rationale:

• Habitat for nodding pogonia is plentiful on the Saco District. Suitable habitat for nodding pogonia would still exist after project implementation.

246 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Nodding pogonia is thriving elsewhere on the Forest where harvesting occurred (USDA Forest Service, 2010j).

• The harvest prescription in the unit where this plant exists is single-tree selection and previous harvest using this method has shown no detrimental effect.

• Nodding pogonia is relatively easily detectible when it is known what to look for. Otherwise this plant is very plain and easily overlooked. Populations are still being discovered on the WMNF

3.7 Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIS)

Affected Environment Three species of non-native invasive plants (NNIS) are known to occur within the Northeast Swift Project Area, spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) and Asiatic Honeysuckles (Lonicera tartarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella). Spotted knapweed - This species is found along roadsides and in openings across the forest and in the surrounding landscape. It crowds out native forbs and can contribute to erosion due to its poor root system. Treatment priority would be given to this species due to its currently limited distribution on the Forest.

Glossy buckthorn - Buckthorn can grow in full shade of a forest canopy. The leaves are still green well into fall, making that an ideal time to treat because they are easily recognized and most native plants are dormant. There are only a few sites currently known on the WMNF for both species, but infestations of glossy buckthorn are some of the largest NNIS infestations on the WMNF. Many private lands around the National Forest, particularly on the Saco Ranger District have infestations of this species.

Asiatic Honeysuckles - At least two out of the three species of Asiatic honeysuckle occur in woodlands and on the edge of the woods and in shade under a forest canopy. The leaves are still green well into fall, making that an ideal time to treat because they are easily recognized and most native plants are dormant. This is the second most widespread species on the Forest. Many private lands within and around the National Forest have larger infestations.

247 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for the Analysis

Determination of Risk

Forest Service Manual 2080 Chapter 44.6 (USDA Forest Service, 1995) outlines the process to determine the risk of NNIS introduction or spread as part of the NEPA process for proposed actions. Given the implementation of the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines for controlling the introduction or spread of NNIS, and the known NNIS populations in and around the Project Area, the overall risk rating assigned for the Northeast Swift Project is “moderate” (USDA Forest Service, 2009a). Roads

Roads increase the amount of forest-edge habitat on the landscape. The resulting “road- effect zone” can alter microclimates (e.g. increases in light and temperature and a decrease in relative humidity) and frequent and intense disturbance activities (maintenance and traffic), the combined effects of which tend to favor the growth of opportunistic NNIS (Parendes and Jones, 2000; Forman and Deblinger, 2000). Roads can also serve as major corridors for the dispersal of invasive plants through the spread of seed propagules (e.g. seeds or vegetative fragments) that attach to vehicles (e.g., tires and undercarriages) (Westbrooks, 1998; Parendes and Jones, 2000; Lonsdale and Lane 1994). Resulting weed infestations can extend from the road’s edge to 250 meters into the adjacent forest, or beyond (Saunders et al., 1991; Primack, 2000; Forman and Deblinger, 2000). A Wisconsin study found that non-natives were most prevalent within 15 meters of the road; however, a few species penetrated up to 150 meters into the adjoining hardwood forest (Watkins et al., 2003).

Skid trails Skid trails and haul roads within timber sales can serve as the primary conduits for non- native species for the same reasons outlined above. A study on managed forest landscapes in Upper Michigan found that understory plant richness was significantly greater in haul roads than in skid trails and forest, due in large part to a greater percentage of introduced species (Buckley et al., 2002). This increase in non-natives was due predominately to elevated levels of photosynthetically active radiation (a measure of light intensity), soil moisture, and compaction along the road edges. The discrepancy between haul roads and skid trails is likely due to improved conditions (e.g, graded and graveled) and increased traffic along the former. A study in Utah supports this

248 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

reasoning, finding that roadside habitats adjacent to paved and improved surface roads contain a greater cover of both exotic and native species than similar habitats adjacent to less-impacted four-wheel-drive tracks, a trend that extended well beyond the road cut into adjacent, interior plant communities (Gelbard and Belnap, 2003).

Riparian Areas

Several studies found that riparian areas that have high native species richness also have high non-native species richness, due to the availability of virtually unlimited resources (i.e. high levels of light and nutrients), as well as a relatively constant state of intermediate disturbance (via flooding and bank scouring) that results in continual structural and compositional changes (Stohlgren et al., 2001; Stohlgren et al., 1998; Planty-Tabacchi et al., 1996). Also, streams and rivers form a connected network throughout the landscape, thus facilitate the spread of both native and non-native species at a large geographical scale. Disturbance in and around riparian areas, would greatly increase the risk of introducing and spreading non-natives to these vulnerable ecological communities. The White Mountain National Forest has been working with The New England Wild Flower Society, and other organizations to determine locations of non-native invasive plant species, resulting in a list of invasive species that exist on or near the National Forest. The majority of locations observed have been on the perimeter of the National Forest, primarily along roads, highways and in developed areas such as towns, and residential and recreation areas. Only a single infestation of invasive plant species was discovered during project surveys. This infestation consisted of a single individual of glossy buckthorn. It was hand pulled by the observer and has not been observed again. A small number of discrete infestations of multiple invasive species were previously observed in the project area. In 2001, a single individual of spotted knapweed was found on the Bear Notch roadside. It was not observed during surveys and its current status is unknown. One plant of Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica) (more likely Lonicera x bella) was observed to the east of a large clearcut in 2001. This is likely the same plant described by Schori as follows: “A clump of honeysuckle at a junction of logging roads in stand 10 that was initially thought to be a possible invasive alien proved, on closer examination and comparison with other specimens, to be a somewhat untypically robust clump of Lonicera canadensis.” (Mattrick and Schori, 2008). The 2001 observation was misidentified

249 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

as a non-native honeysuckle, and is actually an atypical form of Lonicera canadensis – a native species.

Following completion of project surveys, two additional reports of NNIS have been submitted from this area. Both observations are for glossy buckthorn and occur within stands proposed for treatment. The full extent of each infestation is unknown. At least one infestation is described as quite abundant. The second infestation was only a single large individual.

These documented locations and other site-specific field reviews were used to evaluate the likelihood of NNIS spreading into the Project Area and the environmental consequences of their potential establishment. The Analysis Area for direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants is the Project Area, because this is where vehicles and equipment associated with the proposed project actions would have access and operate on the ground. These vehicles and equipment, as well as any gravel, seed and mulch brought to the Project Area from off- site are the most likely entry vectors for NNIS. Newly created or expanded forest openings, gravel pits, camping areas, trails, wildlife openings, roads, and log landings are also potential entry sites.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Continued recreation use and management of openings, roads, and trails would continue at historic levels. These activities may spread NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. The two areas with infestations of invasive plants and other known sites of NNIS would receive treatments to control these species under the authority of the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007a). Until such time that existing infestations are completely eradicated they would continue to persist and potentially spread vegetatively and via seed.

Alternatives 2, 3, &4

Under all of these alternatives, soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities has the potential to spread NNIS. This potential is greatest in the vicinity of existing infestations, but could occur in other areas due to long-distance seed dispersal via vehicles, equipment, wildlife and wind. Spread of NNIS would most likely be due to propagules or plant parts lodged in equipment transported to the site, or use of fill and

250 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment seed mixes containing NNIS propagules or plant parts during project activities. The most likely locations of these effects include areas of culvert removal, road construction and reconstruction, watershed restoration, trail (Nordic ski and hiking) relocation/construction, the development of new of log landings, haul roads, skid trails, and stands prescribed for even-aged regeneration harvest. These effects would be greatest during and for 1-2 years after the activity takes place, when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites and would decrease dramatically in subsequent years. These direct effects would be mitigated through the implementation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to NNIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-11 to 2- 12). In addition, the Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007a) and WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2010i) requires de novo monitoring, as well as follow up monitoring at active control locations. These control and monitoring activities would reduce the likelihood of project activities spreading NNIS and ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction relating to NNIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 2-11 to 2-12), however they would not eliminate all potential for spread of invasive plants within the project area. Indirect effects are most often due to NNIS propagules and plant parts being moved by wildlife, wind, or human activity after project activities have ceased. The potential for these indirect effects is greatest when ground disturbing activity is combined with large areas of substantial canopy removal. This would occur primarily with even aged regeneration harvests (clearcut, patch cut, etc.) and new log landing construction in this project. Foot and vehicle traffic traveling on newly developed trails and roadways would provide new migration routes for NNIS via tire and footwear treads. These actions may allow for the introduction of new species infestations into previously uninfested locations. Another potential indirect effect of the introduction and spread of NNIS would be competition with and displacement of native plant species, resulting in reduced species diversity and abundance. If infestations of NNIS occur at sites with threatened, endangered or sensitive species, this competition could lead to a reduction in vigor or loss of individuals or populations. Additionally, impairment of ecosystem function and reduction of preferred food and cover sources for various wildlife species could occur. Effects to recreational opportunities and enjoyment could also occur if NNIS become established along trail corridors. Trails could become overrun and impassable if infestations remain uncontrolled.

251 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Fire can be a mechanism of spread for some invasive plants species by stimulating the growth of dormant portions of the root systems; however it can also be a useful in controlling NNIS. There is a slight chance that application of prescribed fire would create suitable conditions for NNIS to be come established, however because areas located immediately adjacent to sites that would be burned are not currently infested, effects related to NNIS would be very unlikely.

Proposed road decommissioning and additions of existing unauthorized roads, as well as the obliteration of and construction of bog bridging and boardwalk on portions of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail, would decrease risk of NNIS introduction due to proposed relocation and subsequent re-vegetation of these locations.

The replacement of riprap and re-vegetation at several watershed restoration sites and the construction of a new parking area along Bear Notch Road could result in introduction of NNIS propagules in fill or construction material. Application of Forest Plan NNIS Standards and Guidelines would mitigate this risk. The new parking area is designed to re-direct existing roadside parking along the Bear Notch Road into a well designed, safe parking area, therefore indirect effects related to NNIS would be expected to result from this activity. The potential for direct and indirect effects related to NNIS resulting under Alternative 3 would be nearly identical to those under Alternative 2. Although reduced acres of prescribed fire are proposed under Alternative 3, NNIS populations are not present in the area proposed for fire, and therefore any corresponding reduction in the potential risk of NNIS introduction would be neglible. The difference in the amount of proposed harvest area between Alternatives 2 and 3 is also too small to have any measureable effect on the potential for NNIS introduction or expansion. The potential for NNIS introduction or migration would be reduced under Alternative 4 due to the elimination of regeneration harvests (clearcuts) in the Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. The reduction in acres of vegetation removal and site disturbance associated with this type of harvest activity would reduce the risk of NNIS introduction and spread. Other project activities proposed under Alternative 4 are so similar to those proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 that no measureable differences in direct or indirect effects would be expected.

252 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Despite the reduced risk of NNIS infestation in Alternative 4, direct and indirect effects related to NNIS are expected to be similar under all three action alternatives due to the low level of NNIS infestation that currently exists with the project area, and the expectation that on-going control efforts will continue. Cumulative Effects The area analyzed for cumulative effects related to NNIS is the area within the Northeast Swift HMU, as well as the adjacent public and private land in the surrounding towns of Albany, Bartlett, and Hales Location, NH. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixedwood intermixed with lakes, ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential/commercial development. The timeframe used in the analysis of cumulative effects related to NNIS is ten years in the past through ten years into the future (2000 to 2020). This considers the temporary ground disturbance created by project activities. Within ten years following project activities, it is expected that vegetation and/or canopy will be re- established at disturbed sites, reducing the risk that new NNIS infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activities. This time frame also allows consideration of the Forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society (2001 - 2004) that covered portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-154 to 3-155). While there are few known locations of NNIS within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, there is a greater likelihood of introducing and/or spreading NNIS within this area as a result of activities on private lands than on National Forest lands. A Forest-wide NNIS inventory found that two-thirds of the invasive plant occurrences were found on private land outside the National Forest, and almost half of all occurrences were intentionally planted (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-154 and 3-155). Climate change may affect distribution and abundance of NNIS in the longer term. A recent literature review conducted by Forest resource specialists included documents addressing potential impacts of climate change on botanical resources (Mattrick 2009). This literature summary looked at a small, but wide ranging portion of the available literature on the effect of a changing climate on native plants, natural communities, rare plant species, and invasive plant species. Because the effects of climate change on NNIS have not been extensively researched, information must be extrapolated from other studies. Information available from various sources such as the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, which maintains an on-line database of NNIS locations throughout the

253 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

region (Mehrhoff et al., 2010), indicates that several NNIS species appear to be spreading northward; however there does not seem to be any correlation between these expansions and climate change. These expansions appear to be due to mechanical transport by human and wildlife activity. At this time, based upon the recent literature review, available data, and project surveys there does not appear to be any effects to NNIS from climate change, especially within the cumulative effects analysis time-frame.

Although there are known NNIS populations within the cumulative effects area analyzed for this project, due to the low levels of infestation and incorporation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect of implementing the Proposed Action or one of the action alternatives for this project would incur only a minor risk of introducing NNIS into the analysis area.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative, existing infestations outside the National Forest boundary would continue to persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur over time, creating additional infestations at currently uninfested locations. It is expected that these NNIS infestations would become source populations for additional infestations both within both private and National Forest lands located within the analysis area. Effects to the National Forest lands from continued growth and spread of NNIS would be minimal due to a lack of ground disturbing activities under Alternative 1, and continued monitoring and subsequent control of NNIS infestations. Nationally, the rate of NNIS spread has been estimated at 3% per year (National Invasive Species Council, 2001) and at 8-12% per year on all National Forest lands (USDA Forest Service, 1999). Given the climate and landscape condition of the Forest and surrounding landscape and the comparably low level of current NNIS infestation, it is anticipated that the rate of spread for the NNIS in the analysis area would be on the low end of the national scale. At a rate of spread of 3 percent per year, if no control is undertaken on state and private lands, these infestations would increase by roughly 50% in ten years. Since 2005, roughly 5 acres of NNIS control per year has taken place on the WMNF within the analysis area. It is anticipated that control efforts on the National Forest will remain the same. No NNIS control activities are known to be occurring on infestations located on state or private lands located within the cumulative effects analysis area, therefore it is extremely likely that the amount of NNIS infested acres will increase over time, both on and off National Forest lands, despite on going control

254 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

efforts on the WMNF. Future spread of NNIS and increases in NNIS infested areas could lead to a potential decrease in ecological function within the analysis area.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Effects of the Northeast Swift project related to NNIS would be additive to similar effects from past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future management activities that have or are likely to occur within the cumulative effects boundary. Present and on-going projects on the National Forest include the Kanc 7 project, Moat Mountain Bike project, bridge replacement on the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail, and the Lower Falls Site Rehabilitation. Reasonably foreseeable future management activities and projects over the next ten years include ongoing wildlife opening maintenance, road maintenance, ongoing prescribed fire in previously burned oak/pine stands and maintenance of hiking, snowmobile, and Nordic ski trails, continued recreation uses and on-going NNIS treatment. Roads and skid trail trails associated with timber management activities could open up new travel routes for mountain bikes, hikers and horseback riding, increasing the potential for NNIS migration. These effects would continue beyond completion of project activities and NNIS mitigation measures. Activities that may have caused NNIS invasions on private land in the past are likely to continue to contribute to the spread of NNIS. Most project activities under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have negligible effects on NNIS in the analysis area. Application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to NNIS would dramatically reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of introducing NNIS into the analysis area. The cumulative effects of the Northeast Swift Project would be nearly identical under all action alternatives. Although cumulative effects under these alternatives would likely be measurable, they cannot be accurately quantified due to the percentage of private land holdings within the analysis area. Alternative 4 would have a slightly reduced contribution to cumulative effects in comparison to Alternatives 2 and 3, due reduced acres of regeneration harvest in the Table Mountain area.

255 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

3.8 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat

Affected Environment The Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project (NE Swift) Project Area is located in the towns of Albany and Bartlett, New Hampshire. The project area is approximately 10,400 acres in size and is located in the Middle Swift River (HUC 010600020202) and Lower Swift River (HUC 010600020203) subwatersheds. The Middle Swift River watershed is approximately 19,448 acres (30.4 sq. mi.) and the Lower Swift River watershed is approximately 15,108 acres (23.6 sq. mi.). The Swift River drains into the Saco River in the town of Conway. Fish bearing perennial streams in the project area include the Swift River, Douglas Brook, Cilley Brook, Haskell Brook, Deer Brook, Big Brook, and several unnamed perennial streams. Unnamed and in some cases unmapped perennial streams have been named and their subwatersheds were delineated in the Water Resources report. All streams in the project area are assumed to be coldwater streams, based on water temperatures measured on several brooks over a few years. Average July temperatures in the Swift River at Bear Notch Road and below the Passaconaway Road were 59°F and 65°F respectively in 2007. Cilley Brook and Falls Brook average July temperatures were 62°F and 59°F respectively in 2010. Deer Brook was 59°F in 2007. Multiple year temperature monitoring at a Swift River site much farther upstream found Average July water temperature was 3 degrees warmer in 2010 compared to 2007. This suggests that the Swift River in the eastern portion of the project area may exceed the threshold for coldwater status (average July temperature <68°F) in some years. Small unmapped perennial streams appear to be coldwater streams although some reaches of these streams may dry up in some years. Water temperature monitoring in 209 Brook in 2010 found differences in diurnal water temperatures depending on stream flow. Pool water temperature remained very cold during times of very little stream flow and fluctuated more after rain events. By late August, even the pools dried up in the lower reach of this brook while fish were still found in pools in steeper reaches at higher elevations. Streams in the project area are generally characterized as very high gradient, boulder dominated streams, until they flow into the Swift River valley bottom. In steeper areas, pool habitat is created by boulders. In the smaller drainages, large woody debris is accumulating and creating and enhancing pool habitat. Deer Brook, Big Brook, and Haskell Brook are steep drainages where boulders are most likely the dominant pool

256 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment forming mechanisms. Falls Brook and Cilley Brook are also steep, but lower stream power allows downed trees to enhance pool habitat.

The majority of streams in the project area are small drainages flowing into the very large Swift River. These small perennial stream drainages are naturally fragmented from each other due to the poorer fish habitat of the Swift River. High stream power, daily water temperature changes of greater than 10°F, low nutrients, and high aluminum levels of the Swift River limit productivity of fish and aquatic organisms. While these streams are not completely isolated, movement of fish between drainages is considered to be low. Stream crossings acting as barriers to aquatic organism movement are uncommon in the project area, while some streams are naturally separated from the Swift River by very steep cascades. A stream crossing inventory found only 8 road culverts crossing perennial streams in the project area. While several culverts on small un-named perennial streams act as barriers to some life stages of aquatic life, the Passaconaway road crossing of Big Brook is the only culvert barrier to all life stages and species of fish. Relevant goals and objectives for riparian and aquatic habitats from the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest are:

• Protect, restore, or improve riparian area conditions to benefit riparian dependent resources and values.

• Manage riparian areas to provide for coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater aquatic communities within the ecological capability of the landscape.

• Restore and improve self-sustaining populations of indigenous fish and other aquatic species and their habitats.

• Restore or improve 5-10 miles of instream habitat per year over the planning period with emphasis on 6th level watersheds best suited for managing self-sustaining wild brook trout populations and their associated coldwater aquatic communities.

257 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Figure 3.27 Water Temperature of streams in the Swift River watershed during 2007 and 2010.

258 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for Analysis

Concerns addressed in this analysis are related to compliance with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a) objectives for riparian and aquatic habitats. Table 3.33 outlines the concerns, indicators of Forest Plan compliance, and key surrogate measures used in analysis. Surrogate measures are further discussed in the Methodology section. Potential effects not captured by surrogate measures will be qualitatively weighed against the issue indicator.

Table 3.38 - Factors used in riparian and aquatic habitat effects analysis

Concern Indicator Surrogate Measures Stream Thermal Class: Coldwater streams average Loss of coldwater streams coldwater, coolwater, < 68ºF in July warmwater Barriers to movement of fish, aquatic life, and Change in number of Stream Connectivity instream sediments and stream crossings. wood. Removal of less than 15% of basal area in a perennial Degradation of stream Instream Habitat Quality subwatershed. habitat conditions and Productivity Trend in future LWD loadings and habitat quality

The relevant factors for analysis of the effects to riparian and aquatic habitats are stream thermal class, stream connectivity, and in-stream habitat quality and productivity.

Stream Thermal Class

The thermal class of a stream is dependent on the temperature range that a stream naturally encounters throughout the growing season in a forested setting. Stream thermal classes are coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater. Changes in thermal class represent a threshold for when changes in riparian forest structure result in changes in the composition of the aquatic faunal community. Measuring effects to thermal class is a qualitative prediction based on known temperature ranges documented on the White Mountain National Forest and on the responses of stream temperature from various forest canopy treatments reported in the literature.

259 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Studies in the White Mountains have shown that timber harvesting can increase summertime stream temperatures and widen diurnal5 stream temperatures (Burton and Likens, 1973). A more recent study examined the effectiveness of different buffer widths on the effect of timber harvesting on headwater stream temperatures in western Maine (Wilkerson et al., 2006). This study documented an increase of approximately 3-8°F in average maximum stream temperatures from timber clearcutting with no stream buffers. The study found that streams with selection harvesting applied to the stream edge (no clearcuts) and also streams where clearcuts were applied with 36 feet or 75 feet partially harvested buffers did not show significant increases in stream temperatures as compared to non-harvested control streams. The best available science regarding stream buffers would suggest that implementation of Forest Plan guidelines for riparian and aquatic habitats would prevent significant changes in summertime stream temperatures and therefore maintain the integrity of coldwater streams.

Stream Connectivity

Stream connectivity refers to the ability of a stream to move water, organisms, stream sediments, and in stream wood freely within the natural capacity of the stream network. The occurrence of both man-made (culverts and dams) and natural barriers (waterfalls, beaver dams, landslides) influence stream connectivity within a watershed. While connectivity generally has recently focused on the passage of aquatic organisms, it also includes linkages of other biotic and physical processes and materials between upstream and downstream reaches. Physical processes include the movement and distribution of woody debris, sediment, and migration of channel patterns. It is important that woody debris and bed material be allowed to pass unhindered through the stream crossing structure. When debris is trapped at the inlet of a structure, aquatic organism passage barriers are created, and habitat may be degraded both above and below the stream crossing. In addition, when structures constrict stream channels, trapped debris and sediment can reduce the capacity of the structure, and stream flows may overtop the road surface. This could initiate a suite of erosional consequences that include impacts to water quality, stream habitat, and aquatic life (Flanagan, 2005). The notion that resident stream trout species were generally sedentary has been challenged with new technologies for monitoring fish movements (Gowan et al., 1994). The dominant vertebrate specie in White Mountain streams is the native eastern brook trout. Gowan and Fausch (1996) documented brook trout summer seasonal movements

5 Diurnal: happening during the day or daily

260 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

of over a mile and shorter distances traveled regularly by resident brook trout. In addition to moving during higher flows to access suitable spawning habitat in spring and fall, trout also move during summer low flows and in anticipation of winter low flows. Peterson and Fausch (2003) observed peak movement of brook trout in the summer and fall, with nearly 80 percent of recaptured fish moving upstream and up to two kilometers away within a summer.

The motivation for resident fish movement is tied to the life history needs of the species. Brook trout often spawn in areas of groundwater inflow (Witzel and MacCrimmon, 1983; Curry and Noakes, 1995), and have been observed to overwinter in pools in proximity to groundwater discharges (Cunjak and Power, 1986). Groundwater upwellings or flows can protect brook trout eggs from extreme cold temperatures since the species spawns in the autumn and eggs hatch in the early spring. Access to groundwater upwellings and tributary confluences is also important for thermal refuge for trout and other species during summer months (Baird and Kruger, 2003). Streams in the White Mountains that can be crossed with culverts are typically coldwater or coolwater habitats. Most of the impacts associated with culverts in the White Mountains will affect coldwater and coolwater fish populations – salmonids (brook trout), cyprinids (minnows and dace), catastomids (suckers), and cottids (sculpin). Aquatic salamanders associated with these habitats may include spring (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), two-lined, and dusky (Desmognathus fuscus) salamanders.

In-Stream Habitat Quality and Productivity

In-stream habitat quality and productivity is a description of those variables that have the most influence over stream productivity in the White Mountains: risk of aluminum toxicity from episodic acidification, sedimentation from roads and logging activity, and the status of in-stream large woody debris and pool habitat area.

LaChance et.al (2008) found in Ontario brook trout streams that fine sediments accumulated 2-5 times greater in stream sections below new logging road culvert installations than in stream sections above the new crossing and were evident three years post-construction. Hakala (2000) found that fine sediment, of sizes generally documented from logging roads, could negatively affect the abundance of newborn brook trout. This study also found that fine sediment did not reach threshold levels in brook trout spawning sites in steeper gradients or where high stream flows are encountered. While it is clear that fine sediment can affect the egg survival of trout species, it is less clear at what point this threatens the local population or what

261 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

compensatory mechanisms allow the population to mitigate reductions in spawning success. Marschall and Crowder (1996) modeled the population responses of various anthropogenic6 effects on brook trout populations and determined that, while severe sedimentation could have potentially strong negative effects from an extreme increase in the egg to larva mortality, this effect was not likely to result in local extinction. Curry and MacNeill (2004) found that the effect of high sedimentation on egg mortality was reduced when discharging groundwater (spring seeps) was present. The authors could not detect an effect at the population level as young brook trout apparently dispersed from habitat areas saturated with young to areas that were not saturated. Martin and Hornbeck (1994) suggest that sedimentation from logging in New England forests need not be of great concern to aquatic resources if Best Management Practices are followed. Research has shown the effects of both acid deposition and clean air regulations on soil and surface water chemistry within the White Mountains (Likens et al., 1996). Reductions in emissions have resulted in some improvement in the chemistry of New England surface waters (Driscoll et al., 2001). Full chemical and biological recovery has been delayed from the leaching of soil base cations7. Therefore, episodic acidification still occurs in sensitive areas. Studies have shown that episodic acidification can have detrimental effects to fish species in mountain streams of the northeastern United States (Baker et al., 1996; Baldigo and Lawrence, 2000; Baldigo and Lawrence, 2007). Baker et al. (1996) demonstrated that downstream fish movement, fish mortality, and fish community composition were all strongly correlated to stream acidity and inorganic monomeric8 aluminum concentrations during episodic events. Warren et al. (2008) suggested the extirpation of at least two fish species occurred during a period of chronic acidification during the early 1970s in the Hubbard Brook watershed. The interaction of land use and episodic acidification is less researched. Intensive timber harvesting worsened the effects of acid deposition on stream chemistry and brook trout survival in the acid sensitive waters of the Catskill Mountains, while more moderate partial harvesting treatments did not (Baldigo et al., 2005). In this study, 5-14 percent basal area removal had no effect on brook trout survival, while 73 percent basal area removal caused 100 percent mortality in this acid sensitive drainage of the Catskills.

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on water resources is the 6th level Middle Swift River (HUC 010600020202) and Lower Swift River (HUC

6 Anthropogenic: caused or produced by humans 7 Cations: any positively charged atom or group of atoms ( opposed to anion) 8 Monomeric: a molecule of low molecular weight capable of reacting with identical or different molecules of low molecular weight to form a polymer.

262 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

010600020203) subwatersheds (24, 960 acres). While the focus of this analysis is streams within the NE Swift Project Area, some lands outside this boundary will be included to analyze complete watersheds. This area was chosen because it includes all streams draining the project area.

The timeframe for analyzing effects will differ for short-term and long-term effects. The direct and indirect effects will be examined 10 years into the future as the effects of timber harvesting, road building, and stream crossings are no longer evident after that time.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Stream and Pond Thermal Class

Forest canopy along and over streams would remain much as the current situation. Only natural tree falls or hazard tree management would create openings in the canopy that would allow sunlight on surface waters. Based on water temperatures measured within the project area in past years, all streams would most likely remain as coldwater habitats with average July water temperatures below 68ºF. Changes in stream thermal class would be caused solely from extreme weather conditions.

Stream Connectivity

There would be no new permanent culverts, new temporary crossings, or removal of existing fish barriers in this alternative. Stream connectivity would remain unchanged.

In-stream Habitat Quality and Productivity

Stream habitats quality would remain similar to current conditons. Very localized changes may occur due to random bank erosion and tree falls. Aquatic productivity would also remain similar, with localized changes in aquatic life abundance as downed wood recruitment continues to occur.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Differences between activities in the three action alternatives would not result in measureable differences of the effects on riparian and aquatic habitats of each alternative. A reduction of acres of forest land treated in alternatives 3 and 4 is restricted to upland areas.

263 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Stream Thermal Class

Vegetation management with perennial streams would not alter the stream thermal classification of perennial stream reaches. The application of White Mountain National Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guidelines G-1 and G-2 (USDA Forest Service, 2005a) would prevent any substantial removal of riparian forest canopy cover. None of the clearcuts or group cuts over an acre in size would remove riparian forest canopy over perennial streams providing fish habitat. Some trees could blow down in the riparian area adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments where elevations between riparian and harvested trees is similar, and the probability of blowdown is similar for alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The total area within riparian areas adjacent to harvested stands that could be potentially affected by wind events of any individual stream is not large enough The best available science regarding the effects of forest harvesting on stream temperatures demonstrated that the buffers prescribed in Forest Plan guidelines would prevent any measurable change in stream temperatures downstream of harvesting. Since these guidelines, as well as additional design features, are being prescribed on all known perennial stream reaches, no changes in stream thermal class would occur in alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Landings, road construction, and temporary stream crossings associated with vegetation management, as well as trail relocations, bank stabilization, prescribed burning and parking lot construction, would not change the thermal class of any stream reach within the project area. Adhering to Forest Plan guidelines, state of New Hampshire BMP’s, and project design features would limit the size and location of openings within the riparian forest canopy. The best available science suggests that larger blocks of riparian forest need to be removed to increase solar radiation to a point that would cause increased water temperatures, therefore these activities would not alter stream thermal class of perennial streams in alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Stream Connectivity

Stream connectivity would remain unchanged in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. None of the existing culverts on perennial streams would be upgraded. Construction of a new bridge on the cross country ski trail, bog bridges, a new parking facility, and two road segments would not reduce or improve stream connectivity. Relocation of trail sections and operations associated with prescribed burning would not affect stream connectivity. Operations related to harvesting forest products from within the project area would involve temporary crossings of streams, mainly in the Deer Brook and Big Brook

264 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment watersheds. The number of temporary crossings is nearly identical for all alternatives and therefore effects to stream connectivity are similar, either non-existent or minor. Bridges, rather than culverts, are more commonly used on the WMNF for temporary crossings of perennial streams in timber sales and this minimizes or eliminates the number of short term barriers to fish and amphibian movement. This also minimizes the potential for debris and/or ice jams during high flow events.

Instream Habitat Quality and Production

The adherence to Forest Plan guidelines, BMP’s, and design features minimizes any direct or indirect effect to instream habitat structure from operations related to vegetation management. The water resources report indicates no increased runoff would occur from tree harvesting in any watershed in alternatives 2, 3, and 4, therefore preventing indirect effects of bank erosion and channel instability that could degrade instream habitats. Riparian stand structure would not be altered thereby ensuring future woody debris inputs that would increase stream habitat complexity. There is some small potential for increased wood inputs to stream habitats where the blow down of riparian trees adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments could occur. Although habitat complexity may be improved by trees blown down into stream channels, these effects would be very infrequent and localized. The number of temporary crossings is nearly identical for all alternatives and therefore effects are similar. Proper implementation of BMPs during closeout of skid roads and temporary haul roads over perennial streams would allow soils to stabilize and decrease the risk of sedimentation to stream habitats. Since skid trails and timber haul routes would be used for 1-2 years within any drainage area, sedimentation would not be a chronic issue given the use of BMP’s. Stream reaches below crossings may experience increased fine sediments for several years after crossings are pulled and closed out. While sedimentation downstream of temporary crossings may degrade invertebrate production and fish spawning sites in the local vicinity of the crossing, the instream effects eventually disappear after several spring season run-off events. The best available science indicates that sedimentation of this magnitude may result in localized reductions in fish egg survival, but the free movement of fish and other aquatic life would allow areas to be quickly re-colonized. Design features, Forest Plan guidelines, would protect stream habitats from sedimentation commonly associated with parking lot construction and prescribed

265 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

burning. No direct or indirect effect on habitat quality or productivity is expected from these activities.

Removal of forest products from the project area is not likely to cause increased acidity or the mobilization of aluminum, known to be toxic to fish, as discussed in the Water Resources Report. Basal area removal in perennial stream drainages does not exceed 15% in any perennial stream drainage, in any of the alternatives. Based on the best available science, this is well below levels identified to cause fish mortality.

Watershed treatments would have little measureable effects to instream habitat quality or productivity, but may prevent more chronic sedimentation issues from developing to levels that do affect habitat quality.

Cumulative Effects The timeframe analyzed for cumulative effects was 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 before all current culverts need to be replaced. Past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis are listed under Water Resources.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Stream Thermal Class

No changes in stream thermal classes is expected in any tributary stream of the Swift River in alternatives 1 as future land management is expected to follow Forest Plan guidelines and BMP’s. Streams in the project area would not be expected to change thermal class, unless extreme weather results in severe drought or catastrophic ice storms were to damage riparian forest canopy. Model projections of air temperature increases due to climate change translate into an increase of 3°F in average stream temperature in a worst case scenario by the year 2035 (Prout, 2010). Given the very cold water temperatures of tributary streams of the Swift River in the project area, average July water temperatures would not exceed thresholds for coldwater streams. The mainstem Swift River may exceed 68°F by 2035 given climate change predictions, but this would be independent of any past or future management activities within the riparian area of the river or its tributaries.

266 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Stream Connectivity

In this alternative, improvements to stream connectivity could occur to Big Brook and other unnamed tributaries of the Swift River along the Passaconway Road if culverts need to be replaced and current Forest Plan guidelines are followed. Overall stream connectivity is currently good in the project area, as very few permanent culverts exist on headwater streams. Future actions in the project area are not expected to reduce stream connectivity.

In-stream Habitat Quality and Productivity

Changes in stream habitat conditions in the NE Swift project area would remain similar to today’s conditions. Stream chemistry would largely be a function of acid deposition rates, rainfall events, and snowmelt conditions. In-stream habitat conditions would be a function of tree mortality rates and weather related tree falls, which generally occur at a very slow rate. While these mature riparian forest stands continue to age, longer lived tree species, such as hemlock, would continue to move toward over-mature stages. Most streams in the project area would continue to accumulate large woody debris as riparian forests continue to age. Extreme weather events such as floods, windstorms, ice storms, or droughts could cause dramatic effects that alter habitat quality and productivity if they occur within the cumulative effects analysis area.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 Stream Thermal Class

Given that stream thermal classes would not directly or indirectly change from implementation of any of these alternatives, the cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 1.

Stream Connectivity

Given that stream connectivity would not directly or indirectly change from the implementation of any of these alternatives, the cumulative effects would be similar to those described for Alternative 1.

267 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Habitat Quality and Aquatic Productivity

While there may be some localized direct and indirect sedimentation effects of these alternatives on habitat quality and productivity, cumulative effects of all alternatives would be similar to Alternative 1. Closure procedures for logging roads and temporary crossings generally prevent sedimentation sites from becoming chronic stream sedimentation issues. The effect of past timber harvest, and harvest from either alternative 2, 3 or 4 on instream habitats and productivity would not result in any cumulative effect. Short term and localized effects that may occur from any one timber sale would not be evident in a future timber sale generally 10-20 years later. In summary, all activities and effects in all alternatives comply with existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to the riparian and aquatic habitat resource, as well as United States Department of Agriculture and United States Forest Service policies and handbook direction.

3.9 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Affected Environment In 1991, the White Mountain National Forest completed an assessment of rivers on the Forest to determine their eligibility to be considered for potential future inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). Based on this assessment, 36 rivers were identified as potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. During the Forest Plan revision in 2005, this list of 36 rivers with their potential classification was incorporated into the final Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Appendix C). The Swift River, a portion of which is within the Northeast Swift Project Area, is identified as an eligible Wild and Scenic River on this list. The Swift River has also been designated as a protected river by the State of New Hampshire under RSA 483. The 1991 Forest-wide river assessment did not identify specific outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) for each of the listed rivers. In the fall of 2007, an interdisciplinary team reexamined the Swift River’s eligibility and potential ORVs. The team reconfirmed this river’s eligibility and identified 2 potential ORVs described in the following table.

268 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.39 - Swift River Potential ORVs and their Description

Potential ORV Description

The Swift River possesses outstanding scenic values related to water and human made features as well as adjacent landforms. The river can be viewed along the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway, the Passaconaway Road and the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail in numerous locations. The headwaters area near Kancamagus Pass offers views of the surrounding mountain ranges and valley Scenery (Adjacent below. Two scenic vistas are provided at high elevations that provide visitors the landforms and opportunity to enjoy these views with a mountain backdrop. water features) The river also includes several unique rock formations, including Rocky Gorge and Lower Falls. Large ledges and boulders remain visible year round interspersed among the pools and riffles. The historic Albany Covered Bridge spans the Swift River providing a valuable scenic and cultural feature to the corridor.

The Swift River and immediately adjacent lands are used year round for various types of outdoor recreation. The adjacent Kancamagus National Scenic Byway provides the main access to the river and adjoining recreational opportunities. During the summer and fall months, the Swift River is highly used by local, regional, national and international visitors for a variety of activities. The Kancamagus Highway and Swift River are described in numerous local, regional and national publications.

Recreation Rocky Gorge, Lower Falls, Albany Covered Bridge, the Russell-Colbath Historic Site, several campgrounds, and numerous hiking and cross-country ski trails are just some of the recreation facilities and infrastructure within the Swift River corridor. These sites are used for swimming, photography, driving for pleasure, fishing, hiking, and other activities. During spring snow melt, the Swift River provides a challenging whitewater run. Guide books rate the rapids and falls between Class III and Class V. It is reputably one of the most challenging runs during this time of year in the Northeast.

269 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The Swift River is the southern project area boundary (see project area Map). The eligible Swift River was divided into and classified as 2 segments; a headwaters segment starting near the height of land at Kancamagus Pass flowing east is 1.1 miles long. The second segment, starting well upriver of the Northeast Swift Project, abuts the headwaters segment near Lily Pond and continues for 9.3 miles to the Forest boundary near Conway. Based on the Forest-wide river assessment completed in 1991 the potential classifications of the segments of the Swift River are scenic. Scenic rivers are defined as: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. (Federal Register, Vol. 27, No. 173, September 7, 1982)

The classification criteria for scenic river areas are described in the following table:

Table 3.40 - Classification Criteria for Scenic River Areas.*

Attribute Scenic Criteria

Water Resource Free of impoundment. Development

Largely primitive and undeveloped. No substantial evidence of human activity. The presence of small communities or dispersed dwelling or farm structures is acceptable. Shoreline Development The presence of grazing, hay production, or row crops is acceptable.

Evidence of past or ongoing timber harvest is acceptable, provided the forest appears natural from the riverbank.

Accessible in places by road. Roads may occasionally reach or bridge the river. Accessibility The existence of short stretches of conspicuous or longer stretches of inconspicuous roads or railroads is acceptable.

No water quality criteria are prescribed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for Water Quality scenic rivers.

*Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 173, September 7, 1982

270 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The potential scenic classification of the Swift River takes into account the river’s proximity to the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, nearby residential development in the Passaconaway Valley, and present and historic management activities on National Forest System lands including highly developed recreation sites and timber harvest. Forest Plan standards require the Forest Service to: “Manage eligible rivers to maintain their classification and eligibility until Congress designates the segments or decides not to designate them.” Additionally, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 82.5 (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) requires that the free-flowing condition, ORVs, and inventoried classification of eligible rivers be protected.

This Forest Service Handbook (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) also provides management guidelines for eligible rivers according to classification. Guidelines applicable to the portions of the Northeast Swift Project that occur within the Swift River corridor are: Transportation System and Scenic Rivers: New roads and railroads are permitted to parallel the river for short segments or bridge the river, if such construction fully protects river values (including river’s free-flowing character). Bridge crossing and river access are allowed. Vegetation Management and Scenic Rivers: A range of vegetation management and timber harvest practices are allowed, provided that these practices are designed to protect, restore, or enhance the river environment, including the long-term scenic character. Prescribed fire is not mentioned in any of the pertinent guidelines in the FSH (USDA Forest Service, 2006b). Fire is being used as a vegetation management tool in the NE Swift Project and will be orchestrated to protect, restore, or enhance the river environment, including the long-term scenic character along with the other methods of vegetation management proposed in the project.

Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on this eligible Wild and Scenic River is the river bed/banks and ¼ mile from the ordinary high water mark of the Swift River in the approximately 8.6-mile section from Bear Notch Road through the NE Swift Project area to the point the Swift River leaves the Forest. This analysis area was chosen because it incorporates all management activities associated with the NE Swift Project that would occur within the defined river area as described in FSH 1909.12, section 82.14 (USDA Forest Service, 2006b). The time frame is 10 years from the start of

271 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

implementation. This duration was selected because when the management activities cease, so will the majority of the direct and indirect effects. Depending on the alternative selected and sale operations, the management activities are expected to last 3 to 4 years. However, the effects to scenery have the potential to last longer (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-447). The components of the NE Swift Project that would occur within the analysis area are described in the following table.

Table 3.40 - Project Components in the Swift Eligible Wild and Scenic River Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis Area

Alternative Project Components in the Analysis Area

1 • None

• 540 acres of vegetation management • 184 acres of prescribed burn • 10 new landings and 3 existing landings • 2.5 miles of road reconstruction 2 • 0.5 miles of road construction (Proposed • 0.2 miles of road decommissioning Action) • Up to 1.25 miles of trail relocation on the ski trail system • 250 feet of bog bridge construction on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail • Up to 0.25 miles of a temporary hiking trail relocation near the Moat Mountain Trailhead • Construct one trail bridge on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail

• 533 acres of vegetation management • 152 acres of prescribed burn • 10 new landings and 3 existing landings • 2.5 miles of road reconstruction • 0.5 miles of road construction 3 • 0.2 miles of road decommission • Up to 1.25 miles of trail relocation on the ski trail system • 250 feet of bog bridge construction on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail • Up to 0.25 miles of a temporary hiking trail relocation near the Moat Mountain Trailhead • Construct one trail bridge on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail

• 516 acres of vegetation management 4 • 184 acres of prescribed burn • 9 new landings and 3 existing landings

272 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• 2.5 miles of road reconstruction • 0 miles of road construction • 0.2 miles of road decommission • Up to 1.25 miles of trail relocation on the ski trail system • 250 feet of bog bridge construction on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail • Up to 0.25 miles of a temporary hiking trail relocation near the Moat Mountain Trailhead • Construct one trail bridge on the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail

The analysis of direct and indirect effects below addresses all 3 factors related to the protection of eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers: 1. Free-flowing condition, 2. Classification, and 3. ORVs. Effects to classification will also include analysis of compliance with eligible river management guidelines for transportation systems and vegetation management. Alternative 1 does not propose any activities within the analysis area. Therefore, this alternative will not be discussed in detail as no direct or indirect effects are anticipated.

Effects on Free-Flowing Condition

Under Alternatives 2-4, activities proposed in this segment of the Swift River eligible corridor are located outside the bed and banks of the Swift River and therefore are not anticipated to affect free-flowing condition or alter in-channel conditions. An exception to this is the potential placing of additional rebar and a few pieces of granite to hold existing rip-rap on the riverbank just above Covered Bridge. There is already existing rebar and riprap at this site and any additional material added as a result of this project would not alter the character of the river or affect its free flowing condition. There is also one short section of the Nanamocomuck ski trail, which will be relocated away from the Swift River to address erosion issues and a section of road that will be decommissioned. The road used to be accessed via a ford or a bridge over the Swift River, but so much time has passed since the road was used that the decommissioning of the road does not require any on the ground work and is simply a database exercise. None of these actions would affect the free-flowing condition of the river. New crossings of the Swift River are not proposed under the NE Swift Project under any alternative.

273 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Effects on Classification

Analysis in this section focuses on the water resource development, shoreline development, and accessibility classification criteria for scenic rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not prescribe criteria for water quality for the scenic classification. Therefore, that criterion will not be analyzed, but effects to water quality can be found in the water resources section of this document. The following section summarizes effects to the Scenic classification criteria.

Summary of Effects on the Classification of the Swift River Eligible Wild and Scenic River by Alternative.

Alternative 1 Water Resource Development - No effects

Shoreline Development - No effects

Accessibility - No effects

Alternative 2 Water Resource Development - No effects; no impoundment is proposed.

Shoreline Development

Several harvest units are adjacent to the Swift River with prescribed treatments of thinning, group selection and/or single tree selection. Single tree and group selections increase age class, species and structural diversity in the stand. Thinning treatments retain the forest type, providing growing space. Under each of these prescriptions the remaining forest area would appear more open but, relatively natural when viewed from the river. Groups between 1/10 and 2 acres would be cut in units 1, 5, 13, 14, 31-33, 37, 42, 45, 66- 69, 71-73, and 75. In the mixedwood stands nearest the river, most of the group openings would be ¼ to ½ acre. Larger 2 acre group openings would be applied where pure stands of hardwoods are present, primarily in the upland areas away from the river. Created openings would generally not be visible from the riverbank. Any that are apparent, would appear natural to most people after about 5 years because the rapid growth of regenerating tree species and forbs would minimize evidence of harvest

274 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

activities. After 10 years, a textural change may still be evident but a naturally appearing cover would dominate (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-447).

There are 4 proposed clearcuts that lie partially within the analysis area. This includes 9 acres of Unit 2 which is located on an upper elevation bench, with foreground forest that conceals it from view from points along the river. The unit would not be visible following treatment, even considering planned road reconstruction (FR 5174) associated with this alternative. 1 acre of unit 41, 2 acres of unit 85, and 5 acres in unit 4, which are all clearcuts, and 9 acres of a seed tree with reserves (unit 38) are also within a quarter mile of the Swift River, but will not be visible from the river or its banks. These units are all on the outside edge of the analysis area and the residual forest will block any views from the river of the harvest units. Most of the new and existing log landings (13 total) in the 1/4 mile corridor would not be visible from the river as they are located at least several hundred feet from the banks. These landings would be completely blocked from view from the river bank by the remaining forest. Two of the 13 new and existing landings may create an unnatural appearance from the river bank as a result of their location. The limited views of these landings would become less noticeable following completion of the sale when the grass begins to grow and the contrast with the surrounding forest decreases. There are two short sections of FR28 that are being proposed for road reconstruction under alternatives 2-4 that are within 100 feet of the Swift River and may have some blasting associated with the reconstruction. These sections come between ledge and a steep bank down to the river. The road would be more secure and have less of an impact on the river if it was moved a few additional feet away from the river. Blasting is necessary for this to occur. There may also be some strategic placement of rocks and rebar to provide additional bank stabilization. The other proposed road reconstruction and construction is not anticipated to have any effect on shoreline development nor be noticeable from the river because this activity generally occurs on the existing roads, skid trails or ski trail template and is farther from the river. From the higher viewpoint on the river bank, some sections of existing road would appear recently widened and recently used. Vegetation (stabilization) planting associated with road reconstruction along the first ¼ mile of FR 28 would eventually help conceal a portion of that existing road, improving the scenic values along the river. There is a 0.2 mile section of road within the analysis area that will be decommissioned in this project. The road used to be accessed via a ford or a bridge over the Swift River, but so much time has passed since the road was used that the decommissioning of the

275 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

road does not require any ground work. The bridge and ford are no longer evident and the road is overgrown and no longer passable. The process of decommissioning this road is simply a database exercise and will not affect the shoreline development in the area.

One short section of the Nanamocomuck ski trail totaling approximately 0.1 mile will be relocated away from the river. Currently this section of trail is at risk of falling in the river which causes additional evidence of human activity as recreationists find new ways around the eroding section of trail. By relocating the trail away from the river, shoreline development would decrease and the appearance of the river would be closer to its natural state. Another mile of trail relocation will occur on the Nanamocomuck trail when the existing wet section of trail is moved to a skid trail which will be created with a dual purpose in mind of hauling wood and relocating the trail. Parts of this 1 mile of trail, but not all of it, are visible from the river. As a result of this trail relocation, the shoreline development would be decreased in parts of the area. There is also temporary trail relocation near the South Moat Trailhead and installation of approximately 250 feet of bog bridging in various locations on the Nanamocomuck. These actions are too far from the river, although they are within the quarter mile analysis area, and they will not be visible from the river. One bridge on the Nanamocomuck ski trail will be constructed on a tributary to the Swift River. This bridge will be a low profile trail bridge, it will not be visible from the Swift River and it will have no effect on the shoreline development. The proposed prescribed burning is planned for north of Passaconway road which in turn is north of the Swift River. In addition, all of the burning would take place well out of the flood plain and away from the river. During the actual burning process, smoke may be visible from the river. Fire is a natural process and the view of smoke on the day of the burning would not increase evidence of shoreline development as it would look the same if it was a wildfire.

Accessibility

None of the proposed road construction, reconstruction or harvest activities affects the travel ways or bridges of the Swift River. The ½ mile road construction at the end of FR5174 is the only road construction in the proposed action that is within the analysis area. This section of road is not visible from the river banks nor does it provide access to the river. Access to the area as a result of this new section of road would not change because the preexisting Nanamocomuck ski trail would remain after the harvest. The

276 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

new road would only be open for foot traffic which is the same as the existing condition. Other than possible temporary closures for public safety during construction work, harvest and prescribed burning, these routes would remain open to foot traffic.

No additional visibility of the Kancamagus Scenic Byway as seen from the riverbanks would occur. There are 6 harvest units and 4 proposed landings that fall either partially or entirely between the Swift River and the Passaconway Road. These units 31-33, 35, 36 and 46 are thinnings, single tree selection and/or group selection prescriptions. Due to the placement of landings and groups, topography and the remaining vegetation, the visibility of the Passaconway Road from Swift River would temporarily increase through a few narrow openings, but access would not change. There is no road construction, reconstruction or prescribed burn units between the Swift River and the Passaconway Road. No element of the proposed action is expected to exceed the criteria in Table 2 that allows for short stretches of high visibility and longer stretches of less conspicuous roads. The remaining forest, topography, and varying distances to the Swift River are expected to provide similar views as currently exist.

Alternative 3 Water Resource Development – No effects; no impoundment proposed.

Shoreline Development

Alternative 3 was developed primarily in response to the issue that proposed timber harvest and connected transportation system management activities, as well as prescribed burning, would adversely impact scenic quality along the Kancamagus Scenic Byway and the Swift River. As a result, the amount of clearcutting within a quarter mile of the Swift River proposed in this alternative (3 acres) is less than the proposed action (17 acres) and group selection, including group selection with single tree selection, totals 6 acres more (420 acres for Alternative 3) in this alternative than the proposed action. The increase in group selection prescriptions and decrease in clearcuts is an effort to reduce the visibility of the vegetation management associated with this proposal from the river or the Scenic Byway.

277 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The proposed bridge, bog bridging and relocations on the ski trail system, road construction, reconstruction and decommissioning, log landings (13 total) and the prescribed burns would have the same impacts to shoreline development as the proposed action.

The overall appearance of shoreline development from the river is less for this alternative than for the proposed action.

Accessibility

The proposals in Alternative 3 affect the travel ways, bridges and accessibility of the Swift River in the same way as the proposed action. This includes the ½ mile road construction at the end of FR5174 and the same 6 harvest units and 4 proposed landings that fall either partially or entirely between the Swift River and the Passaconway Road in Alternative 3. No element of Alternative 3 is expected to exceed the criteria in Table 2 that allows for short stretches of high visibility and longer stretches of less conspicuous roads. The remaining forest, topography, and varying distances to the Swift River are expected to provide similar views as currently exist.

Alternative 4 Water Resource Development – No effects; no impoundment proposed.

Shoreline Development

Alternative 4 was developed in response to the issue that proposed timber harvest and connected transportation system management activities would adversely impact unique and important values of the Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. The IRA comes within the quarter mile analysis area for approximately 3.5 miles of the river within the project area. As a result, the proposed harvest, including some clearcutting, a log landing, a section of road construction and a patch cut (9 acres) is removed in this alternative. The proposed bridge, bog bridging and relocations on the ski trail system, road reconstruction and decommissioning, and the prescribed burns would have the same impacts to shoreline development as the proposed action.

278 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Accessibility

The proposals in Alternative 4 affect the travel ways, bridges and accessibility of the Swift River in the same way as the proposed action. This includes the same 6 harvest units and 4 proposed landings that fall either partially or entirely between the Swift River and the Passaconway Road in Alternative 3 and the proposed action. There is no proposed road construction within the analysis area in Alternative 4.

No element of Alternative 4 is expected to exceed the criteria in Table 2 that allows for short stretches of high visibility and longer stretches of less conspicuous roads. The remaining forest, topography, and varying distances to the Swift River are expected to provide similar views as currently exist.

Forest Service classification criteria, all alternatives:

Transportation system actions proposed by any of the alternatives would neither closely parallel nor cross the Swift River, which would exceed the management guidelines for eligible scenic rivers. The vegetation management proposed by the action alternatives, as described above, would allow for the maintenance of the long-term scenic character as prescribed by the management guidelines. The harvest prescriptions would allow for enhancing and restoring diverse trees species, age classes, and stand structure which contribute to the Swift River’s scenic character (see the Vegetation and Scenic sections of this document). In summary, all actions under all alternatives would allow for the Swift River’s sustained eligibility to be included into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a scenic river.

Effects to Potential ORVs

This section will address direct and indirect effects to the potential ORVs of scenery and recreation for the Swift River. The ORVs are described in detail in Table 3.34.

Scenery

The potential ORV of scenery as described previously is tied to the water features and adjacent landforms of the Swift River. The water features in this analysis area include some small cascades and large boulders interspersed among pools and riffles. The river can be viewed in several brief interspersed locations along the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, the Passaconway Road and the Nanamocomuck ski trail. The area between the byway and the Swift River is outside of the project area, and as a result, views from the

279 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

byway to the river would not be affected by this project. Effects by alternatives will be measured by the degree to which proposed management actions alter these scenic features and views thereof.

Harvest units considered in this analysis will be the 8 units that either lie between the Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Swift River or the Passaconway Road and the Swift River. The effects to the potential scenery ORV are summarized in Table 4 below. Impacts to views of the surrounding landscape from the river are addressed above under shoreline development. Additional effects to scenery can be found in the Scenery analysis for this project.

Alternative 1

No effects; no actions proposed.

Alternatives 2 and 4

In Alternatives 2 and 4, approximately .1 mile of the Nanamocomuck ski trail will be relocated away from the river. Viewing opportunities of the river from the ski trail will still be available in this area. The other trail relocation areas are not within view of the river. 6 harvest units (31-33, 35, 36, 46) with prescriptions of thinning, group selection and/or single tree selection and 4 proposed landings fall either partially or entirely between the Swift River and the Passaconway Road. These harvest operations would create more open appearing stands and may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river from Passaconway Road. 2 harvest units (66 group selection and 75 group selection and single tree selection) at least partially lie between the Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Swift River and may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river from the ski trail by creating more open stands. None of the scenic features of the river would be altered by this project. In addition, by retaining diverse vegetation and potentially increasing views of the river, the harvesting proposed by these alternatives would be expected to maintain and enhance the scenery ORV for the Swift River.

280 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3

Effects from the Alternative 3 proposals would be similar to those from Alternatives 2 and 4. In this alternative, only one harvest unit (66 group selection) partially lies between the Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Swift River and may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river from the ski trail by creating a more open stand. All proposals involved in this alternative would be expected to maintain or enhance the scenery ORV for the Swift River.

Table 3.41 - Summary of Effects to Potential Scenery ORV by Alternative

Alternative Summary of effects

1 None

• Approximately .1 mile of the Nanamocomuck ski trail will be relocated away from the river but viewing opportunities from the ski trail will still be available in the area • Harvesting will not change the viewing opportunities of the Swift River from the Kancamagus Highway • 6 harvest units and 4 proposed landings that fall either partially or entirely between 2 the Swift River and the Passaconway Road may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river by creating more open stands • 2 harvest units (66 GS and 75 GS/STS) at least partially lie between the Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Swift River and may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river

Same effects as Alternative 2 except only 1 harvest unit (66 GS) lies in part between the 3 Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Swift River and may temporarily increase viewing opportunities of the river

4 Same effects as Alternative 2

Summary

The proposed vegetation management within the analysis area is similar to previous management actions as visually displayed in the past harvest map. Under all action alternatives, the texture of the stands receiving vegetation management would change from distinct vantage points along the Swift River, the Nanamocomuck ski trail and the Passaconway Road, but only a small portion of the proposed actions would be visible from any given vantage point. The existing mix of vegetation types and age classes

281 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

would remain in the analysis area. By implementing harvest units with non-linear, feathered edges, the visual effects of the harvesting activities would be further limited.

In summary, while there may be slight changes to what is seen from the river corridor, Passaconway road and Nanamocomuck ski trail in the short-term, no substantial or long-term effects to the potential scenic ORV along this segment of the Swift River would be expected under any of the alternatives.

Recreation

The Swift River provides year round opportunities for numerous types of outdoor recreation pursuits. Many activities are tied to the scenic resources of the river described above, especially driving for pleasure. Some activities that contribute to the potential recreation ORV occur at low levels for short periods such as whitewater kayaking in spring, or occur at moderate levels in the summer and fall such as visiting Albany Covered Bridge. Impacts to recreation opportunities are discussed in detail in the Recreation Effects analysis for this project. The recreation resources tied to the Swift River potential recreation ORV within the analysis area are: • Driving and biking for pleasure on Passaconway Road, Bear Notch Road and the Kancamagus Scenic Byway

• Covered Bridge Campground and Blackberry Crossing Campground

• Boulder Loop Trail, Falls Pond Trail, Champney Falls Trail, Bolles Trail and South Moat Mountain Trail

• Rocky Gorge Scenic Area, Albany Covered Bridge, Dugway Picnic Area and Lower Falls Picnic Area

• Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail, Wenunchus Ski Trail, Wenonah Ski Trail and the Paugus Ski Trail

• Angling, kayaking and swimming the Swift River

282 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

All Alternatives

The following table summarizes the effects to the potential recreation ORV for the Swift River by alternative.

Table 3.42 - Effects to Potential Recreation ORV by Alternative.

Recreation Alternative Summary of Effects Resource

1 All none

Driving for • Temporary (2 to 3 years) increase in truck traffic during harvest

Pleasure • Some potential for increased views of the Swift River following harvest operations (units 31 – 33, 35, 36, 46).

Covered • Temporary (2 to 3 years) increase in truck traffic on Passaconaway Bridge Road, mostly during the off season when the campground is closed.

Campground • Temporary increase in noise associated with nearby logging as units 30-33 are treated. Unit 82 is the stand surrounding this campground, and is planned for winter only logging. Other units receiving summer and fall harvest are further up Big Brook road (FR 602) and would not likely be audible from the this campground. Truck traffic originating from Deer Brook road would pass along Passaconaway Road (for 1 to 2 2 years), again, primarily during the off season.

• Improve stand condition and retain “big tree” character within Unit 82.

Blackberry • Temporary increase in noise associated with nearby logging as units Crossing 13, 14 and 31 are treated. Other units would not likely be audible from Campground this campground which is located across the river and the Kancamagus from all operations.

Boulder Loop • Temporary increase in noise from nearby harvest operations during Trail, South winter and some noise audible from distant units from these trails Moat Trail and during summer and fall. Falls Pond Trail

283 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Recreation Alternative Summary of Effects Resource

Champney • These trails are across the Swift River and Kancamagus from all Falls Trail, operations. If anything can be heard, it will be temporary and distant Bolles Trail noise from harvest operations at the trailhead and parking areas.

Rocky Gorge, • Logging trucks associated with this sale will not pass under the Albany Albany Covered Bridge; however increased noise may be audible in the Covered area due to nearby trucks and harvest operations. The noise of the river Bridge and and the Kancamagus Hwy may serve to decrease these impacts.

Lower Falls • The waterfalls at Rocky Gorge and Lower Falls will make it difficult to Areas hear trucks or harvest operations.

Nanamocomuc • These trails pass through sections of Units 12, 66, 75- 77 that are k Ski Trail, within the analysis area. There are also other units along this trail that Wenunchus are within 200 feet of the river, would be near the Nanamocomuck ski Ski Trail, trail, and would be harvested during the fall or winter depending upon Wenonah Ski ground conditions. As a result there would be short periods when Trail, Paugus sections of the trail would not be available for use due to safety Ski Trail concerns. The section below Rocky Gorge may be unavailable for use for at least a single winter season and the section below Deer Brook may be closed for 2 seasons. At times there may be noise from harvest operations audible from the ski trails.

• Road reconstruction and construction on FR 5174 would alter trail character for a small portion, less than ½ mile, of the trail. A section of the trail may be temporarily closed for visitor safety during the proposed activities.

• Please see the Scenery Effects Analysis for visual effects.

Angling, • Temporary increases in noise from harvest operations or evidence of hunting, logging trucks is possible along various locations of the river, kayaking and particularly at and below Lower Falls where there are units that have swimming potential summer harvesting. However, sound would be somewhat covered by the noise of the river and the Kancamagus Highway.

284 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Recreation Alternative Summary of Effects Resource

All Similar to Alternative 2 because most of the project components in the analysis area are the same. However, there are slightly fewer acres of 3 vegetation management which may result in fewer logging trucks and slightly less noise associated with the harvest.

All Similar to Alternative 3. However, there is no proposed road construction on FR 5174. As a result, the impacts to users of the Nanamocomuck ski trail in this area would not be as much as in 4 Alternative 2 or 3. There would still be some reconstruction work on this road causing the aforementioned temporary closures and altered trail character.

In summation, the direct and indirect effects to the potential recreation ORV would be short-term and temporary in nature under all action alternatives. None of the proposed activities under any of the alternatives would alter the recreation ORV or the Swift River’s eligibility as a Wild and Scenic River with ORVs of scenery and recreation.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects for the NE Swift Project is the entire Swift River Eligible Wild and Scenic River. This includes the entire river from the headwaters at the height of land to the point where the Swift meets the Saco River in Conway, including land within ¼ mile of the bed/banks of the river. This analysis area includes private lands in the Towns of Albany and Conway and the State of New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) right of way for Route 112. This analysis area was chosen because it allows for consideration of the entire Swift River corridor that is identified as eligible in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Appendix C). The entire length of the Swift River on National Forest land has a potential classification of scenic and potential ORVs of scenery and recreation.

The time frame is 2001 to 2021, which includes past activities, present (including ongoing activities), and the foreseeable future. This time frame also represents a reasonable length of time for measuring past effects and for those projects with upcoming impacts to the area.

285 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The following table lists past, present, and future projects occurring within the analysis area.

Table 3.43 - Past, Ongoing and Future Projects 2001–2021

Year Title Comments/Acres

Wildlife Opening Maintenance: Hotel Rotating periodic maintenance including Ongoing Field, Pine Bend Brook Opening, Annis prescribed burning and mowing, Field approximately 10 acres per year.

Mowing and prescribed burning of fields in Ongoing Town of Conway Field Maintenance Conway

Parking area redesigned and rebuilt Road relocated away from the river 2004 Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Project ADA trail to Falls Pond Foot bridge spanning Swift River relocated and rebuilt

2004 Sabbaday Brook Trail Reconstruction Improved surface, widened to ADA standards

Construction of parking area and barn. 2004 Russell-Colbath Barn and Parking Area Included 3 acres of vegetation clearing.

Conway Scenic Railway Bridge Riprap installed upstream of the bridge 2004 Maintenance

2004 Passaconway Campground Water system upgrade

2004 DOT Kancamagus Highway Straightening and widening of the byway /2008 Improvements

2005 South Moat Mountain Trail Relocation New parking lot and trail relocation

2005 Pine Bend Brook Reconstruction Trail improvement

2007 and Home building on private land Habitat for Humanity ongoing

Sabbaday Brook Watershed Improve trail stability and stabilize stream 2008 Improvement Project bank on a tributary to the Swift River

2008 USGS Water Gauge Station Installation and continued maintenance

2008 Dugway Picnic Area Decommissioning Removal of the pavilion and decommission

286 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Year Title Comments/Acres

Replace 1 bridge and improve 2 others to ADA 2008 Rail and River Trail Bridge Replacement standards on tributaries to the Swift River

DOT Kancamagus Highway Replacement of roadside guardrails 2009 Improvements

Vegetation management 2009 and Kanc7 Forest Resource Management Road reconstruction and decommissioning ongoing Project Closure and rehabilitation of campsites

Nanamocomuck Ski Trail Bridge Ski trail bridge replacements 2009-2012 Replacement

Re-vegetation Trail construction 2011 Lower Falls Site Improvement Project Parking lot redesign Possibly moving the pavilion

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects on the free-flowing condition, no cumulative effects to free-flowing condition would be expected. Therefore, the cumulative effects discussion will focus on classification criteria and potential ORVs. Also, since there were no direct or indirect effects for Alternative 1, no cumulative effects for Alternative 1 are expected.

Classification Criteria

The table below delineates the past, ongoing, and future projects that could potentially affect the scenic classification criteria of shoreline development and accessibility. As stated previously, none of the alternatives propose water resource development, so that criteria will not be analyzed. No water quality criteria are prescribed for rivers with a scenic classification so water quality is not discussed, but additional information may be found in the Water Resources section of the EA.

287 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The projects listed below occur within the cumulative effects analysis area and may affect classification criteria cumulatively.

Table 3.44 - Past, Ongoing, and Future Projects that may affect Classification Criteria

Shoreline Development Accessibility

Lower Falls Site Improvement Project Lower Falls Site Improvement Project

Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Project Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Project

Kanc7 Forest Resource Management Project

Conway Scenic Railway Bridge Maintenance

USGS Water Gauge Station

The Lower Falls Site Improvement Project is expected to be implemented in 2011. This project is intended to rehabilitate a very high use recreation site including re-vegetating highly impacted areas, delineating trails for site and river access to decrease erosion, impacts to vegetation, and improve drainage. This project will improve the shoreline condition and provide a more natural appearance. It will also improve screening between the river and the parking lot and highway. Therefore, the Lower Falls project is expected to have a positive effect on the scenic classification criteria. The Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Project included creation of a new parking lot in tandem with realignment of the Kancamagus Highway, a replacement footbridge spanning the Swift River, conversion of an access road to footpath, and several other components. This project reduced the visibility of the highway and parking lot by moving them further away from the Swift River, planting vegetation for screening and closing the previous access road to the old parking area. The ADA trail from the parking area to Falls Pond increases accessibility to views of the river. The new foot bridge is replacing an old bridge so safety and availability to ADA visitors improved, but access remained unchanged. All the components of the Rocky Gorge Project resulted in a positive effect on the scenic classification. The Kanc7 Forest Resource Management Project is primarily located on the south side of the Kancamagus Highway. Some actions on the south side of the highway associated with this project are within the ¼ mile analysis area, however they do not impact wild and scenic river classification criteria for the Swift River because the highway acts as a

288 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

buffer. The actions which lie north of the highway are analyzed with respect to the classification criteria as follows.

The Kanc 7 project involves 30 acres total of thinning treatments in units 10 and 49 which are in or near the Passaconway Campground. After these harvest units are cut, the stand and campground area will appear more open, but there remains at least 150 feet of untreated area between the campsites and the river which acts as visual and audio buffer between the river and the campsites. There are no changes to accessibility from the campsites to the river or shoreline development as a result of these units.

There are 4 Kanc 7 units totaling 151 acres of group selection/ single tree selection just east of the Sawyer River Trail between the river and the highway and 45 acres of single tree selection between the river and the highway. These units will appear more open from the highway after the harvest, but topography and the distance from the river to the highway will minimize the effect on shoreline development. A short section of the Swift River will have narrow views of landings and the highway for approximately 10 years while the vegetation establishes and gains height (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, 3- 447). To limit this effect, group sizes were restricted to 1/10th of an acre within 200 feet of the river and there are no clearcuts between the river and the Kancamagus Hwy (Kanc7 project file). There are 6 new landings in the area between the river and the highway, none of which are within 300 feet of the river. Swift River access will not change as a result of the Kanc 7 project. None of the Kanc 7 road reconstruction reaches or bridges the Swift River and neither the road reconstruction nor watershed restoration would affect the shoreline development due to their distance from the river. The removal of riverside illegal campsites resulted in a positive effect of decreased shoreline development along the Swift River. The Conway Scenic Railway Bridge Project did not change the accessibility of the Swift River except to maintain it by means of a train ride. In the effort to save the railroad bridge from failure, shoreline development was impacted. The Conway Scenic Railway Co. added riprap (large boulders) to the banks and in places, into the bed of the river to decrease erosion and redirect the flow. The USGS Water Gauge Station has minor negative effects to shoreline development because, although small, it is an unnatural appearing, man-made structure that is visible from the river and surrounding shoreline.

289 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Combining the direct and indirect effects of the NE Swift Project with the two previously mentioned beneficial projects (Rocky Gorge and Lower Falls Projects), the negative effects of the Conway Scenic Railway project and the USGS water gauge station, and the limited and temporary effects the Kanc 7 project is having on shoreline development results in a neutral cumulative effect for Alternatives 2-4. In other words, after all these projects are implemented the level of shoreline development in the analysis area will be about the same as before they started, just in different locations. In reference to the management guidelines for eligible rivers, all actions under all alternatives for the Northeast Swift Project would comply with the guidelines for transportation systems and vegetation management for eligible scenic rivers. The past, ongoing and proposed projects listed in the table above also comply with these guidelines. In summation, all actions when considered cumulatively would allow the Swift River’s sustained eligibility to be included into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a scenic river.

Potential ORVs

The following table delineates the past, ongoing, and future projects within the analysis area that could potentially affect the Swift River’s potential ORVs of scenery and recreation. The projects not listed in the table below are either south of the Kancamagus Highway, north of Passaconway Rd, not related to recreation or far enough away from the river to not impact scenery and would therefore not be expected to effect the Swift’s potential ORVs.

Table 3.45 - Past, Ongoing and Future Projects that May Affect Potential ORVs

Recreation and Scenery

Wildlife Opening Maintenance

Town of Conway Field Maintenance

Lower Falls Site Improvement Project

Rocky Gorge Site Improvement Project

Conway Scenic Railway Bridge Maintenance

Dugway Picnic Area Decommissioning

290 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Recreation and Scenery

Kanc 7 Forest Resource Management Project

Nanamocomuck Ski Trail Bridge Replacement

Russell-Colbath Barn and Parking Area

Rail and River Trail Bridge Replacement

USGS Water Gauge Station

The majority of the projects listed in the above table provide positive effects on the potential ORVs of recreation and scenery for which the Swift River could be designated as a Wild and Scenic River. These projects represent recreational site improvements that provide for maintenance or enhancement of recreation opportunities along the Swift River. The Conway Scenic Railway Bridge Maintenance and the USGS Water Gauge Station have minor negative effects to scenery as both involve unnatural appearing, man-made structures that are visible from the river and surrounding shoreline. However, they both have positive effects to recreation. The water gauge gives visitors the opportunity to find out water conditions on the internet before arriving in the area which increases visitor safety. The bridge maintenance is helping to prevent a bridge failure and allows for continued use of the tracks. A ride on the Conway Scenic Railway offers good recreational and scenic opportunities involving the Swift River. The decommissioning of the Dugway Picnic Area is having a negative effect of recreation because it means there will be one less scenic spot along the river to have a picnic in a developed location. However, this project has positively affected scenery near the river as the dilapidated pavilion has been removed. The ongoing harvesting of the Kanc7 project is having a temporary impact on recreation in the area due to the noise of the machinery and the proximity of some of the harvest units to the trails. However, this impact only lasts as long as the harvest is occurring and the noises of the river and the highway act to diminish the disturbance. There are also some narrow and temporary views from the highway to the river as a result of landings and harvest units that will last for up to 10 years as the vegetation regenerates.

291 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Combining the direct and indirect effects of the NE Swift Project with these projects, the cumulative effects to the potential ORVs for the Swift River would be neutral. For example, all the benefits to recreation resulting from most of the projects in table 6 would balance out the temporary negative effects of harvest noise associated with the Kanc7 project and the NE Swift Project. In summation, all actions when considered cumulatively would allow the Swift River’s sustained eligibility for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with the ORVs of scenery and recreation.

Summary

Timber harvest, recreation improvements, and similar activities proposed by all action alternatives have occurred before and since the Swift River was determined eligible for consideration as a Wild and Scenic River. All alternatives for the NE Swift project, when considered cumulatively with past, ongoing, and future projects, would allow the Swift River to remain an eligible river with a potential scenic classification and potential ORVs of scenery and recreation.

3.10 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Affected Environment Identifying and evaluating areas with roadless characteristics is a planning process, not a formal management area designation effort. In essence, it is a tool designed to determine which National Forest lands meet the baseline criteria of size and condition to be considered for possible wilderness study or recommendation. A document providing an explanation and brief history of roadless area inventories, including discussion of the connection between two recent inventories on the White Mountain National Forest and the Forest Plan is in the project record. Information from that document is not repeated here. This discussion focuses on areas in and near the project area that were identified in the Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory. The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was identified as a new area through the Forest Plan revision inventory. It does not contain any land that was part of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventory (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Therefore the Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not apply to the Table Mountain area. The Northeast Swift Vegetation Management project proposes no activity on lands identified as part of the RACR inventory.

292 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

In the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005e, p. 25-26), no lands contained within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area were recommended for wilderness designation.

The 15,626 acre Table Mountain inventoried roadless area lies in Carroll county in the towns of Albany, Bartlett, and Hales Location (Figure 2.7). This area lies generally east/west in a landscape bounded by Bear Notch Road, portions of the Kancamagus Highway, the North Conway town line and Route 302. To the north and east of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are areas of commercial and residential development on private property. Attitash Ski area, an active alpine ski area, is located along a portion of the northern boundary of the area. Associated activities adjacent to the Table Mountain inventoried area in these developed areas include privately owned condominium developments and homes, local commercial and business developments, highways, and lift towers. South and west of the Table Mountain area, high levels of camping and tourism, as well as timber harvest activity occur along the Bear Notch Road and the Kancamagus Highway. The southern and western boundaries of the inventoried roadless area are coincident, in part, with the boundary of the Kancamagus Highway National Scenic Byway and Bear Notch Road respectively. Within the Table Mountain area there are existing noise and visual intrusions, including the Kancamagus Highway, scenic driving, winter motorized recreation, popular developed recreation sites, and campgrounds. The Sandwich 4, Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas are nearby but are not within the project area. All are within 2 miles of the nearest proposed management activity. The Sawyer River area has seven acres within one mile of the nearest harvest units. The Bear Notch Road and part of the Bartlett Experimental Forest are major features between the Sawyer River IRA and the project area. The Swift River and the Kancamagus Highway are major features between the project area and the Chocorua and Sandwich 4 areas. The Kancamagus Highway and Bear Notch Road receive a considerable amount of traffic, and the associated traffic noise is audible year- round in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas.

Because the Chocorua, Sandwich 4 and Sawyer River areas are outside the project area and separated from the project area by considerable features and distance, effects to areas with roadless characteristics will focus on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area.

293 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The management area distribution within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is: Management Area ...... Acres*

2.1-General Forest Management ...... 6,323

6.1-Semi-Primitive Recreation ...... 5,939

7.1-Alpine Ski Area ...... 6

8.2-Experimental Forests ...... 2,789

9.2-Alpine Ski Area Expansion ...... 568

In-holding ...... 1

*Approximate rounded acreage

Within the 10,400 acre project area, approximately 7,155 acres (68%) are within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. This acreage is distributed to the following MAs: Management Area ...... Acres*

2.1-General Forest Management ...... 4,370

6.1-Semi-Primitive Recreation ...... 2,785

*Approximate rounded acreage

There are currently 3.8 miles of improved roads in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, resulting in a density of 0.24 miles per 1,000 acres. Based on FSH guidance at the time, improved roads were identified during Forest Plan revision to evaluate the road densities as part of the roadless area inventory. Essentially improved roads included those on the Forest Service system and others that had a prism, drainage features, surfacing on much of their length, and no trees more than three inches in diameter. Since that time, road terminology has changed. Project-level travel analysis documents refer to NFS or forest system roads and unauthorized roads. The improved road dataset includes some roads in each of these categories. Measurements of change in miles of road or road density in an inventoried roadless area are based on miles of improved road, as they were identified during the inventory. Changes in classification to roads that are in the improved road dataset do not affect road miles or road densities in inventoried roadless areas for this analysis.

294 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Recreation in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area consists primarily of summer hiking, back-packing, and mountain biking, and winter snowmobiling and Nordic skiing. The area contains 18.2 miles of hiking trail, .5 miles of snowmobile trail and 3.7 miles of Nordic ski trails. Rock climbing opportunities in Table Mountain occur at Rainbow Slabs, Painted Walls, Table Mountain Slab and Haystack. The Table Mountain area generally appears as a natural forest environment with diverse vegetation and terrain. The management history of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is similar to other eastern roadless areas, which often display past management activity and land use. The Table Mountain roadless area has historically been managed for multiple-use objectives. Northeast Swift Project Past Harvests 1970 to Present (Appendix C), displays vegetation management activities within the Table Mountain portion of the project area over the last 40 years. Much, but not all, of the acreage harvested was completed prior to the area’s inclusion in the Plan revision roadless area inventory. Roads and old railroad beds in many parts of this area remain obvious. Table Mountain Historical Harvest, 1970 to Present

1975 Even-Age Regeneration 113 acres

1987 Partial Harvest 112 acres

1987 Even-Age Regeneration 67 acres

1992 Even-Age Regeneration 31 acres

1992 Uneven-Age Regeneration 32 acres

1999 Uneven-Age Regeneration 94 acres

1999 Partial Harvest 164 acres

2001 Even-Age Regeneration 58acres

2008 Uneven-Age Regeneration 86 acres

2008 Partial Harvest 50 acres

2008 Even-Age Regeneration 67 acres

874 acres total

295 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The vegetative growth from the past logging activities is good, and most users would perceive the area as natural in appearance. Historical harvest maps and aerial photography of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area clearly display the impressive regenerative capabilities of the forest. Current inventoried roadless areas and wilderness often have a history of past management, yet still meet inventory criteria, and in some instances have been recommended as Wilderness.

A complete description of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is available in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. C-170 to C-179). Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis Method

The analysis of effects to inventoried roadless areas for the Northeast Swift project is based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 70 (USDA Forest Service, 2007b), the same criteria used to conduct the inventory and wilderness evaluation during Forest Plan revision. First considered was whether the proposed activities would alter the degree to which lands included in an inventoried roadless area would meet the inventory criteria from the FSH (USDA Forest Service, 2007b, Section 71) during and following project implementation. Table 3.46 shows the inventory criteria and the method used to measure project-level effects on each criterion.

Table 3.46 - Inventory Criteria and Measurement Methods

Criteria Description Method for Measuring Project- level Effects on the Criteria

Measured by acres of harvest and 1 The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled appearance. miles of new road construction.

Improvements in the area are being affected by the forces Measured by miles of new road or 2 of nature rather than humans and are disappearing or trail construction. muted.

The area has existing or attainable National Forest System Measured by total acres of national 3 ownership patterns, both surface and subsurface, that forest ownership. could ensure perpetuation of identified wilderness values.

4 The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of Measured by total acres of harvest

296 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Criteria Description Method for Measuring Project- level Effects on the Criteria

wilderness values. Consider the relationship to the area to and total miles of new road sources of noise, air, and water pollution, as well as construction. unsightly conditions that would have an effect on the wilderness experience.

The area contains no more than ½ mile of improved road Measured by total miles of existing 5 for each 1,000 acres, and the road is under Forest Service improved road and total miles of jurisdiction. proposed new road construction.

No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, Measured by total acres of non- 6 planted vegetation. native planted vegetation.

Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested 7 Measured by total acres of harvest. within the past ten years.

The area contains only a few dwellings on private lands Measured by total number of 8 and the location of these dwellings and their access needs private dwellings. insulate their effects on natural conditions of Federal lands.

After taking a hard look at whether lands would continue to meet roadless inventory criteria during and after project implementation, the degree to which possible wilderness characteristics of lands would be affected by the proposed project was evaluated. For this part of the analysis the wilderness capability evaluation criteria from Appendix C of the FEIS for the Forest Plan was used.

Considering the effects of the project against these criteria shows how each alternative relates to the issue concerning the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area and allows the responsible official to consider whether proposed activities would be of such intensity or duration that implementation would preclude future land use options, including possible wilderness recommendation.

It should also be noted that the process in the Forest Service Handbook for evaluating lands within inventoried roadless areas for wilderness availability and need is inherently a part of land allocation planning (such as during Forest Plan revisions). Consequently, those criteria are not useful or practical in judging the effect of project- level actions on lands within an inventoried roadless area and are thus not part of this analysis.

297 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.47 - Wilderness Evaluation Criteria (Capability) and Measurement Method

Criteria Method for Measuring Project-level Effects on the Criteria

Natural Integrity A measure of whether the long-term ecological processes of the area are intact and operating. Addressed by describing the 1 effects a project may have on natural processes in the area.

Natural Appearance A measure of the degree of environmental modification that will occur because of a project. Addressed by describing the extent of modification that will occur in the area (e.g. length of roads built, facilities constructed) and how apparent the impact will be to the visitors of the area in both the short-term and the long-term.

Opportunities for Measured by the opportunity to be isolated from the sights, Experiences Often sounds, and evidence of humans, and experience a high degree Unique to Wilderness: of challenge and risk while using primitive outdoor skills. 2 • Solitude Addressed by describing how project activities might affect the • Challenge size of the area, the number and type of primitive recreation • Primitive Recreation opportunities available, the opportunity to experience natural quiet, and the addition or absence of facilities.

Special Features Addressed by describing the effect proposed activities would 3 have on other values of ecological, geologic, scenic or historical or cultural significance.

Description/Boundary A measure of the ability to manage an area as wilderness, the Conditions/Manageability resulting configuration of the potential wilderness, and the as Wilderness 4 interaction of the other elements above. Addressed by discussing how proposed activities may affect the boundary location, size, shape, and access to the area.

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on inventory criteria and potential wilderness characteristics is the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Potential effects to roadless inventory criterion 4 and wilderness capability criterion 2 will also be analyzed for the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. The other inventory and capability criteria are not relevant because these inventoried roadless areas are separated from the project area by considerable features and distance, including the Swift River, Kancamagus Highway, and the Bear Notch Road.

298 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

This analysis area was chosen because it is consistent with the criteria used in the 2005 Forest Plan FEIS analysis for inventoried roadless areas and their potential to be studied for Wilderness recommendation. This analysis area is primarily defined as the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area because of the proximity to the project area and because the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are localized. The Sandwich 4, Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless are succinctly examined because of the potential for some activities to be audible for up to 1–2 miles. The time frame is 2–10 years based on the potential effects including scenery modifications shown to be apparent for up to 10 years, after which they quickly revert to a natural-appearing forest cover (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-447). However, nearly all of the effects are expected to last for the duration of the sale, 2–4 years depending on the alternative selected and on sale operations. This analysis area and time duration were selected because direct and indirect effects are of a type that would not be expected to continue once the proposed activities are completed, with the exception of scenery modification that may persist for up to ten years. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative on indicators for inventory criteria and wilderness capability criteria are summarized in Table 3.48.

Table 3.48 - Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on the Table Mountain IRA

Measurement Indicator Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area

Total Acres 15,626

Acres of IRA within 2 miles of activity 14,045

Total Harvested Acres

Acres that could be harvested and still meet 3,125 (20% of 15,626) minimum inventory criteria (20% of the IRA)

Acres Harvested since 2000* 261

Acres of Harvest in Northeast Swift Proposal Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

0 828 810 531

Combined Total Harvested Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

261 1078 1071 792

Improved Roads

Miles of improved road that could exist ½ mile per 1,000 (7.8 miles) within the inventoried roadless area and still

299 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Measurement Indicator Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area

meet roadless inventory criteria

Existing miles of improved road 3.8

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Miles of improved road added by Northeast 0 1.1 1.1 0.6 Swift Proposal

Miles or improved road decommisioned by 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Northeast Swift Proposal

Miles of improved road following 3.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 implementation of Northeast Swift Proposal

Prescribed Fire

Acres of Prescribed Fire in Northeast Swift 0 501 373 501 Proposal

Acres of Prescribed Fire proposed outside of 0 347 242 397 harvest units in Northeast Swift Proposal

Trail Relocation

Existing miles of hiking and Nordic ski trails 21.9

Miles of trail relocation in Northeast Swift Proposal (.25 miles of these numbers is a 0 1.50 1.50 1.50 temporary relocation and will last only as long as harvest activity lasts).

Miles of trail removed due to relocation by 0 1.25 1.25 1.25 Northeast Swift proposal

Miles of Trails Following Implementation of 21.9 Northeast Swift Proposal

* Data from 2000-2010. Other ongoing projects not implemented will be included in cumulative effects section.

The Northeast Swift project does not set a national precedent by harvesting timber within an inventoried roadless area, nor does it set a local or regional precedent. Previous projects have harvested timber on the White Mountain National Forest in areas that were part of the Forest Plan revision inventory. These include the West Branch timber sales in the Kilkenny inventoried roadless area, the Connor Brook sale in the Wild River inventoried roadless area, the Popple sale in the Presidential-Dry River inventoried roadless area, and the Fool Killer and Kanc 7 East Sales in the Sandwich inventoried roadless area. Furthermore, implementing the activities proposed — including harvesting timber — does not constitute a commitment to take similar actions

300 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

in any other White Mountain National Forest inventoried roadless area or in any other inventoried roadless area in the country. This proposal was developed by local resource specialists after analysis of field information concerning the need for management in this habitat management unit and consideration of the Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired condition. As noted in other specialist reports, the Northeast Swift proposal is anchored in site-specific work: field analysis, determination of resource conditions, observation of effects, and results of past actions on adjacent lands. This proposal does not make similar actions in other inventoried roadless areas on the Forest or elsewhere more or less likely. No other project action is dependent upon implementation of this proposal. The Northeast Swift project is a stand-alone proposal tailored to address site- specific resource needs.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1, proposes “No Action” in the Northeast Swift project area or the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, and thus would have no short-term direct or indirect effects on the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas or the wilderness capability criteria of the analysis area. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet roadless area inventory criteria:

Inventory criterion 1: The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would continue to regain a natural, untrammeled appearance. The area would continue to appear primarily affected by the forces of nature. The recreation improvements, the trail system, and associated trail improvements would remain and would be managed in accordance with their appropriate maintenance levels.

Inventory criterion 2: The No Action alternative does not include road construction, road reconstruction, landings, and road maintenance within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The proposed trail relocation of the Nanamacomock Nordic Ski Trail from a roughly 1 mile section of swampy ground would not take place and resource damage to its current location would continue. Other trails and recreation facilities that are present within this inventoried roadless area are maintained according to Forest Service standards appropriate to the management area(s) in which they lie.

Inventory criteria 3, 6 and 8: Ownership patterns would not change, no non-native planting would occur, and no dwellings or access would be constructed.

301 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Inventory criterion 4: There would be no change in the relationship of any inventoried roadless area to sources of noise, air or water pollution, or other existing effects on wilderness experience. The baseline off-Forest noise and visual intrusions, including highways, motorized recreation, low-level over-head flights, Attitash Ski Area, and private timber operations would persist.

Inventory criterion 5: There would be no increase or decrease in miles of improved road. The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres.

Inventory criterion 7: Under the No Action alternative there would be no harvest within any inventoried roadless area. The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would remain at less than 2% of the area harvested since 2000. This is well below the Forest Service inventory criteria of 20 percent of the inventoried roadless area (3,125 acres) being harvested in the last ten years.

If the no action alternative were selected, the lands identified as the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet the criteria for inclusion in a future inventory of roadless areas.

Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:

Capability criterion 1: This alternative would allow the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area to retain the current degree of natural integrity and natural appearance. There would be no management induced changes or improvements to the ecological function within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The proposed trail relocation of the Nanamacomock Nordic Trail would not take place and resource damage to its current location would continue.

Capability criterion 2: This alternative would have no effect on the existing opportunities within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. There would be no changes to the availability of primitive recreation or the opportunity to experience natural quiet.

Capability criteria 3 and 4: Alternative 1 would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. C-146 to C-158).

302 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary of areas in any future inventory or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation.

Alternative 1 would not preclude any future land use options, including the possibility of recommending some or all of the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocoroua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas for potential future wilderness designation.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have temporary short-term direct and indirect effects on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Alternative 2 would also have temporary short- term indirect effects on the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. The activities proposed in Alternative 2 do not approach an intensity, duration, or permanence such that the lands within inventoried roadless areas would no longer meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory as a result of project implementation. Table 3.42 shows the roadless inventory criteria and the potential for this alternative to affect the area’s ability to meet those criteria. A moderate level of past timber harvest and road construction has occurred in the analysis area. The long-term inventoried roadless area characteristics are not expected to change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 2. The acres of harvest proposed in each of the action alternatives would not affect the size or suitability of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area during the next inventory. Based on the amount of harvest and specifically the regeneration harvest within inventoried roadless areas, Alternative 2 will have a greater amount of disturbance than Alternatives 3 or 4. Associated management activities including skid trails, landing use, prescribed fire and road reconstruction would occur at intensities directly correlated to the amount of harvest proposed for each alternative. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet roadless area inventory criteria:

Inventory criterion 1: The timber harvest activities (including prescribed fire on 154 acres) would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 828 acres or 5.3% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Prescribed fire would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 347 additional acres or 2.2% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. These effects would be temporary and should not be noticeable to the eye within a decade (see Scenery report). These effects

303 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

include the appearance of skid trails, stumps, and openings in the foreground; and modifications to forest composition including texture, pattern, and color when viewed from the middle- or background. Within the inventoried roadless area, four existing landing locations would be utilized and six new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated that harvest operations would require approximately 14 miles of primary skid trails. Effects from prescribed fire may include charred vegetation and tree trunks, modifications in understory vegetation texture and pattern, and temporary appearance of fire lines. Effects to appearance associated with these activities would be limited in duration, diminishing quickly as trees, shrubs, and grasses regenerate following management activities. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in the Soils and Water resources specialist reports. Based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests, effects to natural appearance are not anticipated to persist. As evidenced by historical vegetation management maps of recently designated Wilderness and increases in acreage included in the 2005 inventory on the White Mountain National Forest, changes in land appearance from timber harvest do not prevent an area from meeting these inventory criteria.

This alternative includes a proposed watershed project that would reinforce a small section of stream bank where an old skid trail crosses Cilley Brook. The watershed restoration project would incorporate woody debris into the brook channel. Woody material is common in streams in this area and should appear relatively natural. Hydrological effects associated with this restoration project are discussed under Water Resources.

Inventory criterion 2: Alternative 2 proposes to add 1.1 miles of improved road within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. This includes .7 miles of road reconstruction along the 5174 road and .4 miles of construction at the end of the 5174 road. Although 0.7 miles of this road exists on the ground, no portion of it is contained in the improved road data set, therefore both construction and reconstruction activities will add miles of improved road to the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. This road reconstruction/construction is needed to provide access to two proposed new log landings. The proposed route will follow the general path of the existing template of the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail. If this road is constructed, the road and ski trail may be co-located for all or a portion of the road length once harvest activities have ceased. These activities will add 1.1 miles of improved road in the inventoried roadless area, but

304 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment the total improved road miles would remain well under the inventory criteria (½ mile per 1000 acres or 7.8 miles total).

The project also proposes the reconstruction of approximately 0.3 miles of Forest System Road 26B within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. This reconstruction occurs on an existing improved forest road and does not affect miles of improved roads. The effects of road reconstruction to the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are temporary and will cease following project activity. Alternative 2 also proposes to authorize four roads located in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area as NFS roads (5158, 5164, 5244, and 5245). These roads are already included in the improved road data set, therefore the mileage is contained in the existing inventoried roadless area road mileage and road density calculations. The categorization of these roads as NFS will not add to road miles the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The constructed, reconstructed, and authorized roads will be gated and closed to any public use other than foot travel and Nordic skiing. No motorized use other than administrative and project use would be permitted on these travel routes. Any change to the appearance of the area will be localized to the area of the newly constructed road and log landings. These will diminish as grasses and other vegetation regenerate following management activities. Two segments, totaling 1.50 miles, of trail relocation are proposed within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The first segment along the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail would relocate approximately 1.3 miles of swampy wet ground that is causing some resource concerns onto higher dry ground. This new section of trail would be located on a skid trail proposed as part of the harvest operation. The old section of the ski trail would be obliterated. This relocation would likely cause no net increase in the number of trail miles within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. There would be an increase in the appearance of human created improvements including cut stumps, minor clearing and brushing of vegetation, and leveling in order to establish a proper trail tread. These effects would be highly localized and ultimately offset by the revegetation of the closed trail segments. A second short section, approximately 0.25 miles, of the Moat Mountain Trail would be temporarily relocated as this trail leaves the trailhead parking lot along the Passaconway Road. This relocation is proposed to provide for public safety by eliminating the potential for dual log truck and hiker use on the trail and in a log landing proposed along the existing trail. This relocation is temporary and would only last as long as harvest in units served by this landing. Following the closure of this landing the

305 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

temporary trail would be closed and rehabilitated and hiker use would return to the original footprint of the Moat Mountain Trail.

Effects from this relocation would be temporary and minor and would be similar to those related to the other trail relocations in this project. Road improvements would be maintained according to Forest Service standards. Trails and trail improvements that are present within this inventoried roadless area also would be maintained according to Forest Service standards appropriate to the management area(s) in which they lie. Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access.

Inventory criterion 4: Some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activity for the duration of the project. The entire project area, including all of the Alternative 2 proposed activities, is within two miles of the Table Mountain inventoried area.

Noise estimates are based on data and analysis gathered by a recent forestry noise study that measured the decibel levels of various harvesting machinery (Neitzel and Yost, 2003), and professional experience specific to field observations in New England. The distance is generally based on the assumptions of average decibels produced by machinery and measured over distance from the specific source. The sound to distance estimate does not take into account the buffering effects of vegetation, wind, or topography which will further reduce the sound (Timerson, 1999). Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, which is unlikely given local topography and vegetation cover, it is possible that noise could be audible from harvest activity or road construction related activities on at most, up to 89.9% or 14,045 acres of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, up to 1.2% or 263 acres of the Sandwich 4 IRA, up to 15.5% or 1610 acres of the Chocorua inventoried roadless area, and up to 18.3% or 1,227 acres of the Sawyer River inventoried roadless area. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only during times of actual operations for the duration of the project (2–4 years). The percent of the area affected at any one time would vary based upon season of operation and individual sale design. Project design features limit logging operations to weekdays in units abutting or containing the Nana Nordic Trail. This would mitigate the effects of noise related to harvest especially in those units contained in the inventoried roadless area that abut the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail.

306 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

A complete discussion of effects from transient air quality and prescribed fire can be found under Air Resources. It indicates that a short-term increase in air pollutants can be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, harvesting equipment, and prescribed fire activities. These are temporary sources of emissions and particulate matter; they would occur in the context of larger sources such as vehicle use along Kancamagus Highway, Bear Notch Road, Route 302, smoke from campfires at backcountry campsites and campgrounds, and snowmobile use in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. In this context, the relatively small-scale increases associated with the project would be of an intensity or duration such that lands within inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, project design features, and timber sale contract provisions are expected to prevent any negative effects to water quality or quantity as a result of harvest activity or other project activities. Consequently, lands within the inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. See Water Resources for more information. When the vegetation management, prescribed fire and road maintenance actions are complete, the only noise, air pollution and other impacts to a wilderness experience in the inventoried roadless areas would be those that currently exist, such as the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, Attitash Ski Area and associated improvements, popular developed recreation sites and campgrounds, and existing multi-use trails used by visitors.

Inventory criterion 5: The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres; within the inventoried roadless area Northeast Swift project proposes to add 1.1 miles of improved road (.4 miles of new road construction and .7 miles of reconstruction on the 5174 road). Alternative 2 proposes to decommission two segments of road totaling .6 miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. FR 28UNK-1 is currently considered an improved road and the decommissioning of 0.1 miles would be subtracted from the number of total road miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Road 5169 is not currently considered a improved road and therefore the decommissioning of the .5 miles of this road occurring in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area will not affect the number of road miles in the inventoried roadless area. This road also serves in part as the Wenona Nordic Ski Trail. The road decommissioning will have no effect on the trail status of the Wenona or the total miles of trail in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Refer to Inventory criterion 2, for the discussion of road reconstruction.

307 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Within the roadless area, four existing landing locations would be utilized and six new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated harvest operations would require approximately 14 miles of primary skid trails. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in Soils and Water Resources analysis sections. Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 828 acres of harvest within the inventoried roadless area, including 179 acres of regeneration harvest. This is well below the Forest Service roadless inventory criterion of no more than 20% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area (3,125 acres) being harvested in the last ten years. Under Alternative 2, the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.

Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:

Effects to capability criteria are limited in extent (based on proximity to operations), are temporary in nature (approximately 2–4 years depending on harvest operations) and primarily occur during the lower-use times of the year. They must also be viewed in the context of other ongoing sources of noise and air pollution such as the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, Attitash Ski Area and associated improvements, popular developed recreation sites and campgrounds, and existing multi-use trails used by visitors.

Capability criterion 1: As described above, this alternative would add to the degree of disturbance in the analysis area. The harvest acres (containing harvest and prescribed fire activities), particularly the 179 acres of clearcut harvest, and the additional 347 acres of prescribed fire occurring outside proposed harvest units would alter the natural- appearing forest environment in approximately 7.51% of the inventoried area. The changes in appearance in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, specifically along trails, would be noticeable for a decade, becoming muted as regeneration of vegetation occurs. Effects of harvest disturbance are further muted through the use of thoughtful design considerations, which are discussed under Scenery and Recreation. Refer to Capability criterion 2 and the Recreation analysis for detailed effects to trail character and recreation. The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within any of the inventoried roadless areas, as discussed in specific resource analyses.

308 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Refer to Alternative 2 Inventory criterion 2, for a discussion of the effects of road construction on the inventoried roadless area. Road construction in the inventoried roadless area would occur at the end of an existing improved road (5174). The majority of this construction would follow the template or corridor occupied by the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, thereby avoiding creation of a second corridor within the inventoried roadless area. The trail corridor would be widened and straightened to accommodate log truck traffic during harvest operations. Following completion of harvest operations the corridor would revegetate and be managed as a Nordic Ski Trail. The long term impacts to the natural appearance of this portion of the inventoried roadless area would be minimal.

Due to the limited area of harvest activity and prescribed fire (1,175 acres or approximately 7.51%), the limited nature of road construction and reconstruction activities (1.1 miles) and the natural recuperative abilities of the land, implementation of Alternative 2 would not be expected to affect natural appearance or integrity such that the option of considering this portion of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area for any future land use, including possible wilderness recommendation, would be precluded. Based on amount of harvest, and specifically regeneration harvest, and prescribed fire within the inventoried roadless area, Alternative 2 would have a greater amount of overall disturbance than the other action alternatives.

Capability criterion 2: The wilderness experience available in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would be temporarily impacted by harvesting operations, trail relocation, road construction/maintenance, watershed improvement, and prescribed fire due to the presence of motorized equipment, noise, smoke and transient air pollution. However, the availability and challenge of recreation opportunities in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would remain largely unchanged after project implementation. Alternative 2 would have short-term effects to the opportunity to experience solitude in up to 89.9% of the Table Mountain, 1.2% of the Sandwich 4, 15.5% of the Chocorua and 18.3% of the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas (Refer to Inventory criterion 4).

Noise associated with 828 acres of harvest operations would occur during summer, fall, and winter. As discussed in Inventory criterion 4, localized noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest in and adjacent to the inventoried roadless areas (Timerson 1999; Neitzel and Yost 2003). This

309 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

effect would cease following operations. Noise disturbance in the project area must be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors, including the vehicular traffic on the Kancamagus Highway, low level flights, snowmobile trails, and popular recreation sites.

Smoke and odor associated with 501 acres of prescribed fire would occur during spring and fall for short periods of time. Effects from this activity as discussed in Inventory Criterion 4 would only occur while prescribed fire activities were in progress. Localized odor and smell from charred wood may be detectable for up to one month following the activity depending on local weather conditions. The effects of this activity must also be considered in the context of other contributing factors, including smoke from backcountry campfires, campgrounds, and other local sources. The Recreation section of this document discusses in great detail the potential effects to recreation associated with each alternative. This alternative does not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. Thirteen hiking trails in the inventoried roadless areas are within two miles of harvest units, road maintenance, prescribed fire, trail relocation, and watershed restoration activities. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change due to harvest activities, though temporary effects to recreation, specifically hiking and Nordic skiing, are disclosed in the Recreation analysis.

310 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary in any future roadless area inventory or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation.

Alternative 2 would have limited effect on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area, and no effect on its eligibility as a roadless area. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have lesser effects than Alternative 2 because of a decrease in the acres of total harvest, the acres of prescribed fire and the percentage of regeneration acres treated within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. This alternative would have temporary short-term direct and indirect effects on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Alternative 3 would also have temporary short-term indirect effects on the Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. As the effects of activities proposed in Alternative 3 are slightly less than Alternative 2, they also do not approach intensity, duration, or permanence such that the lands within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would no longer meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory as a result of project implementation. The long-term characteristics of the areas would not be expected to change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 3. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet roadless area inventory criteria:

Inventory criterion 1: The timber harvest activities (including prescribed fire on 131 acres) would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 810 acres or 5.2% of the inventoried roadless area. Prescribed fire would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 242 additional acres or 1.54% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Effects from these activities would be temporary and should not be noticeable to the eye within a decade (see the Scenery analysis). As with Alternative 2, these effects include the appearance of skid trails, stumps, and openings in the foreground and modifications to forest composition, including texture, pattern, and color when viewed from the middle- or background. It is anticipated harvest operations would require approximately 14 miles of primary skid trails, the

311 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

same amount as Alternative 2. Effects from prescribed fire may include charred vegetation and tree trunks, modifications to understory vegetation texture and pattern, and temporary appearance of fire lines.

This alternative also includes the watershed project on Cilley Brook discussed for Alternative 2. Similarly to Alternative 2, effects to appearance associated with vegetation management activities would be limited in duration, diminishing quickly as trees, shrubs, and grasses regenerate following management activities. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources analysis sections. Alternative 3 would have similar effects to Alternative 2; the decreases in the amount of acres treated, the acres of regeneration harvest and the acres of prescribed fire present in Alternative 3 are so slight and spread out over such a large acreage as to make them immeasurable and unobservable at the project scale. The effects to natural appearance are not anticipated to persist beyond the one-decade time period. This assumption is based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests and evidenced by historical vegetation management maps of recently-designated Wilderness and increases in acreage in the Plan revision inventory on the White Mountain National Forest; changes in land appearance from timber harvest do not prevent an area from meeting these inventory criteria.

Inventory criterion 2: Road construction and road reconstruction are the same as proposed in Alternative 2: 1.1 miles of new road construction and reconstruction along and at the end of the 5174 road and the reconstruction of approximately 0.3 miles of Forest System Road 26B. The reconstruction along the 5174 road occurs on a currently unimproved road and will add miles of improved road to the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The reconstruction activity on FSR 26B occurs on an existing improved forest road and does not affect miles of improved roads. Alternative 3 also proposes to authorize four roads located in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area as NFS roads (5158, 5164, 5244, and 5245). The mileage of these roads is already contained in the existing inventoried roadless area road mileage and road density. The categorization of these roads as NFS will not add to road miles the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. As in Alternative 2, trail relocations on the Moat Mountain Trail and the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail totaling approximately 1.5 miles are also proposed in Alternative 3. Trails and recreation facilities that are present within the inventoried

312 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment roadless areas are maintained according to Forest Service standards appropriate to the management area(s) in which they lie. The effects of these activities are identical to those described in Inventory criterion 2 under Alternative 2.

Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access.

Inventory criterion 4: As with Alternative 2, some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activity for the duration of the project. The entire project area, including all of the Alternative 3 proposed activities, is within two miles of the Table Mountain inventoried area. For a complete discussion of the effects on this criterion refer to Alternative 2 Inventory Criterion 4, because the same portions of all inventoried roadless areas are within 2 miles of the proposed project. Alternative 3 would have slightly lesser effects because of the decrease in acres treated (both harvest and prescribed fire) within the Table Mountain roadless area. The maximum extent of 89.9% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area potentially affected and the 2–4 year duration would not change, however the length of actual operation time would decrease a minor amount to account for the decreased harvest volume in Alternative 3. Based on the minor changes in acres of treatment and prescribed fire, and no changes to other proposed activities the Alternative 2, discussions of effects of noise, air pollution, and watershed affects to Inventory criterion 4 for Alternative 2 apply to Alternative 3.

Inventory criterion 5: The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres; within the inventoried roadless area Northeast Swift project proposes to add 1.1 miles of improved road within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area through construction and reconstruction along the 5174 road. Alternative 3 proposes to decommission two segments of road totaling .6 miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. FR 28UNK-1 is currently considered an improved road and the decommissioning of.1 miles will be subtracted from the number of total road miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Road 5169 is not currently considered a improved road and therefore the decommissioning of the .5 miles of this road occurring in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area will not affect the number of road miles in the inventoried roadless area. This road also serves in part as the Wenona Nordic Ski Trail. The road decommissioning will have no effect the trail status of the Wenona or to the total miles

313 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

of trail in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Refer to Inventory criterion 2, for the discussion of road reconstruction.

Within the roadless area, four existing landing locations would be utilized and six new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated harvest operations would require approximately 14 miles of primary skid trails. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources analysis sections. The 1.1 miles of new road construction coupled with the road decommissioning will result in an increase in the number of improved road miles in the inventoried roadless area but remains under the threshhold for the inventory criterion of no more than ½ mile of improved road per 1,000 acres of roadless.

Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 810 acres of harvest within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, including 143 acres of regeneration harvest. This is well below the Forest Service roadless inventory criterion of no more than 20 percent of the inventoried roadless area (3,125 acres) being harvested in the last ten years. Under Alternative 3, this inventoried roadless area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:

Capability criterion 1: As described above, this alternative would slightly decrease the degree of disturbance in the analysis area versus Alternative 2. The 810 acres of harvest, particularly the 143 acres of even-aged regeneration harvest, and the additional 242 acres of prescribed fire occurring outside proposed harvest units would alter the natural-appearing forest environment in approximately 6.7% of the inventoried area. Alternative 3 proposes a reduced amount of total harvest, even-aged regeneration harvest, and prescribed fire within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The changes in appearance in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, specifically along trails, would be noticeable for a decade. However, as with Alternative 2, timber harvest and prescribed fire activities would have discreet short-term effects that would be minimized as regeneration of vegetation occurs and through the use of design features and mitigation measures. Effects of harvest disturbance are further muted through the use of thoughtful design considerations, which are discussed in detail in the Scenery and Recreation analyses. Refer to Capability criterion 2 and the Recreation Analysis for detailed effects to trail character and recreation.

314 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Refer to Alternative 2 Inventory criterion 2, for a discussion of the effects of road construction on the inventoried roadless area. Alternative 2 would add 1.1 miles of improved road to the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area through construction and reconstruction activity along and at the end of the 5174 road. No portion of this road is currently contained in the improved road data set. This construction would generally follow the template or corridor occupied by the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail, thereby not creating a second corridor within the inventoried roadless area in this area. The trail corridor would be widened and straightened to accommodate log truck traffic during harvest operations. Following completion of harvest operations the corridor would revegetate and be managed as a Nordic Ski Trail. The long term impacts to the natural appearance of this portion of the inventoried roadless area would be minimal. The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within any inventoried roadless area, as discussed in specific resource analyses. Due to the limited area of activity (1052 acres or approximately 6.7% of the inventoried roadless area) and the natural recuperative abilities of the land, implementation of Alternative 3 would not be expected to affect natural appearance or integrity such that the option of considering this portion of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area for any future land use, including possible wilderness recommendation, would be precluded. Based on amount of prescribed fire, harvest, and specifically regeneration harvest, within roadless, Alternative 3 would have a lesser amount of disturbance than Alternative 2.

Capability criterion 2: The wilderness experience available in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would be temporarily impacted by harvesting operations, road construction/maintenance, watershed improvement, trail relocation, and prescribed fire due to the presence of motorized equipment, noise, smoke, and transient air pollution. The affects of Alternative 3 would be slightly less than Alternative 2 because of the decrease in the amount of acres harvested and prescribed fire. However, the availability and challenge of recreation opportunities in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would remain largely unchanged after project implementation.

315 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternative 3 would have short-term effects to the opportunity to experience solitude in approximately 89.9% of the Table Mountain, 1.2% of the Sandwich, 4, 15.5% of the Chocorua, and 18.3% of the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas (see Inventory criterion 4).

Noise associated with 810 acres of harvest operations would occur in summer, fall and winter. As discussed in Inventory criterion 4, localized noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest in and adjacent to the inventoried roadless areas (Timerson, 1999; Neitzel and Yost, 2003). This effect would cease following operations. Noise disturbance in the project area must also be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors, including the vehicular traffic on the Kancamagus Highway, low level flights, snow-mobile trails, and popular recreation sites. Smoke and odor associated with 373 acres of prescribed fire would occur during spring, summer, and fall for short periods of time. Effects from this activity as discussed in Inventory Criterion 4 would only occur while prescribed fire activities were in progress. Localized odor and smell from charred wood may be detectable for up to one month following the activity depending on local weather conditions. The effects of this activity must also be considered in the context of other contributing factors, including smoke from backcountry campfires, campgrounds, and other local sources. The Recreation analysis discusses the potential effects to recreation associated with each alternative. This alternative does not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. Thirteen hiking trails in the inventoried roadless areas are within two miles of harvest units, prescribed fire units, road construction/maintenance, trail relocations, and watershed restoration activities. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change due to the proposed activities, though temporary effects to recreation, specifically hiking and Nordic skiing, are disclosed in the Recreation analysis. Alternative 3 would have slightly less effect than Alternative 2 due to the decrease in the acreage treated within two miles of the inventoried roadless areas. Although the acres potentially affected and the 2–4 year duration would remain the same, the length of actual operation time would decrease a minor amount to account for the decreased harvest volumes in Alternative 3. Following implementation of the proposed activities the lands within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River

316 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory as a result of Alternative 3 implementation.

Capability criteria 3 and 4: For a variety of reasons the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was not a proposed addition to wilderness in the 2005 Forest Plan. It was shown to not have any unique features or experiences that are not currently available in areas outside the IRA or in currently existing Wilderness areas. It would also affect any potential future expansion of the Bartlett Experimental Forest or consideration of the expansion of Attitash Ski Area. Furthermore given the amount of established recreation and management in the area, and its proximity to high urban populations and construction activity in the North Conway area it would pose a formidable management challenge if designated as Wilderness (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. C-170 to C-179). That being stated, the selection of this alternative would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS. Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary in any future roadless area inventory or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 3 would not preclude any future land use option, including the possibility of wilderness recommendation, as a result of implementation. Alternative 3 would have limited effect on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area, and no effect on its eligibility as roadless. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would have lesser and different effects because of the reduction in the number of acres of treatment and the lack of even-aged regeneration acres treated within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Alternative 4 has the same number of acres of prescribed fire, miles of trail relocation, and number of watershed projects as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 contains an increased amount of prescribed fire acres when compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would have temporary short-term direct and indirect effects on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Alternative 4 would also have temporary short-term indirect effects on the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. While the effects of activities proposed in Alternative 4 would be different than Alternatives 2 and 3, they would not approach an

317 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

intensity, duration, or permanence such that the lands within the Table Mountain area would no longer meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory as a result of project implementation. The long-term characteristics of the area are not expected to change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 4. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet inventoried roadless area inventory criteria:

Inventory criterion 1: The timber harvest activities (including prescribed fire on 104 acres) would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 531 acres or 3.4% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Prescribed fire would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 397 additional acres or 2.5% of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. These effects would be temporary and should not be noticeable to the eye within a decade (see Scenery report). These effects include the appearance of skid trails, stumps, and openings in the foreground; and modifications to forest composition including texture, pattern, and color when viewed from the middle- or background. Within the inventoried roadless area, four existing landing locations would be utilized and five new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated that harvest operations would require approximately 7.9 miles of primary skid trails. Effects from prescribed fire may include charred vegetation and tree trunks, modifications in understory vegetation texture and pattern, and temporary appearance of fire lines. Effects to appearance associated with these activities would be limited in duration, diminishing quickly as trees, shrubs, and grasses regenerate following management activities. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in the Soils and Water resources reports. Based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests, effects to natural appearance are not anticipated to persist. As evidenced by historical vegetation management maps of recently designated Wilderness and increases in acreage included in the Plan revision inventory on the White Mountain National Forest, changes in land appearance from timber harvest do not prevent an area from meeting these inventory criteria. This alternative includes a proposed watershed project that would reinforce a small section of stream bank where an old skid trail crosses Cilley Brook. The watershed restoration project would incorporate woody debris into the brook channel. Woody material is common in streams in this area and should appear relatively natural.

318 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Hydrological effects associated with this restoration project are discussed in Water Resources. The total acres of prescribed fire proposed in Alternative 4 are the same as that proposed in Alternative 2, therefore the effects are identical. In Alternative 4 there is no proposed road construction or even-aged regeneration harvests and the total number of acres proposed for treatment is reduced by nearly 300 acres when compared to the other action alternatives. The result is a decrease in the degree and type of effects from timber harvest to the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area under Alternative 4 versus the other two action alternatives.

Inventory criterion 2: Under Alternative 4, no new road construction is proposed in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area however road reconstruction on the 5174 road would add 0.6 miles of improved road. The existing roadbed of 5174 is not currently considered an improved road and would therefore add miles. As in the other two action alternatives 0.3 miles of road reconstruction would also take place on FSR 26B. This reconstruction occurs on an existing improved forest road and does not affect miles of improved roads. As in Alternative 2 and 3, trail relocations on the Moat Mountain Trail and the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail totaling approximately 1.50 miles are also proposed in Alternative 4. Effects from road reconstruction and trail relocation would be the same as other alternatives.

Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access.

Inventory criterion 4: As with Alternatives 2 and 3, some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activity for the duration of the project. The entire project area, including all of the Alternative 4 proposed activities, is within two miles of the Table Mountain inventoried area. Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, which is unlikely given local topography and vegetative cover, it is possible that noise could be audible on, up to 89.9% or 14,045 acres of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, up to 1.2% or 263 acres of the Sandwich 4 IRA, up to 15.5% or 1610 acres of the Chocorua inventoried roadless area, and up to 18.3% or 1,227 acres of the Sawyer River inventoried roadless area. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only during times of actual operations for the duration of the project (2–4 years).

319 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The percent of the area affected at any one time would be based upon season of operation and individual sale design. Alternative 4 would have reduced effects, when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, because of the decrease in the acreage treated. Although the acres of inventoried roadless areas potentially effected and the 2–4 year duration would remain the same, the length of actual operation time would decrease to account for a 297 acre reduction from Alternative 2 and a 279 acre reduction from Alternative 3. A complete discussion of effects from transient air quality and prescribed fire can be found in Air Resources. It indicated that a short-term increase in air pollutants can be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, harvesting equipment, and prescribed fire activities. These are temporary sources of emissions and particulate matter; they would occur in the context of larger sources such as vehicle use along Kancamagus Highway, Bear Notch Road, Route 302, smoke from campfires at backcountry campsites and campgrounds, and snowmobile use in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. In this context, the relatively small-scale increases associated with the project would be of an intensity or duration such that lands within inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Alternative 4 would have reduced effects from transient air quality when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the reduction in sources of emissions and particulate matter associated with the reduction in acres of vegetation management activities (decrease in acres treated, no new road construction, one less new landing constructed). The effects from smoke and prescribed fire would be identical to Alternative 2 and greater than Alternative 3 in which the prescribed fire acres were reduced. Alternative 4 effects on soil and water resources are disclosed in Soils and Water Resources. When the vegetation management and road maintenance actions are complete, the only noise, air pollution, and other impacts to a wilderness experience in the inventoried roadless areas would be those that currently exist, such as the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, Attitash Ski Area and associated improvements, popular developed recreation sites and campgrounds, and existing multi-use trails used by visitors.

Inventory criterion 5: The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres; within the inventoried roadless area, Alternative 4 does not propose any road construction, but reconstruction work on the 5174 road would add 0.6 miles of road to the inventoried area. The 5174 road is not currently considered an improved road. Decommissioning of two segments of road

320 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment totaling .6 miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is proposed. FR 28UNK-1 is currently considered an improved road and the decommissioning of.1 miles will be subtracted from the number of total road miles in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Road 5169 is not currently considered a improved road and therefore the decommissioning of the .5 miles of this road occurring in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would not affect the number of road miles in the inventoried roadless area. This road also serves in part as the Wenona Nordic Ski Trail. The road decommissioning will have no effect the trail status of the Wenona or to the total miles of trail in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Refer to Inventory criterion 2, for the discussion of road reconstruction. Within the roadless area, four existing landing locations would be utilized and five new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated harvest operations would require approximately 7.9 miles of primary skid trails, a decrease from Alternatives 2 and 3. Due to the decreased number of new landings, lack of new road construction and decreased miles of primary skid trails, the effects would be reduced from Alternatives 2 and 3. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area are disclosed in Soils and Water Resources. The addition of 0.6 miles of improved road in conjunction with the decommissioning of 0.1 miles within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area will cause a slight increase in the number of improved road miles in the inventoried roadless area but would remain below the inventory criterion of no more than ½ mile of improved road per 1,000 acres of roadless.

Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 531 acres of harvest within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, and no acres of even-aged regeneration harvest. This is well below the Forest Service roadless inventory criteria of no more than 20 percent of the inventoried roadless area (3,125 acres) being harvested in the last ten years. Under Alternative 4, this inventoried roadless area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.

Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:

Capability criterion 1: As described above, this alternative would add to the degree of disturbance in the analysis area. The harvest acres and acres of prescribed fire, would alter the natural-appearing forest environment in approximately 5.9% of the inventoried area.

321 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The changes in appearance in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, specifically along trails, would be noticeable for a decade. Design features would lessen the effects specifically along trails, where visitor and management interactions are most common (see recreation report). As with other action alternatives, the timber harvest and prescribed fire activity would result in short-term effects that would be minimized as regeneration of vegetation occurs and through the use of design features and mitigation measures. Effects of harvest disturbance are further muted through the use of thoughtful design considerations, which are discussed in detail in the Scenery and Recreation sections of this document. Refer to Capability criterion 2 and the Recreation analysis for detailed effects to trail character and recreation. The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within any inventoried roadless area, as discussed in specific resource analyses. Due to the limited area of harvest activity and prescribed fire (928 acres or approximately 5.9%) and the natural recuperative abilities of the land, implementation of Alternative 4 would not be expected to affect natural appearance or integrity such that the option of considering this portion of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area for any future land use, including possible wilderness recommendation, would be precluded. Based on amount of harvest and prescribed fire, and the lack of even-aged regeneration harvest within roadless, Alternative 4 would have a lesser amount of disturbance than Alternative 2 or 3.

Capability criterion 2: The wilderness experience available in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would be temporarily impacted by harvesting operations, prescribed fire, trail relocation, and watershed improvement due to the presence of motorized equipment, noise, and transient air pollution. The effects of Alternative 4 would be less than Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the decrease in the amount of acres harvested. The availability and challenge of recreation opportunities in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would remain largely unchanged after project implementation.

322 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 4 would have short-term effects to the opportunity to experience solitude in approximately 89.9% of the Table Mountain, 1.2% of the Sandwich, 4, 15.5% of the Chocorua, and 18.3% of the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas (see Inventory criterion 4).

Noise associated with 531 acres of harvest operations would occur in summer, fall and winter. As discussed in Inventory criterion 4, localized noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest in and adjacent to the inventoried roadless areas (Timerson, 1999; Neitzel and Yost, 2003). This effect would cease following operations. Noise disturbance in the project area must also be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors, including the vehicular traffic on the Kancamagus Highway, low level flights, snow-mobile trails, and popular recreation sites. Smoke and odor associated with 501 acres of prescribed fire would occur during spring, summer, and fall for short periods of time. Effects from this activity as discussed in Inventory Criterion 4 would only occur while prescribed fire activities were in progress. Localized odor and smell from charred wood may be detectable for up to one month following the activity depending on local weather conditions. The effects of this activity must also be considered in the context of other contributing factors, including smoke from backcountry campfires, campgrounds, and other local sources. The Recreation analysis discusses the potential effects to recreation associated with each alternative. This alternative does not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas. Thirteen hiking trails in the inventoried roadless areas are within two miles of harvest units, prescribed fire units, trail relocations, and watershed restoration activities. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change due to the proposed activities, though temporary effects to recreation, specifically hiking and Nordic skiing, are disclosed in the Recreation analysis.

Alternative 4 would have a lesser effect than Alternative 2 or 3 because of the decrease in the acreage treated within two miles of the inventoried roadless areas. Although the acres of inventoried roadless potentially effected and the 2–4 year duration would remain the same, the length of actual operation time would decrease to account for the decreased harvest volumes in Alternative 4. Following implementation of the proposed activities the lands within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.

323 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Capability criteria 3 and 4: For a variety of reasons the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was not a proposed addition to wilderness in the Forest Plan. It was shown to not have any unique features or experiences that are not currently available in areas outside the inventoried roadless area or in currently existing Wilderness areas. It would also affect any potential future expansion of the Bartlett Experimental Forest or consideration of the expansion of Attitash Ski Area. Furthermore given the amount of established recreation and management in the area, and its proximity to high urban populations and construction activity in the North Conway area it would pose a formidable management challenge if designated as Wilderness (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. C-170 to C-179). That being stated, the selection of this alternative would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS. Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary in any future roadless area inventory or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. The limited and temporary nature of the effects associated with Alternative 4 would not preclude any future land use option, including the possibility of wilderness recommendation, as a result of implementation. Alternative 4 would have limited effect on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area, and no effect on its eligibility as roadless. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on roadless and potential wilderness characteristics is primarily the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. In addition, the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas were also analyzed. It is important to note that the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas are separated from the project area by the Swift River, Bear Notch Road, the Kancamagus Highway and portions of the Bartlett Experimental Forest. Consequently, they were relevant and analyzed only in the context of Inventory criterion 4 and Capability criterion 2. These analysis areas were chosen because of their proximity to the project area. Inventoried roadless areas and potential wilderness were evaluated from the Forest, regional, and national perspectives during the Forest Plan

324 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

revision process. The timeframe includes the past decade, present, and foreseeable future. The cumulative effects analysis considers the prior 10-year period in order to be consistent with the roadless area inventory criteria regarding harvest in the last ten years. The cumulative effects analysis also considers reasonably foreseeable harvest through 2020, because that is when the inventoried roadless areas would potentially be re-evaluated during Forest Plan revision. The cumulative effects on roadless and potential wilderness characteristics are summarized in Table 3.43. This allows consideration of the cumulative effect of foreseeable activities on conditions and opportunities in the inventoried roadless areas. Past, ongoing, and foreseeable future projects are identified in the project record.

Table 3.49 - Summary of Cumulative Effects on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area Criteria and wilderness capability criteria.

Roadless Characteristics Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area

Total Acres 15,626

Total Harvested Acres

Acres that could be harvested and still meet Minimum roadless inventory criteria (20% of the 3,125 (20% of 15,626) inventoried roadless area)

Acres of Harvest in Northeast Swift Proposal Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

0 828 810 531

Acres Added by Other Proposals** 0

Acres Added by Foreseeable Future Actions 44

Acres Harvested Since 2000* 261

Cumulative Acres Treated 305 1133 1115 836

Improved Roads

Miles of improved road that could exist within the inventoried roadless area and still meet ½ mile per 1,000 acres (7.8 miles) roadless inventory criteria

Existing Miles 0.24 mile per 1,000 acres (Total miles 3.8)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Miles Added by Northeast Swift Proposal 0 1.1 1.1 0.6

325 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Roadless Characteristics Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area

Miles Removed by Northeast Swift Proposal 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Miles Added by Other Proposals 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00

Miles Added by Foreseeable Future Actions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cumulative Miles of Improved Road 3.8 4.8 4.8 4.3

Cumulative Miles of Improved Road per 1,000 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.27 acres

Prescribed Fire

Acres of Prescribed Fire in Northeast Swift 0 501 373 501 Proposal

Acres of Prescribed Fire proposed outside of 0 347 242 397 harvest units in Northeast Swift Proposal

Acres of Prescribed Fire since 2000 0

Acres of Prescribed Fire Added by Foreseeable 0 Future Actions

Trail Relocation

Existing miles of hiking and Nordic ski trails 21.9

Miles of trail relocation in by Northeast Swift Proposal (.25 miles of these numbers is a 0 1.50 1.50 1.50 temporary relocation and will last only as long as harvest activity lasts).

Miles of trail removed due to relocation by 0 1.25 1.25 1.25 Northeast Swift proposal

Miles of Trail Added by Other Projects since 1 2000

Miles of Trail Removed by Other Projects since 1 2000

Existing miles of hiking and Nordic Trails 21.9 following Northeast Swift Proposal

326 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet roadless area inventory criteria:

Alternative 1

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project on the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Harvest within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would occur under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4; although the amount of harvest varies between the alternatives, they are not drastically different from a cumulative effects perspective. Under these alternatives project activity would have a minor cumulative effect on inventory criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 for the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area due to the 261 acres harvested and changes in trails since 2000. There is currently 44 acres of proposed treatment associated with the Bartlett 2009 sale. This very minor additional harvest is the only planned harvest in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area for the foreseeable future. Consequently, total harvest acres over this 20-year timeframe would constitute less than 8% of the inventoried roadless area — well below the 20% threshold within a 10-year period for criterion 7. The direct and indirect effects analysis found that even with the addition of harvest acres to those harvested in the past, lands within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would maintain a natural appearance. With only 261 acres of past harvest and 44 acres of harvest taking place in the reasonably foreseeable future, it follows that the cumulative effect would be the same as the direct and indirect effects; lands within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would continue to meet criterion 1 in any future inventory. The Chocorua and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas have received no harvest activity or road construction within the past 10 years and there are no reasonably foreseeable projects that would propose such activity within the next ten years. A portion of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area is currently undergoing harvest activity as part of the Kanc 7 Project. The analysis for effects to the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area done as part of the Kanc 7 Project found that less than 5% of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area would receive harvest activity and that no new road construction would take place as part of that project. Therefore these areas would continue to meet criteria 1 and 7.

327 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

There are no additional proposals for the use of prescribed fire in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas within the analysis timeframe. No past projects have utilized prescribed fire within the past ten years, therefore the cumulative effect of utilizing prescribed fire would be the same as the direct and indirect effect; land within the analyzed inventoried roadless areas would continue to fit the criteria for inclusion in future inventories.

Improved road density in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area is currently .24 miles per one thousand acres and totals 3.8 miles. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose adding 1.1 miles of improved road through road construction and reconstruction on an existing unimproved road. There are no additional proposals for road construction or additions of improved road nor have any past actions constructed new roads, therefore the cumulative effect would be the same as the direct and indirect effects; land within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would continue to meet criterion 5. All action alternatives propose the relocation of up to 1.50 miles of Nordic Ski and hiking trails in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. One of these relocations would be offset by an equal amount of trail abandonment, and the other is a temporary relocation that would persist only as long as project harvest activity. The South Moat Mountain Trail was relocated in 2004. There are no specific criteria related to the maximum number of miles of trail construction or reconstruction while continuing to meet the criteria for future consideration as inventoried roadless. In the case of this relocation (as with those proposed in Northeast Swift) a roughly equal of amount of trail was removed, therefore there was no or little increase in overall trail miles within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. There are no other trail construction projects planned for the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area in the reasonably forseeable future. The cumulative effects are identical to the direct and indirect effects. The decommissioning of roads and trails means the land within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area would continue to meet criterion 2 for any future inventory. As stated in the direct and indirect effects section, it would be possible to hear noise within 1–2 miles of harvest activities, and there would be minor air pollution associated with prescribed fire, as well as vehicle and machinery exhaust. However, this project does not establish a permanent, irretrievable source of mechanized noise or air pollution within or in proximity to the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas and will occur in the context of current and ongoing use of NH Route 112 and Bear Notch Road by cars and trucks, snowmobiles, smoke from campfires and residential homes, and other sources of noise such as airplane over-

328 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

flights. Similar sources of noise and air pollution would be associated with harvest activities taking place in the Kanc 7 project area, affecting the Sawyer River and Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless areas. These sources would persist through 2013 and would then cease. Effects would be limited in duration to the length of project activities, returning to baseline noise and air pollution levels at the conclusion of operations. Consequently, any cumulative increase in noise or air pollution during operations would not prevent lands from meeting inventory criterion 4. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no direct or indirect effects on inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8, so there would be no cumulative effects on these criteria either. When examined in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, following selection of Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, lands within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, and Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas would continue to meet all of the criteria for inclusion in a future roadless inventory. As detailed in Table 3.43, the cumulative effects on the Table Mountain roadless characteristics would not alter the ability of the area to continue to meet Forest Service roadless criteria. The Northeast Swift Project is not expected to have any lasting or substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas or their potential to be recommended for Wilderness during the next Forest Plan Revision process. No other vegetation management projects are planned in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas.

Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:

Alternative 1

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project on the wilderness capability characteristics of the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, Pemigewasset, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

Capability Criterion 1: Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would directly and/or indirectly affect the natural appearance of the area due to the harvest activity and road construction/reconstruction in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area.

329 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no cumulative effects on the Table Mountain, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas since there has been no other road work or timber harvest implemented or proposed in these areas within the analysis timeframe. The Kanc 7 project is presently harvesting timber from within small portions of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area. Less than 5% of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area is being affected by harvest activity. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, the evidence of these activities would moderate over time, eventually becoming unnoticeable to the average observer.The limited scope of the Kanc 7 project in combination with the Northeast Swift project would not be expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes in the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area as discussed in specific resource analyses in this document. There are no reasonably foreseeable future projects that would affect the appearance of the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas, and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would not preclude any future land use decision, including possible wilderness recommendation.

Capability Criterion 2: Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no cumulative effects on the opportunities for solitude in the Table Mountain, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas since there has been no other road work or timber harvest implemented or proposed in these areas within the analysis timeframe. The Kanc 7 project is presently harvesting timber from within small portions of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area. Less than 5% of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area is being affected by harvest activity, with minor increases in noise and air pollution from mechanized equipment. These effects would temporarily affect the opportunity for solitude in a small portion of the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area. These effects would be short-term and would cease following the completion of this project in approximately 2–4 years. The direct and indirect effects of the activities in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not alter opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation; thus there would be no cumulative effects on these opportunities. Due to the temporary nature and the limited scope of the effects of the Kanc 7 project, Alternative 2, 3, or 4 would not be expected to have any measureable cumulative effects on opportunities for solitude on lands within the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas in the long-term, and would therefore not preclude any future land use options, including possible wilderness recommendation, for these areas.

330 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Capability Criterion 3 and 4: Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no direct or indirect effects on Capability criteria 3 and 4, so there would be no cumulative effects on these criteria either.

Summary and Conclusion

None of the action alternatives considered in detail in this document would dramatically change the ability of the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas to meet roadless inventory criteria or wilderness capability criteria. Roadless area values and vegetation management activities have co-existed in this area previously, as evidenced by the area’s historical treatments and its inclusion in the most recent Plan revision roadless area inventory. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have measurable direct and minor cumulative effects on the inventory criteria, but to a very limited degree that would not affect the Table Mountain, Sandwich 4, Chocorua, or Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas’ ability to meet the Forest Service roadless inventory criteria. Alternatives 2, 3, and to a lesser degree Alternative 4, would temporarily affect the wilderness characteristics of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area by increasing the degree of disturbance. However, these effects would be short-term and would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.

3.11 Wilderness

Effects of proposed project activities on Congressionally-designated Wilderness under all alternatives analyzed in detail for this project would be so small as to be immeasurable. There are no designated or proposed Congressionally- designated Wilderness Areas located within or in close proximity to the analysis area for the Northeast Swift Project. The nearest wilderness areas, Sandwich and Presidential Dry River, are 1.6 and 3 miles away respectively. The project area is separated from these two wilderness areas by the Swift River, the Kancamagus National Scenic Highway, Bear Notch Road, the Saco River and Route 302. There are no hiking or Nordic skiing trails, or roads that connect the project area with any wilderness area. Any noise, smoke, or other potential intrusion to these areas that may emanate from proposed project activities would be so small as to be immeasurable and inseparable from transient noise from surrounding communities and public roadways.

331 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

3.12 Fire and Fuels

Affected Environment Fire ecology in northern New Hampshire is a somewhat complex and misunderstood topic. Because the dominant natural communities are rarely dry enough to support a wildfire, the assumption is that wildfire has not influenced any forest types occurring in New Hampshire. Within the larger matrix of northern hardwood, spruce/fir, and hemlock forests, there are other, small-scale natural communities that do rely on fire to exist. Some of these communities, like the pitch-pine scrub oak woodlands of southern and central NH are recognized as fire adapted and fire dependent ecosystems (Sperduto and Nichols, 2004). On the WMNF, several geographic areas contain the plant species composition, vegetation structure, and landscape setting that favor a fire adapted natural community. Research into past events that have occurred in areas where these fire-adapted communities exist reveals frequent occurrence of fire. Compartments 62 and 63, located in the eastern corner of the NE Swift HMU, contain the characteristics of a fire adapted communities and have a history of frequent natural and human caused fires relative to other areas on the forest. The four natural communities that benefit from fire and have been identified in the project area are: 1. Red oak - pine rocky ridge, 2. red pine rocky ridge, 3. rich red oak rocky woods, and 4. hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest. Specific descriptions of these communities are available at: http://www.nhdfl.org/about- forests-and-lands/bureaus/natural-heritage-bureau/photo-index/. These communities begin at the tops of the ledges with the most fire prone rocky ridge communities and transition downslope to rocky woods and hardwood forests.

Historical documents relate that the Mount Washington Valley supported large stands of white pine, which were cut for King’s masts by early pioneers (WMNF Land Record Atlas, Conway Lumber Co. Tract 14b). In 1815 a hurricane blew down substantial amounts of timber in the valley which probably contributed to the spread of two large wildfires that burned in the Swift River Valley and the Moat Range in the mid 1800’s (Figure 3.28).

332 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.28 Early recorded fires in the Project Area (WMNF Land Record Atlas, Conway Lumber Co.)

The majority of the lands that make up the WMNF were purchased under the Weeks Act in 1915. Timber has been harvested from the project area on a regular basis since the 1920’s (Saco Ranger District compartment records). Available fire records for the area begin in the 1940’s and show a pattern of lightning and human caused fires in the project area (Saco Ranger District Fire Atlas). Evidence of additional, undocumented fires was also discovered during field visits to the project area. Most of the wildfires that have occurred within the project area were located in the two compartments (62 and 63) that contain oak-pine communities (project record), as these communities tend to burn more readily and frequently than northern hardwoods (Stottlemeyer et al., 2010). All of these wildfires occurred during the summer months, and all but one of the natural fires occurred during a historic drought cycle (NH DES, Date unknown)

333 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

This is consistent with a fire disturbance regime tied to drought and lightning. The majority of the fires were small, 0.1 acre, primarily due to suppression efforts, resulting in minimal benefit to fire dependent species and an incremental build up of fuel loads.

Figure 3.29 Recent recorded fire history in NE Swift HMU

Anthropogenic disturbance has been cited as a key factor in the rise and decline of oak- pine species in the eastern United States. In the last 100 years however, due to fire suppression, changes in land use, introduced insects and disease, deer browsing, and other factors related to oak’s life cycle, there has been a marked loss of oak and pine regeneration in the eastern U.S. (Abrams, 2005). Land managers from Arkansas to Maine have noted that many former oak-pine sites are in decline and have been replaced by shade tolerant, fire intolerant species like red maple, beech, and hemlock (Clark 1992). The result has been a gradual conversion from dry, sunny, open canopy oak-pine

334 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment sites to damp, shaded, closed canopy hemlock and northern hardwood sites (Nowacki and Abrams, 2008).

Although northern New Hampshire probably never had vast stands of oak and pine prior to European settlement, it’s likely that some smaller pockets did exist (Sperduto pers. comm.). An estimate of pre- European settlement forest patterns conclude that an oak-pine zone stretched along the Appalachian range from Georgia to Massachusetts, then continued through central New Hampshire and into southern Maine (Dyer, 2006). The oak and pine that existed in northern NH prior to European settlement was probably found on and below dry ledgy hilltops within a larger matrix of northern hardwood and hemlock.

Fire was an effective disturbance in these oak-pine communities. Fire reduces the understory, kills encroaching hardwoods, opens up the canopy, and provides the seedbed oak and pine need to regenerate. Red oak (Quercus rubra), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and to a lesser extent white pine (Pinus strobus) have all developed adaptations that help them survive a fire that will kill competing vegetation (USDA Forest Service, 2005b; Desmarais, 1998). Because dry rocky hilltops, such as those found on top of Woodchuck Ledge, Eagle Ledge and Haystack Mountain in the proposed project area, were most likely to receive lightning strikes that ignited fires, the oak-pine communities (which include blueberry, huckleberry, grasses and sedges) in these areas were likely adapted to this disturbance. Monitoring of prescribed burning conducted in oak-pine communities located in other areas of the WMNF have shown post-treatment increases of 100 to 185% in red oak seedling regeneration, and up to 260% increases in white pine seedlings (Spradlin and Spradlin, 2006). Oak-pine is both the most fire adapted and fire prone habitat type occurring on the WMNF. Oak-pine communities on the WMNF are generally found on drier sites, with southerly aspects and moderate to steep slopes that will support fires. Oak-pine leaf litter dries quickly and resists compaction and decay, allowing it to carry fire more effectively than northern hardwoods or spruce/fir. Natural fire return intervals in these stands are estimated to be 30 to 200 years (Landfire, 2005) but can burn more frequently when human ignitions occur.

In 2004, the Lucy Brook fire in Conway, NH burned 140 acres in a 48 hour period and in 2008, the Rattlesnake fire in Rumney, NH burned 54 acres in 72 hours. Both fires were human caused, located in areas with very similar habitat and fuel conditions as occur in portions of this project area, and spread very rapidly to natural barriers despite an

335 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

aggressive suppression response. The majority of the proposed prescribed burns will target oak-pine stands located in areas designated as Management Area (MA) 2.1 lands in the Forest Plan. In MA 2.1, all wildland fires must be suppressed in order to minimize danger to nearby communities, water, timber, and other resources. The interruption of the fire regime in these areas has allowed fuel loads to accumulate to levels that could potentially sustain wildfires that would burn with greater intensity. Current fuel loads are estimated to average 10.8 tons/acre, based upon data collected in similar habitat on other areas of the WMNF (Spradlin and Spradlin, 2006), which is considerably higher than the estimated 4.0 tons/acre occurring in typical oak stands in the northeast (FOFEM). Fuel accumulations would be reduced through the use of controlled fire in these areas, and as a result, any future wildfires occurring in these areas would likely be easier to control.

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is defined as the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. There are three separate WUI zones where private land abuts the NE Swift project area (Figure 3.28): The Johnson road development and private land (approx. 21 structures); houses along Passaconaway road (approx. 6 structures); and a development along Bear Notch road (approx. 30 structures).

The 2010 Town of Albany Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan identified all of the Johnson Road area as having High risk for wildfire, the Passaconaway road area as having Medium to High risk and Bear Notch road areas as High, Medium and Low risk for fires (project record). Most of National Forest lands located within compartments 62 and 63 were also rated as high risk for wild fire. There may be opportunities for the Town of Albany and the WMNF to collaborate on future fuels management projects on non federal lands within the WUI, but the primary goal of fuel treatments proposed in the NE Swift project is reducing hazardous fuel loads on federal lands within the WUI.

336 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.30 WUI Zones located within the NE Swift project area

Forest Plan goals, objectives, Standards and Guidelines relevant to wildland fire include:

• Firefighter and public safety will be the first priority in every fire management activity. Other priorities are protection of human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources.

• Prescribed fire and natural ignitions will be used as tools to enhance ecosystem resiliency and to maintain desired fuel levels.

• The Forest Service will use fire as a tool to meet management objectives, including but not limited to:

337 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

∼ Reducing hazardous fuel loading ∼ Creating, maintaining, or improving wildlife habitat ∼ Preparing sites for restoration of species (e.g., oak- pine, birch and aspen) ∼ Creating, maintaining, or improving plant community composition by influencing the scale and pattern of vegetation across the landscape, including changing successional patterns ∼ Managing insect and disease ∼ Enhancing blueberry production ∼ Creating or maintaining scenic vistas

• The Forest Service will maintain fuels in proportion to the levels of hazards, risks, and values to be protected, and address resource management objectives both outside and within the Wildland Urban Interface.

The Forest Plan allows use of prescribed fire to achieve these goals and objectives in Management Areas 2.1 and 6.1.The NE Swift project proposes to use prescribed fire on up to 750 acres of oak-pine habitat in MA 2.1 and 6.1 lands to improve growing conditions and reduce the fuel loads that could contribute to fire growth in the areas. It is expected that these areas would need repeated burns (up to three in fifteen years), in order to achieve these objectives. If the first treatment did not result in successful regeneration of oak and pine species, there would be an option to re-burn the same area Reasons for an unsuccessful initial burn could include insufficient consumption of litter, duff or understory species, a poor seed year of desirable species, a good seed year of undesirable species, and other site specific reasons. A natural fire in oak pine stands most often would burn in the summer months, during a drought when soil moistures are very low, and during periods of high winds when conditions favoring rapid fire spread are most likely. These conditions are usually outside the parameters required to conduct prescribed burns safely. Burn unit boundaries would follow natural fire barriers as much as possible- these will include existing roads, trails, riparian areas, and ridges. Use of natural barriers as unit boundaries and control lines simulates the size a natural fire might reach if allowed to burn instead of being suppressed, this landscape scale approach will produce a mosaic burn pattern, with varied fire effects. Some improvement of burn unit boundaries/control lines will be needed. Existing natural barriers will be enhanced by removing litter layers and other fuels that could allow the fire to cross the burn unit

338 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

boundary and escape. Handtools, chainsaws, leaf blowers, and hoselays will be used to create and improve control lines. No heavy machinery would be used to create control lines.

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for the Analysis

The analysis area used to analyze direct and indirect effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel reduction is the NE Swift project area. This analysis area was selected because any direct and indirect effects on oak-pine habitat and fuels would be confined to the area located within, and immediately to, proposed treatments. The time period used to analyze direct and indirect effects of these treatments is 15 years following timber harvest. This time frame was selected to in order to analyze the direct and indirect effects of up to 3 prescribed burn treatments.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Oak-pine natural communities would continue to decline, as in the absence of disturbance, forest succession in these communities would continue toward climax northern hardwoods and hemlock types. Fuel loads would continue to increase, increasing the potential for higher wildfire intensities and consequent damage to wildlife and timber resources. In the absence of fire however, site conditions would become wetter and less likely to burn.

Alternative 2

Low to moderate intensity backing fire would be applied in up to 750 acres of oak-pine stands. Based upon past experience in similar oak-pine stands, flame lengths generated would be 2 feet or less. Approximately 50-70% of the leaf litter and 50-60% of the 1 and 10 hour fuels would be consumed, resulting in 4.0 tons/acre (average) residual fuel loads. Approximately 60% or more of the understory vegetation would be girdled or top-killed. Some bole damage and crown scorch to overstory trees could occur, but mortality to mature red oak and white pine would be relatively low. Fire behavior would be controlled through implementation of project design features, such as fire control lines, and pre-positioning of wildfire suppression equipment and personnel, and any adjacent private land and structures would be protected.

339 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Mid- story and understory vegetation, as well as litter and duff in treated oak-pine stands would be reduced, allowing more sunlight to penetrate the understory, stimulating growth of forbs, grasses and oak- pine seedlings. Forest succession to northern hardwoods and hemlock would be interrupted. Fire adapted ecological types will be enhanced. Increased sunlight on the forest floor could cause surface fuels to dry faster and more thoroughly in the spring, however this condition will be offset by increased green up of grasses forbs and other plant species as the summer progresses. Successive burn treatments would be expected to produce similar effects as the initial treatment.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, the direct and indirect effects of prescribed fire would be the same as those described under Alternative 2, but would occur on approximately 250 fewer acres.

Alternative 4

Prescribed fire treatments proposed in Alternative 4 are identical to those proposed in Alternative 2; therefore the direct and indirect effects would be the same under both alternatives.

Cumulative Effects The area used for the cumulative effects analysis on prescribed fire and hazardous fuel reduction encompasses the four subwatersheds- Big Brook, Dry Brook, Haystack Brook, and Lower Swift 1 South, (34,555 acres) where prescribed fire and hazardous fuels reduction projects will occur. This area was chosen because it contains the largest amount of oak-pine habitat and the largest wildland urban interface zone in the project area and contains the activities that could affect oak-pine natural communities and hazardous fuels. The time period used to analyze cumulative effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel reduction is twenty years in the past through twenty years in the future (1990 to 2030).

340 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

This analysis period was chosen for the following reasons:

1) Past timber harvests and natural disturbance such as wildfires, ice storms and wind events remain evident on the landscape today. These disturbances have influenced the patterns of natural communities and fuel loads now present in the project area. Proposed fire management activities associated with the current project are tied also to these disturbances.

2) The response of natural communities and fuel loads to human and natural disturbance is a gradual process. Oak-pine communities may regenerate within a few years following disturbance, but creating the conditions that allow oak-pine species to establish competitive positions in a stand requires more frequent disturbance and long time periods. Twenty years represents the expected time before the next timber harvest in the project area, when habitat and fuel conditions would be evaluated to determine the need for continued prescribed burning. Information pertaining to effects to natural communities and fuel loads within the analysis area since 1990 was obtained from WMNF fire records, timber sale records, and field visits

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Cumulative effects to oak-pine natural communities and hazardous fuel loads under this alternative would be the same as the direct and indirect effects.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Since 1990 one human caused fire has occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area. The historical average for fires in the cumulative effects analysis area has been one lightning caused fire at 10-15 year intervals and one or more human caused fires at irregular intervals, probably due to coincidences between dry weather and recreation pressure along the Dugway road. All fires in the past have been immediately suppressed, resulting in little benefit to oak-pine natural communities and minimal reduction in fuel loads. Since 1990 one vegetation management project has occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area. Disturbance to natural communities and fuels in this project was confined to a portion of the Big Brook watershed.

341 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 of this project would be the same as the direct and indirect effects described previously in this report. These effects are also consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-416 to 3-424). Implementation of any one of these alternatives would promote oak- pine natural communities and reduce hazardous fuels within the analysis area. The degree of enhancement to oak-pine communities and reduction of hazardous fuels would be relative to the number of acres planned for prescribed fire and the optimality of silvicultural treatments proposed for each stand in each alternative.

Effects of Climate Change on Prescribed Fire and Fuels Reduction

The New England Regional Assessment Group’s overview of potential effects of climate change in New England (NERAG, 2001) uses two predictive models: 1) the Canadian Center for Modeling and Analysis’s Canadian Global Coupled Model, and 2) the United Kingdom’s Hadley Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis model. Both models indicate that average annual maximum and minimum temperatures will rise in the future. The UK model predicts a 30% increase in precipitation in the future, with a reduction in the drought events in New England. The Canadian model predicts an increase of 10% in precipitation with more frequent drought events. Both models predict higher temperatures throughout the year. The increase in temperatures and precipitation predicted by both models indicates that fire frequencies could change in New England due to climate change. There could be less of a snowpack, and as a result fuels would remain uncovered for longer periods, and increased heat and sunlight would warm and dry fuels, potentially making them more available to burn. The UK scenario indicates that with a 30% increase in precipitation and a reduction in droughty periods the fire frequency may go down. The majority of the natural fires on the WMNF occur during summer droughts. The Canadian model indicates that there would be an increase in droughts which could potentially increase the frequency of fires on the WMNF. Precipitation patterns predicted by both models indicate that weather events like ice storms and droughts could become more common.

Both models predict that by 2100, the WMNF will consist primarily of oak-hickory forest, with less red oak and little white pine. Based upon this prediction, future wildfires on the WMNF could become more frequent and exhibit more rapid growth than under current forest conditions. Managing fire prone stands today, before

342 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

predicted changes in habitat occur, is a potential opportunity for the WMNF to prepare for the predicted future effects of climate change on forest fuels and wildfire behavior

3.13 Air Quality

Affected Environment Regional winds move from west to east in the vicinity of the project area, and local winds are dominated by mountain and valley dynamics interacting with large-scale atmospheric movements. Climate in the project area is characterized by warm humid summers, with average high temperatures in the mid 70’s F and lows in the 50’s; and cold, wet winters with average low temps in the teens and highs in the 30’s F. Precipitation is a uniform 5 inch average all year. Monthly snowfall amounts average 10- 18 inches during the winter. Average annual precipitation statewide is around 40 inches. Humidities are high year round, with averages ranging from 50 to 80%. Lowest humidities are found during the spring and winter months, and highest during the late summer. Wind speeds are highest during the spring and lowest in late summer (City- data.com, 2011). The NE Swift project proposes to use prescribed fire on up to 750 acres to improve oak/pine habitat and reduce potentially hazardous concentrations of woody fuels on the forest floor. During the spring and fall prescribed burn seasons the area often experience dry, windy days with good airflow and rapid recharge of the airshed. Current air quality in the project is considered to be good. Air quality monitoring systems maintained by the state of NH indicate that of the 6 criteria pollutants (NAAQS) only 8 hour ozone regularly approaches the primary standards. Existing emissions in the air or air pollution that occurs in the airshed are mostlyrelated to regional and industrial sources. Local pollution, such as vehicle emissions and dust from roads, is minor. In the winter, woodstoves contribute particulates and carbon monoxide to the air. Periodically, large wildfires in Canada or the Lake States contribute particulates. Dust from roads contributes particulates. On occasion, ground-level ozone in the area exceeds air quality standards. This occurs mostly in summer months due to weather and air flow, and is not frequent enough for the area to be categorized as a nonattainment area.

343 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Class I Areas

The Clean Air Act defines national parks and wilderness areas greater than 5,000 acres that were in existence as of 1977, as Class I Areas. Class I Areas are afforded the highest degree of air quality protection, especially regarding haze and visibility. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that states develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies the causes of haze and addresses short and long term strategies to reduce haze in Class I areas. Strategies for protection of Class I Areas in New Hampshire are described in the New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision (NH DES, 2009). On the WMNF, the Class I air quality areas are located in the Presidential Range- Dry River Wilderness and the Great Gulf Wilderness. The NE Swift project area is approximately 3 miles south (downwind) of the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness, and 16 miles south of the Great Gulf Wilderness, the two nearest Class I air quality areas. The prime contributor to haze in New Hampshire Class I areas is sulfate. The state of New Hampshire is the source of less than 4 % of the sulfate that causes the majority of reduced visibility in the above mentioned Class I areas. The majority comes from upwind industrial states and Canada. (NH DES, 2009). Smoke from prescribed fires in New England is not considered to be a contributor to haze in Class I Areas. (MANE-VU, 2006) In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations to improve visibility in Class I Areas across the nation. The regulations specifically address regional haze as the main contributor to decreased visibility in Class I areas. Haze is recognized as having many causes, including a wide range of human caused pollutants that are directly and indirectly introduced to the atmosphere. Natural events like forest fires and dust storms also contribute to haze. These pollutants can be transported thousands of miles before affecting a Class I Area and occupy extremely large airsheds, hence the designation regional haze. The Regional Haze Rule requires all states, even those without Class I Airsheds, to participate in haze reduction efforts. In order to comply with the Regional Haze Rule each state must develop progress goals and long term strategies toward haze reduction. Long term strategies must include enforceable emission reduction measures that will meet progress goals. The first strategy period will last 10-15 years and end in 2018. Subsequent strategy periods will be at 10 year intervals. Current strategies in place include retro fitting industrial pollution sources to reduce emissions and lowering sulfur content in fuels.

344 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The regional haze rule is important to the cumulative effects analysis of air quality because most of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQ) levels as well as other pollutants will be reduced if it is successful. The regional haze rule is a very long term strategy requiring cooperation between a variety of states and partners. Although complications in cooperation and implementation exist among partners, the regional haze rule has the potential to improve air quality not only in Class I Areas but across the New England region (NH Regional Haze Revision). Smoke Sensitive Populations

Most healthy adults recover quickly from smoke exposure but some segments of the population may be more susceptible to health effects from smoke. Smoke Sensitive populations include individuals with asthma and other respiratory diseases, individuals with cardiovascular disease, the elderly and children (Lipsett et al., 2008). Sensitive smoke receptors near the project area include the towns of Albany, Bartlett, Conway, and North Conway, as well as homes, roads and other infrastructure. Four areas near the proposed project are considered to be critically smoke-sensitive: the Memorial Hospital (4 miles northeast of the project area); the Sunbridge Rehabilitation Center (4 miles east of the project area), and Conway elementary and middle schools (3 miles southeast of the project area). The project would include implementation of design features to mitigate impacts to air quality from prescribed burning. Popular recreation areas near proposed prescribed burn areas include the South Moat hiking trail, the Dugway picnic area, the Boulder Loop trail, the Covered Bridge campground, and the Kancamagus scenic highway. A private inholding and seasonal development along the Dugway road are located adjacent to these proposed burn units. Due to close proximity of these areas to the prescribed fire treatment areas, proposed burning in this project would be restricted to periods when wind, weather, and fuel conditions would allow smoke to quickly disperse into the atmosphere.

Direct and Indirect Effects Background for the Analysis

National and state policies applicable to air quality under this analysis are the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agencies’ Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire, and the New Hampshire Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

345 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The Environmental Protection Agency has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six harmful air pollutants- ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead (Table 3.42). Primary standards are set to protect public health, including sensitive populations. Secondary standards protect public welfare, including visibility and damage to crops and buildings (EPA, 2010).

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Air Resources Division maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations across the state to record primary and secondary levels of NAAQS. Lead is no longer monitored in NH, because recorded levels are well below EPA standards. Localities where these pollutants persistently exceed primary or secondary NAAQS are designated “nonattainment areas” and are subject to more stringent regulatory requirements. “Attainment areas” are those that do not exceed the primary and secondary standards (EPA, 2011).

Table 3.50 - National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Primary Standards Secondary Standards Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time Carbon 9 ppm 8-hour (1) None 3

Monoxide (10 mg/m ) 35 ppm 1-hour (1) (40 mg/m3) 3 (2)

Lead 0.15 µg/m Rolling 3-Month Average Same as Primary 1.5 µg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary Nitrogen 53 ppb (3) Annual Same as Primary

Dioxide (Arithmetic Average) 100 ppb 1-hour (4) None Particulate 150 µg/m3 24-hour (5) Same as Primary Matter (PM10) Particulate 15.0 µg/m3 Annual (6) Same as Primary Matter (PM2.5) (Arithmetic Average) 35 µg/m3 24-hour (7) Same as Primary (8)

Ozone 0.075 ppm 8-hour Same as Primary (2008 std) 0.08 ppm 8-hour (9) Same as Primary (1997 std) 0.12 ppm 1-hour (10) Same as Primary Sulfur 0.03 ppm Annual

Dioxide (Arithmetic Average) 0.5 ppm 3-hour (1) 0.14 ppm 24-hour (1)

75 ppb (11) 1-hour None Source: EPA, 2010

346 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The NE Swift project area is considered to be in attainment for all 6 criteria pollutants listed above. The closest non attainment area to the NE Swift project is Merrimack County, 35 miles to the southwest. This County is in non attainment for persistently high levels of ozone 8-hour.

The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) (Table 3.43) to report daily the quality of air from a health standard. Table 3.51 - Air Quality Index

Levels of AQI Hourly Carbon Health Ozone Visibility Meaning Value PM 2.5 Monoxide Concern

10 or Air quality is considered 0 to 0 to 0-0.06 0.0-4.4 Good more satisfactory, and air pollution 50 38 ppm ppm miles poses little or no risk

Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants .061- 5.0- there may be a moderate 51 to 39 to 4.5-9.4 Moderate .075 10.0 health concern for a very 100 88 ppm ppm Miles small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.

Unhealthy Members of sensitive groups .076- for 101 to 89 to 9.5-12.4 3.0-5.0 may experience health .104 Sensitive 150 138 ppm Miles effects. The general public is ppm Groups not likely to be affected.

Everyone may begin to .105- 12.5- experience health effects; 151 to 139 to 1.5-3.0 Unhealthy .115 15.4 members of sensitive groups 200 351 Miles ppm ppm may experience more serious health effects.

.116- 15.5- 1-1.5 Health alert: everyone may Very 201 to 352 to .374 30.4 Miles experience more serious Unhealthy 300 526 ppm ppm health effects

301 to N/A >30.4 1 or Health warnings of emergency Hazardous > 526 500 less conditions. The entire

347 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Levels of AQI Hourly Carbon Health Ozone Visibility Meaning Value PM 2.5 Monoxide Concern

Miles population is more likely to be affected

Source: http://www.airnow.gov/index EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

Potential impacts to air quality from proposed project activities would include release of particulates from prescribed burning and release of pollutants from vehicle exhaust. The NAAQS air pollutants of most concern for the NE Swift project are particulate matter emissions less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5), carbon monoxide, and ozone. The remaining NAAQS air pollutants exist at very low levels in New Hampshire and are less associated with proposed project activities. (EPA, 2010).

Particulate Matter 2.5 is a concern because the small size of the particles allow them to enter the lungs and cause health problems. Particulates also decrease visibility and contribute to haze. Common sources of these particles include vehicle combustion, power plants, wood stove smoke, prescribed fires and wildfires. The nearest PM 2.5 monitoring sites to the NE Swift project are in Coos and Belknap counties. Baseline levels of PM 2.5 at these sites average 6-10 ug/m3 annual average.

Carbon Monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause health effects and death at high concentrations, usually in enclosed areas like houses. It is formed by incomplete combustion of fuel. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial processes, woodstoves, prescribed fires and wildfires are causes of carbon monoxide. As a result of rapid dilution and its instability, carbon monoxide emissions from prescribed burning is not a concern to the general public. However, carbon monoxide emissions may be a concern to fire fighters and persons on prescribed burning crews (National Coalition of Rx fire councils). Concentrated carbon monoxide emissions from vehicle exhaust may also be a concern, especially in the winter when cold air reduces combustion efficiency and traps cold air at ground surface (EPA, 2009) The nearest CO monitoring sites to the NE Swift project are in Nashua and Manchester. Baseline levels of CO at these sites average 2-4 PPM 8 hr. average.

348 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Ozone appears to originate around the large urban centers of southern New England and New York, and to migrate northward into the White Mountain region during times of high temperature and high levels of solar radiation. Automobile emissions, industrial processes, prescribed fires, and wildfires are associated with carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide and lead. While in the presence of sunlight, some of these pollutants combine to form ozone. Ozone is generally dispersed uniformly in an airshed but at times levels can build up in areas with “microclimates” that contain stagnant air. Health effects from ozone include coughing, throat irritation, chest discomfort and shortness of breath. The nearest O3 monitoring sites to the NE Swift project are in Coos and Grafton counties. Baseline levels of ozone at these sites average 0.75 ppm 8 hr average with occasional spikes above 0.75 ppm. Based on these, and other monitors in state, only O3 nonattainment areas in NH are in the southern part of state.

Mercury (Hg) was not analyzed due to scientific uncertainty and a large range of error in Hg emission factors (FACT, 2008).

Air Toxics, including acetaldehyde, acrolein, 1, 3 butadiene, formaldehyde, polycyclic organic matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were not analyzed due to lack of specific information on these chemicals (National Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils, 2007).

Measurement indicators used in the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative project effects to air quality were the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and the Air Quality Index. Effects analyzed were: 1) Particulate levels in relation to visibility in Class I Areas; 2) Particulate levels in relation to health concerns and visibility at critical Smoke Sensitive Receptor areas; 3) Carbon Monoxide levels in relation to health concerns, and 4) Ozone levels in relation to health concern.

The direct/indirect effects analysis airshed analyzed was a 5 mile radius around the proposed burn units. Five miles is a standard measurement when analyzing smoke plumes and smoke dispersion. The analysis airshed included the proposed snowmobile parking lot. The timeframe used for this analysis was 15 years. This timeframe was chosen to account for the duration of the timber harvest and recreation projects and the potential need for repeated burns to achieve silvicultural and fuel reduction objectives.

349 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The term “No Action” means no new management actions at this time. While this alternative does not meet the Need for Action, it does provide a basis for analyzing the effects of conducting no new management activities in the NE Swift project area, and comparing these effects with the action alternatives.

This alternative would not harvest any trees, apply prescribed fire, construct or improve any roads or trails, or accomplish wildlife habitat or recreation facility improvements No activities are proposed so no emissions related to the proposed NE Swift project would occur. Forest Service classified roads will continue to receive their scheduled level of maintenance. Vehicle use will continue in the project area. These existing emissions are currently contributing to the air quality condition described in the affected environment as well as the larger scale air quality issues discussed in the cumulative effects section of this report. Under the No Action alternative fuels in the oak-pine stands would continue to accumulate and could possibly reach levels that would support a wildfire that may be difficult to suppress. Emissions from an uncontrolled wildfire could reduce visibility along roads, and increase health and safety concerns for segments of the population and fire suppression forces.

Alternative 2 Timber Harvest/Transportation System

Active timber harvest operations and connected actions, such as road construction or restoration increases short-term pollution released through vehicle exhaust, heavy equipment exhaust and during dry periods, fugitive dust. These activities may cause levels of carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter to increase in the immediate area when work is ongoing but will not contribute to non attainment of NAAQS or deterioration of visibility in Class I Areas. There will be few indirect effects to air quality related to the proposed timber harvesting and road construction. Once harvesting and hauling of wood is completed no more emissions would occur. The roads systems after sale closure will not be open to public motor vehicle use. Potentially ATV’s or snowmobiles may illegally use the transportation system and increase emissions but these would be extremely localized and actively discouraged by law enforcement when discovered.

350 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Prescribed Fire

The direct effects of prescribed burning in the project area would be the release of particulate matter (PM 10 and 2.5), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides during combustion. Ignition of a prescribed burn unit is estimated to be 10 hours. During this period, the majority of fuels would be consumed. Residual smoke may be seen in the immediate area for several days afterward but would not be sufficient to impact sensitive populations or Class I Areas. A burn unit would be considered “out” when no fire is found in the unit for 24 hours. Adverse effects of smoke produced by prescribed burning include reduced visibility due to haze, and exposure to the public and fire crew to smoke and carbon monoxide. The pollutant of most concern is PM 2.5 which in high concentrations can have adverse impacts on people’s health. The Air Quality Index (AQI) charts the level of health concerns and visibility associated with particulate concentrations. Effects of smoke emissions would be mitigated by project design features described in Chapter 2. Additionally, emissions would be spread out over the next 15 years, allowing the impacts of these emissions to be reduced by releasing them over a longer period of time. In the case of a wildfire, higher amounts of emissions would be generated, and the opportunity to manage the extent, timing and duration would be reduced. The First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) was used to estimate the PM 2.5 and PM 10 emissions that would be produced by Alternative 2 is shown in Table 3.44

Table 3.52 - FOFEM Emissions Estimates Total Emissions Pollutant lbs/acre PM 10 147 PM 2.5 125 CO 1541 NOX 14 SO2 9

To estimate the direct effects of smoke on identified critical smoke sensitive receptors and Class I Areas a smoke modeling analysis program was run for Unit 4, the largest burn unit in Alternative 2 using V Smoke Web. V Smoke Web produces a satellite map showing estimated smoke effects relative to AQI values shown in Table 3.45. Outputs from this model indicate that ignition with a wind direction that drives the smoke plume directly toward the critical sensitive receptor sites (Memorial Hospital, Sunbridge Rehabilitation Center and Conway elementary and middle schools) could

351 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

generate peak hourly levels of PM 2.5 in the Hazardous (red) column as described by the AQI values. The potential effects to these areas will be mitigated by design features described in Chapter 2.

Table 3.53 - Total Proposed NE Swift Project PM Emissions Estimates (tons/unit) for Alternative 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Emission Type 100 acres 200 acres 180 acres 250 acres 185 acres PM 2.5 6.2 12.5 11.2 15.6 11.5 PM 10/PM 2.5 7.3 14.7 13.2 18.3 13.5

Outputs from this model also indicate that with a wind direction that drives the smoke plume directly toward the nearest Class I Area (Presidential/Dry River Wilderness) the peak hourly levels of PM 2.5 may be in the Moderate (yellow) range as described by the AQI values. During ignition of the unit, visibility in the most southerly section of the wilderness (Bemis Ridge, and Davis Path) could be reduced to 5-10 miles for up to 24 hours. Because prescribed burns would only be ignited when wind and weather patterns are most favorable for smoke dispersion, wind currents would carry the smoke into the atmosphere and disperse it. Once the direct effects associated with ignition and containment ceased, there would be no indirect effects related to air quality. Recreation Improvements

Relocation of 2 segments of the Nanamacomuck Nordic ski trail, construction of a new year-round parking lot on Bear Notch Road, and removal of hazard trees in the covered bridge campground would take approximately one month to complete and could increase short term pollution release during activities that use power equipment, or heavy equipment, however these activities would not contribute to non attainment of NAAQS or deterioration of visibility in Class 1 areas.

Recreation activities could cause increased levels of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone pollution along roads, parking lots, and snowmobile trails due to enhanced recreation opportunities that could increase the amount of vehicle use in the area. A study of air quality at the Green Rock snowmobile staging area in the Snowy Range of Wyoming recorded higher rates of ozone, particulate matter and carbon monoxide pollution during periods of heavy use but did not find an exceedance of NAAQS (Musselman and Korfmacher, 2007).

352 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3 Timber Harvest/Transportation System

Alternative 3 would implement 45 fewer acres of timber harvest than Alternative 2, resulting in slightly fewer pollutants being released by machinery. Because of the small difference in acres from an air quality monitoring standpoint, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 3 on air quality from these activities would be the same as those in Alternative 2.

Prescribed Fire

Alternative 3 proposes to burn approximately 500 acres; 250 less acres of prescribed burning than proposed in Alternative 2, Under Alternative 3, one burn unit would be eliminated and the other burn unit boundaries would be modified. The direct effects on air quality from prescribed burning in Alternative 3 are very similar to Alternative 2 (Table 3.46). The reduction in treatment acres would result in a reduced amount of pollutants that would be released into the atmosphere as smoke. Smoke Web models using the largest unit in Alternative 3 showed the same smoke effects to the Memorial Hospital, Sunbridge Rehabilitation Center and Conway schools as Alternative 2. The modeled smoke plume did not reach the Class I Area as did the plume in Alternative 2. The same design features would be used as in Alternative 2 to mitigate smoke effects to sensitive populations. The indirect effects on air quality under Alternative 3 would be the same as those under Alternative 2

Table 3.54 - Proposed NE Swift Project Emissions Estimates (tons/unit) for Alternative 3 Emission Type Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 80 acres 171 acres 141 acres 105 acres PM 2.5 5 10 8.8 6.5 PM 10/PM 2.5 5.8 12.5 10.3 7.7

353 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Alternative 4 Timber Harvest/Transportation System

Alternative 4 proposes 270 fewer acres of timber harvest than Alternative 3, and 315 fewer acres than Alternative 2. Only one new forest road would be constructed under this alternative.

Alternative 4 would release the fewest amounts of emissions from timber harvest and transportation system management activities of all alternatives analyzed, other than No Action. Active timber harvest operations and connected actions, such as road construction or restoration increases short-term pollution release through vehicle exhaust, heavy equipment exhaust and during dry periods, fugitive dust. These activities may cause levels of carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter to increase in the immediate area where work is ongoing but will not contribute to non attainment of NAAQS or deterioration of visibility in Class I Areas. All other direct and indirect effects on air quality under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area (CEA) for air quality is the same as the analysis area for direct/indirect effects and selected for the same reasons. The time frame analyzed is from 1996-2026. This time frame was selected in order to incorporate the most complete air monitoring data available for Carroll County’s past, and to project far enough into the future to consider effects of this project and known future activities in relation to current and future NAAQS and Class I Airshed policies.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

No local emissions related to the proposed action would occur. The existing condition and trends as described in the affected environment would remain much the same. The same activities that currently are occurring on the CEA would continue to occur. Future vehicle emissions may increase as more visitors come to the White Mountain National Forest. This could contribute to ground level ozone when conditions are suitable. Cumulative effects from regional, industrial, and local sources would continue to occur with the same trends. Prescribed burning in nearby project areas would continue. As fuel loads in the project area increase, the potential for greater particulate emissions

354 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

from wildfire in the project area will also increase. Many of the cumulative effects to air quality occurring in the White Mountain National Forest come from upwind, thousands of miles away in the Midwest. Some large sources within the state and region also contribute to these effects. Smoke from wildfires in the Western US and Canada also occasionally contribute emissions.

Alternative 2 Timber Harvest/Transportation System

Five vegetation management projects have been completed within the CEA in the past 15 years and one is ongoing. It is expected that a similar levels of these types of activities will continue to occur within the CEA over the next 15 years. The cumulative effects of these activities would not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide and particulate matter because: 1) emission rates of these pollutants during harvest and road construction are spread out over time (1-5 years) and 2) the baseline levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter in the analysis area are low.

Prescribed Fire

There are three other ongoing projects located within the CEA on the Saco Ranger District that include prescribed fire. The Moat project, located in Conway, NH plans to burn a total of 120 acres in the next five years (2010-2015), the Kanc 7 project plans to burn 60 acres in the next five years, and the Forest-wide Wildlife Opening Maintenance project plans to burn 15 acres in the next five years. The Nature Conservancy burns approximately 100 acres yearly downwind from the NE Swift CEA in the towns of Madison and Ossipee. It is possible that the Nature Conservancy may also use prescribed fire on lands owned in Conway, NH in the future. The proximity of these projects to one another will require coordination to ensure that smoke management is not an issue and that NAAQS are not exceeded by burning large units simultaneously. These requirements are included in the design features for the NE Swift project.

Recreation Improvements

The cumulative effects of recreation activities will not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide and particulate matter because: 1) emissions of these pollutants would be short-term and localized and 2) the baseline levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter are low. The cumulative effects of these activities will not violate NAAQS for

355 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

ozone, however if the EPA strengthens 8 hour ozone standards, portions of northern New Hampshire could become non compliant if violations of the new standard occur.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Cumulative effects on air quality under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Summary

Proposed management activities in the NE Swift project have been designed and would be implemented in a manner that meets 1) National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 2) applicable provisions in the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p.1-4). Under Alternative 1 (No Action), no direct increase of particulates or pollutants related to the project would occur. Hazardous fuel loads would continue to increase, possibly supporting wildfires that could produce amounts of particulates far exceeding NAAQS. Alternatives 2 and 3 and 4 would temporarily increase amounts of particulates and pollutants but would not cause nonattainment of Federal or state regulations or significantly degrade visibility in Class I Areas. Of the four Alternatives analyzed, Alternative 2 would release the largest amounts of pollutants into the airshed, followed by (in descending order) Alternative 4 and then Alternative 3. Alternative 1 would not release any pollutants.

3.14 Heritage Resources

Affected Environment The Passaconaway Valley along the Swift River in the town of Albany was reputedly lived in and used by Native Americans. (Beals, 1916, p. 220) Past archaeological testing has located evidence of Native American use of the area, and an approximately 7000 year old projectile point was reportedly found in the area by a member of the public. The valley was first settled by Euro-American farmers around 1800, and grew into an agricultural community with summer boarding-house tourism in the 19th century. In the early 20th century, the Passaconaway Valley became the center of operations for the Conway Lumber Company, with a population spike caused by the influx and

356 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

subsequent departure of loggers, many of whom were French-Canadian. (Albany Bicentennial Committee, 1966)

The Bartlett and Albany Logging Railroad entered the valley from the north in the 1890s, and the Swift River Railroad was built into the valley from the east and used to extract timber between 1906-1916. (Beals, 1916, p. 234; Beals, 1966) In 1916, the US Forest Service acquired much of the area, and has managed it primarily for timber, wildlife, and recreation. The historic Passaconaway Road, which ended near the Waterville Valley town line, was eventually extended west to Lincoln in the 1960s as the Kancamagus Highway (Rt. 112), a National Scenic Byway.

Swift River Logging Railroad, c. 1906. Bill Gove Collection (whitemountainhistory.org).

There are 14 known cultural sites that occur within the project area including a prehistoric lithic scatter, historic farmstead sites, a historic cemetery, logging camp and sawmill sites, Civilian Conservation Corps camp and dump related sites, Falls Pond dam, a still site, an historic stone box culvert, and the Albany covered bridge over the Swift River (USDA Forest Service, 2010f). The known sites are located along roads and waterways in the southern and western parts of the project area. Sites are not expected in the higher elevations of the northern part of the project area. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470), as amended, directs all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Federal regulations governing implementation of NHPA identify the goal of consultation, which is “to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects, and seek ways to

357 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties” (36 CFR 800.1). NHPA also establishes inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally owned historic properties. Federal regulations governing implementation of NHPA also establish the National Register of Historic Places as a planning tool to help Federal agencies evaluate cultural resources in consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The White Mountain National Forest’s Forest Plan provides direction regarding management and protection of heritage resources. It is a goal for the WMNF to evaluate heritage resources at the project level and consider appropriate management of these resources, which may include preserving, protecting, interpreting, stabilizing, or mitigating for the loss of these resources, depending on site-specific considerations (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-6). Project activities that would have the potential to affect cultural resources present in the project area include road construction, logging activity, and other ground-disturbing activities. In order to identify where such impacts might occur, the area was surveyed for cultural sites. A Shovel Test Pit (STP) survey was conducted to identify prehistoric sites in areas of proposed new ground disturbance. A total of 16 STPs were placed along the Swift River between Deer Brook and Haskell Brook in areas judged by Forest Service archaeologists to have the most potential for prehistoric sites based on proximity to water, flat terrain, and sandy soils. All STPs were negative for cultural materials, with undisturbed sandy spodosolic soil profiles. Pedestrian survey was conducted in proposed timber units that were determined to have the highest potential for cultural sites based on historic maps and documentary research, slope, proximity to water and/or historic roads. Previously recorded sites were visited to monitor condition and mark a reserve area boundary. Two historic farm sites are located within proposed timber harvest units: the Kennison Farm site in unit 32, and the W.C. Chase Farm site in unit 33. Both of these sites are also located within proposed prescribed burn units. The Douglas Brook Logging Camp is located on the boundary of unit 47. Two new historic sites were recorded during the pedestrian survey. Several previously recorded sites could not be located. These sites were minimally recorded, some as much as 30 years ago, and may have since been impacted and/or obscured by natural forces. Two of them appear to be within harvest units if their recorded locations are correct. If they are exposed during project activities, the design features described below would apply.

358 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for cultural resources is the project area. Cultural sites beyond the project boundary would not be affected. The temporal boundaries for cumulative effects are ten years before and ten years after 2010. This temporal scope was chosen to account for the last earth disturbing activity that took place in the project area (Bear Mountain Timber Sale, 2002-2008), and to anticipate future earth disturbing actions. Design Features

Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 project design features would protect known historic sites located in or near proposed activities by marking reserve areas, and excluding harvesting and equipment from heritage reserve areas. Monitoring the implementation of reserve areas in past timber sale harvests and prescribed fires indicates that reserve areas are effective in protecting heritage sites. In addition, if archaeological sites were to be uncovered during implementation of the project, operations would stop and WMNF archaeologists would be notified to assess the situation. Any newly identified sites would be avoided or mitigated for in consultation with the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation office.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Under alternatives 2, 3 and 4, direct effects of project implementation may include ground disturbance to archaeological sites. Most of the timber harvest units near the Swift River with the highest potential for prehistoric cultural resources are planned for winter harvest, resulting in minimal ground disturbance due to snow cover and frozen ground conditions. Under alternatives 2, 3 and 4, all recorded cultural sites would be avoided during project implementation, and any sites discovered during implementation would be recorded and avoided or mitigated for, there would be no direct effects of project activities on any heritage resources.

359 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Indirect effects of alternatives 2, 3 and 4 might include increased exposure to vandalism of historic-period cultural sites due to increased visibility with the removal of vegetation. This effect would be temporary (1-2 years after harvest), as new growth would quickly again obscure the sites.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

As all known cultural sites within the project area would be avoided during implementation of alternative 2, 3 and 4 and there would be no direct or permanent indirect effects under any of these alternatives, there would be no cumulative effects of project activities on any heritage resources. In summary, under all alternatives in this project, there would be “No adverse effect” to historic properties for all proposed activities in the area of potential effects

3.15 Socio-Economic

Affected Environment The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan details the social environment of the White Mountain National Forest in terms of populations, demographics, partnerships, values, uses of the Forest, and attitudes toward land management (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-472 to 3-486). The Forest Plan recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1- 3). While many of the communities surrounding the national forest share a history of reliance for their livelihood on natural resource management and tourism, social and economic patterns constantly change. Housing markets and their associated need for raw materials, economic markets, and population trends adjust over time and spatially, with marked differences regionally. For example, populations and local economies are growing in the communities surrounding the southern portions of the Forest, while communities in the north are slowing. The current regional and national economic

360 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment trends may stall further economic growth, especially in the northern portions of the forest, where the economy has a greater dependence on traditional natural resource- based manufacturing industries.

The White Mountain National Forest recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies and strives “to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer” (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-3 and 1-17). Continued demand for national forest timber is expected due to the Forest’s high value sawtimber and demand for pulp products. The quality sawtimber products represent a key niche in the region, and its continued availability may have direct impacts on the local economy (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-473 to 3-520; High et al., 2004). Several forest product manufacturers are within viable hauling distance from the project area, and it is reasonable to assume that products from this project would supply some of these businesses. This is reflected in the interest in National Forest timber sale bids. The project area is largely surrounded by National Forest lands; however there are two private inholdings located within the project area. The Johnson Development consists of approximately forty small acreage private lots located along the Passaconaway Road in the southeast portion of the project area. There are five proposed timber harvest units (33, 34, 35, 36 & 37) and two prescribed burn units (3 & 4) located within 0.5 miles or less from this development. Another dozen landowners have holdings located within or adjacent to the project area along the Bear Notch Road. There is one proposed timber harvest unit (66) located within 0.5 miles or less from these private lands. In addition, there are several private in-holdings that are located adjacent to the eastern project area boundary along the Passaconaway Road. There are four proposed timber harvest units (43, 44, 45 & 46) and one prescribed burn unit (6) located within 0.5 miles of this boundary.

Communities within which National Forest timber is harvested are reimbursed for the value of that timber through two separate funds.

• The New Hampshire Timber Yield tax averages 10% of the value harvested, and would be paid directly by the purchaser to the Towns where timber is harvested.

• The 25 Percent Payment-to-States Fund (25% Fund), under which New Hampshire collects 25% of the annual revenue generated in the White Mountain National Forest from timber harvest and other revenue-producing activities. The State then disperses

361 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

the funds to New Hampshire towns that have national forest acreage, to be used for the benefit of public schools.

The project area provides several developed and dispersed recreation opportunities. Covered Bridge Campground and other developed day use sites are nearby activity areas. Access to several hiking and Nordic trails is provided within the project area. Covered Bridge Campground is closed in winter, when the harvest activity there would take place. Hiking trails directly affected by harvest activities would be closed to public access during those activities. The recreation section discusses factors that may have direct, indirect or cumulative adverse effects on recreation.

Measuring Socio-Economic Effects

Analysis of social and economic effects, including low income and minority populations, is required if they are important to a reasoned decision. Comments regarding social and economic effects were raised by the public for this project. Alternatives 3 and 4 were designed to respond to many of those comments. Comments are found in the project record. Social impacts in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) were analyzed in the context of what people value about the Forest, and the effects of national forest management on the quality of life and rural character of the Forest Region. Effects were based primarily on assessments of trends across the four counties in which the WMNF is located (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p.3-487); however, these elements and others can be measured at the project level as follows: • Rural character may be measured by changes in human activity due to changes in development levels and access. Proposed activities in the Northeast Swift project would not constitute changes in development levels or access other than temporary displacement of recreation activities due to harvest activity near trails and the associated temporary trail closures. Displacement would likely be to other trails within the Forest. See the Recreation Section, Chapter 3 for effects on recreation. • Quality of life may be measured by changes in recreational opportunities, long term maintenance of healthy ecosystems and scenic beauty, and the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Each of these subjects is discussed in other sections within Chapter 3 of this report (see Recreation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Scenic, and Heritage).

362 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Environmental Justice may be measured (Executive Order 12898) by analyzing the potential for minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.

Economic elements analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS included regional employment and labor income as affected by an array of factors including timber harvest and the structure of the forest products industry, road construction and maintenance, recreation management, and state and local government (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-509). Relevant, measurable economic elements at the project level are:

• Costs and revenues of planning and implementing the proposed activities.

• Timber tax payment to the affected Towns.

• 25% Fund reimbursements to the State of New Hampshire.

The Forest Service is not required to select the alternative with the highest timber volume or revenue. Many social and economic effects are not tangible and cannot be quantified, and are recognized as either beneficial or not, depending on one’s values and perspectives. For example, clearcuts may have adverse visual effects to some, but may be viewed as valuable wildlife habitat by others. Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on socio-economics are the towns of Albany and Bartlett. This incorporates the towns where activities are taking place and where tax revenues would be generated. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is the duration of project activities because any direct or indirect effects would occur during or soon after operations. For Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, the percent revenue for the 10% timber yield tax to towns would be prorated to the towns from which the timber is harvested. Based on estimated stumpage receipts, under Alternative 2 the distribution of revenue to the town of Albany would be 77% and the town of Bartlett would receive 23%. Under Alternative 3, the distribution of revenue to the town of Albany would be 76% and the town of Bartlett would receive 24%, while under Alternative 4 the town of Albany would receive an estimated 83% of receipts, with the town of Bartlett receiving the remaining 17%.

363 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Table 3.55 - Timber Harvest Costs and Revenues by Alternative

Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Environmental Analysis and $207,900 $207,900 $207,900 $207,900 Project Planning

Timber Sale Preparation & NA $120,100 $110,000 $88,300 Administration

Total Costs $207,900 $328,000 $317,900 $296,200

Revenues Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Est. Harvest Volume (MBF) NA 8,000 7,000 6,000

Net Stumpage Receipts 0 $656,590 $544,020 $402,750

10% Timber Yield Tax 0 $65,660 $54,400 $40,275

Total Revenues 0 $722,250 $598,420 $440,325

Net Value (revenues – cost) ($207,900) $394,250 $280,520 $146,825

Net Value/MBF NA $49.28 $40.07 $24.47

Est. 25% Fund Payment to $0 $164,150 $136,000 $100,690 NH

Note: Costs for Planning, Preparation, and Administration are based on estimated costs associated with or anticipated for this project. Stumpage values for this project were based on the awarded values for three timber sales that were part of the Kanc7 project (bid in 2009-2010). At the time of this analysis, stumpage was estimated to be $111.28 per thousand board feet for this project. The stumpage receipt estimates deduct anticipated road construction and re-construction costs, as well as sale preparation and administrative costs.

For the 25% Fund, the State of New Hampshire determines how funds are distributed. The 25% fund payments would provide amounts listed in the Table 3.47 above. The collection to the State under Alternative 3 would be about 17 percent less than that for Alternative 2, while under Alternative 4, the collection would be about 30 percent less than that for Alternative 2.

364 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Table 3.56 - Estimated Costs of Non-Timber Activities for the Action Alternatives

Activity Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Tree Planting $5,500 $5,500 N/A

Timber Stand Improvement $80,000 $80,000 $40,000

Prescribed Burning $154,000 $124,000 $154,000

Trail Relocation (1.3 miles) $11,500 $11,500 $11,500

Trail Bridge Construction $21,500 $21,500 $21,500

Parking Lot Construction $57,500 $57,500 $57,500

Watershed Restoration (3 sites) $39,900 $39,900 $39,900

Road Decommissioning (0.9 miles) $5,300 $5,300 $5,300

Alternative 1

No revenue would be generated and no reimbursements would come to the State or Towns. The cost of project planning and environmental analysis is estimated at approximately $208,000, regardless of the alternative selected. There would be no changes in rural character or public safety because no activities would be implemented. The recreational component contributing to quality of life would be slightly affected for some because hunting opportunities that would have been available in newly harvested areas would be foregone. Additionally, the non-timber activities would not be accomplished at this time.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Direct and indirect effects to quality of life and rural character should be minimal because the project proposals replicate three or more decades of similar past activities in this project area and throughout the Swift River Watershed. These alternatives would continue management of these forests in accordance with the Forest Plan and Best Management Practices. Forest resources including water and soil would be protected, trail and watershed restoration projects are proposed, and road maintenance would help prevent unforeseen erosion problems. Forest vegetation would be managed in accordance with Forest Plan objectives to promote healthy ecosystems, sustainability,

365 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

and diverse habitats. Table 3.48 itemizes the estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing the alternatives.

Recreation opportunities would be enhanced for forest users that enjoy wildlife observation and hunting. Hiking, camping and other recreation opportunities would be maintained, although some localized displacement may occur during periods when logging is active near trails. Proposed project activities within and near Covered Bridge campground are designed to provide long term public safety and maintain healthy forest conditions. Campground infrastructure would be protected during project implementation and harvest slash would be chipped and removed from the campground. No proposed harvest units within 0.5 miles of Covered Bridge Campground would be harvested during the summer camping season, resulting in minimal direct effects to campground users. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose timber harvest along hiking and Nordic trails. Proposed harvest prescriptions are described in Chapter 2 and in Appendix B. Proposed logging and connected transportation management activities would have short term effects on the quality of recreation experience along hiking and Nordic trails in the project area. Boulder Loop and South Moat hiking trails receive high use during summer and fall, and low use in winter (see the Recreation section). Effects would be mitigated by weekend haul restrictions on roads accessing these trails that would be implemented under all three alternatives. Hikers on the South Moat Trail would be additionally impacted during logging operations by a temporary trail re-route around a haul road and log landing. Lovequist Trail is accessed from the Rocky Gorge Scenic Area parking area on the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, and receives low to moderate use in summer and low use in winter. The Nanamocomuck, Paugus, Wenonah and Wenunchus Nordic Trails are used primarily in winter. Effects to users on the Nanamocomuck Nordic trail would be mitigated by weekend logging operation restrictions on units adjacent to this trail. In summary, the economic effects of intermittent displacement of recreational hiking to other trails available within the Kancamagus Highway corridor or within the White Mountain region, would not likely have a measurable affect on the local economy because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities would continue. Scenic Quality, Recreation, and Heritage resources are discussed in those sections of this chapter.

366 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Human activity would be increased during project operations, but not to a level having a noticeable effect on the rural character of the area. No new roads or trails are proposed so permanent access would not change. The proposed road decommissioning would not change public access because the road segments proposed for decommissioning are not currently open for public vehicle use. Direct effects to public safety resulting from harvest activities would be avoided through public use closures (signs) along the trails and at the affected trailheads. Use of the Kancamagus highway and the seven main forest access roads by log trucks is comparable to those activities occurring on other roads within and near the Forest, and along main roads to lumber mills. Logging traffic along the Kancamagus highway is not without precedence from traffic associated with past timber harvests here and on private lands elsewhere in Carroll County.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on socio-economic effects includes the Towns of Albany, Bartlett and Conway. These are the affected towns, and with the exception of Conway, have National Forest lands proposed for management within their townships. It is unlikely that any cumulative effects to Bartlett related to tourism would occur because Bartlett is not within a reasonable commuting distance from this project area. Only Conway and Albany have businesses such as restaurants and lodging that could be affected due to use of amenities within these towns by hikers, recreationists and the traveling public. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on socio-economics is the present to ten years into the future (2011-2021). This time frame allows for completion of the project and all potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects would have percolated through the economy within that time frame. This time frame would encompass any residual social effects, as the activities would have long since been completed, and any displacement of public use would be completely recovered.

Alternative 1

There are two ongoing National Forest timber sales that are located within the cumulative effects analysis area and will be operating during the analysis timeframe. The first, Kanc 7 East, is an ongoing timber sale located within the towns of Albany and Waterville. An estimated 1,500 MBF of timber will be harvested from portions of the

367 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

timber sale located within the town of Albany, generating approximately $16,700 in timber yield tax receipts to the town. The other federal timber sale is located within the town of Bartlett and slated to be logged in 2011. This sale will not generate a large amount of revenue, since it is relatively small at approximately 175 acres of timber harvest. No other known revenue would be generated to the towns of Albany, Bartlett or Conway from Timber Yield Taxes from National Forest lands. A small amount of tax revenue may be generated for these towns from the sale of private timber during this period. There would be no cumulative changes to the existing rural character, quality of life, or public health and safety. Receipts from recreation fees would continue.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

This project is expected to create an increase in jobs, tax revenues, and presence of logging trucks during the first half of the period. As relates to economic opportunity and/or revenue, no other known timber harvests are planned on National Forest lands within these townships during the analysis period and an unknown but modest amount of private timber may or may not be harvested within these townships. The effects of intermittent displacement of recreational hiking to other trails which are available within the Kancamagus Highway corridor or within the White Mountain region, would not have a measurable affect on the local economies of Albany, Bartlett or Conway, because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities is expected to occur. By the end of this time frame, while some beneficial effects (for wildlife) may now be diminished, the recovery of foreground views, landings, skid trails and scenery would be well under way and nearly indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Forest visitors may view the current condition of thinned stands and distant openings seen, as part of the landscape of a National Forest. Short term adverse effects on hiking and Nordic skiing, and beneficial economic effects for employment and government revenues, would have expired. Two recreation projects are planned to occur at exiting sites on National Forest lands located in the town of Albany within the next ten years. One of these involves improvements to the Lower Falls Day Use Area, including re-vegetating compacted areas, creating defined access trails and redesigning the parking lot and pavilion, while the other involves decommissioning the Dugway Picnic Area, including removal of the pavilion and privy. Ongoing maintenance work on other Forest recreation sites and trails located within the towns of Albany, Bartlett and Conway, including the Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail, Boulder Loop and Moat Mountain Mountain Bike

368 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

TrailSystem, would continue over the next ten years. These other projects primarily involve modifications and maintenance to existing recreation sites, so no cumulative effects to the rural character of these townships are anticipated.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices, and design features are integrated into this project to protect soils, water, scenery, and heritage resources. Timber harvest prescriptions are designed to promote healthy ecosystems over the long term and thus provide beneficial cumulative effects in the treated areas. It is impossible to predict what effect private timber harvests within the towns may have on local ecosystems, although New Hampshire Best Management Practices are assumed to be implemented. Overall, there would be no cumulative adverse effects to the existing quality of life. Assuming the action alternatives would provide work for Americans and revenue to local, State and federal governments, these contributions to the economy would improve the quality of life for individuals benefiting from the jobs, and for communities benefitting from the tax revenue. See Tables 3.47 and 3.48 for estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing the alternatives. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 would contribute the least to the economy, while Alternatives 2 and 3 are relatively close in their potential contribution.

Environmental Justice There are fifty or so private landowners with residences and summer camps located within or nearby the project area along Passaconaway and Bear Notch roads. The next closest populations are located over two miles from the Project Area in the towns of Albany, Conway and Bartlett. Of the residences and summer camps, none are known to be minority or low-income populations. No public comment was received that would indicate the presence of or concerns about minority or low-income groups. There is little potential, given the locations of the harvest and other activities, that any minority or low-income group would be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.

369 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Chapter 4. Preparers and Consultants

Rick Alimi Forester White Mountain National Forest Ken Allen Landscape Architect White Mountain National Forest Robert Coulter Soil Scientist White Mountain National Forest Ken Jaeger Timber Sale Administrator White Mountain National Forest Jana Johnson Dispersed Recreation Manager White Mountain National Forest Sheela Johnson Hydrologist White Mountain National Forest Anna Johnston Biological Technician White Mountain National Forest Desiree Johnston IDT Leader White Mountain National Forest Sarah Jordan Archaeologist White Mountain National Forest Scott Kelman Engineering Technician White Mountain National Forest Stacy Lemieux Forest Planner White Mountain National Forest Michael Maguire Forester White Mountain National Forest Chris Mattrick Botanist White Mountain National Forest Wayne Millen Timber Staff Officer White Mountain National Forest John Neely Fire/Fuels Technician White Mountain National Forest Jacob Ormes Transportation Engineer White Mountain National Forest Leighlan Prout Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest Mark Prout Fisheries Biologist White Mountain National Forest Kathy Starke Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest Rod Wilson Recreation Planner/Silviculturist White Mountain National Forest

370 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

References (Literature Cited)

Abrams, M. 2005. Prescribing Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Is Time Running Out? Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 22(3): 190-196 Albany Bicentennial Committee. 1966. “Albany New Hampshire Bicentennial Observance”. Anderson, L. 1994. Terrestrial wildlife and habitat in fire effects guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. PMS 481. NFES 2394. Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 7:1-57. Askins, R.A., 1993, Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11:1-34. Bailey, S. W., D. C. Buso, and G. E. Likens. 2003. Implications Of Sodium Mass Balance For Interpreting The Calcium Cycle Of A Forested Ecosystem. Ecology 84, No. 2:471-484. Bailey, S. W., S. B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2005. Thirty Years of Change in Forest Soils of the Allegheny Plateau, Pennsylvania. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Reproduced pgs 1-10. Baird, O.E., and C.C. Krueger. 2003. Behavioral thermoregulation of brook and rainbow trout: comparison of summer habitat use in an Adirondack River, New York. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 132: 1194-1206. Baker, J.P., J. Van Sickle, C.J. Gagen, D.R. DeWalle, W.E. Sharpe, R.F. Carline, B.P. Baldigo, P.S. Murdoch, D.W. Bath, W.A. Krester, H.A. Simonin, P.J. Wigington, Jr., 1996. Episodic Acidification of Small Streams in the Northeastern United States: Effects on Fish Populations. Baker, M.B. 1998. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. Effects of Fire In Management of Southwestern Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ, November 14-17, 1988, pp.31-42. Baldigo B. P., and G. B. Lawrence. 2000. Composition of fish communities in relation to stream acidification and habitat in the Neversink River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129:60–76. Baldigo B. P., P.S. Murdoch, D.A. Burns. 2005. Stream acidification and mortality of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in response to timber harvest in Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1168-1183. Baldigo, B.P., and G.B. Lawrence. 2007. Persistent Mortality of Brook Trout in Episodically Acidified Streams of the Southwestern Adirondack Mountains, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136:121-134. Beals, C. Jr. 1916. Passaconaway in the White Mountains. Boston: Richard. G. Badger.

371 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Beals, R. V. 1976. “Passaconaway”, in Albany’s Recollections, United States Bicentennial. Pp 33-37 Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218:37-59. Beckage, B. Osborne, B. Gavin, D.G., Pucko, C. Siccama, T and Perkins, T. 2008. A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 105, No. 11, pp 4197-4202. Bennett, K.P. ed. 2010. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire (second edition). University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, N.H. http://extension.unh.edu/goodforestry/index.htm Bent, G.C. 2001. Effects of forest-management activities on runoff components and ground-water recharge to Quabbin Reservoir, central Massachusetts. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 115-129. Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. Brose, P.H., T.M. Schuler, and J.S.Ward. 2006. Responses of oak and other hardwood regeneration to prescribed fire: what we know as of 2005. In: Dickinson, M.B. (Ed.), Fire in Eastern Oak Forests. Delivering Science to Land Managers. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-P-1, pp. 123-127. Brown, T.C. and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North American Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-248, 27 pp. Buckley, D.S., T.R. Crow, E.S. Nauertz, and K.E. Shulz. 2002. Influence of skid trails and haul roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in Upper Michingan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 5969:1- 12. Burbank, D. 2010. Climate Change and Potential Impacts to Vegetation and Forested Ecosystems on the Green Mountain National Forest – A Literature Review. USDA Forest Service, unpublished literature review. Butchkoski, C. 2011. Bat White Nose Syndrome (WNS) Occurrence by County/District. Map dated 02/14/2011. PA Game Commission. Burton, T.M., and G.E. Likens, 1973. The Effect of Strip-Cutting on Stream Temperatures in the The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. BioScience, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 433-435.

372 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Campbell T.A., B. R. Lasetera, W. M. Ford, K.V. Miller. 2004. Movements of female white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in relation to timber harvests in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 371–378 Cathcart, J., and M. Delany. 2006. Carbon Accounting: Determining Carbon Offsets from Projects. Pp 157-174 in Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: a synthesis of science findings, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, OR. http://www.oregonforests.org/media/pdf/CarbonRptFinal.pdf Center for Watershed Protection, 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. 142 pp. CEQ. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Chandler, C.C. 2007. Habitat use and survival of neotropical migrant songbirds during the post-fledging period in the White Mountain National Forest. Masters Thesis for Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 105pp. Chandler. D. 2008, Personal communication with K. Starke regarding two mayflies and existence within the NE Swift River project area. Project File. Chandler, D. 2009. Aquatic insect survey in White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. Campton, NH. Chandler, D. 2010. Final Report: Aquatic Insect survey in White Mountain National Forest, 2006-2010. Unpublished report. Chandler, R.B. 2006. Early-successional bird abundance and nest success in managed shrublands on the White Mountain National Forest. Masters Thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 137pp. Chase, V.P., L.S. Deming, and F. Latawiec. 1995. Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Chenger, J. 2002. Summer survey of New Hampshire woodland bats – June 27 – July 19, 2002. Bat Conservation and Management, Carlisle, PA 49pp. Chenger, J. 2004. 2004 woodland bat survey in the White Mountain National Forest – August 8 – 18, 2004. Bat Conservation and Management, Inc. Carlisle, PA 38pp. City-data.com. 2011. Albany, New Hampshire. Accessed at: http://www.city- data.com/city/Albany-New-Hampshire.html Clark, B. 1992. An Historical Perspective of Oak Regeneration. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84 Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. p. 3-11. Colter, R. A. 2010. North East Swift Integrated Vegetative Management Project Soil Assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. Campton, NH.

373 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Colter, R. A. 2009. Soils and Climate Change (draft). Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Conner, R.N. and C.S. Adkisson. 1975. Effects of clearcutting on the diversity of breeding birds. Journ. of For. 73:781-785 Costello, C.A., M. Yamasaki, P.J. Pekins, W.B. Leak, and C.D. Neefus. 2000. Songbird response to group selection harvests and clearcutsin a New Hampshire northern hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 127. 41-54. Curry, R.A., and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Population-level responses to sediment during early life in brook trout. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 23(1): 140-150. Curry, R.A. and D.L.G. Noakes. 1995. Groundwater and the selection of spawning sites by brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 1733-1740. Cunjak, R.A., and G. Power. 1986. Winter habitat utilization by stream resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 1970-1981. Dale, M. E., H. Smith, and J.N. Pearcy. 1995. Size of clearcut opening affects species composition, growth rate, and stand characteristics. Res.Pap. NE-698. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, NE Forest Exp. Station. DeGraaf, R. M. and W. F. Healy, compilers. 1988. Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the Northeast? Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-140. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 32pp. DeGraaf, R.M. 1991. Breeding Bird Assemblages in Managed Northern Hardwood Forests in New England. Chapter 8 in, J.E. Rodiek and E.G. Bolen (editors.) Wildlife and Habitats in Managed Landscapes. Island Press. Washington, D.C. DeGraaf, R.M. 1992. Effects of Even-aged Management of Forest Birds at Northern Hardwood Stand Interfaces. Forest Ecology and Management, 46 (1992) 95-110. DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press, Hanover, NH. 482pp. DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A.M. Lester. 2006. Technical Guide to Forest Wildlife Habitat Management in New England. University of Vermont Press, Burlington, VT. DeMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology: 340- 352. Desmarais, K. 1998. Northern Red Oak Regeneration: Biology and Silviculture. University or New Hampshire, NH Division of Forests and Lands, and New Hampshire Natural Resources Network. Dey, C.D., G.W. Miller, and J.M. Kabrick. 2007. Sustaining northern red oak forests: managing oak from regeneration to canopy dominance in mature stands.

374 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Published in Deal, R.L., ed. 2007. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multi-resource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 p. Dey, C.D. and Z. Fan. 2008. A review of fire and oak regeneration and overstory recruitment. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR- NRS-P-46, pp2-20. Dierkes, C. and W.F. Geiger. 1999. Pollution retention capabilities of roadside soils. Water Science and Technology, 39(2):201-108. Donnelly, J.R., J. B. Shane and H.W. Yawney. 1991. Harvesting Causes Only Minor Changes in Physical Properties of an Upland Vermont Soil. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 8, No. 1. pp.33-35. Dorrance, M.J., P.J. Savage, and D.E. Huff. 1975. Effects of Snowmobiles on White-Tailed Deer. J. of Wildlife Management 39(3):563-569 Driscoll C. T., G. B. Lawrence, A. J. Bulger, T. J. Butler, C. S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K. F. Lambert, G. E. Likens, J. L. Stoddard, and K. C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic deposition in the Northeastern U.S.: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. BioScience. 51:3. Dyer, J. 2006. Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56(4): 341-352. Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial Effects of Prescribed Fire on Quality of Soil Solution and Streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29(1): 5-15. EPA. 2009. AQI: Air Quality Index, A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed at: www.epa.gov/airnow/aqi_brochure_08-09.pdf EPA. 2010. NAAQS Comparison - National and NH source. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 2011. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency. Erdle, S. Y. and C. S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report #00-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 17pp. plus Appendices. Evans, A.M., and R. Perschel. 2009. A review of forestry mitigation and adaptation strategies in the Northeast U.S. Climatic Change 96:167–183. FACT. 2008. Mercury (Hg) Emissions from Wildland Fire. Fire Air Coordination Team.

375 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Fay S., W. B. Leak, M. Yamasaki, J. W. Hornbeck, and R. S. Smith. 1994. The Deadwood Report. Unpublished Report. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia. Fay, S. 2003. Re-Calculations of Calcium Depletion. Unpublished data in the Forest Plan Revision Administrative Record. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. Federer, C.A., J.W. Hornbeck, L. M. Tritton., C.W. Martin, and R.S. Pierce. 1989. Long- term Depletion of Calcium and Other Nutrients in Eastern US Forests. Environmental Management, 13(5): 593-601. Fernandez, I.A., L.E. Rustard, S.A. Norton, J.S. Kahl, and B.J. Cosby. 2003. “Experimental Acidification Causes Soil Base Cation Depletion at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67:1909-1919. Flanagan, S.A. 2005. Woody debris transport at road-stream crossings. Stream Notes. October, 2005. Stream Systems Technology Center. Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Forman, R. T. and R. D. Deblinger. 2000. The Ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14(1):36-46. Foss, C. 1994. Breeding Bird Atlas of NH. Audubon Society of NH. Concord, NH. Pp 60- 61. Frank, R.M., and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1973. A silvicultural guide for spruce-fir in the northeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-6. Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Fuller, T. and S. DeStefano 2003. Relative importance of early-successional forests and shrubland habitats to mammals in the northeastern U.S. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(2003):75–79 Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(5):896-900. Goerlich, D. and R. Nyland. 1999. Proceedings Symposium on Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in Eastern North America GTR-NE-26 Gowan, C., and K.D. Fausch. 1996. Mobile brook trout in two high-elevation Colorado streams: re-evaluating the concept of restricted movement. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1370-1381. Gowan, C., M.K. Young, K.D. Fausch, and S.C. Riley. 1994. Restricted movement in resident stream salmonids: a paradigm lost? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 2626- 2637. Groot, A., R. Man and J. Wood. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of Populus tremuloides. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 85. No. 4

376 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Gysel, L. W. 1956. Measurement of acorn crops. Forest Science. 2:305-313. Hakala, J.P., 2000. Factors Influencing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Abundance in Forested Headwater Streams with Emphasis on Fine Sediment. Masters’ Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 166 pp. High, C., K. Hathaway, J. Hinckley, and B. Risk. 2004. A Socio-Economic Assessment to Provide a Context for the WMNF Plan Revision. Report prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc for: White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. Holman, G. T., F. B. Knight, and R. A. Struchtemeyer. 1978. The Effects Of Mechanized Harvesting On Soil Conditions In The Spruce-Fir Region Of North-Central Maine. Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, ME. Bulletin 751. Holmes, S.B. and D.G. Pitt. 2007. Response of bird communities to selection harvesting in a northern tolerant hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 280–292 Hornbeck, J.W., C.T. Smith, C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, and R.S. Pierce. 1990. Effects of Intensive Harvest on Nutrient Capitals of Three Forest Types in New England. Forest Ecology and Management 30: 55-64. Hornbeck, J.W. and W.B. Leak. 1992. Ecology & Management of Northern Hardwood Forests in New England. USDA-Forest Service, NE Forest Experiment Station, Gen Tech Rep NE-159. Hornbeck, J.W., M.B. Adams, E.S. Corbett, E.S. Verry, and J.A. Lynch. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology 150(1993):323-344. Hornbeck, J.W, C.W. Martin and C. Eager. 1997. Summary of water yield experiments at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Can. J. For. Res., 27, p. 2043-2052. Hornbeck, J.W., M.M. Alexander, C. Eager, J.Y. Carlson, and R.B. Smith. 2001. Database for Chemical Contents of Streams on the White Mountain National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE-282. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/3757. 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. IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

377 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A.M., Matthews, S.N., and M. Peters. 2008. Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 390-406. Johnson, C.E., A. H. Johnson, T. G. Huntington, and T. G. Siccama. 1991. Whole-tree Clear-Cutting Effects on Soil Horizons and Organic-Matter Pools. Soil Science of America Journal 55: 497-502. Johnson, C.E., R. B. Romanowicz, and T. G. Siccama. 1997. Conservation of Exchangeable Cations after Clear-cutting of a Northern Hardwood Forest. Can. Jor. For. Res. 27: 859-868. Johnson, S. 2010. Northeast Swift Project field notes. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH Johnston, B. 2010. Personal Communication regarding rock climbing sites. Conway, NH. Kabrick, J.M., E.K. Zenner, D.C. Dey, D. Gwaze and R. Jensen. 2008. Using ecological land types to examine landscape- scale oak regeneration dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management 255 3051-3062. Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight. 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79(2): 231-241. Kelly, J. 2005. Recent Distribution and Population Characteristics of American Marten in New Hampshire and Potential Factors Affecting Their Occurrence. Master’s Thesis for the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, MA. 142 pgs. King, D.I., R.M. DeGraaf, and C.R. Griffin. 1998. Edge related nest predation in clearcut and groupcut stands. Conservation Biology. Vol 12. No.6. King, D.I., R.M. DeGraaf, and C.R. Griffin. 2001. Productivity of early successional shrubland birds in clearcuts and groupcuts in an eastern deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2): 345-350. King, D.I. and R.M. DeGraaf. 2004. Effects of group selection opening size on the distribution and reproductive success of an early-successional shrubland bird. Forest Ecology and Management 190 179–185 Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. Chapter 4 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller. ed. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC. Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631. LaChance, S., M. Dube, R. Dostie, and P. Berube. 2008. Temporal and spatial Quantification of fine-sediment accumulation downstream of culverts in brook trout habitat. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 137: 1826-1838.

378 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Lancaster, K. F. 1985. Managing Eastern Hemlock: A Preliminary Guide. Res. Pap. NA- FR-30. USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Area. pg 5. Landsburg, J.D., and A.R. Tiedemann. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature: Chapter 12 – Fire Management. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-39. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr_srs039/index.htm LANDFIRE. 2005. Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model. www.landfire.gov Lawrence, G.B. and C.T. Driscoll. 1988. Aluminum Chemistry Downstream of a Whole- Tree-Harvested Watershed. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 22. Pg 1293-1299. Lawrence, G.B., M.B. David, S.W. Bailey, and W.C. Shortle. 1997. Assessment of Calcium Status in Soils of Red Spruce Forests in the Northeastern United States. Biochemistry 00:1-21. Leak, W. B., D.S. Solomon, and P.S. DeBald. 1987. Silviculture Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-603. Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Experimental Station, 36pp. Leak, W.B. 1999. Species composition and structure of a northern hardwood stand after 61 years of groups/patch selection..N orth. J. Appl. For: 16(3):151-153 Leak, W. B. 2009. 75 Years of Understory Development By Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications, Field Note. North J of App For. 26(4). Likens, G.E. and F.H. Bormann. 1995. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Likens, G. E., C. T. Driscoll, and D. C. Buso. 1996. Long term effects of acid rain: response and recovery of a forest ecosystem. Science 272:244–246. Likens, G.E., C.T. Driscoll, D.C. Buso, T.G. Siccama, C.E. Johnson, G.M. Lovett, T.J. Fahey, W.A. Reiners, D.F. Ryan, C.Wayne. Martin, and S.W. Bailey. 1998. The Biogeochemistry of calcium at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 41: 89-173. Lipsett, M., B. Materna, S.L. Stone, S. Therriault, R. Blaisdell, and J. Cook. 2008. Wildfire Smoke: A Guide for Public Health Officials. Litvaitis, J.A., D.L. Wagner, J. L.Confer, M.D. Tarr, and E.J. Snyder. 1999. Early successional forests and shrub-dominated habitats: land-use artifact or critical community in the northeastern United States. Northeast Wildlife. 54:101-118. Litvaitis, J.A. 2003. Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 185, Issues 1-2. 4pp. Lonsdale, W. and A. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in a Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69:277-283.

379 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Lull, H. W. 1959. Soil Compaction on Forest and Range Lands. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Lyon, L.J., H.S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R.L. Fredriksen, R.F. Harlow, L.J. Metz, and H.A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report WO-6. MacFaden, S. W. and D. E. Capen. 2000. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Program: Analyses of bird surveys on permanent plots, 1992-1999. Submitted to WMNF from School of Natural Resources, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington, VT. MDOC. 2005a. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division. MDOC. 2005b. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2001- 2003. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division.12pp. MDOC. 2006. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001 – 2005. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division. MDOC. 2009. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2008. Forest Policy and Management Division, August 2009. 30 pp. MANE-VU. 2006. Technical Support Document on Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management in the MANE-VU Region. Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. Marschall, E.A., and L.B. Crowder, 1999. Assessing Population Responses to Multiple Anthropogenic Effects: A Case Study with Brook Trout. Ecological Applications, 6(1): 152-167. Martin, C. 2010. Peregrine populations in N.H. Audubon Society of NH. Concord, NH. Martin, C.W. and J.W. Hornbeck. 1994. Logging in New England need not cause sedimentation of streams. North. J. Appl. For. 11(l):17-23. Martin, C.W., J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, and D.C. Buso, 2000. Impacts of intensive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 19–29. Martin, C.W., R.S. Pierce, G.E. Likens, and F.H. Bormann. 1986. Clearcutting Affects Stream Chemistry in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Research Paper NE-579. Martin, W. C. 1988. Soil Disturbance by Logging in New England-Review and Management Recommendations. Northern J. of Applied Forestry. Vol. 5, No. 1: 30-34. Mattrick, C. and A. Schori. 2008. WMNF botanist project review and field survey of the NE Swift Project Area. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

380 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Mattrick, C. 2009. Climate Change and Botanical Resources on the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. McCormick, S.D., A. Keyes, K.H. Nislow and M.Y. Monette. 2009. Impacts of episodic acidification on in-stream survival and physiological impairment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 66:394-403. McHale, M.R. P. S. Murdoch, D. A. Burns, and B. P. Baldigo. 2008. Effects of Forest Harvesting on Ecosystem Health in the Headwaters of the New York City Water Supply, Catskill Mountains, New York. Scientific Investigations Report 2008– 5057. U.S. Geological Survey. Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S. A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2010. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. URL: http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/ Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8):2145– 2151. Millen, W. 2009. Estimated Climate Change Effects on New England Forests Literature Review and Summary. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Miller, S. G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applicationss 8(1) pp 162-169. Moll, J.E., R.L. Copstead, and D.K. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. 9777 1808P. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series: Volume Issue . San Dimas, CA: USDA, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 12 p. Morse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. Accessed November 30, 2009 at: http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/outreach/pdfs/Stream%20Digest.pdf. Musselman, R.C. and J.L. Korfmacher. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow chemistry on and off trail in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range, Wyoming. Environ. Monit. Assess. 133:321-334. National Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils. 2007. Guide to Smoke Management. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations. Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

381 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management plan: meeting the invasive species challenge. Available: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/mpfinal/pdf Neitzel, R. and M. Yost. 2003. Forestry Vibration and Noise Exposure Project. University of Washington, Department of Environmental Health, Seattle, Washington. New England Regional Assessment Group (NERAG). 2001. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. New England Regional Overview. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 96 pp., University of New Hampshire. New Hampshire (NH), 2007. NH Code of Administrative Rules, Part Env-Dw 301. Small Production Wells for Small Community Water Systems. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES). 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. NH DES. 2009. New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision. NH DES, Air Resources Division, Concord, NH. NH DES. 2010a. 2010 List of Impaired Waters that Require a TMDL. Accessed July 12, 2010 at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/swqa/2010/documents/2010 _final_sub_303d.pdf. NH DES. 2010b. OneStop Data Retrieval Site. Public water supply sources. Access restricted. NH DES. Date unknown. NH Drought Historical Events. Drought Management Program. Accessed at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dam/drought/documents/historic al.pdf NHFG. 2006a. Wildlife Action Plan. Chapters 2 and 3. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. www.wildlife.state.nh.us NHFG .2006b. Wildlines: New Hampshire Fish and Game’s quarterly newsletter of the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Concord, NH. Winter 2006. pgs 1- 2. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Nongame/Wildlines_issues/Wildlines_0 6_Winter.pdf NHFG. 2006c. Press release: Fresh Tracks Indicate Rare Canada Lynx "Just Passing Through" Jefferson, N.H. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. http://wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2006/News_2006_Q1/Lynx_tracks_f ound_020106.htm

382 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

NHFG. 2006d. Big Game Mgmt. Concord. NH. NHFG. 2010a. Comment letter from Kristine Rines, 5/19/2010. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, New Hampton, NH. NHFG. 2010b. Black Bear Harvest summary. Concord, NH. NH DRED. 2004a. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control During Trail Maintenance and Construction. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. 27 pp. NH DRED. 2004b. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. 63pp. NH DRED. 2004c. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. A Pocket Field Guide. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. NH DRED. 2011. The Economic Importance of New Hampshire’s Forest-Based Economy. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NH DOT). 2001. Practices for Routine Roadway Maintenance Activities in New Hampshire. Prepared by K.T. Nyhan, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, NH Bureau of Environment. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2010a. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program.http://www.dred.state.nh.us/divisions/forestandlands/bureaus/naturalh eritage.pdf New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2010b. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program.http://www.dred.state.nh.us/divisions/forestandlands/bureaus/naturalh eritage/factsheets/documents/FS-Pickering'sBluejoint.pdf Nowacki, G. and Abrams, M. 2008. The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience Vol. 58(2): 123-138 Palmer, S.M., B.I. Wellington, C.E. Johnson and C.T. Driscoll, 2005. Landscape influences on aluminum and dissolved organic carbon in streams draining the Hubbard Brook valley, New Hampshire, USA. Hydrol. Process. 19: 1751-1769. Parendes, L. and J. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andres Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14(1):64-75. Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry, 74(10). Payer, D.C. and D.J. Harrison. 1999. Influences of Timber Harvesting and Trapping on Habitat Selection and Demographic Characteristics of Marten. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Augusta, ME.

383 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Perala, D. A. 1990. Populus tremuloides Michx. Quaking Aspen. In: Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 p. Accessed at: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/populus/tremuloid es.htm. Perala, D. and A. Alm. 1990. Regeneration Silviculture of Birch: a review. Forest Ecology and Management. No. 32 pp 39-77. Peterson, D. P, and K.D. Fausch. 2003. Dispersal of brook trout promotes invasion success and replacement of native cutthroat trout. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1502–1516. Pierce, R. S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, C.T. Smith, C.A. Federer, and H.W. Yawney. 1993. Whole Tree Clearcutting in New England: Manager’s Guide to Impacts on Soils, Streams, And Regeneration, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NE-172, 23 pp. Planty-Tabacchi, E. Tabacchi, R. Naiman, C. Deferrari, and H. Décamps. 1996. Conservation Biology 10(2):598-607. Preschel, R.T., A.M. Evans, and M.J. Summers. 2007. Climate Change, Carbon, and Forests of the Northeast. Forest Guild, Santa Fe, NM. www.forestguild.org/publications/2007/ForestGuild_climate_carbon_forests.pdf Primack, R. 2000. A primer of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. xiii + 319 pp. Prout, L. 2010. Climate Change and Wildlife – summary of available literature. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Prout, M.W. 2010. Climate Change and Aquatic Habitats. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. 4p. Reay, R.S., D.W. Blodgett, B.S. Burns, S.J. Weber, & T. Frey. 1990. Management Guide for Deer Wintering Areas in Vermont. (Joint publication) Vermont Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation, and Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife. Montpelier, VT. 35 pages. Renken, R. 2006. Does fire affect amphibians and reptiles in eastern U.S. oak forests? In /fire in Eastern Oak Forests. Symposium. GTR-NRS-P-1. Pp 158-166. Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Science, 215:661-663.

384 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-535, Broomall, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 29p. Safford, L.O. and R.D. Jacobs, 1983. Paper birch. In: R.M. Burns, Editor, Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agric. Handb. No. 445 (1983), pp. 145–147 (revised). Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54pp. and Appendices. Saunders, D., R. Hobbs, and C. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32. Schlossberg, S. and D. King. 2007. Ecology and Management of Scrub-shrub Birds in New England: A Comprehensive Review. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 122pp. Schlossberg, S. and D. King. 2008. Are shrubland birds edge specialists? Ecological Applications, 18(6), 2008, pp. 1325–1330. Schori, A. 2001. Paronychia argyrocoma (Michx.) Nutt. (Silverling) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. Shugart, H, R. Sedjo and B. Sohngen. 2003. Forests and Global Climate Change, Potential Impacts on U.S. Forest Resources. PEW Center on Global Climate Change. 64 p. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/forestry Smallidge, P. J. and R. D. Nyland. 2009. Cornell Woodland Guidelines for the Control and Management of American Beech. Cornell University Cooperative Extension Forest Connect Fact Sheet. P. Smallidge, ed. 6pp. Sperduto, D.D. and William F. Nichols. 2004. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. and UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH. Pg 65-86 Sperduto, D. Personal communication with J. Neely. 11-06-2008 Spradlin, B. and C. Spradlin. 2006. White Mountain National Forest FIREMON 2006 Data Collection Data Summary Tables. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. 8pp. St. Louis, A., J.P. Ouellet, M. Crete, J. Maltais, and J. Huot. 2000. Effects of partial cutting in winter on white-tailed deer. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. Vol. 30. pp 655-661. Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. Maine Agricultural and Forest

385 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Experiment Station, College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, Misc Report, 399. Starke, K. and C. Mattrick. 2011. Biological Evaluation for the NE Swift River Project. K. Starke. Project File. Conway, NH. Stohlgren, T. J., K. Bull, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, and M. Lee. 1998. Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecology 138:113-125. Stohlgren, T. J, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, M. Lee, and J. Belnap. 2001. Patterns of plant invasions: a case example in native species hotspots and rare habitats. Biological Invasions 3:37-50. Stone, E.L., W.T. Swank, and J.W. Hornbeck. 1978. Impacts of Timber Harvest and Regeneration Systems on Stream Flow and Soils in the Eastern Deciduous Region. Forest Soil and Land Use, Proc. 5th North American Forestry Soils Conference, Colorado State University, August 1978. Stottlemeyer, A.D., G.G. Wang, P.H. Brose, and T.A. Waldrop. 2010. Energy content in dried leaf littler of some oaks and mixed mesophytic species that replace oaks. In: Stanturf, John A., ed. 2010. Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–121. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 295-296. Thompson III, F.R., W.D. Dijak, T.G. Kulowiec, and D.A. Hamilton. 1992. Breeding bird populations in Missouri Ozark forests with and without clearcutting. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:23-30. Thompson III, F.R., R.M. DeGraaf, and M. K. Trani. 2001. Conservation of Woody, Early successional Habitats and Wildlife in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(2):407-494. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43, 67 pages. Timerson, B.J. 1999. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota – Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis, Regulation. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Saint Paul, Minnesota. Trani, M. K., R.T. Brooks, T. L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis & G. Gabbard. 2001. Patterns and trends of early successional forest in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 413-424. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Available at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org.

386 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

University of New Hampshire. 2009. New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines. Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.unh.edu/erg/stream_restoration/nh_stream_crossing_guidelines_un h_web_rev_2.pdf. 48pp. University of New Hampshire (UNH) Cooperative Extension. 2005. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting New Hampshire’s Water Quality. 93pp. USC. 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org. 35pp. USDA Forest Service. 1986. FSH 2509.22 – R9 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. Effective date: December 1986. USDA Forest Service. 1991. FSH 2509.18 - Soil Management Handbook. Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: September 3, 1991. USDA Forest Service. 1995. FSM 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, Chapter 2080 – Noxious Weed Management. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: November 29, 1995. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Stemming the invasive tide: Forest Service strategy for noxious and nonnative invasive plant management. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation. Final Rule and Record of Decision. 36 CFR Part 294. Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 9, Friday, January 12, 2001. USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Species Data Collection Form. Boulder Beach Tiger Beetle. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Breeding Bird survey data for MIS. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Species Data Collection Form. Carex cumulata. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Species Data Collection Form. Dryopteris goldiana. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Species Data Collection Form. Carex baileyi. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire.

387 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. WMNF. Red Eagle deer yard monitoring. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2005d. WMNF Species of Viability Concern. Evaluation of Status, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors. Draft. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. 126 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2005e. Record of Decision. Final Environmental Impact Statement to accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2005f. Species Data Collection Form. Corallorhiza odontorhiza. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2005g. FSH 2509.18– Soil Management Handbook, Chapter 2 – Soil Quality Monitoring, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. Effective date: February 23, 2005. USDA Forest Service. 2006. FSH 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 80 – Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: January 31, 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. FSH 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 70 – Wilderness Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: January 31, 2007. USDA Forest Service 2007c. Terrestrial habitat reference document. Unpublished document. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Delineation of Habitat Management Unit Boundaries on the White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. 2pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007e. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2006. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007f. Interim Update of the 2000 Renewable Resource Planning Act Assessment. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change. Version 1.0. October 2008. USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Project NNIS Risk Assessment. Unpublished document in project record. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Draft WMNF Strategy for Addressing Climate Change in NEPA. April 2009. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. 42pp.

388 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Early successional habitat monitoring. Unpublished data. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Red Eagle Deer Wintering Area. Unpublished Data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009e. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2008. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010a. WMNF. Review of New Information regarding WNS. Unpublished. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010b. WMNF Acoustic bat surveys. Unpublished data. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010c. WMNF Bird monitoring transect survey data. Unpublished. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Grouse monitoring data from Pine Bend/Bear Notch transect. Unpublished Data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010e. WMNF NE Swift deer yards. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010f. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010g. Rationale for Northeast Swift River HMU Potential and Desired Future Condition. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010h. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2009. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 54 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2010i. Monitoring and Evaluation Guide. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010j. Triphora Summary. Dirty Gut Timber Sale. Unpublished data. White Mountain National Forest, Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010k. Climate Overview. USDA Forest Service, unpublished literature review. USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Eastern regional forester’s sensitive species list and eastern region proposed threatened, or endangered taxa. USDA Forest Service Endangered Species Program, Region 9. Milwaukee, WI. USDA Forest Service. 2011b. FSH 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook; Chapter – Zero Code. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: September 14, 2011. USDA Forest Service. 2011c. FSH 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook; Chapter 10 – Environmental Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: April 1, 2011.

389 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2010. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. USDI. 2011. America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations. USDI, USDA, CEQ, and EPA, Washignton, DC. americasgreatoutdoors.gov. Veilleux, J.P. 2005. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 28pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2006. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 17pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2007. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 24pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2010. Hibernacula Survey Data Summary. VHB Pioneer. 2010. Snowpack Chemistry Study – Final Report. Prepared for Vermont Association of Snow Travelers. 184 pp. Villard, M., F.K.A. Schmiegelow, and M.K. Trzcinski. 2007. Short-term response of forest birds to experimental clearcut edges. Auk. Vol. 124, no. 3: p. 828-840. Vitz, A.C. and A.D. Rodewald. 2006. Can regenerating clearcuts benefit mature-forest songbirds? An examination of post-breeding ecology. Biological Conservation 127. Pgs 477-486. 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. Warren, D.R., G.E. Likens, D.B. Buso, and C.E. Kraft. 2008. Status and distribution of fish in an acid-impacted watershed of the Northeastern United States (Hubbard Brook, NH). Northeastern Naturalist. 15(3):375-390. Watkins, R.Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K.D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411-419. Welsh C. and W.M. Healy. 1993. Effect of even-aged timber management on bird species diversity and composition in northern hardwoods of New Hampshire. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:143-154. Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington, D.C. 109 pp.

390 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Wilkerson E., J.M. Hagan, D. Siegel, A.A. Whitman. 2006. The Effectiveness of Different Buffer Widths for Protecting Headwater Stream Temperature in Maine. Forest Science 52(3), pp. 221-231. Witzel, L.D., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1983. Redd-site selection by brook trout and brown trout in Southwestern Ontario streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:760-771. Yamasaki, M., T.M. McLellan, R.M. DeGraaf, and C.A. Costello. 2000a. Effects of Land- Use and Management Practices on the Presence of Brown-Headed Cowbirds in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and Maine. In: Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts. Univ. of Texas Press. Yamasaki, M., R.M. DeGraaf and J.W. Lanier. 2000b. Wildlife habitat associations in eastern hemlock- birds, smaller mammals, and forest carnivores. Proceedings: Symposium on Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems In Eastern North America. GTR-NE-267 pp. 135-141. Yamasaki, M. and C.A. Costello. 2005. Species Profile, Northern Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis. Pg. 442-447 in: NHFG. 2005. NH Wildlife Action Plan. New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. Concord, NH.

391 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Appendix A - Glossary

Basal Area (BA): The area of the cross section of a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground, generally expressed as total basal area per acre. Desired Future Condition (DFC): A goal, as stated in the Forest Plan, as to what a specific area should look like in the future. Ecological Land Type (ELT): An area of land 100’s to 1000’s of acres in size with a well known succession of forest species on unique soil materials. Ecological Land Type classification is based on geomorphic history, the nature of soil substrata, and potential natural vegetation. Even-aged Management: A timber management system that results in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. An even aged stand is a single age class in which the range of tree ages is usually plus or minus 20 percent of the rotation. Harvest methods in this project producing or enhancing an even-aged stand condition include: Clearcut: a removes essentially all trees not designated to be “reserved”, in one operation and results in a single aged stand. Thinning: A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. Thinnings are not regeneration treatments. Thinning interval is the preiod of time between successive thinning entries. Thinning intensity is the combined effect of thinning severity and thinning frequency, usually expressed as the volume removed divided by the number of years between successive thinnings. Overstory Removal: the cutting of trees constituting an upper canopy layer to release trees or other vegetation in an existing understory.

Uneven-aged (selection) management: Uneven-aged management is a planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and regenerate a stand with three or more age classes. Uneven-aged stands are either intimately mixed age classes throughout, or in small distinct groups. Examples of uneven-aged treatments include: Group Selection – An uneven-aged harvest method that describes the silvicultural system in which trees are removed periodically in small groups, resulting in openings that do not exceed an acre or two in size. This leads to the formation of an uneven-aged stand, in the form of a mosaic of age-class groups in the same forest stand. It may be applied in combination with Single-tree selection. Single-Tree Selection – An uneven-aged harvest method where individual trees are selected and removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand, to promote growth of the remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration.

392 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Forest Product - Sawtimber, pulpwood, and chipwood are the raw products utilized from a tree in a minimum piece length of 8 feet. Sawtimber minimum piece specification requires a minimum diameter outside bark of 9.0 inches for softwood and 11.0 inches for hardwood and 40 percent sound wood. Pulpwood minimum piece specification requires a minimum diameter outside bark of 5.0 inches and 50 percent sound and reasonably straight. Forest Type – A category of forest usually defined by its vegetation, particularly its dominant vegetation, based on percentage cover of the dominant trees. Type is also referred to as stand type. Habitat Management Unit (HMU) - 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 acres to 49,000 acres, and contain a variety of habitat types and land in a mix of Management Areas. Habitat Type - A small unit of land from a few to over 100 acres lying within a given climatic mineralogical zone and supporting a distinct successional sequence of vegetation growing on a unique type of soil material. Hardwood – Trees having vessels and rays, and belonging to the botanical group Angiospermae. Interdisciplinary (IDT) Team: A group of individuals with skills and knowledge to manage different resources. An interdisciplinary team is assembled because no single scientific discipline is sufficient to adequately identify and resolve all issues and problems. Team member interaction provides necessary insight to all stages of the process. Management Area. A specific geographic location on the WMNF where specific management direction will be applied, as defined in the Forest Plan. Management Indicator Species (MIS). Species whose presence in certain locations indicates a given environmental condition. Their population changes are believed to indicate effects of management activities on a number of other species. Mitigation Measure. Includes avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mixedwood. – A stand composed of both hardwood and softwood species.

393 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Monitoring. The collection and evaluation of site specific information gathered over time by measuring or observing change in a resource to determine the effects of resource management treatments. Openings: Permanent openings. An upland area withdrawn from timber production and managed for wildlife habitat. Trees and shrubs may or may not be present. If trees are present, they could occur in clumps and/or scattered through the area. Temporary openings. Openings that result from timber harvest activities in an area where nearly all trees are removed. Many wildlife species that utilize openland habitat, utilize these areas until tree regeneration dominates the stand. Temporary openings can provide habitat for openland wildlife species for 5-10 years. These areas are considered temporary openings until the regeneration exceeds 10 feet in height. Regeneration: the reproduction of trees via seedlings and saplings in a stand, and occurring promptly after the previous stand or forest is removed. Road or Trail construction – building new road or building road to a significantly higher standard than its current condition. Road Decommission – Removal, obliteration or disposal of a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded road, eliminating the need to further (deferred) maintenance. Portions of roads can be decommissioned, retaining those portions that remain needed. Pre-haul (Road) Maintenance – The preservation of a road including its surface, shoulders, roadsides and ditches as necessary for efficient and safe use. Examples include temporary placement of culverts or other drainage features to allow for traffic, clearing vegetation that obstructs visibility, and smoothing and grading road surfaces including placement of incidental amounts of road surface gravel. Road and Trail reconstruction – to construct again, or rebuild a road or trail to a higher standard than was originally constructed. An example would be replacing temporary drainage structures with permanent structures, or widening the clearing limits and surface width, or straightening road sections, increasing a turn radius, or adding more than incidental amounts of road surface materials. Road and Trail Restoration – To bring a road or trail back to its original state. This may include maintenance items listed above but describes a situation when more work and/or new surface materials are needed to bring a road into safe condition for use. Scoping. Identifying and focusing attention on public issues and opportunities related to a proposed action, during the analysis phase. Public involvement

394 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment through public scoping results in informed decisions, cost-effective analysis, and increased credibility. Silviculture - The art and science of controlling forest establishment, composition, structure, and growth. Softwood - Trees belonging to the botanical group gymnospermae. Stand (Forest) - A community of naturally or artificially established trees of any age sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities, thereby forming a silvicultural or management entity. A Hardwood Stand is defined as a stand which at least 75 percent of the overstory and understory are hardwood trees. A Softwood Stand is defined as a stand which at least 65 percent of the overstory and understory is softwood (conifer) trees. A Mixed wood Stand is defined as a stand with hardwoods trees mixed with softwoods trees. The 25 to 65 percent of this stand consists of red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock. Stream - Intermittent and perennial are stream types that the quantity of water can be measured. Intermittent Stream - Streams with a defined channel that the quantity of flowing water can be measured except during the dry summer months, or that are dry in sections during dry periods. Perennial Stream - Streams with a defined channel that the quantity of flowing water can be measured year round. Volume - The measure of quantity forest products (sawtimber, pulpwood, and chipwood). The cubic equivalent of a piece of lumber 12 inches wide, 12 inches long, and 1 inch thick is known as a board foot. A MBF is the measure for 1000 board feet.

395 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Appendix B – Silvicultural Treatments

Acres By Alternative Operating Forest Type Unit Prescription Season Group 2 3 4 1 GS 28 28 28 S/F/W mixedwood 2 CC 12 12(GS) S/F northern hardwood 3 STS 4 4 4 W northern hardwood 4 CC 15 S/F northern hardwood 5 GS 11 25 11 S/F northern hardwood 6 PC 8 8 S/F northern hardwood 7 PC 8 8 S/F/W mixedwood 8 GS 21 21 21 S/F/W spruce/fir 9 PC 4 4 S/F/W northern hardwood 10 STS 18 18 18 F/W mixedwood 11 CC 22 22 S/F/W northern hardwood 12 STS 15 15 15 F/W northern hardwood 13 GS 18 18 18 S/F/W northern hardwood 14 GS 10 10 10 S/F/W mixedwood 15 GS 12 19 12 F/W mixedwood 16 PC 9 9 S/F mixedwood 17 GS 9 9 9 W hemlock 18 CC 14 10 13 S/F/W northern hardwood 19 CC 13 13(GS) 13 W hemlock 20 CC 17 12 W mixedwood 21 CC 20 20 19 S northern hardwood 22 CC 18 18 18 S northern hardwood 23 PC 8 8 8 S mixedwood 25 PC 7 7 7 S northern hardwood 26 PC 5 5 5 S northern hardwood 27 GS 27 27 27 F/W hemlock 28 CC 13 11 13 S northern hardwood 29 GS 19 19 19 W hemlock 30 SD TR RS 9 6 9 F/W northern hardwood 31 GS 12 12 12 F/W oak/pine 32 GS 14 14 14 F/W oak/pine 33 GS 47 47 47 F hemlock 34 STS 6 6 6 F oak/pine 35 THIN 6 6 6 F/W oak/pine 36 STS 10 10 10 W oak/pine 37 GS 43 43 43 F/W mixedwood 38 SD TR RS 9 9 S oak/pine

396 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Acres By Alternative Operating Forest Type Unit Prescription Season Group 2 3 4 39 CC 11 11 S northern hardwood 41 CC 13 14 S/F northern hardwood 42 GS 18 18 18 F/W hemlock 43 SSC 19 19 S/F oak/pine 44 STS 9 9 9 W oak/pine 45 GS 52 52 52 S/F mixedwood 46 THIN 11 11 11 W oak/pine 47 GS 18 18 18 W mixedwood 48 THIN 18 18 18 F/W mixedwood 49 OSR 3 3 W spruce/fir 50 CC 18 12 S/F northern hardwood 51 GS 20 20 20 F/W mixedwood 54 PC 4 4 S northern hardwood 55 STS 18 18 18 F/W northern hardwood 56 PC 8 8 S/W spruce/fir 57 PC 6 6 S/F northern hardwood 58 STS 8 8 8 S/F mixedwood 59 CC 24 24 S/F northern hardwood 60 PC 10 10 S/F northern hardwood 61 GS 62 62 62 S northern hardwood 62 GS 64 64 64 S/F/W hemlock 63 CC 21 21 S/F northern hardwood 64 OSR 20 20 W spruce/fir 65 OSR 10 10 W mixedwood 66 GS 119 119 119 W spruce/fir 67 GS 23 23 23 W hemlock 68 GS 35 35 35 W spruce/fir 69 STS/GS 31 31 31 F/W mixedwood 70 GS 44 44 44 S/F/W mixedwood 71 GS 52 52 52 W spruce/fir 72 GS 91 91 91 W spruce/fir 73 GS 32 32 32 S/F/W mixedwood 74 THIN 26 26 26 F/W mixedwood 75 STS/GS 54 47 54 W mixedwood 76 THIN 63 63 63 F/W northern hardwood 77 THIN 8 8 8 F/W northern hardwood 78 CC 15 15 S/F northern hardwood 79 GS 10 10 S/F/W spruce/fir 82 STS 38 38 38 W oak/pine

397 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Acres By Alternative Operating Forest Type Unit Prescription Season Group 2 3 4 83 PC 8 8 8 S mixedwood 84 CC 30 5 30 S northern hardwood 85 CC 13 13 13 S/F/W mixedwood 87 CC 16 16 S northern hardwood 88 PC 9 9 S northern hardwood 89 SD TR RS 15 15 15 S/F northern hardwood 91 PC 6 northern hardwood Total 1738 1690 1424

Prescriptions Operating Season GS – Group Selection S – Summer STS – Single Tree Selection F- Fall CC – Clearcut w/Reserves W - Winter PC – Patch Clearcut (<10 acres) SD TR RS – Seed Tree w/Reserves THIN – Thinning SSC – Shelterwood Seed Cut OSR – Overstory Removal

398 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Appendix C – Past Timber Harvest

NE Swift Project Past, Ongoing & Reasonably Foreseeable Timber Harvest within Project Area (HMU) Name Years Type Description Bear Mountain 2002-2008 Timber Harvest CC – 176 acres Thin – 82 acres Salvage – 79 acres STS – 134 acres Falls Pond II 1997-1999 Timber Harvest CC – 10 acres Thin – 100 acres STS – 135 acres Big Brook II 1994-1998 Timber Harvest CC – 5 acres STS – 175 acres Deer Brook 1989-1992 Timber Harvest CC – 67 acres GS – 54 acres Dry Brook 1985-1987 Timber Harvest CC – 20 acres Thin – 128 acres Falls Pond 1983-1987 Timber Harvest CC – 78 acres OSR – 34 acres SW – 32 acres Thin – 90 acres Deer Brook Residual 1973-1975 Timber Harvest CC – 120 acres

399 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

400 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Appendix D – Forest Service Responses to Comments Received on the project 30-Day Comment Report

Comments received were organized by resource area and appear in bold italicized text with Forest Service responses in normal text. Original comments are located in the project record.

The following individuals submitted comments which were randomly assigned a number that appears next to their comment for tracking purposes:

Comment # Name Comment # Name

1 Lily Berkeley 13 Steven Joshua Samuel

2 Carolyn Buchanon 14 Eric von Hippel

3 Stephan Donovan 15 Barbara Althen

4 Frank von Hippel 16 Cindy McDonald

5 Jean Public 17 James David Christmas

6 Susan Arnold (AMC) 18 Bill Ofsiany

7 Pete Howland 19 Scott Allen

8 Jonathan Taylor 20 Robert Thompson

9 Peter & Emily Benson 21 Frank Robey

10 Peter von Hippel 22 Mollie Matteson (CBD)

11 Cort Hansen 23 Mary Krueger (TWS)

12 Arndt von Hippel, MD 24 Rebecca Grundy

401 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

NEPA

A. Project Effects will be Significant, EIS Required • NEPA regulations require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") when a project's effects are significant. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. The FS needs to start over, prepare an EIS for the Northeast Swift and then come back out for Public Comment. (Commenter 21) • This logging proposal will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be produced. In considering the potential significance of a proposed action, NEPA requires the Forest Service to consider a number of factors, many of which demonstrate the need for an EIS for the Northeast Swift project. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b). For instance, there are unique characteristics of the proposed project area, including the Table Mountain IRA and the Swift River. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b)(3) The Table Mountain IRA lies between two wilderness areas to the south and north, respectively—the Sandwich Range Wilderness and the Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness. It also lies between two prominent watersheds on the WMNF: the Saco and the Swift Rivers. In this way, the Table Mountain IRA is an important habitat connector within the White Mountains. The IRA is also unique in that it incorporates several miles of riverfront along or nearly contiguous with an eligible national Wild and Scenic River. (Commenter 22) Response: Environmental impact statements must be prepared for major actions significantly affecting the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(C). In determining whether actions are significant, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations direct agencies to consider both the context and intensity of their actions. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27. In terms of context, the CEQ regs state that “significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole.” 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a). The proposed activities in the NE Swift project are site specific actions, therefore, their significance is assessed on the basis of local or site specific effects, which are analyzed and disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The Responsible Official will determine the significance of the effects of the project prior to making a decision regarding implementation of the project.

402 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The presence of unique resource characteristics, such as an inventoried roadless area or a potentially eligible national Wild and Scenic River, alone does not determine significance of a proposed action. It is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these unique characteristics that determines whether it is potentially significant. The context and intensity of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project on the inventoried roadless areas, the Swift River, a potentially eligible Wild and Scenic River, and Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas were analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Forest Service NEPA procedures require an EIS if a proposed action "would substantially alter the undeveloped character of a roadless area of 5000 acres or more". (36 CFR 220.5(a)). The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area totals 15,626 acres in size. The proposed action and alternatives for the Northeast Swift project include up to approximately 0.4 miles of new road construction, 1 mile of road reconstruction and 820 acres of timber harvest within the 7,155 acres of the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area located within the Project Area.

The EA for this project analyzes the intensity of the potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70 (USDA Forest Service, 2007b), the same criteria used to conduct the inventory and wilderness evaluation during Forest Plan revision. Based on analysis found in the EA, there is no reason to conclude that this project will substantially change the undeveloped character of the area or reduce its eligibility for roadless consideration in the future.

B. Project Effects will be Highly Controversial • In addition, the potential impacts of the logging project are likely to be highly controversial. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4). The fact that Northeast Swift is partially located in an IRA automatically makes it a highly controversial proposal. Over the last few years, all roadless area timber sales on the WMNF have been appealed by regional and national conservation groups. Two projects were challenged in court, with an appeal that went to the First Circuit. Already, Northeast Swift has been opposed by over 4,000 commenters. (Commenter 22)

403 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: In determining the significance of a proposal, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require an agency to consider “the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.” 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b)(5). However, “controversy” as set forth in this regulation does not equate with public opposition or controversy. (Town of Orangetown v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 29 (2nd Cir. 1983); Foundation for Global Sustainability v. McConnell, 829 F. Supp. 147, 153 (W.D. N.C. 1993)). “Controversy” instead refers to a substantial dispute about the “size, nature, or effect of the major federal action,” rather than opposition to a use (Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. USDA, 681 F.2d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 1982). The potential impacts of timber harvest on various resources have been studied extensively and are well- known. Numerous vegetation management projects that included timber harvest in areas identified as having roadless characteristics and inventoried during Forest Plan revision as roadless have been planned, implemented and monitored on the White Mountain NF.

C. Project Effects will be Uncertain, Involve Unknown Risks • The potential impacts of the logging project are also highly uncertain and involve unknown risks.40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5). This is especially the case for climate change related impacts, in combination with cumulative effects, on wildlife, fish, plants, water, and soils. (Commenter 22) Response: As stated above, the potential impacts of timber harvest on various resources have been studied extensively and are well-known. Numerous vegetation management projects that included timber harvest have been planned, implemented and monitored on the White Mountain NF. Chapter 3 of the EA includes analyses of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of proposed project activities on a variety of resources which is based upon best available science, as well as the professional judgment and experience of Forest Service resource specialists.

404 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

D. Cumulative Effects Analysis is Too Limited • The EA for the Northeast Swift basically ignores the fact that a very large timber harvest is currently being done less than 1 mile west on the Kancamaugus Highway, one of most heavily visited locations on the WMNF. The combination of the Kanc7 Project (which sold 40% more timber than estimated in the Kanc7 EA) and the Northeast Swift Project is a major federal action that will have a significant effect on the human environment. (Commenter 21) • The cumulative effects of the proposed Northeast Swift Project, in combination with at least two other significant Forest Service logging projects nearby—Kanc 7 and Crawford Stewardship— must be analyzed. This is thus far not accomplished in the 30-Day Comment Report. In addition to the cumulative impacts of these three projects and other, adjacent, older projects, on the Table Mountain IRA, there are impacts to the broader area, including the Northeast Swift Project Area, the Swift River, the Sandwich 4 and 6 IRAs, the Sandwich Range Wilderness, the Chocorua IRA and the Mt. Chocorua Scenic Area, and the Sawyer IRA. The Report does not assess the impacts of the Northeast Swift Project, Kanc 7, and Crawford Stewardship, on all these areas. The project is also related to other IRA logging projects near the project area, which will cumulatively result in significant environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). The cumulative effects of all three of these projects (Northeast Swift, Kanc 7, and Crawford Stewardship) should be analyzed together in an EIS. The spatial and temporal proximity of Northeast Swift, Kanc 7, and Crawford, in particular, and the relatively large scale of these projects, all demand a comprehensive analysis of their combined impacts to wildlife, threatened and endangered species, climate, water, air, soils, scenery, roadless and wilderness values, the transportation network, and the local and regional economy. (Commenter 22) • For the most part, the analysis in the 30-Day Comment Report seems to have limited consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the NE Swift HMU or the NE Swift Project area only. We believe this is too limited under NEPA for those resource areas where this is the case. This is especially true when the NE Swift Project Area and the HMU are one and the same. The Forest must disclose and consider habitat conditions, age class, forest structure and composition, etc. in the context of the national

405 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

forest and region (public and private lands) and not just within the lands within the HMU and the one private parcel listed in the analysis. Under this analysis scenario, effects occurring on the other side of the Kancamagus Highway are not considered, nor are effects on lands immediately adjacent to the project area and HMU. This is far too limiting in ensuring that direct, indirect and cumulative effects are properly considered, and must be corrected. The effects area must be enlarged. It should at a minimum include the area of the Kanc 7 Project and include analysis of whether the combined effects result in a major federal action with significant impacts that should be analyzed and disclosed in an environmental impact statement. (Commenter 23) Response: Spatial and temporal boundaries are the two critical elements to consider when deciding which actions to include in a cumulative effects analysis. Spatial and temporal boundaries set the limits for selecting those actions that are most likely to contribute to a cumulative effect. The effects of those actions must overlap in space and time for there to be potential cumulative effects.

Spatial boundaries define the affected area for each resource indicator. The affected area is the area in which a specific resource may be affected by management actions; whether they are past, present, or future. Affected areas can vary in size by resource and by the type of effect that may occur. Geographic and temporal boundaries selected for the project effects analyses vary by resource. Rationales supporting the geographic and temporal boundaries selected for effects analyses are disclosed in both the 30-Day Comment Report and in Chapter 3 of the EA. Six of the 14 resources analyzed used the project area as the spatial boundary for cumulative effects analysis, while the other 8 used larger areas that encompass all or portions of the Kanc 7 project (EA Chapter 3). The EA analysis also considers project effects to the Mt. Chocorua Scenic Area. Middle Sister is one of the viewpoints analyzed in the project scenic effects analysis and is located within this area (EA Chapter 3.2).

The Crawford Stewardship project is located 13 miles north of the NE Swift project area, in a completely different watershed (Upper Ammonoosuc River). Because direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the Crawford project do not overlap effects analysis areas for the Northeast Swift project, it was not considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

406 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The analysis area selected for cumulative effects on roadless and potential wilderness characteristics was primarily the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. The Sandwich 4, Chocorua and the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas were also analyzed, but only in the context of Inventory criterion 4 and Capability criterion 2, because of the potential for some activities to be audible for up to 1–2 miles. The other inventory and capability criteria were not analyzed for these areas because they are separated from the NE Swift project area by considerable features and distance, including the Swift River, Kancamagus Highway, and the Bear Notch Road. These analysis areas were chosen because of their proximity to the project area (EA, p. 299).

There are no designated or proposed Congressionally- designated Wilderness Areas located within or in close proximity to the analysis area for the NE Swift Project. The nearest wilderness areas, Sandwich and Presidential Dry River, are 1.6 and 3 miles away respectively. The project area is separated from these two wilderness areas by the Swift River, the Kancamagus National Scenic Highway, Bear Notch Road, the Saco River and Route 302. There are no hiking or Nordic skiing trails, or roads that connect the project area with any wilderness area. As stated in both Chapter 3 of the EA and the 30-day Comment Report for this project, any noise, smoke, or other potential intrusion to these areas that may emanate from proposed project activities would be so small as to be immeasurable and inseparable from transient noise from surrounding communities and public roadways (EA Chapter 3.11).

• In general, the cumulative effects analysis must include an in-depth analysis and an adequate period of review for past actions to be sufficient under NEPA. This must include a full cataloging of past projects and how those projects (and differences between the projects) may harm the environment. A vague discussion of the general impact of prior timber harvesting or other developments, and no discussion of the environmental impact from past projects on an individual basis, is insufficient to inform the analysis about alternatives presented for the current project. The general rule under NEPA is that, in assessing cumulative effects, the assessment must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between the projects, are thought to impact the environment. (Commenter 22)

407 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered in the cumulative effects analyses are described both in Chapter 3 and in Appendix C of the EA. CEQ regulations do not require a catalogue or exhaustive list and analysis of all individual past actions, rather they only require consideration of effects of individual past actions when such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined. (36 CFR 220.4 (f))

• Further, in considering the reasonably foreseeable future and cumulative effects, the 30-Day Comment Report has used a variety of time periods, some of which make no sense for the resource or impact being considered. In addition, some of these time periods conflict with other time periods chosen in understanding the net effects. (Commenter 23) Response: In order for there to be potential cumulative effects, the direct and/or indirect effects of proposed project activities must overlap in both space and time with effects of other past, present, proposed, reasonably foreseeable future actions. The timeframes used to bound cumulative effects must therefore span the duration of measurable and/or distinguishable direct and/or indirect effects from proposed project activities, which will often vary by resource. Rationales supporting the temporal boundaries selected for effects analyses are disclosed in both the 30-Day Comment Report and in Chapter 3 of the EA.

• The time period used for the consideration of the effects of vegetation management and climate change is a thirty-year period (Report at 134). Unfortunately, the thirty-year window is 1990-2020, so over 21 years of this period has already occurred. This makes no sense for assessing the effects of vegetation management. (Commenter 23)

Response: The rationale for the temporal scope pertaining to cumulative effects on vegetation has been clarified in the Environmental Assessment. The temporal scope for the cumulative effects analysis extends twenty years into the past and ten years into the future. The timeline pertaining to the ten years into the future would commence following implementation of the proposed treatments, therefore the temporal scope is dependent upon scheduling of the timber sale contracts that would implement the proposed project vegetation management treatments. The initiation of these timber sale contracts is anticipated to occur between 2012 and 2013, with subsequent harvest activity lasting about three years; thus cumulative effects on vegetation from proposed project activities and past, ongoing and reasonably forseeable future actions were analyzed through 2026.

408 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• Even more unfortunate is the use of this same time period for assessing the effects of climate change (Report at 135). “Within the 30-year period of this cumulative effects analysis, climate change should have little if any measurable effect on our local forests” (Report at 135-136). This may be true, but only because most of the time period has already passed and only eight and a half years remain. The project activities are unlikely to even have been completed within this window. The cumulative effects period must be lengthened and the analysis redone to reflect the new time period. Without this, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project will not have been disclosed under NEPA. (Commenter 23) Response: The EA evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed action and each alternative. The cumulative effects analysis appropriately considers the additive effects of past, on-going, and reasonably foreseeable actions and other factors, such as climate change, if those actions and factors have similar types of impacts and would occur within the same area and timeframe as the effects from the project (USDA Forest Service 2011c.). Therefore the cumulative effects analysis timeframe is properly determined by effects from the project, not effects from climate change.

E. Range of Alternatives Analyzed is Inadequate • Project alternatives should include a fully developed alternative that excludes any logging or road construction in the Table Mountain IRA. A full range of alternatives would include an alternative that does not involve any intrusive, soil-disturbing entry into the IRA. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (agency must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including a no action alternative). . . . we were disappointed that no alternative was developed that would have reasonably met the agency’s goals for early successional habitat while staying completely out of the IRA. Thus, we note the inclusion in the Report of Alternative 4, which excludes clearcutting and other even-aged logging from the Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). However, this alternative still included road “reconstruction” and some logging in the IRA. It did not include a greater amount of permanent wildlife opening acreage outside the IRA. However, the agency could have designed it in such a way as to come much closer to meeting its goals for early successional habitat, while steering clear of the IRA. (Commenter 22)

409 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: As described in Chapter 2 of both the 30-Day Comment Report and the EA, an alternative that would have proposed no timber harvest activity of any kind, including thinnings or selection (uneven-aged) harvests, on any portion of the Northeast Swift project area identified the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area in Pages C-171-179, Appendix C, Forest Plan FEIS was considered but not analyzed in detail. Within the 10,400 acre project area, approximately 7,155 acres (68%) are within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. Over half of this area, 4,370 acres or about 61%, is allocated to Management Area 2.1 (General Forest Management) by the Forest Plan. The primary reason for not including this alternative is that excluding all harvest within this portion of the project area would fall far short of meeting the Purpose and Need of this project, which is to achieve a range of habitat and forest conditions within MA 2.1, as described in the White Mountain NF Forest Plan. Such an alternative would essentially exclude timber harvest on over half of the MA 2.1 lands in the project area and would alter the balance of management activities described in the Forest Plan and substantially limit the ability to achieve management objectives for wildlife habitat and vegetation management in this area.

As described in the EA, recent timber harvest has not prevented areas from being included in the inventory of roadless areas completed for the Forest Plan. Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was identified as having roadless characteristics in the 2005 Forest Plan revision inventory, despite two large timber sales (Red Moat Timber Sale 1997-2001 and Bear Timber Sale 2002-2006) and additional harvest in the interim. Approximately 1,100 acres of timber harvest proposed in the NE Swift project lies within the 15,600-acre Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, which represents about 7% of the inventoried roadless area, and falls far short of the 20% threshold identified as criteria for roadless areas. An alternative that removes all clearcuts and road construction within the inventoried area (Alternative 4), the most visually evident activities proposed and the ones most likely to have an influence on the area’s consideration during future roadless area inventories, was analyzed in detail for this project. An additional alternative that would remove all timber harvest and road activities from the Table Mountain area would not significantly improve or preserve the roadless character any more than Alternative 4, nor would it add quality to the “untrammeled” condition of the area. It would, however alter the balance of management activities from that described in the Forest Plan and reduce the ability to implement wildlife habitat and vegetation management objectives.

410 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

F. 30-Day Comment Report fails to provide for effective pre- decisional public involvement • The Center has reviewed Forest Service pre-decisional documents for Northeast Swift, including reports on wildlife, plants, and riparian resources. While all fall short of providing thorough, site-specific data combined with thorough analysis, the reports on roads and soils simply do not provide any analysis at all. (Commenter 22)

Response: The analysis of proposed project activities on soil erosion, compaction and productivity is discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. This analysis considered effects on soils from all proposed timber harvest and connected road actions, including new road construction, reconstruction of existing roads, construction and use of log landings and driveways, and additions of existing roads to the Forest Transportation System.

• This reporting is totally inadequate in conveying enough information to the public about the past impacts and future potential impacts of logging on soils in the Northeast Swift project area. The public cannot make an informed and meaningful contribution to the NEPA process when the Forest Service does not provide meaningful information about an important aspect of the project. (Commenter 22)

Response: Please see the soils analysis in Chapter 3 of the EA, specifically the analysis of the direct effects of the proposed project activities on the soils in the project area on pages 148 to 152, and the quantitative analysis of potential project effects starting on page 158. In addition, the North East Swift Soil Assessment Report contains a description of the methodology used in the soils analysis including how the soil information was collected, actual results from field collection of current soil conditions and a map showing GPS locations of sampling holes dug in the project area (project record).

411 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• The Road Analysis makes no attempt to justify adding miles of roads to a National Forest that has too many roads to begin with, especially within the Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. (Commenter 21)

Response: In accordance with the January 2001 Road Management Policy and Rule, a Transportation Analysis, which includes the project area, was completed and is included in the project record. This analysis examined the current transportation system in the area to determine long term road and trail needs for managing the land base and implementing the Forest Plan. It not only provided information about the transportation system for a current proposed project but future needs as well. It is not a decision document, it serves as a planning tool that projects, such as NE Swift, make decisions about implementing as appropriate.

All existing or proposed roads within the analysis area were reviewed in the transportation analysis, and opportunities regarding their future use in accordance with Forest objectives were identified. Based on the existing and desired road system conditions and key issues, road system/classification recommendations for all roads within the analysis area were identified by the analysis team. These recommendations were carried forward in project development.

G. Analysis Does Not ConsiderBest Available Science • From the 7 pages of Notes I was provided it appears that there were 8 days of visits over 2 years to a 1700 acre project area with many Units never visited? That’s the Best Available Science that the WMNF can provide? That is totally inadequate.(Commenter 21)

Response: The best available science was considered in conducting the effects analyses for the project EA. Specifically, the methodology used for soils sampling and references for the peer-reviewed scientific sources used to assess potential direct, indirect and cumulative affects of proposed project activities on soil erosion, compaction and productivity are described in both the soils assessment and the EA. The soils assessment states that considerable soils sampling was conducted in the project area in the past 3 years, including a soil survey conducted in 2008-2009 by Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS). The soils assessment also includes a map of all shovel test locations, and citations for more than 2 dozen peer- reviewed scientific references used to assess potential direct, indirect and cumulative affects of proposed project activities on soils is included in the EA.

412 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

H. Alternative Measurement Indicator does not Correspond to Issue • The 30-Day Comment Report discloses that four issues were identified from comments and used to develop alternatives (Report at 21). Among these issues was the following: “Concerns that the cumulative effects of proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities and other timber harvest projects in the vicinity would adversely affect scenic quality along the Kancamagus Scenic Byway, and could result in decreased recreation opportunities and associated tourism revenue to local communities.”

The measurement indicator chosen for this issue was “acres of new clearcuts / even aged regeneration harvest areas and cumulative openings viewed from selected viewpoints along the Kancamagus Highway” (Report at 22). We are concerned that this metric misses the most important aspects of the issue. We believe the most critical aspect is the potential decrease in recreation opportunities and the associated tourism revenue to local communities. The Forest Service must define a suitable metric that will result in understanding the extent to which the alternatives respond to the issue, how the alternatives differ from each other in their effects and whether a reasonable range of alternatives has been defined. (Commenter 23)

Response: This issue is most directly related to the effects that proposed project activities would have on scenic quality along the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of all proposed project activities on scenery were analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Four of the eleven viewpoints selected for the project scenery effects analysis are located along the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway. This analysis concluded that under Alternatives 3 and 4, all proposed project activities that would be visible from these viewpoints, including timber harvest and connected road management activities, would meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) of the Forest Plan (EA p. 121). Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) however, two of the eleven proposed clearcuts that would be visible from any of the four viewpoints located along the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway, units 2 and 4, visible from Viewpoints 5 and 6 respectively, would exceed the visible opening size specified in Forest Plan Guidelines for meeting SIO.

413 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of all proposed project activities on socioeconomics of the Towns of Albany, Barlett and Conway were also analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. This analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan which details the social environment of the White Mountain National Forest in terms of populations, demographics, partnerships, values, uses of the Forest, and attitudes toward land management (USDA Forest Service 2005b pp. 3-472 to 3-486). There is no question that revenue from tourism is very important to the towns analyzed. According to a recent published report, forest-related recreation use accounts for almost one-half of the annual revenue generated from forests in the state of New Hampshire (NH DRED. 2011).

Recreation and vegetation management activities have co-existed in the project area for some time as evidenced by the roads and skid trails which were originally created to provide access for timber harvesting, and are currently used as Nordic trails or dispersed travelways. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of all proposed project activities on recreation opportunities were analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA, which concluded that none of the projects’ action alternatives would change the long-term recreation opportunities described in the Forest Plan. Although proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities could adversely impact some dispersed recreation opportunities, such as temporary closures on hiking and skiing trails within the project area, these effects would be largely confined to the project area, and would be intermittent and/or short-term in duration. Proposed harvest activities would likely occur in one general area at a time, leaving other areas and their recreation opportunities largely unaffected. Project design features, such as restrictions on weekend and holiday harvest activities and hauling along popular trails and use areas, were incorporated to reduce these impacts. The summary of effects on recreation provided in Chapter 3 of the EA concludes that “The projects’ anticipated effects are limited in area, scale, and in duration. The anticipated schedule of operations would likely require operations in one area at a time. The proposed project does not conflict with the ROS classes identified in the Forest Plan and would not result in a considerable change to recreation conditions in the analysis area in the long term.”

414 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

It is difficult to quantify effects of the proposed project on tourist revenue to local communities due to a number of factors. First, visitors to the Forest participate in a wide variety of recreational activities, many opportunities for which occur within the project area. However, opportunities for these same recreation activities exist on privately-owned lands in the project vicinity as well. The number of visitor days and the amount of revenue generated varies by recreation activity, as well as time of the year (High et al., 2004). With few exceptions, such as campgrounds, detailed information on the number of Forest visitor days according to recreation activity is generally not available for the project vicinity. Also, a variety of factors influence tourism, such as weather, transportation costs, and the influences of these factors is difficult to analyze.

The socioeconomic analysis in the EA concluded that proposed project activities would not have a measurable effect on the local economies of Albany, Bartlett or Conway, because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities is expected to occur. This conclusion was based upon the recreation effects analysis which concluded that during project implementation, there would be intermittent and temporary displacement of recreational activities to other nearby areas within the Kancamagus Highway corridor or within the White Mountain region. It was also based upon visitor use, which was analyzed using fee collection data from the past five years at eight recreation sites located along the portion of the Kancamagus Highway corridor in the immediate project vicinity. This data included fees collected from three sites located in the immediate vicinity of timber sales that were active during portions of 2010 and 2011. Although there was a decrease in the total receipts collected from 2010 to 2011, when these timber sales were active, the total fees collected at these sites was still greater than those collected in 2008, when there was no timber harvest activity in the area.

Fees collected at the sites located in the immediate vicinity of timber sales active during portions of 2010 and 2011 were also analyzed. The total amount of fees collected during timber sale activities, and presumably visitor days, showed no clear trends when compared to data from previous years.

415 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

I. The Project Violates Environmental Laws • The project also at least threatens violations of environmental laws, including the White Mountain Forest Plan, NFMA, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(10). (Commenter 22)

Response: The Forest Plan provides guidance for managing resources and uses on the White Mountain National Forest. All applicable laws, regulations, policies, and national andregional direction are incorporated into Forest Plan management direction. Because the Northeast Swift project used Forest Plan management direction in project design, it complies with laws, regulations, policies, and direction pertaining to National Forest management.

Recreation A. Impacts of Bear Notch Snowmobile Parking Area Not Adequately Analyzed • The Forest Service must thoroughly disclose and analyze the impacts of the Bear Notch Parking Area. This is an enormous change in available parking, and is likely to significantly alter the amount and nature of recreational use along the Bear Notch Road in winter. . . . the Report wholly fails to analyze the potential impacts of the change on wildlife, the IRA, recreational values, and neighboring private land owners, including the quality of their drinking water (downstream of the proposed parking lot). The Forest Service provides no information about the current level of snowmobile use on Bear Notch Road, how it will likely change with the installation of a parking lot, how the different proposed locations for the parking lot will alter use or variously impact other resources. The Center is especially concerned that greatly increased snowmobile use will disturb wintering wildlife, increase noise in the Swift River Valley during winter, and diminish the values of solitude and remoteness in the Table Mountain IRA. (Commenter 22)

416 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• The WMNF has just stated that it is going to provide a 3 acre parking lot for snowmobilers without any sort of justification of why something that large is needed. There is currently no parking lot and a parking lot of that size would hold many vehicles and snowmobile trailers. The impact of that many vehicles and people has not been adequately analyzed. (Commenter 21)

Response: The surveyed area (3 acres) for the parking area includes road access and egress, and other design (drainage, landscaping, etc). As stated in the scoping package, and referred to in the Comment Report, the site would accommodate 10 vehicles with trailers.

Documentation in the project file from an adjacent owner- resident, as well as personal observations made by a Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer who regularly patrols this area, indicate that a maximum of 6-8 vehicles with trailers park at the gate on Bear Notch Road in winter. The small increase in parking availability proposed is not intended to or expected to increase use to a measurable degree. No effects on wildlife or other forest resources are anticipated. Most of the snowmobile use on this trail system originates from public access in Bartlett, where an existing large parking facility on private land serves individuals and several snowmobile rental companies. Trail Use Data from 1994 suggests that trail use on the Kanc side (where the parking lot is proposed) compared to use levels on the Bartlett side of the trail is at a ratio of approximately 1 to 8.5. The numbers for February of that year were 257 counts at the Kanc end and 2166 counts at the Bartlett end, indicating that use on the Kanc end is relatively low compared to overall use on these trails. The addition of approximately three more vehicles with trailers would not add measurably to the overall use on that trail system.

• In summary I feel it is inappropriate to build such a large parking lot solely for snowmobilers in such close proximity to our homes and neighbors on Bear Notch Road. 1. The proposed size of the lot is in gross excess of needed parking space. I live right next door to this area and have real life exposure to the situation. I have never seen more than approximately 5-7 trucks with trailers on the site at one time. (Commenter 19)

417 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: Forest Service monitoring supports these observations. The proposed parking lot was designed to provide enough parking area to accommodate existing levels of winter recreation use. In addition to the vehicles and trailers used to transport snowmobiles, skiers and snowshoers often park a comparable number of vehicles along the side of the road at the Nanamocomuck trail crossing. The Deciding Officer will review the merits and consequences of the proposed parking area, as well as the public comments that were received regarding the proposal, before making their final decision on implementation of this project.

• 2. The financial impact on the Forest Service to build and maintain the lot year round is unnecessary. I understand that NH DOT will not perform snow removal and this burden will fall on the Forest Service. Once the lot is built the maintenance and snow removal will continue for the foreseeable future. (Commenter 19)

Response: The estimated construction cost for the parking lot is $57,000 (EA, p. 365). The Deciding Officer will consider the estimated costs of the proposed parking area in making their final decision on implementation of this project. The Forest Service is continuing to consult with NH DOT to determine what their needs and availability are regarding this proposal. The Forest Service currently plows Rocky Gorge, Covered Bridge, and some trailhead locations in the vicinity of the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway. If for some unforeseen reason the NH DOT is no longer able to plow the proposed parking area, it is possible that the Forest Service could end up plowing this area.

• 3. Watershed protection is a real concern, as well. All of the families downhill of the proposed lot have shallow dug wells that will ultimately be impacted by the runoff of fuels, coolants and other hydrocarbons released by additional vehicles. (Commenter 19)

Response: Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the parking lot is approximately 0.3 mi from private land, while under Alternative 3 the parking lot is approximately 1 mi from private land. Under the no action alternative, parking is dispersed along the road, ending at a gate approximately 0.4 mi from private land. As described in Chapter 2 of the EA, the parking lot would be designed for approximately ten cars with trailers, so no more than a minor increase in the trace deposition of contaminants from automobile traffic would be likely under any action alternative. Under all action alternatives, a design feature (Section 2.3 of the EA) specifies that “New

418 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment parking lot construction will employ stormwater management practices to promote infiltration or disperse runoff into vegetated areas rather than directing runoff into surface waters.” The slope in both proposed locations is predominantly to the west, so groundwater would likely discharge into Douglas Brook and become highly diluted before reaching the Forest Boundary.

For small community water systems, which may be comparable to these private wells, the State of New Hampshire specifies Sanitary Protective Areas to provide a radius in the immediate vicinity of the well in which there is minimal risk of contamination. These range from 150 to 200 feet, depending on well volume (NH, 2007). While vehicle traffic can be associated with soil and groundwater contamination, a study of an area with a much higher traffic volume found that concentrations of heavy metals and hydrocarbons dropped sharply within 6 feet of the source (Dierkes and Geiger, 1999). Concentrated snowmobile traffic in itself has not been associated with detrimental impacts to water quality. In a study of 11 heavily used snowmobile trail sites in Vermont (14 to 75 users per day average during snowmobile season), no detectable levels of volatile organic compounds or total petroleum hydrocarbons occurred in snowmelt, runoff or snowpack immediately down gradient of trails, with the exception of one compound at one site. Though no standards exist for snowpack, levels of the detected compound were below the drinking water standard for that compound. (VHB Pioneer, 2010)

In conclusion, the small potential increase in vehicles, chemical uptake by soil and vegetation, and dilution by other water sources occurring over 0.3 or 1 miles minimize the risk to water supplies under all action alternatives in a way that is consistent with New Hampshire practices for groundwater protection. The additional distance from private land and thus from wells gives Alternative 3 a slightly lower risk of effects relative to Alternatives 2 and 4. Because parking is currently not restricted along the road, the level of risk under each action alternative may either be lesser or greater than the no action alternative.

• 4. Why should the Forest Service invite the likelihood of more problems, take on the added financial responsibility and tie up more resources for the snowmobiling community when they already have a large lot that is used on the Bartlett end of Bear Notch Road? At that location they already have outfits that cater to their needs such as lodging, food, fuel and access to emergency services. (Commenter 19)

419 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: The Forest Service goal is to provide a safe parking area and manage existing public uses, while minimizing the need for additional snow removal on Bear Notch Road. While ample opportunity exists to access the snowmobile trails from the Bartlett side, snowmobile and other users also access trails from the southern end of Bear Notch Road, which provides more direct access from Albany and Lincoln.

• 5. Improved parking for Nordic Skiers, Bicyclers and Hikers should be part of the project as well. Parking by FR209 and the gate does not accomplish this. It seems to focus too intently on the desires of one group. (Commenter 19)

Response: The Forest Service recognizes that improved parking in the Bear Notch Road area for all trail users, not just snowmobilers, is important, and considered this in project design. The parking lot location proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 would provide convenient access for all trail users. The proposed parking lot location in Alternative 3 would not be as well suited for all trail users, however it would resolve issues related to proximity to private landowners. The Deciding Officer will weigh the merits and consequences of both proposed parking lot locations when making their final decision on implementation of this project.

• 6. What if the NH DOT decides it will plow Bear Notch Road in the future? The parking area by the gate would lose all utility, likely falling into disrepair and inviting inappropriate use. (Commenter 19)

Response: The Forest Service consults regularly with NH DOT regarding snow removal on the Bear Notch Road. NH DOT has not revealed any plans to expand snow removal on the Bear Notch Road in the future. Most of this road serves as a popular snowmobile trail and is closed in the winter; so it would be unlikely that NH DOT would want to remove snow from the trail. The Forest Service currently plows snow at Rocky Gorge, Covered Bridge and some of the trailheads located in the vicinity. If NH DOT were to decide to remove snow and keep Bear Notch Road open in the winter, it is possible that the Forest Service would maintain the proposed parking lot to facilitate access to the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail. Please note that during project implementation, however, one lane of the Bear Notch Road would be temporarily opened to accommodate logging traffic, which the timber sale purchaser would be responsible for plowing, while the other lane would continue to provide access for snowmobile traffic.

420 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• My suggestions are to reduce the scope of the parking facility by enlisting these simple upgrades to the existing arrangement. 1. Increase the turning area on the southerly side of the Bear Notch Road gate to ease efforts of both DOT plow drivers and would be parkers during gate closure months. 2. Increase shoulder width on Bear Notch Road from the gate some distance down the road to better accommodate trucks with trailers parked in a parallel fashion as they do today. I estimate a run of about 350' to 400' would be sufficient for this purpose. This would allow parkers to be off the road but maintain the "wild" nature of the area. 3. Add a bit more parking to the existing road mouth on Rob Brook Road to service the Hiking, Biking and Nordic skiing community. This could simply be a small expansion to the existing area that would allow approx. 5 cars to park without blocking the fire gate. (Commenter 19)

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The Forest Service project design team considered these and other options during alternative development; however the Deciding Officer concluded that they would not address the full extent of the issues and needs at that location. Moving parking off the main road was determined to be most prudent option for long term management of public access at this location.

• Because of concerns about the vulnerability of our isolated cabin to vandalism during the winter, we would prefer it if the parking lot were located further up and on the west side of Bear Notch Road as described in alternative 3. (Commenter 4)

Response: The Forest Service is aware that local residents are concerned about intrusion and/or vandalism on nearby private property, however we do not believe that establishing a designated parking area on National Forest System (NFS) lands would add to this threat. The Forest Service will remain committed to preventing violations and apprehending violators on NFS lands, including cooperating with local and state law enforcement efforts when needed. The Deciding Officer will be weighing the merits of these concerns and others when making their final decision regarding implementation of this project.

421 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• The proposal to significantly increase parking for snowmobile use without facilities, personnel and budget for policing waste disposal nor the inevitable human caused incidents and accidents has the potential to do serious injury to both the National Forest as well as to the much larger number of non-snowmobiling members of the public. (Commenter 13)

Response: While the Forest Service cannot insure that visitors to the National Forest will act safely, the intention of providing a designated parking area is to provide for public safety and to avoid problems with NH DOT snow removal at the existing turnaround and gate, and along on the sides of the road. Other than the possibility of having snow removal responsibilities in the parking lot, the other points (waste, accidents, and incidents) are no more likely to occur with a designated parking lot that currently exist.

B. Project Impacts to Nanamocomuck Nordic Ski Trail • We walked the Lower Nan to see how the road reconstruction would affect the current trail, and the impact is going to be notable. You may or may not be aware of the area just west of the bridge, where the Nan takes several "loops" off to the north, to move off the road before returning to Deerbrook Rd. These two loops are really a joke- there is no sense of a rural trail where these loops diverge from the road (they are very close to Deerbrook R). The feeling of being off in the woods will disappear. It will really not be a backwoods trail. The new road you build will be more invasive than the road built for the last logging operation. It will have to be wider and have more support under it to accommodate the larger trucks. Your reassurances to me that the area will naturalize the same way the old road did do not ring true for me - that road will be a distinct and wide road for MANY years to come. (Commenter 15)

Response: The intent is to reconstruct the road to be similar to the first half-mile of the Deer Brook Road. To the west of Deer Brook, this road would need to be much wider than is currently the case. Project design includes re-constructing this road to a Maintenance Level 1 standard, the minimum current standard for a Forest Transportation System road. The road would be designed to provide a fourteen foot wide travel surface, with additional width for ditches where needed, would be closed to public vehicular traffic upon completion of the project. Over time, it is expected that overhanging limbs from roadside trees will shade the road.

422 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• We know you are going to build this road, but very close to the time we turned around, we entered an area that would require a large amount of water management and road fill to get to the saddle. Also, right after that large boulder, there is a notable drop-off and a large amount of fill would be required to get the road back to the trail. I am hoping you would stop the road PRIOR to that area requiring all that work, and just leave that area undisturbed. The beginning of the Lower Nan would be impacted, but the area approaching Haskell Brook would not be. It would mean dropping at least one logging area, something I hope you might consider. (Commenter 15)

Response: Alternative 4 would eliminate new road construction in this area. The Deciding Officer will weigh the merits and consequences of constructing this new road when making their final decision regarding implementation of this project.

C. Project Impacts to Boulder Loop Trail • Boulder Loop Trail is one of the most popular trails in the Passaconaway area, for its central location, easy access to good mountaintop views, and short distance. It seems counterproductive to clearcut area 85, where the impact would be dramatic. From the top of Boulder Loop, one can still see the "giant's footprints" from a clear cut across the valley years ago, and it has taken a long time for those scars to fill in. It would seem that there could be a less invasive style of logging in this area, to maintain the view so cherished by hikers here. (Commenter 15)

Response: Proposed harvest unit 85 is in a mixedwood stand. The unit boundary is located about 150 feet from the trail, and parallels the trail for a short distance of about 200 feet. Although this stand could be treated with group selection, this type of treatment would not create early successional wildlife habitat needed to meet project objectives. In addition, clearcutting this unit could actually benefit trail users, since this treatment will open up views to the west.

• We are asking you to seriously consider removing the bridge which will be put in to access Bear Brook logging. We have spoken to you about our concern that snowmobiles would get into that back area if the bridge is kept there. (Commenter 15)

423 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: The project design includes placing a temporary logging bridge over this stream crossing which will be removed upon closure of the logging operation.

Scenery

• NONE of the Action Alternatives meet the Forest Plan’s Scenic Integrity Objectives of the Forest Plan. Only Alternative 1 meets those Objectives (Commenter 21) • The visuals analysis states, “all alternatives would be compliant with the Forest Plan” (Report at 117). Yet each of the alternatives analysis sections contains statements to the effect that proposed treatments would exceed Forest Plan SIO size guidelines. Please clarify the apparent contradiction of these statements with the conclusion that “all alternatives would be compliant with the Forest Plan”. As it stands now, the only alternative that complies with the Forest Plan is the no action alternative. (Commenter 23)

Response: Scenic Integrity Objectives are defined on pages 2-26 and 2-27 of the Forest Plan. The implementation of Scenic Integrity Objects is governed by guideline G-1, page 2-26.

The definition of a guideline as set forth within the Forest Plan is found on page 2-3. It states, “A guideline also is a required course of action or level of attainment, but permits operational flexibility to respond to variations in conditions. Guidelines can be modified or not implemented, but the rational for doing so must be documented in a project-level analysis and signed decision”. This definition allows for proposed treatments that exceed the Forest Plan’s Scenic Integrity Objectives maximum observed size guidelines, provided justification is disclosed in the environmental analysis and decision documents. This is also what allows each Alternative to be compliant with the Forest Plan while at the same time it exceeds the guidelines. The rational for exceeding the guidelines is provided in Chapter 3 of the EA and will be explained in the Decision Notice by the Line Officer. During the analysis process, harvest prescriptions, boundary locations, and reserve areas were evaluated on a case-by-case basis to minimize the effects to scenery as viewed from selected viewpoints. Analysis of the proposed treatments showed that under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, there would be a total of up to fifteen (15) units that would exceed Forest Plan visible acre guidelines for high and moderate sensitivity levels from six of the eleven viewpoints analyzed. Guidelines were exceeded for

424 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

these units in order to meet silvicultural and wildlife objectives.

The Interdisciplinary Team specifically designed Alternative 3 to reduce impacts to the visual resource by decreasing the number and size of new openings that would be visible from the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway and the Swift River. Scenic impacts of observed opening are more critical when in foreground or middleground views than when in background views. During development of Alternative 3, the ID Team assessed the visible acreage of the proposed units that would potentially exceed Forest Plan visible acre guidelines for high and moderate sensitivity levels, and modified and or deleted proposed treatments for six (6) units located within within foreground views. Units 2, 20, 30, and 50, were modified to reduce the visible acreage and meet Forest Plan visible acre guidelines. In addition, units 4 and 16 were eliminated from Alternative 3 in order to further reduce visual impacts on the landscape. The ten (10) remaining units are located within middleground or background views from two of the eleven viewpoints analyzed, Middle Sister and Allen’s Ledge. Middle Sister and Allen’s Ledge are high elevation peaks with viewsheds that encompass large portions of the project area. Almost any even-aged regeneration harvest treatments located within the MA 2.1 portion of the project area to achieve wildlife objectives would be visible from these two viewpoints. Viewing distances to these units ranges from about 3 to 5 miles from Middle Sister and 3 to 8 miles from Allen’s Ledge. At this distance, color, texture, and shape merge together to form a mosaic landscape and differences are subdued to the viewer. These units were not modified under Alternative 3 because effects on scenic resources from them individually would appear noticeably less visually obtrusive, and cumulatively the total acres viewed for all alternatives would be well below Forest Plan guidelines of 4 and 9 percent (USDA Forest Service 2005a., p. 3-6).

Vegetation Management

• Drop unit 5 and 3 and call it all unit 4 as a clear cut. Drop unit 20 and add the acreage to units 18 and 19 a clear-cut units. Keep unit 28 as 13 acres clear cut, and unit 50 as 18-acre clear-cut. Keep unit 84 as a 30 acre clear-cut. Make unit 80 part of unit 64 as an over story removal or clear-cut.

425 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

These changes won’t significantly change the overall clear cut acres of even-aged management, but will enhance the operability and packaging for sale preparation. (Commenter 7) Response: Silvicultural prescriptions assigned to the proposed harvest units were developed in consideration of the existing vegetation and desired future condition. The desired future condition is based on multiple resource objectives, including but not limited to, biotic (e.g. wildlife and botany), abiotic (e.g. soil and water) and social (e.g. economics and scenery) resources. Based on field reconnaissance by Forest Service personnel, all units referred to in the comment would be operationally feasible. The Forest Service acknowledges that not all of the proposed treatment prescriptions in this project will produce the most favorable economic results; however, economic considerations were not the most important factor used to develop silvicultural prescriptions.

• Drop unit 51, which is a small group unit between Bear Notch Road and the pond, over a steep bank with little chance for a landing. (Commenter 7) Response: Forest Service personnel have performed field reconnaissance and determined that there is adequate room for a landing within unit 51.

• Drop units 56 and 57 due to the long skid and nothing else in the area. Drop units 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79, which are too far from landing areas, from either FR209 or FR5174. It would also eliminate the need for a bridge on FR5174 to get to unit 77, etc. (Commenter 7) Response: Timber harvesting is permitted within areas allocated by the Forest Plan to General Forest Management Area 2.1, where all of these units are located. The Forest Service acknowledges the relatively long skidding distance required to access some of these units; however, treating these units would allow the Forest Service to meet multiple resource (e.g. silvicultural and wildlife) objectives associated with the Northeast Swift River Habitat Management Unit. Also, note that one of the action alternatives analyzed for this project, Alternative 4, does not include units 56, 57, 78 or 79.

• Units 82, 31 and 32 should be put together as a small sale, in order to get the removal of hazard trees within the Covered Bridge Campground. (Commenter 7)

426 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Response: Thank you for your comment. Specific decisions pertaining to the implementation of timber sales are not included in the current analysis. Your comment will be considered upon subsequent development of timber sales.

• On Parcel numbers 68, 71 and 72, I have not been able to determine if these areas cross the existing trail corridor. (Commenter 11) Response: Since these units are located north of the trail, logging equipment would not need to cross the trail to access them.

• 16 USC § 1604(g)(3)(F) requires the Forest Service to “insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where (i) for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan.”(Emphasis added). We expect an optimality analysis in the project analysis. (Commenter 22) • The Forest must sufficiently explain why even-aged management is necessary in this case, beyond a general statement about its use with various habitat types. We could not find any such specific analysis in the 30-Day Comment Report. (Commenter 23) Response: Twenty-eight (28) stands totaling an estimated 315 acres are proposed for clearcut or patch clearcut harvest in this project (EA, Appendix B). This clearcutting is proposed to provide early successional regeneration age (0-9 year old) forest habitat and to regenerate paper birch and aspen habitat which will move the project area toward desired future conditions and help achieve Forest Plan habitat objectives. As discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6 of the EA, clearcutting and patch clearcutting are the optimal methods to achieve these habitat goals given the current species mix, stand conditions, and soils.

Eighty-two (82) acres are proposed for even-aged regeneration harvest methods other than clearcutting including Seed Tree with Reserves, Shelterwood Seed Cut and Overstory Removal. These prescriptions were developed based upon field investigations by the interdisciplinary team, the purpose and need for the project, and predicted effects of implementing these prescriptions. The even- aged prescriptions proposed in this project are vegetation management methods that are both commonly implemented and effective in achieving desired forest habitat conditions, and would be appropriate given the current species mix,

427 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

stand conditions, soils, and management objectives. In addition, implementation of these proposed prescriptions will contribute toward achieving desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan for MA 2.1, and the “Estimated Silvicultural Practices” shown in Appendix B of the Forest Plan.

The actual finding regarding project consistency with National Forest Management Act requirements for timber harvest, specifically those pertaining to the appropriateness of proposed even-aged regeneration harvest methods and the optimality of proposed clearcutting will be made by the Responsible Official in the Decision Notice for this project.

• Have the courage of your management and put a clear cut or two to the road edge where it is easily visible. Trying to “hide” clear cuts from the public’s view for aesthetic reasons is deceptive about the range of management that you are trying to achieve. (Commenter 9) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Although locating clearcuts along roads is consistent with vegetation management goals outlined in the Forest Plan, placing clearcuts adjacent to roads would not be appropriate in the Northeast Swift Project area for a variety of reasons. For example, some of the roads within the project area are located near the Swift River, which is an eligible Wild and Scenic River. Also, Forest Plan Guidelines restrict the size of openings created within areas having a “High” Scenery Integrity Objective (SIO). The primary roads within the project area are located within areas having a “High” SIO. Forest Plan guidelines specify that openings created by timber harvest, eg. clearcuts, in these areas should be minimally evident from trail, road, or use area vantage points and the maximum observed size should not exceed 4-5 acres.

Transportation/Roads

• Similarly, the roads analysis provides data on roads, but no actual analysis to support the rationale behind the alternatives considered, and the alternative selected as the Proposed Action. Without this analysis, how can the public provide meaningful, informed commentary pre-decisionally on the Forest Service’s plan to construct, re-construct, or decommission certain roads? (Commenter 22) • The Road Analysis makes no attempt to justify adding miles of roads to a National Forest that has too many roads to begin with, especially within the Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. (Commenter 21)

428 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Response: A Transportation Analysis, which includes the project area, was completed and is located in the project record. This Transportation Analysis examined an area to determine long term road and trail needs for managing the land base and implementing the Forest Plan. This analysis not only provides information about the transportation system for the current NE Swift project; it addresses access for future forest management activities as well. It is not a decision document, rather it serves as a planning tool that projects, such as NE Swift, incorporate and implement as appropriate.

• The extension of FR 5174 is the most significant new road construction proposed in an IRA since the adoption of the Forest Plan in 2005. The Report does not provide significant justification to support the inclusion of this new road construction in the project. (Commenter 6) • Eliminate Cut units # 1, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 and any associated new road and landing construction. (Commenter 9) • The original NE Swift Project Scoping Report (pg.6) proposed the expansion by reconstruction or new construction 1.2 miles of road (Starting at the bottom of the trail at the Albany Covered Bridge, the proposal to rebuild 0.8 miles of FSR 5174 and build another 0.4 miles of new road from the area west of the Rainbow Slab cliff to west of Haskell Brook.). In the judgment of the Forest Service, is there enough timber value and long term merit to build a road to access those two small parcels? If these two parcels were dropped there would be no reason to build a road west of Deer Brook underneath the Rainbow Slabs west to Haskell Brook. (Commenter 11) Response: The transportation analysis identified the need for an extension of FR 5174 in order to serve the land base in this area. This road extension would serve to provide access to two new landings and five proposed harvesting units in this project, but would also serve to access the land base of over 500 acres of MA 2.1 in the future. Although these five units in the proposed project could be accesses without the road extension, it would still be needed for future management of the land base.

429 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• We also have questions on the roads proposed for reconstruction. Reconstruction is proposed for 5.2 miles of roadway spread across five Forest Roads: FR 5174, FR 26B, FR 28, FR 28A and FR 602. Our own field visits to the project area reveal that maintenance on some of these roads happened so long ago that significant vegetation has since grown up in the roadbed, with some trees appearing to have entered the 10-19 year age class. Creating a 32-foot road bed (20 feet centered with 6 additional feet on each side) will entail significant alteration with significant impacts that more closely resemble road construction rather than reconstruction. Please explain the differences and disclose the impacts of this level of alteration. (Commenter 23) Response: The roads identified for reconstruction are maintenance level 1 roads. Basic custodial maintenance is performed on these roads to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level and vegetation is allowed to grow on them. The proposed road reconstruction would bring the roads back to useable standards for the life of a project. The design standards for these roads are typically a 14-16 foot roadbed with additional clearing as needed for drainage.

• In addition, it isn’t clear from the maps exactly which roads need or will be reconstructed. (Commenter 23) Response: The road labels on the maps in the EA have been clarified.

• The Forest Service released additional direction for meeting requirements of Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule in November of 2010 (attached). We would like to know how the WMNF intends to meet this deadline given the piecemeal approach it has chosen to use. (Commenter 23) Response: The Forest is currently reviewing this new rule and developing a strategy to address it. Until such time that a new strategy is in place we are planning to continue to conduct transportation planning on a project basis.

• FSR 5174 should be classified as a dual use system road and trail (Nanamocomuck Ski Trail) for skiing and mountain biking. (Commenter 7)

430 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Response: FSR 5174 would be classified as a dual use system road and trail and would be managed as such. Concurrent use would be allowed when safe and use would be controlled as necessary if there are conflicts.

• Driveways that you mention off the Passaconway road to access unit 37 is going to be very difficult due to the slope along the road in that location. I believe there is already a landing in the area of unit 33 that exist at the entrance to the Big Brook Road. It may be over grown but is there. (Commenter 7) Response: The area of the proposed landing has been evaluated on the ground and it would be feasible. It would not be feasible to skid this unit to the east or west due to the topography and land ownership.

• NEVER convert or decommission a system road to a trail, FSR 5169 for example. It just adds more fuel to the roadless area debate. (Commenter 7) Response: Access needs to the land base, both present and the future, are evaluated prior to making decisions on the decommissioning or reclassification of a system road or trail.

• The Albany Covered Bridge use needs to be addressed up front. The height restriction for traffic passing thru it is going to be an issue, when harvest operations are in progress. The last time we logged in there, we had to take down the overhead barrier on the North side, prior to getting to the bridge, so that trucks could use the Deer Brook Road. I would suggest that a steel gate be placed where the log overhead barrier, prior to the North side bridge that could be opened and closed when logging trucks are on the road during the operations. It would have to be hinged in such a way that the truck driver on each trip could swing it. Otherwise, the bridge would have to have a gate installed in the North end of the bridge to close access during harvest operations with a sign prior to the bridge so that campers could turn in the existing parking lot for the hikers to the bridge. (Commenter 7) Response: The Forest Service acknowledges the overhead barrier near the Albany Covered Bridge on the north side of the Swift River would need to be temporarily removed to provide log-truck access to the Deer Brook Road. The Forest Service has no intention of installing a gate on the Passaconaway Road. A gate would restrict access to the public. Additionally, the Passaconaway Road is a town road administered by the Town of Albany. The Forest Service intends to coordinate this issue with the Town of Albany.

431 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• Be very sensitive to using Passaconaway road as you are hauling, and especially residents’ concerns. Extra care should be taken by the contractor, during hauling and on the way to the job site daily for obeying posted speed limits. Residents should also be made aware of the amount of material being hauled in by dump trucks as was the case on Than Brook (If that is the case for this project) which actually exceeded the amount of logging transport occurring on the site. Every attempt should be made to use local materials to minimize hauling, its potential impacts and costs, and the potential for the spread of invasives. (Commenter 9) Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Forest Service is sensitive to residents that would be affected by the proposed activities, and has incorporated project design features which address some of your concerns. For example, the design features that would be implemented on Passaconaway Road include the use of caution signs or closure signs along trails, at trailheads and where logging operations occur to alert visitors and ensure public safety. Also, hauling would not occur on Passaconaway Road during weekends. Passaconaway Road is administered by the Town of Albany. Vehicle traffic would be monitored by the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department as well as Forest Service law enforcement. Although the Forest Service does not have the authority to regulate the origin of materials used to construct, reconstruct or maintain roads, based on previous experience, the Forest Service has no reason to suspect a contractor would use non- local materials. The relatively high cost of hauling these materials would likely predispose contractors to use local materials for such purposes.

Three design features were developed for this project to prevent the introduction and spread of Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) from proposed project activities. These include pre-implementation monitoring and control of known NNIS populations where appropriate, measures to reduce spread of NNIS, and ceasing harvest operations where new NNIS infestations are discovered.

Information pertaining to the scheduling of operations or the amount of material anticipated to be hauled is unavailable at this time. For more information please see the design features section of the Environmental Assessment and/or contact the Forestry Assistant Ranger on the Saco Ranger District.

• Simply hauling only on weekends is not going to address the safety issue of Passaconaway Rd., the narrowness of the road with bigger trucks than used before, the subsiding of the road near the Dugway Picnic area and that same blind curve. (Commenter 15)

432 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Response: Hauling would not be allowed on weekends on the roads that the Forest Service has jurisdiction on, which will eliminate hauling on weekends on the Passaconaway road. The trucks used for hauling timber on the Passaconaway road would be restricted to tri-axles, which are the same size trucks that have been used on the last several timber sales in this area. The Town of Albany has jurisdiction over the Passaconaway road, however the Forest Service will work jointly with them on dealing with road issues that may arise or exist along this road.

• The new road you build will be more invasive than the road built for the last logging operation. It will have to be wider and have more support under it to accommodate the larger trucks. (Commenter 15) • Because of the current use of longer haul trucks, the new road will have to be much wider and have a better foundation to support the greater weight. (Commenter 18) Response: The trucks and the road standard will be the same as used in the past. The Forest Service has no reason to believe that after the timber sale, with time, the road would look any different than it currently does now.

• We are asking you to seriously consider removing the bridge which will be put in to access Bear Brook logging. (Commenter 15) Response: The proposed bridge referenced would be a temporary bridge which would be removed once the timber sale is completed.

• In our Deer Brook road tour last week it was explained to us that the ledges just west of the covered bridge would have to be blasted out to allow the tractor-trailers to negotiate the turn in the road there. (Commenter18) Response: Tractor-trailer trucks would not be used on this road. Blasting of the ledges is proposed to move the road surface a bit further away from the river’s edge for watershed improvement. In this area, the road is suitable for hauling with tri- axle trucks as has been done in the past.

• Do not create landing #21 on map 2. Instead, skid material off site to another landing. The concern is that after the harvest is done there will be new recreational use in the area and landing #21 will be used as a parking area. (Commenter 8) (Note that the commenter’s reference to landing #21 on map 2 is from a previous draft scoping map; EA maps do not contain landing labels/numbers. The landing in question is located in unit 33.)

433 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: The proposed location of this landing would be near the Dugway Rd. within or near unit 33. In coordination with the purchaser of the associated timber sale, the FS Timber Sale Administrator would determine the best location for the landing. However, the landing would need to be located south of the Dugway Rd. Since Dugway Rd is a paved road administered by the town of Albany, the Forest Service cannot authorize log skidding across or on this road. The landing size for this area would be smaller than usual (less than ½ acre) due to the amount of timber it would need to accommodate. The landing would be decommissioned/closed out by blocking access from the road. This area is in a Forest Protection Area that does not allow camping within ¼ mile of the road (except designated sites). The Forest Service routinely patrols the Dugway road for unauthorized use in this area.

Soils

A. The Soil Analysis is Inadequate • The Forest Service must provide a complete, quantitative report and analysis of the actual and potential impacts of logging on soils in the project area. The soil analysis provided by the Forest Service for the Northeast Swift Project offers no quantitative information, no survey data, no comparison of plots before and after logging. This reporting is totally inadequate in conveying enough information to the public about the past impacts and future potential impacts of logging on soils in the Northeast Swift project area. (Commenter 22)

Response: Please see the soils analysis in Chapter 3 of the EA. The effects analysis in the EA discloses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of all proposed project activities on the soils in the project area, which includes erosion, compaction and effects on productivity. Effects on soils from proposed timber harvest and connected road actions, new road construction, reconstruction of existing roads, construction and use of log landings and driveways, and additions of existing roads to the Forest Transportation System were all included in this analysis. The analysis of potential cumulative effects of proposed project activities on soils considered past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities located having similar effects on soils and located within the analysis area.

434 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The North East Swift Soil Assessment Report contains a description of the methodology used in the soils analysis including how the soil information was collected, actual results from field collection of current soil conditions and a map showing GPS locations of sampling holes dug in the project area. (NE Swift Soils Assessment Report, pp. 1-6, project record)

• The Soil Assessment is inadequate. The Soil Scientist states “The two types of effects I am most concerned with in this project are erosion and compaction. Theses two issues are what have the potential to have detrimental effects for this project based on the literature.” yet provides no mitigation measures to ensure that erosion and compaction don’t occur. (Commenter 21)

Response: Please see soils effects analysis in the EA Chapter 3, under the title Direct and Indirect effects for discussion on effects of soil erosion and compaction to soils in the North East Swift project area: • The acres of ground disturbance aren’t accurate. There are many more miles of skid roads that will have a detrimental effect on the ground then shown in Table 3.18. (Commenter 21)

Response: 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. This estimate of skid trails receiving more than 3 passes is developed through the logging plan for the harvesting of the project. Currently we are monitoring to see if the estimated amount of miles of skid trail translated to acres disturbed in the project area is the actually amount of disturbance but there has not been a project completed since the adaption of this practice in 2005 to verify this as of yet. Based on monitoring of the existing project areas up to this point we expect it to be close.

• The Forest is proposing to log on steep slopes in the project area. We could find no description of the range of slope gradients and very few of the maps contained in the 30-Day Comment Report contained any topographic lines. (Commenter 23)

Response: Please see Chapter 3 of the EA under the title Affected Environment for the range in slope gradients: “The North East Swift Project has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately-well

435 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes.” (EA, p. 140). Also see in the project record on page 6 of the North East Swift Soil Assessment report for a map showing the slope gradients for the project area. On page 150 of the EA is discussion of the type of slopes gradients timber management will occur on: “The majority of the activity area is gently to moderately sloped, and harvesting would occur on slopes suitable for timber management. The lengths of these slopes are short enough to limit potential for notable soil erosion. The combination of moderately-sloped terrain with post-harvesting measures in accordance with Forest standards and guidelines and BMPs, such as soil stabilization and waterbars, should prevent soil erosion and promote revegetation (NH DRED 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996).

• The Soil Report also indicated that erosion and compaction were the primary concerns and then did little to address these issues. What soil types occur in the area and what are the risks of erosion and mass slumping once the vegetative cover is removed? What would be done to lessen this risk? (Commenter 23)

Response: Please see Chapter 3 of the EA under the title Affected Environment for the range in types of soil and risks of erosion and slumping: “The North East Swift Project has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately-well drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes. The project area is too low on the landscape and gentle in slope to have dry debris slides that would lead to mass movement of shallow gravelly soils. It is low enough on the landscape to have deep soil slumps; however, field review of the units proposed indicates that this potential soil hazard does not exist here (Colter 2010). Also see in the project record on page 6 of the North East Swift Soil Assessment report for a map containing the soil series, ELT’s and slope gradients for the project area.

In order to lessen the potential risk of soil erosion and following the forest plan’s desired condition “to protect the long-term sustainability of the soil resource with an emphasis on maintaining appropriate soil nutrients and to ensure soils are stabilized around management activities” the implementation of relevant BMP’s, such as water barring on skid trails and operating in the correct season of harvest, to all phases of this project would ensure that long-term soil productivity is maintained in the North East Swift project area.

436 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Water Resources

A. Impacts on Water Quality • Cumulative impacts of the Northeast Swift Project and other Forest Service activities on the IRA include impacts to the Swift River, which lies within the IRA. These impacts include increased sedimentation, thermal pollution, and erosion, due to logging and road-building within the Swift River watershed. • The recent Kanc 7 Project, for which logging commenced in 2009, is particularly likely to have significant effects on the water quality of the Swift River, when these are combined with the proposed Northeast Swift Project. These impacts include increased sedimentation, thermal pollution, and erosion, due to logging and road-building within the Swift River watershed. (Commenter 22)

Response: The water resources effects analysis in Chapter 3 of the EA discusses the potential for cumulative effects of past, present and future disturbance in the entire 55,722- acre Swift River watershed on sedimentation (see EA pp. 191-193). This includes timber harvest, landings and skid trails in the Kanc 7 project (no road building occurred in the Kanc7 project). As stated in the background for direct and indirect effects on water quality, riparian buffers are considered the most effective factor for preventing nutrients and sediment from reaching water resource features (Gilliam 1994). Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al. 1994). Thus, transportation systems are the focus of the cumulative effects analysis for sedimentation. The potential for cumulative effects on sedimentation and turbidity due to ground disturbance were evaluated in the Water Resources section of the EA (p. 193), including past, present and foreseeable activities known to cause ground disturbance. Approximately 241 acres (0.43 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternatives 2 and 3, while approximately 224 acres (0.40 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternative 4. The difference is related to additional road and skid trail construction in Alternatives 2 and 3. Under any action alternative, this is a small increase in ground disturbance relative to the 126 acres (0.23 percent) under the no action alternative. Additionally, most of the acreage disturbed in the action alternatives is due to landings and skid trails, which are expected to revegetate within a few years. No cumulative effect on sedimentation would be expected due to design features such as riparian buffers, location of landings and skid trails away

437 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

from water and appropriate season of operation. The direct and indirect effects discussion in the water resources section of the EA contains more extensive information about BMP effectiveness and the risk of sedimentation associated with various activities in the cumulative effects analysis (EA pp. 181-184). Ground disturbance is used as a surrogate measure of sedimentation risk because the lack of measurable sedimentation impacts from projects makes direct quantitative analysis infeasible. The lack of major erosion and sedimentation on timber operations in the White Mountains is supported by studies at Hubbard Brook (Martin et al. 1994), soil and water monitoring reports (USDA-Forest Service 2009, USDA-Forest Service 2010, USDA-Forest Service 2011), the absence of sediment impairment in the Swift River watershed, and monitoring data indicating very low turbidity levels in the Swift River (less than 1 NTU), both before and after implementation of the Kanc 7 project. Calculations of disturbed area and monitoring data are in the Northeast Swift project record.

• It appears that a number of clearcuts and other harvest units are located directly upslope and some harvest could potentially occur in the riparian zones. The Forest must disclose the site-specific locations and measures necessary to adequately protect these streams from increased sedimentation and other negative effects. (Commenter 23)

Response: Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) have been found to be effective in protecting water quality with regard to temperature, nutrients, sediment and other functions, even when removal of up to 50% of the basal area is permitted (Bennett 2010). While a 100-foot buffer with partial cutting is appropriate in a variety of situations, site specific adjustments may be made based on stream type and watershed conditions (Chase et al. 1995, UNH Cooperative Extension 2005). Within this project area, stream orders and the associated RMZ 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 or 275-foot RMZ. Uneven-aged silvicultural practices should be used within the 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. Site-specific guidelines are prescribed for these streams in units where a clearcut or group selection unit is partially within 100 feet of the stream. Note that the unmapped streams are headwater streams with relatively narrow riparian zones, and there is generally a very small amount of acreage proposed for harvest within 100 feet of the stream. Maps of proposed stands overlaid on a 300-

438 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

foot buffer for the Swift River and a 100-foot buffer zones for all streams are in the project record. For smaller headwater streams, these buffers may be wider than the actual riparian zone. Table D-1. Riparian management zone descriptions for various water body types. Riparian Management Stream Zone (RMZ) width Stream reach order (including 25’ no cut buffer) Swift River within project area 3 300 ft Mapped perennial streams: Douglas Brook, Trib to Douglas Brook, Falls Brook, Cilley Brook, 1 or 2 100 ft Haskell Brook, Deer Brook, Deer Brook West Trib, Big Brook, Dry Brook Unmapped perennial stream: unnamed tributary No treatment prescribed 1 to Douglas within 100 feet

No group selection cuts Unmapped perennial: 209 Brook 1 within 25 feet of stream in unit 67

No group selection cuts Unmapped perennial stream 1 in Compartment 1 within 25 feet of stream in 57 units 69, 71

No group selection cuts Unmapped perennial stream 1 in Compartment 1 within 25 feet of stream in 57 unit 72

Unmapped perennial: Middle Branch Deer No clearcuts within 50 1 Brook feet of stream in unit 11

No clearcuts within 50 Unmapped perennial: Trib to Big Brook 1 feet of stream in units 22 and 23

No group selection cuts Unmapped perennial: Haystack1 Brook 1 within 25 feet of stream in unit 45 Ponds, lakes, identified natural vernal pools N/A 100 ft

439 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Additional Best Management Practices are included as design features in this project to prevent erosion anywhere harvest occurs, including steep slopes. See Section 2.3 of the EA, Project Design Features for a list of these BMPs.

B. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) • The Saco District of the WMNF has shown time and again that it is incapable or of following Best Management Practices as required by the Forest Plan and the individual project EAs. (Commenter 21)

Response: The following communication processes are in place to ensure that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and 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 riparian zones will be marked in accordance with prescribed BMPs. 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 resource report (Section 3.5) of the EA (Figure 3.23, p. 163) and will be used by WMNF forestry staff to ensure perennial streams are properly identified for the purposes of marking and contracting. This map is also intended to help the public understand where and how riparian buffers will be applied, and which streams have been verified as perennial streams by qualified personnel.

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 perennial streams or in riparian areas. In addition to distance, hydrologic connection 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). These measures have been successful in preventing sediment from reaching streams in the vicinity of log landings (USDA Forest Service 2011c).

440 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

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 activities (see White Mountain National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, (USDA Forest Service 2011c, 2010h, 2009e). Though BMPs do not eliminate soil movement or trace sediment deposition, the instances are rare and effects on water quality are small enough that no measurable negative impact has been detected at the project or landscape scale due to recent activity. See the Water Resources report for a discussion of BMP effectiveness, areas of ground disturbance and water resource effects.

• The 30-Day Comment Report disclosed a nested (25 and 75 feet) riparian buffer strategy, but also indicated that timber harvest could occur in these areas for various reasons as determined. What those reasons would be and whether the need had been determined in any sale unit or management activity area was not disclosed. Please clarify exactly where this would occur and the reasons why it would be allowed per sale unit or activity area. (Commenter 23)

Response: The EA describes Forest Plan Guidelines for riparian buffers as follows:

• Tree cutting and harvest should not occur within 25 feet of the bank of mapped perennial streams, the high water mark of a pond, or a identified natural vernal pool, unless prescribed to benefit hydrological or ecological function of the associated stream, pond, or riparian area. Exceptions to this include tree removals needed to clear a designated stream crossing, maintaining an existing road or previously cleared skid road that cannot be relocated, or protecting human safety or infrastructure. (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-24). Mapped perennial streams include those identified as perennial on USGS topographic maps.

• In addition, a Riparian Management Zone (RMZ), 75 feet wide for 1st and 2nd order streams as well as lakes, ponds and vernal pools and 275 feet wide for third order streams (the Swift River within the project area) would be implemented beyond the no-cut buffer. Uneven-aged practices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). Regeneration group cuts should be limited to less than one acre in size within this zone. (USDA Forest Service 2005a., p. 2-25 and 2-26). Exceptions may apply in areas deemed important for maintaining beaver colonies. (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-24 and 2-25) Site-specific

441 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

design features in this document delineate the RMZ for unmapped perennial streams.

The primary foreseeable exception to the 25-foot no-cut guideline would occur at designated road or trail crossings of streams. See the water resources analysis in the EA for the estimated number of stream crossings (Table 3.28). A few existing roads or trail segments (Deer Brook road, Passaconaway road, Nanamocomuck ski trail) are in close proximity to the bank of the Swift River, but already lack vegetation. Trees that pose a safety risk to human safety or infrastructure could be cut within the 25-foot zone. Some of these may be along the existing road and trail corridors, but others would likely not be identified until operations begin. Leaving hazard trees would not be consistent with safety policies or the multiple uses of the National Forest. None of the anticipated main skid roads (having 3 or more passes) fall within 25 feet of the stream other than at crossings. Tree cutting within 25 feet of perennial streams has not been prescribed for hydrological or ecological function in this project. Exceptions to RMZ guidelines for maintaining beaver colonies have not been prescribed for this project. Uneven aged treatments such as thinning and single tree selection are allowed within the RMZ as stated. Site-specific guidelines for even aged treatment or group selection in the vicinity of unmapped perennial streams are described in Table D-1.

C. Potential impacts to abutting private lands • Unit 36 is located in the floodplain adjacent to my property. Because the timber in this unit provides protection to my property, as evidenced during the recent flooding that occurred following Tropical Storm Irene, I would prefer that it does not get harvested. (Commenter 8) Response: Unit 36 is scheduled for single-tree selection within General Forest Management Area (MA) 2.1 where timber harvesting is permitted and consistent with goals and objectives outlined in our Forest Plan. Compared to many silvicultural regeneration treatments, single-tree selection retains a relatively high density of trees within a stand. Among the trees targeted for removal would be those expressing low vigor and/or poor quality. The residual stand would be comprised of a healthy mix of trees representing a variety of size classes.

442 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

The value of forest cover for dissipating energy to protect stream banks and floodplains is recognized. Several design features are in place to ensure that these values are protected. For 3rd order streams such as the Swift River, Forest Plan guidelines prescribe a 25-foot no cut buffer and a 275-foot partial cut buffer, which would maintain a relatively continuous canopy. The actual boundary for Unit 36 leaves at least 90 feet uncut along the Swift River, and the prescription of single-tree selection will retain approximately ½ of the merchantable trees, including about 2/3 of the large white pine in the stand.

The riparian buffers prescribed meet or exceed the riparian management zone (RMZ) recommendations for third order streams in Good Forestry in the Granite State (Bennett 2010, pp. 83-87), which include a 50-foot no-harvest zone and a 300- foot RMZ, where partial cutting may occur. This document specifically notes that flood control and streamflow regulation are among the riparian functions to be protected.

Note that following Tropical Storm Irene, the Forest Service hydrologist and silviculturist assigned to the project design team reviewed this area. They observed evidence that floodwaters created by this storm had been present in a 40-foot wide overflow channel running through unit 36. The treatment prescription for unit 36 has been modified to exclude timber harvest in this overflow channel area, in order to leave it undisturbed.

• We are concerned about possible logging directly adjacent to our land and the impact that this logging might have on our local ecosystem and also on our water supply. Our water comes from a hand-dug well via gravity feed piping. The well is only 5 feet deep and is located on Forest Service land immediately adjacent to our boundary. It is obviously fed by one or more springs very close to the surface. We have a Forest Service permit for the well, and are obviously concerned that logging anywhere in the immediate vicinity might unfavorably impact this water supply. (Commenter 10) Response: The proposed treatment near the vicinity of your property is group selection. The objective of this treatment is to release small trees and/or regenerate new seedlings. Approximately 20% of the mapped area would be cut in accordance with this prescription in addition to approximately 5-10%, as needed, for skid trails. Thus approximately 70-75% of the area would be left untreated.

443 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Due to previously expressed concerns about your well and associated water line, White Mountain N.F. personnel conducted a field visit and altered the boundary of Unit 66. A buffer of approximately 50 ft. (25 ft. on each side) has been flagged to protect your water line. Additionally, a buffer of approximately 3/4 acre has been flagged to protect your well. These alterations are reflected on current maps and they will be clearly marked with orange paint. Heavy equipment will not be permitted to enter these reserve areas. Also, in response to your comment we have included a new design feature in the Chapter 2 of the EA to assure protection of your well and water line.

This project also follows the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a.) guideline stating: “Known springs should be protected from human impact,” to ensure that any nearby springs associated with your water supply will not be impacted by the harvest Logging in the general area is not expected to affect the quality or quantity of surface or ground water supplies, as described in the Water Resources section of the EA.

• Watershed protection is a real concern, as well. All of the families downhill of the proposed lot have shallow dug wells that will ultimately be impacted by the runoff of fuels, coolants and other hydrocarbons released by additional vehicles. (Commenter 19)

Response: This comment pertains to the proposed parking lot on Bear Notch Road. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the parking lot is approximately 0.3 mi from private land, while under Alternative 3 the parking lot is approximately 1 mi from private land. Under the no action alternative, parking is dispersed along the road, ending at a gate approximately 0.4 mi from private land. As described in Chapter 2 of the EA, the parking lot would be designed for approximately ten cars with trailers, so no more than a minor increase in the trace deposition of contaminants from automobile traffic would be likely under any action alternative. Under all action alternatives, a design feature (Section 2.3 of the EA) specifies that “New parking lot construction will employ stormwater management practices to promote infiltration or disperse runoff into vegetated areas rather than directing runoff into surface waters.” The slope in both proposed locations is predominantly to the west, so groundwater would likely discharge into Douglas Brook and become highly diluted before reaching the Forest Boundary.

444 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

For small community water systems, which may be comparable to these private wells, the State of New Hampshire specifies Sanitary Protective Areas to provide a radius in the immediate vicinity of the well in which there is minimal risk of contamination. These range from 150 to 200 feet, depending on well volume (State of NH 2007). While vehicle traffic can be associated with soil and groundwater contamination, a study of an area with a much higher traffic volume found that concentrations of heavy metals and hydrocarbons dropped sharply within 6 feet of the source (Dierkes and Geiger 1999). Concentrated snowmobile traffic in itself has not been associated with detrimental impacts to water quality. In a study of 11 heavily used snowmobile trail sites in Vermont (14 to 75 users per day average during snowmobile season), no detectable levels of volatile organic compounds or total petroleum hydrocarbons occurred in snowmelt, runoff or snowpack immediately down gradient of trails, with the exception of one compound at one site. Though no standards exist for snowpack, levels of the detected compound were below the drinking water standard for that compound. (VHB Pioneer 2010)

Wildlife

A. Effects of prescribed burning on deer wintering areas (yards) • Proposed prescribed burning may adversely affect an existing deer wintering area (deer yard) in the vicinity of the Dugway Picnic Area. (Commenter 20)

Response: The potential effects of prescribed burning on wildlife are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Detrimental effects to deer yards from prescribed fire are possible. A prescribed fire near or adjacent to a deer yard could also increase the forage available to deer wintering in these areas. Project habitat objectives in these areas are to retain softwood cover at all growth levels (canopy, midstory and

445 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

ground) in order to retain the deer yard. Fire lines would be created to exclude fire from entering softwood areas. Fire may be ignited along these lines so that fuels would be consumed early and prevent fire from entering these areas.

B. Need for Early Successional Habitat Creation • The WMNF’s purpose and need is predicated on the amount of ESH within the MA 2.1 lands in the NE Swift Habitat Management Unit (HMU). But a look at the larger view in northern New Hampshire shows a different picture. The North Country of New Hampshire is replete with ESH (or young forest structure and composition). What is missing from a landscape view, is the amount of late successional habitat (LSH), or mature forest structure and composition. In all of the North Country, the WMNF is the best, and perhaps only, landholder with the capability to create these mature forest conditions. This should be the role of the Forest within an all-lands approach, not the creation of young forest structure and composition. (Commenter 23) • The much-touted “need” for early successional habitat, which is naturally patchy, small, and ephemeral, while valid in a regional context, is highly questionable as a goal for one of the few places in New England—the WMNF--that can meet the equally valid need for large areas of unroaded, mature and recovering old-growth forest, a kind of habitat that takes many decades, if not centuries to develop. (Commenter 22)

Response: How much regeneration-age forest the White Mountain National Forest should provide through management was part of one of the three issues addressed in the Forest Plan revision FEIS. It was identified as an issue because there is substantial disagreement among the public regarding how much is appropriate and for what purposes the Forest Service should create this habitat. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Vegetation and Wildlife sections) and Appendix A (p. A-75 to A-76) of the FEIS, the Forest carefully considered the importance of this habitat for some species, the effects of managing for this habitat on other species, and the availability of the habitat off-Forest. The decision was to continue providing a small amount of this habitat across the Forest because it is used by many wildlife species and to meet the Forest Service’s obligation under the National Forest Management Act to provide habitat to support all native and desired non-native species on the National Forest. To accomplish this, the Forest Plan includes objectives for both regeneration-age and mature habitat in multiple forest types (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-21). As

446 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

disclosed in the FEIS, the majority of the WMNF will continue to provide large blocks of mature and old forest habitat (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-107).

The NE Swift Integrated Project follows this Forest Plan direction by using sustainable ecosystem management practices to provide a diversity of habitats across the project area, including various forest types, age classes, and non-forested habitats. Under Alternative 2, which proposes the most even-aged regeneration harvest, only 565 acres (5% of the HMU) would be in the regeneration age class. Almost 80% of MA 2.1 lands and 86% of the whole HMU would be mature or old forest (EA, Table 3-33, p 218).

C. White Nose Syndrome • We note the discovery last year of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) on the WMNF. It was not clear in the documentation the level of additional consultation that has occurred with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the extent to which the presence of WNS has or will alter management activities in order to control its spread. Please clarify. (Commenter 23)

Response: The White Mountain National Forest is in regular contact with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, New Hampshire Fish and Game, and other National Forests in the eastern U.S. regarding WNS research updates, survey protocols, monitoring, potential management, etc. At this time, the only recommendations developed by the USFWS and partners are aimed at preventing the spread of WNS.

There is little the WMNF can do to control the spread of this disease. All indications are the disease is spread via bat-to-bat contact and perhaps via humans carrying it from hibernacula to hibernacula on their clothing or caving equipment. Bats congregate in maternity roosts as well as when swarming prior to hibernation. We know of no mechanisms to keep infected bats from congregating and potentially spreading this disease to other bats. There are no caves on the WMNF known to contain bats and be conducive to spelunking.

A detailed analysis of potential effects to three new Regional Forester Sensitive Species, little brown bat, tri-colored bat, and long-eared bat, was added to the Biological Evaluation (BE) for this project (see project record). This analysis determined that white-nose syndrome is the greatest threat to these species. To date, no relationship between timber harvesting and WNS has been discerned and monitoring indicates bat species known to inhabit the WMNF remain present

447 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

(USDA Forest Service 2010). The amount of tree removal proposed in this project and cumulatively across the forest would not alter suitable habitat enough to cause a noticeable change in little brown bat populations. The potential exists that long- eared and tri-colored bats could be roosting in trees selected for removal; however that potential is extremely small when the size of the project area in relation to the suitable habitat across the forest is considered. The BE concludes that all of the action alternatives may impact individuals if activities occur over the summer, but they would not likely adversely impact or cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for these species.

Should information arise that indicates habitat management may help this species in regards to WNS, the WMNF would do everything feasible to alleviate the impacts on forest bats.

D. Effects of Snowmobiles • Even in Yellowstone National Park, adverse impacts by reasonably well- regulated snow machines include wildlife harms, wildlife deaths and severe air pollution. (Commenter 12)

One the WMNF, snowmobile use is limited to designated snow machine trails. Bear Notch Road is a designated snowmobile route. Providing a parking lot may increase the amount of snowmobile use, but would not result in an entirely new use of the area.

Like many human activities, snow machines can have a negative effect on wildlife (Knight and Cole 1995; Boyle and Samson, 1985; Dorrance et al., 1975). Some studies indicate wildlife quickly return once the disturbance is gone (Dorrance et.al, 1975). Boyle and Samson’s study (1985) indicates hiking disturbs more wildlife than snowmobiling. The wildlife analysis for this project (EA p. 213) acknowledges that increased recreational use resulting from providing a parking lot would impact wildlife by increasing disturbance and displacement (Miller et al., 1998), especially during the winter season, when species need to conserve the most energy to ensure survival. Because the snowmobile trail already exists, the project would not alter over-the-snow access to wildlife in the project area (Wildlife report, project record) and the impacts from increased disturbance are not expected to be substantial.

448 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

E. Habitat suitability of Table Mountain Area • More roads and clearcuts in the general area diminish the habitat suitability of Table Mountain and the adjoining IRAs and wilderness areas for a variety of wildlife, especially those that exist in relatively low population densities, roam widely or migrate seasonally, require periodic genetic interchange with other, far-flung populations, or are simply particularly vulnerable to highway mortality. (Commenter 22)

Response: The commenter did not list any wildlife species specifically. The existence of a road does not necessarily diminish wildlife habitat suitability. For most species it is the human use that occurs on the road that reduces habitat suitability. The road itself has benefits to several species of wildlife: bats use them as travel corridors and foraging areas; bear, fox, etc. feed on the soft mast that may grow on the roadsides because of the increased light; shrubby growth along the edge provides breeding habitat for several species of birds such as hermit thrush; small mammals utilize roadsides because of the increased amount of grasses and forbs. Most roads on the WMNF are gated so public access with motor vehicles is limited. Non-motorized use of the road and surrounding area is allowed. This action is similar to humans hiking on trails and has similar effects to wildlife, mainly disturbing wildlife for the duration of time the human is in the area. The commenter is not advocating for people to stay out of the Table Mountain or wilderness areas, however humans are the primary disturbance factor, not the physical presence of a gated road. The potential for road construction and reconstruction to impact wildlife species and habitat is addressed in the Wildlife section of the EA.

Non-native Invasive Plants

• The assessment should also focus more on the impacts management activities such as opening the canopy and road access have in allowing invasive species to spread into the area. It doesn’t appear from the analysis in the 30-Day Comment Report that the location of invasive species is even known at this time. (Commenter 23)

Response: Current locations of all infestations of invasive species within the project area are known and are under active management and control. (project record)

449 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

The risk of introduction and/or spread of Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) due to management activities proposed in the Northeast Swift Project was analyzed and determined to be moderate. (project record) Project design features include measures to prevent introduction and/or spread of NNIS from project activities, as well as monitoring of project activity areas for NNIS. (EA, pp. 40, 48).

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat

A. Potential Adverse Impacts on RFSS Mayflies • Ameletus brownii and Ameletus tertius are Regional Forester Sensitive Species that find exceptional habitat in the Swift River Valley, and for the former, in particular in the project area, on Douglas Brook. An expert in this species that has conducted aquatic invertebrate surveys on the WMNF expressed concern about the impacts of logging and roads on A. brownii. In particular, the expert scientist expressed concern about any increases in temperature or sedimentation caused by logging. It is our understanding from the project record that specific streams in the project area, but not all potential suitable streams or reaches of streams, were surveyed for this species. The Forest Service should document and confirm with site-specific data and survey, that no suitable habitat for this species exists in any area or below any area proposed for logging or road construction. (Commenter 22)

Response: The commenter references documentation of a phone conversation between the District Biologist, Kathy Starke and Dr. Don Chandler an entomologist from UNH who has been conducting surveys on aquatic macroinvertebrates on the WMNF. ( project record) During the course of this conversation, Dr. Chandler stated the concerns to be watched regarding Amelatus brownii would be sedimentation and water temperature. This document however does not imply that logging is the sole cause of these issues. The document however does not state these issues would occur, in fact the document specifically states under stream temperature “Therefore don’t expect to increase stream temp.” this being based on implementing the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Under sedimentation it states ”Don started by saying this may be the biggest concern. No one has looked at this issue on either Ameletus so difficult to say what the actual effect would be. Some research in western Ontario indicated it may be a concern. However, he went on to say tertius get into the headwaters (first

450 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

order) of streams. Eggs hatch in early spring with larval hatch dependent on water temperature but typically occurs in June. Don does not believe fall or winter logging would have any effect. He stated there is natural sedimentation occurring in streams and as long as the sedimentation was not excessive and would get flushed out with a high rain event or spring run-off, there would be little cumulative effect. One or two road crossings of a stream would be fine.”

The BE references this document and the 2009 Report submitted by Don Chandler (BE pgs 26-30; Chandler, 2009. Summary report ( project record).

The BE states “Proposed actions are not expected to increase siltation. Some degree of siltation occurs naturally during high flow events. Forest Plan standards and guidelines prohibit harvest within 25 feet of a perennial stream and this would reduce if not eliminate additional siltation from project implementation. Canopy cover is also retained thereby eliminating stream temperature from increasing.”

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

• The Center is concerned about the effects of the Northeast Swift Project on the Swift River, including water quality and scenic impacts. The Forest Service does not include all of the sub drainages affected by the Kanc 7 project, in the upper reaches of the Swift River watershed, in its cumulative effects analysis for Northeast Swift. We seriously question an analysis on impacts to water quality and to a Wild and Scenic eligible river, that does not account for the other most recent, extensive logging project in the same drainage. The Forest Service needs to thoroughly analyze the impacts of the proposed project and other projects located in the same watershed, namely Kanc7, on the Swift River, including cumulative impacts. The Kanc 7 Project lies only a few miles upstream, near the headwaters of the Swift. Together, these two timber projects have the potential to degrade the clear, cold waters of this stream. Further, climate change is likely to increase the stresses on aquatic life within the Swift. These stresses will include increasing water temperature, drought and lower flows, and more frequent and intense storm and flood events. (Commenter 22 )

451 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Response: The Swift River is eligible as a scenic river under the Wild and Scenic River Act. No water quality criteria are prescribed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for scenic rivers. Scenic Rivers are defined as: “Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” (Federal Register, Vol.27, No. 173, September 7, 1982)

Inventoried Roadless Areas

A. Proposed road construction and timber harvesting will significantly increase the fragmentation of the Table Mountain IRA

• The proposed logging and road construction and reconstruction in the IRA, would significantly increase the fragmentation of what is currently a relatively undisturbed, unfragmented landscape. Intact, relatively unfragmented forest is another characteristic of IRAs that will be negatively impacted by the proposed project…. The Forest Service needs to address the degree to which fragmentation will be maintained in the lower elevation areas of the IRA, and forest recovery and re-connection foregone, because of the proposed project. (Commenter 22) • Roads contribute to fragmentation…the WMNF has enough roads and is already greatly fragmented. (Commenter 21) Response: Chapter 3 of the Northeast Swift EA analyzes the impacts to the Table Mountain IRA. The analysis was based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 70 (USDA Forest Service, 2007b). These are the same criteria used to conduct the inventory and wilderness evaluation during Forest Plan revision. The criteria include the natural appearance of the landscape, level of solitude available, and density of roads in the area. The analysis concluded that none of the alternatives would change the eligibility of the Table Mountain IRA or its capability as potential wilderness. Fragmentation of the landscape from a wildlife perspective is analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

452 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

B. Proposed timber harvesting would impact the potential for old growth development in the Table Mountain IRA.

• The Report does not address whether any stands proposed for logging currently display old-growth characteristics and could be potentially set aside as future old-growth While stands greater than 100 years old are relatively common on the WMNF, they are rare in the region The majority of recovering old growth in the East is similarly found on public lands, and if current regional deforestation trends continue,7 recovering old growth in the East will be almost entirely limited to forest reserves, mostly on public lands, and secondarily on private conservation lands. Therefore, IRAs, especially those on the WMNF, represent a very significant portion of the total current old growth and near-old growth within the eastern U.S., and will only become more significant—if left alone—in the future. . It is essential, therefore, that the impacts of the Northeast Swift Project on old forest, in the context of the regional significance of old-growth and near-old growth forest, be thoroughly and thoughtfully analyzed, in an EIS. Currently, old growth is more rare on the WMNF than early successional habitat. However, some areas of 120 year old forest within the IRA may be beginning to display old-growth like characteristics that ought to be preserved, in order to safeguard the “investment” in old-growth development that forests on the WMNF have been making for over the last century. Logging in the Table Mountain IRA, and clearcutting in particular, will reduce the amount of mature forest in the IRA, setting logged stands back to the earliest seral stages. Timber harvest may be appropriate in certain locations to meet certain needs. But roadless areas, whether previously or newly identified, have the best potential to fulfill the need for mature forest conditions and structure and should be used for that purpose. (Commenter 23)

Response: The Forest Plan glossary defines old growth forest as: uneven-aged (three or more age classes) forest with an abundance of trees at least 200 years old, multiple canopy layers, large diameter snags and down logs, and a forest floor exhibiting pit-and-mound topography. There should be little or no evidence of past timber harvest or agriculture. Northern hardwood old growth consists primarily of sugar maple and American beech; softwood old growth is largely made up of spruce and hemlock. Stands need to be at least 10

453 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

acres in size to be identified as old growth. Anything smaller is a patch of old trees within a younger stand, not a habitat type in its own right. (USDA FS 2005a) According to the above definition, no old growth stands occur in the Northeast Swift River Habitat Management Unit (HMU) project area, therefore no old growth forest would be harvested, e.g. logged, during implementation of the Northeast Swift project (NE Swift Wildlife Report, project record).

Additionally, timber harvesting is generally restricted to General Forest Management Area (MA) 2.1. The Northeast Swift Project contains approximately 10,400 acres of which approximately 68% is in MA 2.1. This implies that approximately 32% or 3,300 acres of the project area are in management areas where timber harvesting is generally not permitted. These areas are left to develop old forest structural characteristics in the absence of stand replacing natural disturbances.The Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was evaluated as meeting the roadless area inventory criteria as part of the wilderness evaluation during Forest Plan revision. After it was determined that this area would not be recommended for wilderness designation, lands were allocated to management areas (MAs) based on land capability and existing uses. The area identified as the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was allocated to five management areas in the Forest Plan (EA p. 293). Forty percent of the area was allocated to MA 2.1, which is the only management area that is managed for the purpose of providing high quality saw timber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis and a balanced mix of habitats for wildlife species (USDA Forest Service 2005a. Chapter 3- 3). The lands on which timber harvest is proposed in this project are designated as Management Area 2.1. The remaining 60 percent of the area is in management areas that prohibit timber harvest and road construction or allow it only for specific management objectives (e.g. research or ski area management). Most of these acres will continue to age and develop old growth characteristics unless natural disturbance dictates otherwise. The Forest Plan FEIS analyzed the need for all habitat types and age classes, including old growth, at the Forest and broader landscape scales. Based on that analysis, the Responsible Official selected an alternative that results in 35% of the WMNF land base being identified as suitable for timber harvesting. The remaining 65% will continue to age toward old growth conditions unless natural disturbance regenerates it. Within the suitable land base, a diversity of habitats would be provided. The availability, need for, and effects on both young and mature habitats in the NE Swift project area is discussed in the Wildlife effects analysis.

454 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

C. Proposed timber harvest would diminish roadless and wilderness characteristics in Table Mountain IRA

• The Forest Service should honestly state, in keeping with its own track record, that logging and road construction in an IRA is likely to diminish both roadless and wilderness characteristics, and diminish the probability that the agency would recommend it for wilderness designation in future forest planning cycles. . . . the Forest Service has historically eliminated certain areas from wilderness recommendation because of a history of logging. The agency states this very clearly in its own Forest Plan Revision: …parts of inventoried roadless areas have been actively managed for wood products. These diminish Wilderness characteristics, so boundaries for Recommended Wilderness were proposed where they would lessen human- created impacts to the overall Wilderness. (Commenter 22)

Response: Chapter 3.1 of the EA contains the effects analysis to inventoried roadless areas for the Northeast Swift project. The analysis was based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 70 (USDA Forest Service. 2007b). This was the same criteria used to conduct the inventory and wilderness evaluation during Forest Plan revision. This analysis concluded that none of the alternatives would change the eligibility of the Table Mountain IRA or its capability as potential wilderness. As described in the EA, recent timber harvest did not prevented this area from being included in the inventory of roadless areas completed for the Forest Plan. Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was identified as having roadless characteristics in the 2005 Forest Plan revision inventory, despite two large timber sales (Red Moat Timber Sale 1997-2001 and Bear Timber Sale 2002-2006) and additional harvest in the interim. Appendix C of the Forest Plan revision FEIS identifies several reasons the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area was not recommended for wilderness designation. These include the area’s proximity to high urban populations and construction activity, existing recreation and other management activity, controversy regarding the availability of solitude and undeveloped character, and the impact designation would have on expansion of the Bartlett Experimental Forest and the Attitash Ski Area expansion management area. It is clear that even without any harvest in this area, other factors would have prevented it from being considered for wilderness recommendation.

455 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Approximately 1,100 acres of timber harvest proposed in the NE Swift project lies within the 15,600-acre Table Mountain inventoried roadless area, which represents about 7% of the inventoried roadless area, and falls far short of the 20% threshold identified as criteria for roadless areas. All harvest activity proposed within the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area in this project would be located within management area 2.1-General Forest Management. All proposed management actions within this area would support implementation of the Forest Plan.

D. The area analyzed for cumulative effects in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) is insufficient

• The Northeast Swift Project must be analyzed in terms of the cumulative impacts to the Table Mountain IRA. Cumulative effects should include not only those caused by the proposed project, but the additive effects of recent, nearby logging, specifically the Kanc 7 Project (Decision Notice signed December 2008), just a few miles west up the Swift River Valley, and the Crawford Stewardship Project, just a few miles north over the watershed divide in the Saco River Valley. In addition, the appropriate level of analysis for impacts to IRAs is not the Table Mountain IRA in itself, as some kind of island, but the Table Mountain IRA and the adjoining IRAs and wilderness areas, and the impacts, cumulatively on all of them, of the logging, road-building, noise, disruption, increased traffic, etc., lost late-successional habitat for wildlife. (Commenter 22)

Response: The Northeast Swift project includes management activities in the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area. A cumulative effects analysis that considered the effects of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions on roadless area inventory criteria and wilderness capability criteria was completed for this project (see EA, Chapter 3.10 - Inventoried Roadless Areas). As the EA states, the area identified for this cumulative effects analysis was primarily the Table Mountain inventoried roadless area; however, the Sandwich 4, Chocorua and the Sawyer River inventoried roadless areas were also considered. Cumulative effects analysis areas and evaluation criteria were selected based upon where effects from this project would be discernible. The cumulative effects from this project and the Kanc 7 project on the Sandwich 4 inventoried roadless area were analyzed and it was determined that the combined activities would not affect the ability of this area to meet the roadless area inventory or wilderness capability criteria. The Crawford

456 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Stewardship project is more than two miles from any of the inventoried roadless areas that could be affected by the Northeast Swift project, so the effects from these two projects would not overlap geographically (see EA Chapter 3.10 - Inventoried Roadless Areas).

Inventoried roadless areas and potential wilderness were evaluated from the Forest, regional and national perspective during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. Also please see response under the above section titled NEPA - Cumulative Effects Analysis is Too Limited.

Fire/Fuels

A. Proposed use of prescribed fire is not adequately justified • The huge increase in acres of prescribed fire in the Northeast Swift project versus other EAs for projects on the WMNF hasn’t been adequately justified. If the WMNF wanted to “mimic” nature then it should only be doing prescribed fire and not logging first. (Commenter 21)

Response: Prescribed fire is proposed in the NE Swift project as a tool to help meet Forest Plan wildlife habitat and fuels management objectives, rather than to “mimic” nature. The rationale supporting use of prescribed fire in the NE Swift project is outlined in Chapter 1 of the EA, as well as in the Fire and Fuels Report for the project. Proposed prescribed burn areas were selected based upon the following characteristics:

• History of fire and fire suppression;

• Slope and southerly aspect favorable to rapid fire spread;

• Presence of oak-pine community types, as recognized by the NH Natural Heritage Bureau ;

• Declining oak-pine age classes;

• Proximity to Wildland Urban Interface(WUI)

• Recent wildfire history (6 or more recent wildfires);

• Lack of oak regeneration, and

• Proximity to smoke sensitive areas. (EA p 337, NE Swift Fire and Fuels Report, pp. 5-6)

457 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• The WMNF just recently (within the past couple years) started adding the “restoration” of oak/pine forests via logging and then prescribed fire to their EAs…there hasn’t been enough monitoring data gathered over many years to ensure that this is a proper way to “restore” an oak/pine woodland and won’t cause issues and cause further decline in these woodlands. (Commenter 21)

Response: Monitoring of past vegetation management projects in oak-pine communities on the WMNF have shown prescribed burning increases red oak seedling regeneration by 100 to 185%, and white pine seedling regeneration by as much as 260%. Monitoring of post burn conditions on the WMNF has also demonstrated relatively low mortality (less than 20 percent) in mature northern red oak and eastern white pine (Spradlin and Spradlin 2006). (EA p 336, Right Angle Prescribed Burn Monitoring Report 2009-2011, Vegetation Report, project record).

• We also believe more explanation is needed for why Rx burns should occur after harvest and not before or instead of harvest to create desired stand conditions. (Commenter 23)

Response: Prescribed fire is proposed in the NE Swift project as a tool to meet both wildlife habitat and fuels management objectives. In areas outside of proposed harvest units, proposed prescribed fire treatments are focused primarily on reducing hazardous fuels, while within proposed timber harvest areas they are focused primarily on establishing oak/pine regeneration. Best available science suggests oak/pine regeneration will be most successful in areas characterized as oak/pine where timber harvesting, release treatments and prescribed fire are proposed in conjunction with one another. Timber harvest will open the forest canopy, stimulate acorn development, and create favorable conditions on the forest floor to establish oak reproduction. Prescribed burning treatments need to be delayed several years in harvested areas to avoid damaging and/or killing oak regeneration. Although oak species are fire adapted, newly established oak seedlings will initially be susceptible to scorch damage and mortality from fire. Within several years, these seedlings will develop characteristics, such as thicker bark at the root collar, which will allow them to survive a low intensity prescribed fire, as proposed in this project. In addition, timber quality and value could potentially be reduced by scorch damage resulting from prescribed fire.

458 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

B. Proposed timber harvest in Wildland Urban Interface would generate hazardous fuels

• If the WMNF is concerned about the WUI then it shouldn’t be logging since it is adding a lot of fuel to the ground in the logging slash…I believe many of the larger wildfires that have been started in the Northeast were started in logging slash. (Commenter 21)

Response: Proposed underburning treatments are designed to burn at relatively low intensities, sufficient to consume target forest duff layer fuels and understory hardwood seedlings and saplings. Pre- and post-burn forest conditions will be monitored, including fuel conditions, tree mortality and understory species composition. Operational burn plans, specifying weather, fuel and other conditions to permit prescribed burning, will be prepared and approved prior to prescribed burning. Prescribed burning will only be implemented in accordance with approved burn plans. Timber harvest creates logging slash, or residue, which could change fuel conditions in harvested areas. In order to ensure that fuel conditions meet those specified in the burn plan, and that prescribed burning operations can be conducted safely, with minimum risk of damage to communities, water, timber, and other resources, prescribed fire will not occur within harvest units proposed for timber harvesting until after logging operations have been completed and fuel conditions have been evaluated. (EA, pp 46-47)

C. An alternative that includes Wildland Fire Use should be considered

• The Forest Service should consider an alternative that defends structures, human safety, and other valued features, while allowing unplanned fire to burn within a pre-determined, prescribed area. (Commenter 22)

Response: Wildland Fire Use (WFU), management of naturally-ignited wildland fires as planned events, is permitted within areas allocated by the Forest Plan to Semi-Primitive Recreation (MA 6.1), but not in areas allocated to General Forest Management (MA 2.1). The majority of the proposed prescribed burning in the NE Swift project (approximately 650 acres or 87%) would occur in oak-pine stands located in areas allocated to MA 2.1 by the Forest Plan. Much of this area is also located within Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), where there is high risk of wildfire. All wildland fires must be suppressed in these areas in order to minimize danger to nearby communities, water, timber, and other resources. Use of prescribed fire in

459 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

these areas will reduce fuels, which will make wildfires easier to control and facilitate WFU in adjacent areas allocated to MA 6.1, where it is permitted. (NE Swift Fire and Fuels Report, pp. 5,13; EA p. 17)

D. Time period used to analyze effects from prescribed burning is too long

• We are generally supportive of the use of prescribed fire. However, we believe the time period for a three-burn scenario is too long under NEPA. The Forest cannot possibly analyze and disclose at this time the impacts of burning fifteen years into the future. Any number of circumstances could have changed (including extraordinary circumstances). Some additional level of NEPA analysis, disclosure and decisionmaking will be necessary before the third burn should it be needed. We recommend this decision now cover only the two burns, with a commitment made to conduct additional analysis before any third burn years down the line. (Commenter 23)

Response: Repeated burns (up to three in fifteen years) may be needed in order to achieve habitat and hazardous fuels reduction objectives. If the first treatment does not result in successful regeneration of oak and pine species, there would be an option to re-burn the same area. Reasons for an unsuccessful initial burn could include insufficient consumption of litter, duff or understory species, a poor seed year of desirable species, a good seed year of undesirable species, and other site specific reasons. Pre- and post-burn forest conditions would be monitored. Monitoring would include an assessment of fuel conditions (particularly litter), tree mortality and understory species composition. Subsequent burns would only be implemented if needed to meet habitat and fuels management objectives. Forest Service policy for implementing regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) calls for review of environmental documentation of actions awaiting implementation when new information or changed circumstances occur related to the environmental impacts of a proposed action (USDA Forest Service, 2011b, FSH 1909.15 Section 18). It is anticipated that prior to implementation of subsequent prescribed burns, there would be an interdisciplinary review of the NE Swift project to determine whether new information or changed circumstances exist related to the environmental effects analyzed under the selected alternative. The Responsible Official would also review any new information to determine its importance, and whether correction, supplement, or revision to an

460 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

environmental document is needed.

E. Public Education opportunities should be considered • In addition, the inclusion of burn units in proximity to the Covered Bridge Campground will enhance the opportunity to educate the public about this important forest management tool. (Commenter 6)

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Public education efforts will be integrated when feasible during project implementation.

F. Clarification on how nearby residents will receive notification of prescribed burning needed

• I did not hear the specific information of how folks would be notified of the burning, but assume you have a good way to let folks know as much ahead of time when the actual burning is going to take place. (Commenter 15)

Response: Project design features include notifying the public prior to ignition of prescribed burns. The Forest Service will send nearby residents letters approximately 1-2 months prior to implementation of prescribed burning, and will also telephone residents responding to these letters on the day before and day of prescribed burning operations The public will also be notified through publication of newspaper articles and radio announcements that will occur prior to burning. (EA p. 45)

Heritage Resources

A. NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act Compliance • The analysis presented in the 30-Day Comment Report was not clear as to whether concurrence under Section 106 had been received from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Was this received? (Commenter 23)

Response: NHSHPO concurrence was received 12/2/2010 with determination that the proposed project has “No Potential to Cause Effects/No Adverse Effect.” (project record)

461 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

B. Clarification on shovel test sampling methodology • In addition, the analysis disclosed that a total of sixteen shovel test pits had been dug between Deer Brook and Haskell Brook along the Swift River. Having spent many years as a Forest Service archaeologist digging thousands of shovel tests, this seems like an extremely small number. What was the distance between shovel tests, the overall distance and the number of transects dug? (Commenter 23)

Response: Shovel test pits were not placed on transects at a set interval, but were limited to areas within proposed ground disturbance judged by FS archaeologists to have the highest potential for prehistoric sites based on proximity to water, flat terrain, and sandy soils. These areas were focused around the stream junctions with the Swift River on level flood plain terraces. All the shovel tests were placed in a .4 mile section of the Nanamocomuck Ski Trail / logging road and proposed new road construction. Most of the timber harvest units near the Swift River with the highest potential for prehistoric cultural resources are planned for winter harvest, resulting in minimal ground disturbance due to snow cover and frozen ground conditions. (EA page 359.)

Socio-Economic

A. The socio-eceonomic analysis is insufficient • The Forest Service should conduct an EIS that includes an examination of the Northeast Swift Project’s impacts on the local and regional economy. (Commenter 22) Response: Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of all proposed project activities on socioeconomics of the Towns of Albany, Barlett and Conway were analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. This analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan which details the social environment of the White Mountain National Forest in terms of populations, demographics, partnerships, values, uses of the Forest, and attitudes toward land management (USDA Forest Service 2005b pp. 3-472 to 3- 486). The socioeconomic analysis in the EA concludes that proposed project activities would not have a measurable effect on the local economies of Albany, Bartlett or Conway.

462 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• There are elements of the social and economic assessment that are missing, in addition to those mentioned above. First of all, we could find no listing of the costs of the road construction and reconstruction proposed. If the purchaser would be expected to do this work, this fact should be disclosed as well as the estimated costs and the effect this would likely have on the revenues to be realized. Even if a purchaser was expected to do this work there are still Forest Service engineering staff costs that are likely and should be disclosed. (Commenter 23)

Response: It is expected that all of the new road construction and reconstruction of existing roads proposed in this project would be included in timber sale contracts and implemented by the purchaser(s). Anticipated costs would be approximately $53,700 for proposed new road construction, and approximately $214,000 for proposed reconstruction of existing roads (project record). These costs were accounted for in determining net stumpage receipt estimates listed in Table 3.55, found on page 364 of the EA. Forest Service timber sale contract preparation and administration costs, which include road survey and design, are listed in Table 3.55 of the EA, and net values listed in this table reflect these costs.

• Secondly, the stumpage values would seem to reflect a higher percentage of sawlogs than are likely to be contained in the sale units. What percentage breakdowns (sawlog, pulp, firewood and any biomass materials) were used to calculate the revenues predicted? (Commenter 23)

Response: Stumpage values used in the socioeconomic analysis to estimate revenue that would be generated from implementation of the Northeast Swift project were derived by averaging actual bid values received from 3 timber sales that are currently implementing the Kanc 7 project (project record). These 3 timber sales are currently active and located in the same general vicinity of the Northeast Swift project, and they include similar forest types, conditions, silvicultural treatments and forest products (sawtimber and pulpwood). The actual bid values received from these sales ranges from approximately $109 to $113 per thousand merchantable board feet (MBF). The percentage of sawtimber volume in these 3 sales ranges from approximately 42% to 56% of the total timber volume, with the remaining volume consisting of pulpwood (project record). Proposed timber harvest in the Northeast Swift project is expected to yield similar volume and value of forest products as the timber harvest that is currently implementing the Kanc 7 project.

463 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• In such a market, the Forest Service may only be competing with private timber providers for the few active buyers remaining (Commenter 22)

Response: As stated above, stumpage values used in the socioeconomic analysis reflect the actual bids received on 3 active timber sales currently implementing the Kanc 7 project, which are located in the vicinity of the Northeast Swift project, and include similar forest types, conditions, silvicultural treatments and forest products. Despite changes in market conditions, the Forest has continued to receive bids on more recent timber sale offerings.

• Third, the Forest Service often finds itself in the position of not having funds to carry out all of the proposed activities; these activities then “sit on the shelf” awaiting future funding. We did not see disclosed all of the various project activities’ costs, fund sources, their availability at this time and implementation timing as affected by funding availability. This is especially important if any of the activities are to be mitigation for the effects of any other project activities or impacts. (Commenter 23)

Response: The estimated costs to implement proposed project activities that are not connected to timber harvest are displayed in Table 3.48 on page 358 of the EA. These projects could be implemented independently of each other; they were not designed, nor are they intended, to mitigate the effects of proposed timber harvest or any other proposed project activities. It is anticipated that a mix of both timber sale receipts and other program funds will be used to implement these projects. Timber sale receipts will be available upon the completion of timber sale contracts, estimated at approximately 4 to 5 years. It is difficult to determine exactly when other funds will become available, since the Forest budget depends largely upon Congressional appropriations which can vary from year to year.

• The analysis as contained in the 30-day Comment Report is not sufficient to understand the economic effects. It seems to consist of affirmative statements that timber tax receipts will accrue to local towns and that project activities will not result in a reduction of recreation and tourism dollars without any supporting evidence. (Commenter 23)

464 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

• The economic impacts of the project should be considered comprehensively, not simply in terms of board feet sold, or volume of pulp harvested, but in terms of how the project may directly and indirectly affect the other economic values of the national forest, including visitation to the Swift River Valley and the Kancamagus National Scenic Byway. (Commenter 22) • Finally, this area of the Kanc is well known for its recreation and tourism related activities and the value of these amenities to the local economy. As we discussed above, when timber values are low, as they are now (and are likely to remain for quite some time) the value of tourism related benefits as well as ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, water quality and wildlife habitat, likely exceeds the revenues and benefits from timber harvest. These values should be analyzed and disclosed to ensure that all potential trade-offs have been assessed. (Commenter 23) Response: There is no question that revenue from tourism is very important to the towns of Albany, Bartlett and Conway. According to a recent published report, forest-related recreation use accounts for almost one-half of the annual revenue generated from forests in the state of New Hampshire (NH-DRED. 2011).

It is difficult to quantify effects of the proposed project on tourist revenue to local communities due to a number of factors. First, visitors to the Forest participate in a wide variety of recreational activities, many opportunities for which occur within the project area. However, opportunities for these same recreation activities exist on privately-owned lands in the project vicinity as well. The number of visitor days and the amount of revenue generated varies by recreation activity, as well as time of the year (High et al., 2004)). With few exceptions, such as campgrounds, detailed information on the number of Forest visitor days according to recreation activity is generally not available for the project vicinity. Also, a variety of factors influence tourism, such as weather, transportation costs, and the influences of these factors is difficult to analyze.

465 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Mountain region. It was also based upon visitor use, which was analyzed using fee collection data from the past five years at eight recreation sites located along the portion of the Kancamagus Highway corridor in the immediate project vicinity,. This data included fees collected from three sites located in the immediate vicinity of timber sales that were active during portions of 2010 and 2011. Although there was a decrease in the total receipts collected from 2010 to 2011, when these timber sales were active, the total fees collected at these sites was still greater than those collected in 2008, when there was no timber harvest activity in the area.

Fees collected at the three sites located in the immediate vicinity of timber sales active during portions of 2010 and 2011 were also analyzed. This analysis only reflected fees collected at these sites during the same periods of time that timber sale activity had occurred during 2010 and 2011. The total amount of fees collected during timber sale activities, and presumably visitor days, showed no clear trends when compared to data from previous years.

Despite the timber sale activities that occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Downes Brook Trailhead during 2010, overall fees collected at this site indicate an increase in the number of visitors over the two previous years, and this trend continued in 2011.

466 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Timber sale activities occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Oliverian Brook Trailhead during 2011. Fees collected at this site in 2011 indicate a slight increase in the number of visitors over the previous year, and a lower amount than occurred during the same time period in 2009.

Timber sale activities occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Sabbaday Falls Trailhead during both late summer/fall of 2010 and winter of 2011. Although fees collected at this site in 2011 indicate a decrease in the overall number of visitors over the previous year, it was still greater than the amount that occurred during the same time period in 2008.

467 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

Climate Change

A. Forest composition • Three commenters mentioned the potential for climate change to affect forest composition. One suggested that climate change is why oak and pine do not regenerate on the WMNF without active management. Another questioned the likelihood that the project will meet the identified goal to regenerate various tree species. The third asked whether the project will speed the predicted shift to oak-hickory forest, reducing the availability of hardwood habitat and the ability of species to adjust to changes in forest composition.

Response: As discussed in the cumulative effects section for vegetation (EA p. 140) and in Millen 2009 and Prout 2009, conditions are expected to change gradually over the next century unless an insect or disease outbreak results in more rapid changes. It is likely that conditions on the WMNF will become more suitable for white pine, oak, and hickory (Millen 2009; Iverson et al. 2008). Later this century, climate change may make it easier for the WMNF to regenerate oak and pine. Currently, oak and pine are outcompeted by hardwood species unless there is periodic disturbance to reduce the hardwood competition and foster oak and pine regeneration (EA p. 15- 16).

468 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Reviews of literature related to climate change and vegetative composition (Millen 2009; L. Prout 20010) concluded that forest composition is not expected to change as rapidly as climate conditions (temperature, precipitation, etc). The models cited in the fire effects section of the EA (p. 342) and mentioned by the commenter predict that climate conditions on the WMNF will be suitable for oak-hickory forest by 2100 (NERAG 2001). How rapidly forest composition actually will change is uncertain (Iverson et al. 2008). While some change in vegetation is already being detected (Beckage et al 2008; EA p. 140), mature, healthy forests of existing compositions are likely to persist for decades (L. Prout 2010) unless insects or disease precipitate more rapid conversion (Millen 2009; EA p. 140). Monitoring of sites on the Bartlett Experimental Forest, which is on the WMNF, indicate that mature sugar maple and red spruce remain healthy and continue to grow, resulting in increased sawtimber- sized trees of these species (Leak 2009). The same review (Leak 2009) showed continued regeneration of all species as would be expected based on natural succession and management (i.e. little or no management results in high beech regeneration). Stocking surveys on the WMNF indicate that the proposed regeneration harvests will result in regrowth of a variety of tree species, as desired (EA p. 140). Parts of the NE Swift project are designed to maintain or slightly increase oak-pine forest to meet current Forest Plan habitat objectives. The majority of the areas proposed for harvest to encourage oak and pine regeneration are currently classified as oak-pine habitat. The proposed oak-pine management will not displace areas of non-oak hardwood forest or alter habitat composition suitability for hardwood forest species. Harvest in existing hardwood forests are designed either to maintain high quality timber and forest health or to regenerate the forest to increase habitat availability for species dependent on young forests. Treatments that maintain a mature forest will not substantially alter the composition of the forest. Since competition among tree seedlings may be the strongest factor affecting species composition changes (L. Prout 2010), regeneration harvests could result in increased numbers of oak or other seedlings, but given that oak regeneration is currently a concern (Iverson et al. 2008) and requires natural or management disturbance to succeed in this area (EA p. 15, 122), it is unlikely to notably speed the conversion to oak-hickory forest.

469 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

• With climate change, it is debatable whether logged forests in the IRA will ever again return to an old-growth condition and species composition similar to what northern New England forests support today. Thus, logging in the IRA, in effect, not only diminishes the pool of potential future old growth, an exceedingly rare age class on the Forest and in New England: it also may accelerate a climate- change driven transition to a wholly different habitat type. The present Report fails to take this impact into account. (Commenter 22)

Response: The climate change literature reviews referenced in the EA (Millen 2009; L. Prout 2010) clearly acknowledge that forest composition is likely to change in the future. As mentioned previously, treatments that maintain a mature forest will not substantially alter the composition of the existing forest. Since competition among tree seedlings may be the strongest factor affecting species composition changes (L. Prout 2009), regeneration harvests could result in increased numbers of oak or other southern tree species seedlings, but given that oak regeneration is currently a concern (L. Prout 2010) and requires natural or management disturbance to succeed in this area (EA p. 15, 122), it is unlikely to notably speed the conversion to oak- hickory forest.

B. Forest resilience • It is not enough for the Forest Service to simply state, without evidence, that logged forests will be more resilient in the face of climate change. In fact, a growing body of research demonstrates that natural, unfragmented forest ecosystems are more resilient in the face of climate change. (CBD, pp. 11) The significance of these impacts is even more apparent when considered cumulatively in light of other land use changes and overall impacts from climate change. (Commenter 22)

Response: The EA (p. 140) states that forest resiliency is important to how forest ecosystems will respond to climate change and identifies a couple of the factors that can affect how resilient a forest system is. The analysis then indicates that some types of harvest can reduce susceptibility of forests to insects and disease and increase diversity of species, age, and structure. These statements are not “without evidence” as the commenter suggests.

470 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

As summarized in Millen (2009) several sources indicate that, while management is not required for forests to be resilient, careful management can increase resilience (Perschel et al 2007; Millar et al 2007). As stated in the EA, maintaining species diversity spreads the risk of changes due to climate change and can reduce susceptibility to some insects and diseases (Perschel et al 2007; Millar et al 2007). Treatments that improve individual tree health and vigor, such as thinning and single-tree selection, can increase resistance to insects and disease (Perschel et al 2007).

While some forest system components, such as canopy cover, are more consistently maintained in unmanaged areas, the literature indicates that proper forest management can provide products and meet other demands without increasing risks associated with reduced canopy cover or soil productivity or increased fragmentation and invasive species (Thompson et al. 2009; Perschel et al 2007; Evans and Perschel 2009). The literature cited by the commenter compares intact Australian eucalypt forests with industrialized forests, especially monocultures and plantations, so is not directly relevant in northern New England. We do not disagree that “natural” (presumably unmanaged) forests are more resilient than plantations. However the forests of northern New England are all regrowth forests, not undisturbed old growth. As stated in the EA (p. 121), vegetative conditions in the project area are the result of intensive harvest a century ago, less intensive management in subsequent decades, and natural disturbance. Therefore the implication that proposed harvests will change local forest habitat from “natural” to “regrowth” and reduce diversity and resilience is erroneous. Proposed management is consistent with the WMNF Forest Plan, which was designed to maintain or increase species and community diversity, retain structural complexity in forest habitats, and protect soil and water resources. • Logging could accelerate the changes already occurring (e.g., by increasing run-off and sunlight, logging could increase soil surface temperatures and diminish soil moisture, thereby favoring more drought and heat-tolerant species). Logging and road construction can exacerbate the stresses already felt by plants and wildlife from climate change. Fragmentation of habitat caused by timber cutting and the building and maintenance of roads may make it more difficult for species to track shifting climate regimes, and will expose them to potentially greater risks as they move across the landscape— either to higher latitudes or elevations—in search of suitable habitat.

471 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

(Commenter 22)

Response: The potential for proposed harvest to impact things such as soil moisture, plant populations, and wildlife movements are addressed, when appropriate, in Chapter 3 of the EA and individual specialist reports in the project record. In addition to this project-level assessment, the FEIS for revision of the Forest Plan analyzed the potential for timber harvest to impact all natural resources. That analysis determined that harvest at proposed levels that is implemented according to the management direction in the Forest Plan will not adversely alter soil productivity and will result in low levels of fragmentation of forest habitats (USFS 2005b, pp. 3-27; 3-199 to 3-200) The level of fragmentation discussed in the literature cited by the commenter far exceeds that proposed by the WMNF Forest Plan and the NE Swift project. The potential for climate change to alter the same ecological factors is evaluated in the climate change related literature reviews referenced in the applicable specialist reports (e.g. Colter, 2009; Mattrick, 2009; L. Prout, 2010). The literature review summarizing past and current climate conditions and future climate projects (USDA Forest Service, 2010k) clearly acknowledges that temperatures and precipitation patterns are changing in northern New England. The resource-specific literature reviews identified the likely changes that could result from climate change over the long-term, including impacts to soil nutrients, plant phenology, and habitat distribution. Most of these reviews concluded that changes in the local environment due to climate change are resulting in some changes (such as those described by Beckage et al (2008)), but are not yet modifying soil conditions or habitat distribution for most species and are not likely to do so during the analysis timeframe for each resource. Changes in these factors that can be reasonably incorporated into a project-level cumulative effects analysis are likely to occur over the next century, but not in the next 10-20 years. Literature reviews (Colter, 2009; L. Prout, 2010; Mattrick, 2009; Burbank, 2010) concluded that managing for a variety of habitats and protecting other resources through use of best management practices will result in diverse, resilient ecosystems and provide opportunities for species to adapt to conditions as they change. The Forest Service will continue to monitor ecological conditions, locally-applicable literature, and climate change predictions and adjust our analysis approach as necessary when the best available science indicates impacts may occur within our cumulative effects analysis timeframes.

472 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

C. Climate change and cumulative effects timeframes • The cumulative effects period must be lengthened and the analysis redone to reflect the new time period. Without this, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project will not have been disclosed under NEPA. (Commenter 23)

The EA evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed action and each alternative. The cumulative effects analysis appropriately considers the additive effects of past, on-going, and reasonably foreseeable actions and other factors, such as climate change, if those actions and factors have similar types of impacts and would occur within the same area and timeframe as the effects from the project (USDA Forest Service, 2011b, Section 15). Therefore the cumulative effects analysis timeframe is properly determined by effects from the project, not effects from climate change.

D. Potential effects to greenhouse gases and climate change • Due to the severity of the threat that exists to our national forests from climate change, the Forest Service is required to account for these detrimental effects by 1) expressly addressing the consequences of specific proposed projects before implementation, 2) assessing the benefits to climate and climate-related conditions by not undertaking the proposed project, and 3) considering the best way to utilize the national forests to meet the needs of the American people in light of climate change. See 16 U.S.C. § 1602(5)(F). (Commenter 22) • The Forest Service must examine the impacts of the Northeast Swift Project on climate and greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the agency must conduct a meaningful, full cycle analysis of the relative emissions of the logging project versus no logging. This analysis should include the current and future carbon storage of standing forest and undisturbed soils, versus the carbon kept out of the atmosphere under a logging alternative. (Commenter 22) • It is incumbent on the Forest Service to examine how its site-specific action may affect greenhouse gas emissions and climate, at least as to the direction of the impact (negative or positive), even if the degree of impact is difficult to pinpoint. (Commenter 22) • Further, the agency should assess and disclose the effects of this project on climate change and in particular, on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions

473 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

(GHG) and changes in carbon sequestration associated with the project. (Commenter 23)

Response: We do not agree that the Forest Service is required to address the effects of individual projects on climate change or to evaluate effects on climate of not implementing a project in detail. In fact, current Forest Service guidance (USFS 2009) on how to address climate change in project-level analyses concludes that, “It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on global climate change.” It goes on to say that it may be appropriate to conduct a quantitative or qualitative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative effects on climate change “(w)here a proposed project would be anticipated to emit relatively large amounts of greenhouse gases (e.g., large-scale oil and gas development project)”. This project does not include any activities that would be expected to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. The effects of harvesting, or not, on carbon levels and climate depends on a lot of variables, some of which cannot be analyzed at a project scale. Carbon accounting at the stand or project level, even sufficient to determine if the overall effect is positive or negative, is still at a conceptual stage (see Cathcart and Delaney, 2006), and a subject of on-going research. We agree that current science indicates that harvesting results in carbon emissions. What the commenter does not address is that those emissions are not the sole factor in evaluating the effects of harvest on overall carbon levels and global climate change. Substituting sustainably produced, renewable wood products for fossil-fuel based products in areas such as heating, electricity production, transportation fuels, construction materials, and packaging can reduce carbon emissions. If harvested wood is used for durable wood products, there is an added level of carbon storage. As forest regeneration occurs, the new vegetation growth begins to recapture the “lost” stored carbon while the durable wood products lock up the original carbon for varied amounts of time depending on the product. To know whether timber harvest will result in an overall increase or decrease in global carbon emissions it is necessary to know the full life-cycle of the wood that is removed (Perschel et al. 2007). The Forest Service does not dictate how wood harvested on the Forest must be used, nor do we require loggers to tell us how the wood will be used. Therefore it is not possible to determine the net effect of a project on global climate conditions. Landscape-scale (or larger) analyses may be more meaningful, though some uncertainties remain even at a larger scale. For example, see Intergovernmental

474 Northeast Swift Project – Environmental Assessment

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, pp. 549, 551), which states “Landscape-level carbon stock changes are the sum of stand level changes, and the impacts of forest management on carbon stocks ultimately need to be evaluated at landscape level. Increasing harvest rotation lengths will increase some carbon pools (e.g., tree boles) and decrease others (e.g., harvested wood products [citation omitted].”)

At this time, what we do have are national data. As required by the cited section of the U.S. Code, the Forest Service has prepared regular summaries of the effects of global climate change on forest and rangeland conditions. The most recent summary (2007; 2010 is still in draft form for public comment) is available in the Interim Update of the 2000 Renewable Resource Planning Act Assessment (USDA Forest Service, 2007f, especially pages 69-72, 74, 77 and 83-85; with the latter summarizing forest sequestration of carbon and avoidance of emissions through the use of wood products). The assessment and related studies underlie EPA greenhouse gas inventories for the forestry sector, which conclude that improved forest management practices, afforestation, and timber harvesting and use have resulted in net sequestration of carbon each year from 1990 through 2009. In 2009, land use, land- use change, and forestry activities resulted in a net carbon sequestration of 1,015 Tg CO2 equivalents. This represents an offset of more than 15 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions. Total land use, land-use change, and forestry net carbon sequestration increased by almost 18 percent between 1990 and 2009, primarily due to an increase in the rate of net carbon accumulation in forest stocks (EPA 2011, chapter 7). These estimates include consideration of above- and below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter and soil organic carbon, and include the effects of forest fires (EPA 2011). The pattern of net sequestration reflected in the EPA inventory is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, although at a reduced rate because of factors such as forest maturation and clearance of private land for development (USDA Forest Service 2007: 84; Union of Concerned Scientists 2004).

Changes in C stocks in U.S. forests and harvested wood were estimated to account for net sequestration of 863 Tg CO2 Eq. (235 Tg C) in 2009 (EPA 2011, chapter 7). In addition to the net accumulation of C in harvested wood pools, sequestration is a reflection of net forest growth and increasing forest area over this period. Overall, average C in forest ecosystem biomass (aboveground and belowground) increased from 67 to 73 Mg C/ha between 1990 and 2010 (see Annex 3-12 for average C densities by specific regions and forest types). The Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is investigating soil carbon storage and carbon litter cycling on the White Mountain National Forest, but no results are available.

475 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District

National data indicates that overall U.S. forests are resulting in net carbon sequestration, not net emission. Project level carbon accounting would be too speculative to accurately determine the effect of the project on global climate change.

• There are logging projects on the WMNF, past, present, and future, that are also contributing to global warming, and these must be considered together in order to properly account for their cumulative impact to greenhouse gas emissions. Until that occurs, no timber project on the national forest will be in compliance with NEPA. (Commenter 22)

Response: As explained previously, the cumulative effects analysis areas and timeframes are based on the area and timeframe in which effects from the proposed action and alternatives will occur, not the area and timeframe in which effects from climate change will occur (USDA Forest Service, 2011b, Section 15). None of the resources determined that a Forest-wide analysis area was appropriate.

As discussed in more detail in another comment response, project-level analysis of impacts to greenhouse gas emissions is not appropriate or even feasible at this time. Only considering the carbon emissions from timber harvest would not provide a complete or accurate picture of the effects, and information is not available to allow for a more comprehensive carbon accounting.

476