White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223 Telephone 603 536-6133

Home , Ammonoosuc River, Mount Moosilauke, Oliverian Brook

Oliverian

United States Department of Agriculture Stewardship

Forest Service

Eastern Project Region

Environmental Assessment Towns of Benton and Warren Grafton County, NH

Pemigewasset Ranger District March 2010

For Information Contact: Brett Bayer Pemigewasset Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223 Telephone 603 536-6133

White Mountain National Forest FAX 603 536-3685 Cover: Oliverian Pond with the dramatic Owls Head Cliff in the background. WMNF photo.

This document is available in large print. Contact the Pemigewasset Ranger District Phone 603 536-6100 TTY 603 536-3665

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Contents Chapter 1 — Purpose and Need ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 The Project Area ...... 5 1.3 Purpose and Need for Change ...... 6 1.4 The White Mountain National Forest Plan ...... 16 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 17 1.6 Public Involvement ...... 18 1.7 Issues ...... 18 1.8 Proposals Changed Since Scoping ...... 20 Chapter 2 — Alternatives ...... 21 2.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.2 Alternatives ...... 21 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 24 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Fully Analyzed ...... 27 2.5 Design Features ...... 27 Chapter 3 — Environmental Effects ...... 35 3.1 Recreation ...... 35 3.2 Water ...... 42 3.3 Scenery ...... 59 3.4 Vegetation ...... 79 3.5 Wildlife ...... 95 3.6 Fire: Oak-Pine Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuel Reduction 127 3.7 Non-Native Invasive Plants ...... 134 3.8 Air Quality ...... 141 3.9 Soils ...... 149 3.10 Heritage ...... 164 3.11 Socio-Economic ...... 167 3.12 Aquatic Species and Habitat ...... 174 Appendix A — Response to Comments, 30-Day Comment Report . . . .183 Appendix B — Proposed Vegetation Management Activities Under Alternative 2 ...... 184 Appendix C — Glossary ...... 190 Appendix D — Literature Cited ...... 191

3 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Map 1-1. Oliverian Stewardship Project Vicinity.

White Mountain National Forest White Mountain National Forest

Project Area

0 100 200 300 400 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Miles

Project Area (!112 ¦§¨93 Lincoln Haverhill Benton

Unorganized Territory

(!118 Piermont Woodstock

Waterville Valley Warren Ellsworth Orford Thornton (!25 Wentworth

¦§¨93 Campton

Lyme Rumney Dorchester Sandwich

Groton 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Plymouth Holderness Moultonborough

4 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 — Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction The Pemigewasset Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is proposing an integrated resource management action in the Towns of Benton and Warren, Grafton County, New Hampshire. The Oliverian Stewardship Project would enhance forest conditions, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and safety issues while bringing the project area closer to the desired future condition envisioned in the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan). The actions considered in the proposed action and its alternatives are “tiered” to the Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) and are site-specific implementations of the more programmatic Plan. All actions would be undertaken within the scope of the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. Specifically, the Oliverian Project’s proposed action would: • Use good forestry and silvicultural practices to maintain less common forest types such as oak-pine, aspen-birch, spruce-fir, and red pine; provide a sustainable yield of high quality forest products; and promote healthy ecosystems. • Maintain and improve wildlife habitat by increasing diversity in vegetation age class and habitat composition. • Maintain unique ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuel loads using prescribed burning. • Improve existing recreational use by constructing a new trailhead, parking lot, toilet, bridge, and a hiking trail that provides access to the base of Owls Head Cliff. • Control non-native invasive plants species on the National Forest and adjacent state and private lands. • Manage existing Forest roads through maintenance, restoration, and reconstruction as appropriate, and update the White Mountain National Forest roads database. Chapter 2 of this document looks at these proposed actions in greater detail. 1.2 The Project Area The Oliverian Project Area encompasses the southern half of the Benton Range, a series of low-elevation mountains and hillocks that are, in essence, the westerly foothills of Mount Moosilauke and the high peaks of the central White Mountains. The area of the Benton Range within the Oliverian Project Area begins with Sugarloaf Mountain to the north, runs southerly to include The Hogsback, Jeffers Mountain, and Blueberry Mountain, and ends at Owls Head, with its spectacular granite cliff visible from NH Route 25 and the village of Glencliff, NH.

5 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

An interesting fact about the project area is that it includes one of the oldest parcels of land on the Forest, Tract 59, purchased January 2, 1914, from E. Bertram Pike, and one of the newest parcels on the Forest, the 360-acre TPL Riveroaks Tract, transferred to federal government ownership in October 2007. The project area consists of approximately 5,188 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands and approximately 100 acres of non-NFS lands located within Benton and Warren. The NFS lands are managed by the Pemigewasset Ranger District (see Map 1). The project area is bounded to the north by Sugarloaf Mountain; to the east by The Hogsback, Jeffers Mountain, and Long Pond Road (previously known as the North-South Road); to the south by NH Route 25; and to the west by privately-owned lands. The project area has a history of agricultural use dating back to the early 1800s, as evidenced by the presence of “old field” white pine, apple orchards, stone walls, cellar holes, and several stone culverts. These features are primarily located on the lower slopes of the project area where the land and access was more amenable to human use. During the early 1900s, the area reverted naturally to forest land, and since the 1940s it has been actively managed for wildlife habitat and forest products. Recent timber harvests that included portions of the project area were the Sugarloaf, Blueberry Mountain South, and North South timber sales, each of which took place in the 1990s. In addition to forest products, the area offers a variety of recreation uses, including hiking, camping, rock climbing, scenic vistas, snowmobiling, mountain biking, snowshoeing, hunting, wildlife watching, fishing, boating, mushroom gathering, Christmas tree cutting, and firewood gathering. Noteworthy features within the project area include Oliverian Brook, Oliverian Pond, the Blueberry Mountain Hiking and Snowmobile Trail, northern red oak and red pine communities, several deeryards, the southerly and westerly slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain, The Hogsback, Jeffers Mountain, Blueberry Mountain, Owls Head Cliff, several Forest System roads, and interesting heritage resource sites. 1.3 Purpose and Need for Change Forest Service management activities are designed to either maintain existing desirable conditions or help move the land closer to those desired conditions. (Forest Plan, USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, pp 1-7 to 1-22). The purpose of the Oliverian project is to accomplish many of the resource objectives defined in the Forest Plan. The need for change is identified by comparing the existing conditions on the ground with the site-specific desired conditions as described in the Plan. Below is a description, by resource area, of the desired future condition, the current condition, and the need for change required to attain or move closer to the desired future condition for that resource. It helps answer the questions “why here? why now?”

6 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Vegetation

Forest Plan Guidance The Oliverian project area is within a General Forest Management Area (MA 2.1). The Plan’s desired condition for this MA includes ... a mix of deciduous and coniferous forest stands that vary in size, shape, height, and tree species. Both even-aged and uneven-aged harvest techniques will be used. As a result, two different conditions will occur among the stands: some stands will consist of trees of about the same age and size; the remaining stands will consist of a mix of tree sizes and ages ranging from seedlings to very large mature trees. (Forest Plan, p 3-3) Harvest prescriptions will consider land capability to promote species best adapted to specific sites. Land capability is the inclination of the land to grow a particular forest type given the soils, climate, geology, aspect, and elevation of the site. Timber harvesting within the Oliverian project area (see Table 2, Chapter 2) is intended to help attain Forest-wide goals and objectives for habitat and forest products by: • Managing vegetation for commercial forest products using well-integrated prescriptions that protect biotic and abiotic resources and are compatible with the high level of recreational use on the Forest (Forest Plan, p 1-17); • Maintaining less common forest types, such as aspen-birch, spruce-fir, oak- pine, and red pine where it is ecologically feasible (Forest Plan, p 1-20); and • Providing regeneration-age class forest vegetation (0–9 years of age) and temporary vegetated openings in a variety of forest types to sustain biological diversity and support vegetation and wildlife species that prefer these habitats (Forest Plan, p 1-20). Current Condition A forest inventory conducted between October 2006 and November 2007 found that the Oliverian project area is dominated by hardwood forest, most of it mature with only a moderate amount of young forest and little or no regeneration-age forest. A majority of the stands are comprised of northern hardwoods and mixed hardwoods which contain varying amounts of sugar maple, red maple, American beech, yellow birch, paper birch, northern red oak, white ash, bigtooth aspen, quaking aspen, and basswood. Some of the stands in the project area are “mixedwood,” containing softwood species scattered among the hardwoods. In some stands the softwoods are more dominant, and are uniform in age, height, and overall distribution. A few stands are primarily softwood, although these are in the minority. Softwood species in the project area include balsam fir, red spruce, eastern white pine, red pine, and eastern hemlock. The softwood stands may have some hardwoods trees present, but are largely dominated by balsam fir and red spruce (spruce-fir), eastern white pine, red pine, or red pine and white pine (mixed pines). None of the stands in the project area is dominated by eastern hemlock because taller, faster-growing hardwood trees overtop the species. Hemlock only occurs in mixedwood stands within the project area.

7 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 1-1. A northern hardwood stand in the project area showing maturity and low quality among the stems of the overstory trees, and with an understory dominated by American beech.

There are stands almost completely dominated by paper birch or aspen (aspen- birch stands) that reach maturity between 60–90 years. Other stands are mostly sugar maple, American beech, and yellow birch (northern hardwood stands) that reach maturity at 90–120 years. Some stands in the project area contain a full mix of the hardwood species (mixed hardwood stands), which could reach maturity between 90–120 years depending on species composition. Trees of low timber quality occur in all stands of all ages. Where past management activities have occurred, stand quality and vigor has been improved, especially where the actions were designed to provide stem spacing that has afforded the crowns of the current trees to receive more sunlight as well as adequate space to grow up and out. The result is that some stands have increased in average tree diameter and timber quality. From a vegetative perspective, what makes this project area unique is the presence of several oak-pine natural communities, including dry red oak-white pine, red pine, and red oak-pine rocky ridge, as classified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB). These communities are relatively uncommon on the White Mountain National Forest and may best be described as mid-successional, requiring periodic disturbance to maintain their structure and composition in a stand. Historically, fire has been an important disturbance agent in these communities, interrupting succession of more vigorous but fire-sensitive vegetation like beech and maple (Sperduto and Nichols 2004, pp 65-67, 72-73).

8 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Within the Oliverian project area, the recently-acquired, 360-acre land parcel known as the TPL Riveroaks Tract is in a different condition from the remainder of the project area, largely because a timber harvest prior to Forest Service acquisition resulted in a vegetation condition that is densely populated with raspberry, blackberry, red maple, striped maple, and American beech regeneration throughout the tract’s forested portion. This vegetation is shading and substantially slowing the growth of more desirable species also occurring on this site, such as eastern white pine, northern red oak, and sugar maple. Site-specific Need for Change Stands in the project area that are well-stocked with mature and low timber quality trees are approaching an age where mortality is imminent or where long-term stand health and high quality forest products could be realized with management activities performed in the near future. Harvesting mature and low quality trees and controlling stocking in these stands would improve the quality and vigor of the remaining trees, maintain and enhance less common tree species, provide high quality wood products, sustain a mix of deciduous and coniferous forest stands, and provide stands varying in size, shape, age, height, and species composition (Leak et al. 1987; Safford 1983). Trees, once they mature, occupy resources and growing space that would benefit younger more vigorous trees and need to be removed to allow the younger trees to grow and develop. Trees of low timber quality (having defects from physical damage, insects, or disease) also occupy resources and growing space that would be better suited to nearby healthy and more vigorous trees and need to be removed for the same reason. A mix of even-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural treatments, focusing on mature trees and trees of low timber quality, would create growing conditions that would result in improved forest health and higher quality commercial wood products in the future. As previously mentioned, many stands in the Oliverian project area have been managed in the past. Treatments that removed low quality trees while retaining trees of good form, health, and high timber quality (thinnings, stand improvement cuts, singletree-selection cuts, and shelterwood cuts) have produced healthy stands dominated by high quality trees. This approach is, essentially, an investment in the future that can only be fully realized with continued stand management. Re-entering stands and harvesting the sawlogs that are the result of past management would provide a high value product to the marketplace, and perpetuate quality forestry into the future. Providing sustainable supplies of timber products is one of the original purposes for establishing National Forests, as described in the Organic Administration Act and Weeks Law (Final Environmental Impact Statement, USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, p 2-6). Tree seedlings and saplings of desired species, such as eastern white pine, northern red oak, and sugar maple, can be found in an area on the TPL Riveroaks Tract that is densely populated with raspberry, blackberry, red maple, striped maple, and American beech regeneration. The desirable seedlings and saplings are being shaded and overtopped by the other existing tree seedlings and saplings. Management to treat the competing species would increase the growth and survival rates of the desired species.

9 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Wildlife Habitat

Forest Plan Guidance One of the most important wildlife issues in New England today is the decline of early-successional habitats and the species associated with them (DeGraaf et al., 2006). The WMNF Forest Plan established Forest-wide wildlife habitat composition and age class objectives for a desired range of conditions, well distributed across the Forest, to support all wildlife species (Forest Plan, pp 1-20 to 1-22). The WMNF uses Habitat Management Units (HMUs) as a tool to ensure a connection between landscape-level goals and objectives and project-level ecological conditions during project development (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Current Condition The Oliverian HMU (including the Oliverian project area) is dominated by the northern hardwood habitat type, with a strong representation of the oak-pine type and relatively fewer acres of mixedwood, spruce-fir, aspen-paper birch, and hemlock habitat types. The mature age class dominates all the habitat types, and there is no regeneration age class for all the habitat types. There are relatively minor amounts of young age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU for northern hardwood, aspen-birch, and oak-pine. The mature red oak, pine, and beech produce hard mast, an important food source for wildlife such as black bear, white-tailed deer, turkey, grouse, blue jay, and red squirrel. However, the multi-seasonal, site-specific field reviews of the Oliverian project area showed a complete lack of regeneration age class (0–9 years old) in all habitat types, including the entire HMU. This age class is essential for the life-cycle needs of many wildlife species such as nesting MIS chestnut-sided warblers, and is a source of food (browse) for various other species, including snowshoe hare, moose, and deer (especially in stands located adjacent to deeryards). The project area contains the Sugarloaf and Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) deer wintering areas, and the mature spruce-fir and hemlock type (hemlock in particular) provides deer with important thermal cover in the winter. The Owls Head and Sugarloaf Cliffs are occupied by breeding peregrine falcons. There are four permanent apple orchard openings in the project area, and the existing large opening at the base of Owls Head Cliff provides habitat diversity for a variety of wildlife. Site-Specific Need for Change The interdisciplinary team (IDT) examined the current conditions of the forest age class, habitat composition, and ecological land type (ELT) capability in the Oliverian HMU and compared them to the individual Oliverian HMU habitat composition and age-class objectives. The IDT determined a need to increase wildlife habitat diversity, and identified stands where silvicultural treatments could move the current conditions toward the desired future condition for the Oliverian HMU. The proposed silvicultural treatments are listed in Table 1 as part of the proposed action.

10 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Map 1-2. Oliverian Habitat Management Unit (HMU) Showing Management Areas.

11 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Specifically, the proposed action for the Oliverian Project provides opportunities to: • Maintain and perpetuate the softwood component that is currently used by white-tailed deer in the winter for thermal cover (deeryards), and used by many bird species in the summer for nesting and foraging; • Maintain or increase the spruce-fir component in some hardwood and mixedwood stands that are located on strong spruce-fir ELTs to maintain less common within-stand features; • Maintain less common aspen-birch, spruce-fir, oak-pine, and red pine habitat where feasible (Forest Plan, p 1-20) in the project area which is used by songbirds, turkey, woodcock, and grouse for food, cover, and nesting (the Oliverian project area provides one of the best opportunities on the Pemigewasset Ranger District to perpetuate northern red oak trees and oak- pine habitat); and • Provide regeneration-age forest (0–9 years old) and create temporary non- forested openings (including log landing) in a variety of forest types to sustain biological diversity and support species that prefer those habitats (Forest Plan, p 1-20), such as creating hardwood browse adjacent to known deer yards in Oliverian Project Area. Recreation

Forest Plan Guidance The desired future condition for recreation, as described in the Forest Plan, is to provide a range of quality recreation activities and opportunities while protecting and managing both high- and low-use areas and facilities. Forest Plan goals and objectives that apply in this project area include: • Concentrating use at specific sites rather than dispersing use (Forest Plan, p 1-13); • Providing roadside recreation opportunities where the natural setting is an important part of the visitor’s experience, while ensuring the balanced protection of social and natural resources (Forest Plan, p 1-13); and • Providing a range of climbing opportunities while protecting natural and cultural resources (Forest Plan, p 1-14). Current Condition The TPL Riveroaks Tract contains a variety of recreation-related resource conditions, challenges, and opportunities. The most prominent landscape feature in this area is a spectacular 800-foot granite face with numerous established rock climbing routes. A network of old, abandoned roads, user-created foot trails, and skid trails winds through this tract but provide no defined pathway to the cliff. Below the cliff is a large opening which provides valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife, some of which are prey for the peregrine falcons nesting on the cliffs above. Currently, parking and access to this area present safety and resource concerns. There is a lack of safe parking along Route 25 for access to the cliff, opening, and adjacent area. Recreationists seeking access to this area must park

12 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-2 (left). Owls Head Cliff as seen from the opening in the flats below the cliff. Figure 1-3 (right). A portion of a user-created trail traversing the base of Owls Head Cliff.

along the shoulder of Route 25, creating a potentially hazardous situation for both Forest visitors and passing vehicles. Oliverian Brook runs between Route 25 and the cliff, and the stream crossing can be very difficult under moderate or high water conditions. (See Figures 1-2 and 1-3.) Site-specific Need for Change Many opportunities exist to move the project area toward the desired future condition. Public access and recreational use here is currently unmanaged and ill-defined. The proposed action would concentrate public use, improve recreation opportunities, and enable the Forest Service to manage the area to protect natural resources. Providing safe access to recreation opportunities for Forest visitors is an important part of the WMNF recreation program. Given the current use of Owls Head Cliff and existing parking conditions, there is a need to provide safe, adequate parking and access. The existing, unofficial, trail to the cliff is poorly defined in places and passes through numerous wet areas. Construction of a designated trail to the base of the cliff would concentrate recreation use to the trail corridor, reduce impacts to vegetation, and minimize the creation or use of unofficial trails to the base of the cliff or through the adjacent wildlife opening. Roadside recreation opportunities presented in a natural environment are an important component of the visitor experience on the Forest. Construction of a safe parking and information area along Route 25 in the Owls Head Cliff area will provide a roadside recreation opportunity for visitors wishing to walk a relatively short, accessible trail to a scenic view of the wildlife opening and Owls Head Cliff, or to access Oliverian Brook.

13 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)

Forest Plan Guidance The desired future condition for NNIS is that the Forest will remain as free of invasive species as reasonably possible. For NNIS already occurring on the Forest, the objective is to control species that are known to be invasive and persistent throughout all or most of New England (Forest Plan, p 1-7). Current Condition During a site-specific botanical survey (Mattrick, 2008), Japanese knotweed, a documented non-native invasive plant species, was identified in and along Oliverian Brook between Oliverian Pond and a parcel of state property. The Japanese knotweed occurs on state, federal, and private lands (see Figure 1-4).

Figure 1-4. Japanese Knotweed encroaching on a grassy opening.

Site-specific Need for Change If treated on WMNF land only, upstream seed sources on state and private lands would continue to spread Japanese knotweed down Oliverian Brook, resulting in continued infestation on the National Forest. In order to be effective, treatment needs to take place on approximately seven acres of state and private lands upstream, along Oliverian Brook and its tributaries. The Wyden Amendment allows the expenditure of federal funds for projects of this type on lands other than NFS lands.

14 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Transportation System

Forest Plan Guidance The desired condition for Forest roads is to provide a safe, efficient, and seam- less transportation and parking network that allows for current, continued, and projected management, use, and enjoyment of the Forest. As funding is available, roads not needed to meet management objectives will be decommissioned; those retained will be maintained to meet Forest standards and the requirements of the Highway Transportation Safety Act (Forest Plan, pp 1-16 to 1-17). Current Condition A survey of the existing road system in the Oliverian transportation analysis area was conducted to determine the need for retaining or decommissioning roads or road segments (see Oliverian Transportation Analysis in the project record). It identified 22.2 miles of road in and directly adjacent to the Oliverian project area. Road conditions in this analysis area range from nearly fully-reverted and difficult to locate, to annually-maintained, publicly traveled roadways. (See Figure 1-5.)

Figure 1-5 (left). Forest Road 4120, unused in decades, has nearly completely reverted to a forested condition. This road is no longer necessary for motor vehicle access to the area, and is recommended for decommissioning.

Figure 1-6 (below). Unauthorized Road 6116 was used to access forest products in the Titus Brook Timber Sale in 1996. The road appears to be vegetated because it was designed and constructed as a “winter road,” used only during frozen soil conditions.

15 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

There are fragments of roads no longer connected to regularly traveled roadways that are overgrown with forest vegetation, do not contain drainage features such as bridges or culverts, and have remained unused for a long period of time. These are still identified as roads in the White Mountain National Forest roads database. One road currently in existence but unclassified in the roads database has been identified as useful for future access, and it could be classified as a Forest Road. Eight roads proposed for removing forest products in the Oliverian Project would require management activity prior to use. Three roads are currently fully accessible and are used for administrative access. Three other roads were designed for use several decades ago when tri-axle trucks were the primary vehicle used for removing forest products. These have been replaced with trucks pulling 53-foot trailers. Site-specific Need for Change The Transportation Analysis revealed opportunities for road classification changes in the Oliverian project area. Roads needed to meet long-term management objectives should be retained and included as Forest Roads in the Forest Roads database, while roads no longer needed should be decommissioned and removed from the database. Approximately 0.6 miles of existing road could be decommissioned in the project area. This is an administrative process that would not require soil-disturbing action by the Forest Service because nature has mostly reclaimed and reforested the roadbeds. Removal of these roads from the database would allow for a more accurate depiction of necessary and usable roads on the Forest. Road 6116, an unauthorized road already existing on the ground, provides access for long-term management objectives. Converting its classification to a Forest Road would only require a database correction to make it available for future projects. (See Figure 1-6.) Road management activity on eight Forest Roads in the Oliverian project area (Table 2-2) would be needed to facilitate the trucking and hauling of logs and timber harvesting equipment to implement the vegetation management activities of this project. Three of the eight roads need redesign to accommodate the wider turn radii of trucks with 53-foot trailers, the current standard haul vehicle. The remaining five roads would need basic custodial care prior to use, including brushing roadside vegetation, replacing bridges or culverts, cleaning ditches, grading the roadbed, or replacing surface gravel. 1.4 The White Mountain National Forest Plan The analysis for this project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Tiering is 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

16 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

issues ripe for decision (USDA-Forest Service, 1992, FSH 1909.15, Chapter 42.1). The Handbook specifically notes that the EIS for a land and resource management plan is an example of a “broad” program or policy statement (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 22.31). 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.” (FEIS) The Forest Plan is a programmatic document that implements the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). The Forest Plan implements NFMA by providing “for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the [White Mountain National Forest] in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan.” (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B)). The WMNF Forest Plan was approved in 2005 after eight years of intensive environmental analysis and collaboration with the public. Thousands of people representing a variety of interests, sciences, and specialties joined in the effort by way of public meetings, discussions, document reviews and comments, and scientific study. The 2005 Forest Plan reflects the agreed-upon balance of uses to meet society’s needs while protecting, restoring, and enhancing our natural resources. The Plan establishes management direction for the Forest through short-term (10–15 years) and long-range goals and objectives. It prescribes the standards, practices, and the approximate timing and vicinity of potential actions that are necessary to achieve these goals and objectives. The Forest Plan also identifies monitoring and evaluation needs to ensure that direction is carried out, measuring quality and quantity of actual operations against predicted outputs and effects. 1.5 Decision to be Made The purpose for this Environmental Assessment is to provide the Responsible Official with sufficient information and analysis to make an informed decision about the Oliverian Stewardship Project given the Purpose and Need for Action. In addition to the information in the EA and project record, the Responsible Official will consider public comment to decide the following. 1. Are there additional issues and/or alternatives that should be analyzed in detail? 2. Which of the alternatives would best move the Oliverian Stewardship Project area toward the DFC outlined in the Forest Plan and the Purpose and Need for Action? 3. Which of the alternatives best addresses relevant issues raised by the public and the Interdisciplinary Team? 4. Would the Proposed Action and its alternatives pose any environmental impact to warrant the need for an environmental impact statement?

17 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

1.6 Public Involvement On September 28, 2007, representatives from the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, and others visited the project area as part of a tour of forthcoming proposed projects on the White Mountain National Forest. Several Pemigewasset Ranger District employees provided an overview of the Oliverian Project to this group. The Oliverian Stewardship Project was published on the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in January of 2008. On April 11, 2008, a scoping letter was sent to interested people, project area abutters, and various agencies and organizations. It described the proposed action and asked for input. Comments received during the scoping period were instrumental in the early stages of identifying issues and developing possible alternatives to the proposed project. Thirty-two comments were received and examined for significant issues and potential design features. Many of the comments informed the Forest Service on different aspects of the project and provided a perspective to the proposed action. Comments that were site-specific were incorporated into the analysis. Immediately following the scoping period, District Ranger Molly Fuller held phone conversations and a personal meeting with several commentors in effort to gather more information and clarify the respondents’ concerns. On May 5, 2008, project team leader Brett Guglielmo and Ranger Fuller presented the Oliverian Stewardship Project to the Town of Benton Selectmen and town residents at a public meeting in Benton, NH. On May 21, 2009, Brett Guglielmo and Kori Marchowsky met with the Oliverian Notch Climbers Association in Pike, NH, to provide a project overview and to discuss the recreation proposal. 1.7 Issues Several issues raised prior to and during the development of this environmental assessment became the focus of interdisciplinary interaction and prompted consideration of alternatives to the proposed action. Chapter Two fully describes the alternatives. Each issue has one or more measurement indicators that measure existing conditions and the potential effects of management activities. The indicators highlight differences between the alternatives, and are both quantitative and qualitative. They also provide a meaningful measure that enables the reader to clearly track the issue throughout the environmental analysis document. • An issue raised through public scoping states that the recreation portion of the proposed action to promote rock climbing on Owls Head Cliff and provide general access to the area by constructing and providing a parking area, toilet, picnic table, garbage can, and hiking trail would result in an overall increase in human use and recreational infrastructure in the area.

18 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

This issue is addressed in Alternative 3, with reduced levels of parking area and facility development for public access. Indicators • Human use level of the area • Disturbance for recreational development within the trailhead area (square feet) • Kiosk-size (square inches) • Parking area surface material (gravel vs. pavement) • Presence of picnic table, toilet, and garbage can • A water resource issue, derived from Forest Service analysis, states that the proposed timber harvest would reduce the basal area within the Hogsback Brook subwatershed by more than 17 percent, which may lower the pH in the subwatershed. Acidic conditions occurring from a lowered pH have been shown to mobilize inorganic aluminum in the soils, which would make it available to enter stream water. This issue is addressed in Alternative 3 with a reduction in the acreage of silvicultural treatments in the Hogsback Brook subwatershed, therefore reducing the basal area by less than 17 percent. Indicator • Percent basal area removed from the Hogsback Brook subwatershed • A scenery management issue, derived from Forest Service analysis, states that proposed clearcutting in five stands would exceed ten acres of observed opening for each stand. This would exceed Management Area 2.1 Scenery Management Guideline G-5, which seeks to keep observed openings to less than ten acres of visibility within moderate scenic integrity objective areas. This issue is addressed in Alternative 3 with a reduction in the acreage of clearcutting and the addition of a design feature to limit visible openings to less than ten acres. Indicator • The number of stands with more than 10 acres of observed opening in the moderate scenic integrity objective area

19 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

1.8 Proposals Changed Since Scoping Public input and on-going interdisciplinary team discussions identified several things in the Proposed Action that need to change from what was in the Scoping Package. The following aspects of the Proposed Action have changed since April 2008. • Group Selection Acres — We have changed how we present information on this harvest type. The scoping letter identified the number of acres that will be part of the actual harvested groups; the EA discloses the overall size of the stands in which group selection will be applied. Actual groups typically are created on no more than 20 percent of overall stand acres. • Acres of thinning increased approximately 200 acres. • Acres of single-tree selection and over-story removal increased slightly. • Acres of shelterwood and seed tree harvest decreased. • Net increase in silvicultural treatment acres. • Increase in projected board-foot volume. • Dropped two stands from being harvested. • Moved watershed restoration activities along Oliverian Brook into a separate categorical exclusion. • Prescribed fire acreage decreased approximately 150 acres. • Addition of non-native invasive species control on 7 acres • Dropped removal of bridge on Forest Road 473 — it was determined to be a valuable heritage resource. Instead, we will work with neighboring land owners to maintain the bridge under a separate special use decision. • Road decommissioning mileage decreased. • Road pre-haul maintenance mileage increased. • Project area boundary and acreage increased with addition of NNIS control.

20 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 — Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment explores the differences between the proposed action and two possible management alternatives for the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area. Each alternative could be implemented if selected, and together they provide a framework for analyzing different ways to meet the purpose and need stated in Chapter 1. This chapter includes: • A description of alternatives considered in detail and design features. • A comparison of alternatives (Table 1). • How the alternatives were developed. • Alternatives that were considered but not fully analyzed • The design features for mitigating effects 2.2 Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, there would be no change to the existing condition except from natural occurrences and on-going activities, such as road and trail maintenance. There would not be any management of vegetation for commercial wood products or improvement of forest stand conditions, increase in wildlife habitat diversity, parking lot, trail or bridge construction, or eradication of non-native invasive species. While this alternative does not meet the Purpose of and Need for Action, it does provide a basis for analyzing the effects of not conducting any new management activities (No Action) in the Project Area and comparing these effects with alternatives that do propose management activities. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The details of the Proposed Action are displayed on Map 2-1. Alternative 2 responds to the purpose and need for action in the following ways: • Create regeneration age class (0-9 years old) forest habitat with 247 acres of clearcutting. • Promote oak and pine regeneration with a combination of timber harvesting and prescribed fire on 155 acres, and prescribed fire only on 40 acres. Multiple entries of fire may be necessary over the next 15 years to ensure oak and pine regeneration is established in the understory and midstory layers. This determination would based on post treatment surveys comparing percent of undesirable competing regeneration (beech, red maple) to desirable oak-pine regeneration. • Promote habitat diversity with 653 acres of group selection treatments. • Promote high quality timber with 444 acres of commercial thinning and 120 acres of single tree selection. • Promote habitat diversity and high quality timber with 290 acres of group & single tree selection treatment.

21 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Map 2-1. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

Oliverian Project

l l Alternative 2 i h d r 2.1 e Proposed Action n v o a 12/1 H 8/1 1/1 P

n 4/1 21/1 24/1 25/1 o h 3/1 nc

18/1 L ra B th 5/1

3 22/1 Nor 7 5 4 3 17/1 19/1

4 R F R 13/2 F 15/2 12/2 9/2 FR F 10 R 7 1 9 0 28/2 5/2 d a Page Road o 29/2 R

F 6.2 o

R P

1 6/2 g 8/2 0 4/2 n 7

o 20/2 A L 17/2 2/2 26/3 2.1 18/2 6.3

3/2 6.1 " 7/3 21/3

10/3 6.2 44/3 11/3 Blue y (H b r n ik e i 3/3 i r ng rr e a y t a b M 19/4 n n k e d o u o u s u 13/4 l o o n n r 49/3 B o t M w a B i J 30/3 m n e o T f f 9/3 b r e a r 50/3 il 52/3 e i s l 2.1 34/3 B 14/3 u s r 39/4 o e 37/3 o ) 48/3 2.1 12/4 k 31/4 15/3 32/3 45/3 F R 36/4 7 47/3 (!25 1 4 1 60/3 9 1 k 16/3 8/4 o R il 9.3 F Bro 17/3 el Tra nn o/ 25/3 38/4 Tu m F ow R 12/3 1 Sn 2 15/4 3 19/3

ook 68/3 6.2 22/4 r 18/3 33/4 B Oliverian !S%% %%%% 9/4 %%% de Pond %% i

%%% %%

%% % Sl

O %

% Benton %

% l % 30/4 %

70/3 % %

iv %

e % 69/3

% r %

% ia %% %% 6/4 n %% 32/4 % F B %% R r % Glencliff oo %% %% 41/4 1 % 2 k %% 2.1 %% Trail 3 % %

% A % %

% 1/4 %

!Q %

% %% %

% 6/4 %%

% % % % %

% %

% %%% % %% 6.1 !i%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%% 8.3 2/4 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 ÒÑ t e

Miles re

St All shaded areas are National Forest Lands. 8.3 h

g i Project Boundary %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Treatment Map Scale 1:24,000 H Proposed8 H.3iking Trail Town Line Thinning Town Line 6.1 Hiking Trails Trail Streams Single Tree Selection Snowmobile Trails 8.3 Perennial Group Selection Roads Intermittent Group and Single Tree Selection Management Area !i Proposed Parking Area Shelterwood 8.3 2.1 Glencliff 2.1 8.3 Shelterwood and Prescribed Fire 2.1 ÒÑ Proposed Bridge 6.1 Seed Tree and Prescribed Fire (!25 6.2 6.2 Wildlife Opening Overstory Removal and Prescribed Fire 8.3!Q 2.1 6.3 Clearcut Rock Climbing 8.3 !S Clearcut and Prescribed Fire Warren 9.3 2/4 Stand/Compartment Timber S6ta.1nd Improvement 8.3 inhold Prescribed 2Fi.r1e Only inhold

22 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

• Promote oak and pine regeneration with 100 acres of shelterwood cuts, 29 acres of seed tree cuts, and 25 acres of overstory removal cuts. • Improve species composition and diversity of seedling and sapling stands with timber stand improvement on 154 acres. • Use seven existing log landings and create five new log landings, which would become temporary wildlife openings after harvesting. • Maintain, reconstruct, or restore approximately 3.7 miles of existing roads. Maintenance would include mowing or brushing of roadside vegetation, replacement of culverts, cleaning of ditches, grading of the road surface, or replacement of surface gravel, and placement of a temporary 40’ bridge on Forest Road 123. Forest Road 107A and a section of Forest Road 191 would be reconstructed, and Forest Road 714 would be restored. All roads would be returned to closed status at the conclusion of the project activities. See below Table 2 for the definitions of maintenance, reconstruction and restoration. • Update the White Mountain National Forest roads database to classify 0.14 miles of currently unauthorized road and reflect the natural decommissioning of 0.6 miles of road. • Construct a paved, 14-car parking area, with toilet facilities, kiosk, picnic table, and wildlife-resistant trash receptacle. • Construct 1.2 miles of hiking trail from the parking area to the base of Owls Head Cliff. Includes installing a 10’ x 40’ bridge over Oliverian Brook. • Treatment and control of non-native invasive species on approximately 7 acres of state and private lands by cutting, pulling, and use of herbicides. See Chapter 3.7 for details of this activity. See Appendix B for the tables that lists the stands, stand condition, harvest type, and acreage for the proposed silvicultural treatments. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 responds to an issue raised by the public during the scoping period (see Section 1.7), and a request for an alternative that minimizes the scale of development and infrastructure near Owls Head Cliff. Some commentors were concerned that higher development levels proposed in Alternative 2 would increase use of the area. The intent of Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, in that it would accommodate existing use and protect resources between Oliverian Brook and Owls Head Cliff, safely and sustainably, by providing a maintained hiking trail that would eliminate user-created hiking trails, but it would not encourage additional use with a more developed parking area. This alternative eliminates the proposed paved parking lot, picnic table, toilet facility, and garbage can. This alternative proposes a pull-out large enough for four to seven vehicles with a gravel surface, a smaller than standard-size kiosk and a small “hiker-logo” trail sign posted on the shoulder of Route 25 to assist the public in locating the pull-out. Alternative 3 also responds to two issues raised during Forest Service analysis of this project (see Section 1.7). In summary, thinning would be reduced to 435 acres, clearcutting would be reduced to 220 acres, and single tree selection would be reduced to 105 acres. All other activities proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project remain unchanged in this alternative (see Table 2-1 for a summary of the alternatives). 23 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Summary of the Alternatives.

Activity Unit Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Total Total Total Vegetation Management (Stand Acres) Thinning Acres 0 444 435 Clearcut Acres 0 247 220 Shelterwood Acres 0 100 100 Seed Tree Acres 0 29 29 Overstory Removal Acres 0 25 25 Single Tree Selection Acres 0 120 105 Group Selection Acres 0 653 653 Group & Single Tree Selection Acres 0 290 290 Timber Stand Improvement Acres 0 154 154 Total Area Acres 0 2062 2011 Harvest Volume MMBF 0 8.5 8.2 Non Native Invasive Species Control Japanese Knotweed – Non-native Acres 0 7 7 invasive species eradication (mechanical treatment, hand pulling, or treatment with registered herbicide) Prescribed Fire Acres 0 195 195 Transportation – See Table 2-2 For More Detailed Information Landings: Existing/New # 0 7/5 7/5 Road Maintenance, Reconstruc- Miles 0 3.7 3.7 tion, Restoration Road Decommissioning Miles 0 0.6 0.6 Unauthorized Road Classified to Miles 0 0.14 0.14 Forest Road Recreation Parking area construction Acres/cars 0 0.34/14 0.2/4-7 parked Hiking trail construction Miles 0 1.2 1.2 Bridge construction Feet 0 10’x40’ 10’x40’ Kiosk Dimensions 0 4’ x 4’ 2’ x 2’ Vault toilet present no yes no Picnic table present no yes no Garbage can present no yes no Hiker-logo sign Dimensions 0 1’ x 1’ 1’ x 1

24 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Table 2-2. Proposed Forest Road Management Activities.

Forest Road Number Forest Road Name Approx. Length (Miles) Proposed Action 107 Jeffers Mountain 0.68 Maintenance* 107A Jeffers Mountain Spur A 0.6 Reconstruction* 123 Oliverian 0.49 Maintenance* and Tempo- rary Bridge 191 Blueberry Mountain 0.5 Reconstruction* 191 Blueberry Mountain 0.42 Purchaser’s Option* 435 Sugarloaf 0.52 Maintenance* 4119 4119 0.15 Purchaser’s Option* 714 Benton Flats 0.3 Restoration* *See Glossary for definitions of these terms. Table 2-3 is a summary comparison of how each issue is analyzed against each alternative. Specific details can be found in the effects analysis for each resource area( chapter 3 of this environmental assessment). The indicator measures are used for demonstrating the relative differences between each alternative. Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Issues Analyzed By Alternative.

Issue Indicator Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (summarized) Increased develop- Degree of Develop- No development 14 car paved park- 4-7 car gravel park- ment will result in ment ing; toilet; picnic ing; small kiosk and increased human table, garbage and directional sign. use. signage. Human use level. Primarily used by Slightly increased Less likely to at- local residents. visitor use. tract use than Alt 2. Likely more use than Alt 1. Increase of inor- Basal area removed 0% basal area re- 19.7 % basal area Less than 17% bas- ganic aluminum moved (no harvest). removed. al area removed. in water resulting Reduced pH and No change from Risk of decreasing No effect on pH or from harvest in increased inorganic current conditions. pH and increasing inorganic aluminum Hogsback subwa- aluminum mobiliza- inorganic aluminum mobilization. tershed tion in Hogsback in Hogsback Brook Brook. Some clearcuts # of stands that 0 stands. 5 stands. 1 stand. exceed scenery exceed 10 acres of management observed openings. guidelines Visible impact from No change. Size of “seen” clear- Size of “seen” selected viewpoints. cut openings will be clearcut opening in 14 acres, 26 acres, one stand will be 17 19 acres, 25 acres, and 12 acres (unit and 28 acres. is split by .

Table 2-4 is a summary comparison of how each alternative meets the purpose and need for the Oliverian Stewardship project. Specific details can be found

25 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

in the effects analysis for each resource area (Chapter 3 of this environmental assessment). Each alternative provides a tradeoff that is related to how well the proposal meets the purpose and need for the project or responds to issue. The no action is intended to show what the tradeoff is when compared to maintaining the project area in the current condition. Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of How Each Alternative Meets Purpose and Need.

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Remarks (summarized) No Action Provide com- No forest products. Harvest volume of Harvest volume of Difference is mercial forest 8.5 million board 8.2 million board 300,000 board feet products using feet. feet. of forest product. integrated prescriptions. Maintain less com- Aspen/birch and Timber harvest & Timber harvest Difference is less mon habitat types oak/pine stands will prescribed fire high- & prescribed fire acres of habitat where ecologically continue to ma- est in this alterna- lower in this alter- treated: feasible. ture, with eventual tive, with greater native, with less 9 less thinning, decline and long- opportunity for opportunity for 27 clearcut and term loss of habitat maintaining habitat maintaining habitat 15 single tree diversity in absence diversity. diversity. 51 acres total less of disturbance. habitat. Provide regenera- Perpetuates no Would provide the Would provide 220 Difference of 27 tion age forest to regeneration age greatest amount of acres of regenera- acres of regenera- sustain diversity class (hardwood or regeneration age tion age class habi- tion age habitat in and support spe- softwood) diversity class habitat: 247 tat on 15 stands northern hardwood cies that prefer for species depen- acres on 16 stands (clearcut even-aged (affecting 1 stand) those habitats. dent on 0 to 9 year (clearcut even-aged harvests). and the same old age class such harvests). amount of soft as MIS chestnut- regeneration age sided and magnolia class between ac- warblers and ruffed tion alternatives. grouse. Provide safe park- Visitors will con- Fully meets objec- Same as for Alter- Parking lot and ing and access for tinue to park on tive with anticipated native 1 amenity design visitors to Owls Hwy 25 shoulder current and future higher for Alt. 1 Head Cliff or Oli- and shoulder will use than 2. verian Brook. get wider Prevent the Does not meet the Meets purpose and Same as for Alter- No difference be- spread of Japa- purpose and need need objective on native 2. tween Alternatives nese knotweed objective. Increased 7 acres proposed 2 and 3. upstream Oliver- spread of NNIS into upstream. ian Brook. currently uninfested areas. Manage the 22.2 Does not meet Meets objective for Same as for Alter- No difference be- miles of road in purpose and need road management, native 2. tween Alternatives and directly adja- objective for classi- classification, de- 2 and 3. cent to the Oliver- fication and decom- commission of 22.2 ian Project Area. mission of 0.6 miles mile road system of of existing road. Project Area.

26 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Fully Analyzed The interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered an alternative with no prescribed fire activity based on public comments questioning the health impacts, effectiveness, cost, and need to address hazardous fuels. Fire would be necessary to maintain uncommon oak-pine habitat by allowing northern red oak, white pine, and red pine seedlings to out-compete faster growing common tree species. If prescribed fire were not utilized, there would be a risk of losing these uncommon tree species, thus habitat, to more common and faster growing hardwood tree species. This alternative was considered but not analyzed because it did not meet the purpose and need for maintaining this unique ecosystem. A suggested alternative was considered that would defer recreation development on the TPL Riveroaks Tract to allow more time to determine existing uses and conditions, study the feasibility of the proposals, learn more about the site, research the acquisition analysis and the intended management activities, and involve the public. This alternative was not considered because the effects of deferring the recreation development proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project are addressed in the analysis of Alternative 1. 2.5 Design Features Three types of protective measures are integrated into the Oliverian Stewardship Project design to give specific technical direction for managing resources: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (Chapters 2 and 3); State of New Hampshire Best Management Practices (BMP); and additional design features as described below. Some design features define how and/or where particular Forest Plan standards and guidelines are applied to the project. Other design features describe management activities that will be implemented on the ground to address site-specific safety or resource needs. Design features are applied only if the affected area or stand is included in the alternative ultimately selected by the Responsible Official. The Standards and Guidelines, BMPs, and design features are based on best available science, coupled with decades of monitoring and observation of their effectiveness on similar projects. In the citations throughout this document, G-# refers to a Guideline; S-# refers to a Standard. See the Glossary for definitions of these. Air Resources 1. Notify the public prior to ignition of the prescribed burns. 2. Monitor particulate levels near the Glencliff Home during prescribed burns. Apply Federal health and visibility standards for PM 2.5 to particulate levels in the vicinity of the Glencliff Home for the Elderly during prescribed burns. If particulate concentrations rise above Moderate, the Glencliff Home will be contacted and advised to take actions according to cautionary statements in Table 3.7-1 in the Air Quality section. 3. Dust occurring on Forest Roads during active timber harvesting operations would be abated with the application of water, calcium chloride, or magnesium chloride to the surface of the road.

27 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Fire 4. During prescribed fire treatments, place fire control lines at terrain breaks to ensure protection of private property, 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 the base of the trees in the stand. 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. Heritage Resources 5. Known heritage sites located in or near proposed activities would be protected by marked reserve areas. No harvesting or equipment would be allowed in the known heritage reserve areas. Evidence from other harvest activities on White Mountain National Forest timber sales shows that heritage site locations are maintained when this design feature is applied. (Forest Plan, G-1, p 2-7). Remove brush and branches from stone walls in prescribed burn units where they occur along hiking trails. Fire would not be allowed to discolor stone walls along hiking trails. NNIS Control. In addition to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the following protocols would be used when developing the treatment project and in determining which treatments to apply. 6. All control treatments would be designed so that they are effective, based on the species phenology and life history, yet have the fewest undesired impacts to native vegetation. 7. Projects involving the removal of dense thickets of invasive shrubs shall not take place prior to August 1st in order to protect nesting songbirds or will require inspection for nesting activity prior to treatment. 8. Any NNIS treatment project resulting in any part of a project area greater than ¼ acre in size containing less than 20 percent vegetated ground would be seeded with an appropriate mix of native plant seeds. 9. Field personnel involved in NNIS control treatments would be able to visually distinguish between target NNIS plants and non-target vegetation. 10. Herbicides would be selected based on the invasive species being treated and other site conditions. 11. All herbicide applications will be in accordance with state and federal law and product label instructions.

28 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Recreation 12. Place caution signs as necessary to alert visitors to logging operations. This safety measure has been effective on past harvests on the WMNF, with no adverse consequences. Use a “feathering” technique to protect the trail tread and scenic integrity of the Blueberry Mountain Trail when it passes through clearcut units. This has been demonstrated to maximize both landscape level and on-site visual appeal. Place group selection treatment areas in locations that will not negatively impact the visual integrity of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Limit the number of locations at which skid trails cross the Blueberry Mountain Trail to the minimum amount necessary. To minimize the trailside opening and the area of hiking trail disturbed, create all skid trail crossings at a right-angle to the hiking trail. Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 13. Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitat standards and guidelines for perennial streams and vernal pools would be applied to the perennial streams, unnamed tributaries, and vernal pools in the Project Area. (Forest Plan, G-1, 2, 5, 6, 11, pp 2-24 to 2-26) 14. The operating period of timber sale activities is limited to a specific season of harvest and/or ground conditions that are specified in the Timber Sale Contract to minimize adverse environmental effects such as sedimentation. In addition, on-the-ground conditions are monitored during timber sale activities by the Timber Sale Administrator (TSA), who limits or halts operations when conditions could result in resource damage. 15. Skidding patterns and locations of skid roads and trails are designed to fit the terrain to control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in a manner that will minimize erosion and sedimentation. This preventive 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. While the exact locations of single-pass skid trails are unknown prior to implementation, these locations are limited to suitable locations by numerous mitigative practices, including Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, adherence to state BMPs, and other practices applied that are specific to the sale. Areas with specific concerns, such as stream crossings and wet areas were located with the input of the Hydrologist or Soil Scientist. The actual placement of skid trails and stream crossings, on-the-ground, would be implemented by the Timber Sale Administrator. 16. 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. The Timber Sale Administrator will designate the areas of disturbed soils that must be treated, and monitor effectiveness of treatment.

29 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The erosive effects of water concentrated by roads will be minimized by practices such as constructing cross-drainage structures and dispersing runoff away from surface water. This is a preventive practice that would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator until the ground is stabilized. The number of stream crossings would be minimized. Necessary crossings are designed to provide for unobstructed flows during high-water conditions, as well as for the passage of debris and aquatic organisms. All temporary stream crossings would be removed upon completion of skidding. The Timber Sale Administrator would visually monitor stream crossing sites to catch and rectify any problems in the early stage. This monitoring would continue throughout the remainder of its use, until the crossing is removed, and the area has successfully stabilized. 17. Proposed and existing roads would be maintained to prevent rutting and failures. Adequate maintenance and/or restriction of use can minimize erosion problems. The Timber Sale Administrator would visually monitor the use and conditions of roads and prescribe corrective measures as needed. Scenery Management 18. Remove slash within fifty feet of Forest Roads and National Forest boundaries. Lop and scatter slash to lie within three feet of the ground for an additional fifty feet along Forest Roads to maintain scenic quality. Evidence from other harvest activities on White Mountain National Forest timber sales show that foreground views are reasonably maintained when this design feature is applied (Forest Plan, G-8, p 2-30). 19. Observed opening acreages will vary under different situations and in relationship to the viewing position. As a starting point, observed acreages of approximately 10 acres normally achieve a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (Forest Plan, G-5, p 3-8). Soils 20. The following soil conservation practices are emphasized for this project (Forest Plan, S-1, p 2-30). • To limit the area subject to soil compaction, new log landings will be the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements of the equipment used, the quantity and type of the forest products being removed, and safety. This limitation of the size of the landing minimizes the area on which soil disturbance and compaction would occur (Oregon State University Ext. 1983; Martin 1988; BMP NH 2004). • Harvested whole trees may be skidded to landings and the tops and limbs would be scattered on landings, skid trails, and within stands to retain soil nutrients and to reduce compaction and erosion during and after operations as needed (Forest Plan, exceeds G-5, p 2-30 and exceeds S-1, p 2-30). Several studies show that placing logging slash in the skid trails reduces compaction (Martin 1988; Oregon State University Ext. 1983; Poff 1996). • Skidding patterns are designed to fit the terrain to control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in a manner that

30 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

would minimize erosion and sedimentation (Oregon State University Ext. 1983, Martin 1988; BMP NH 2004). • Where exposure of mineral soil is expected, skid trails should generally be located on grades of less than 20 percent, with only short steeper pitches. Limiting locations for skid trails (pitch) insures that the potential for erosion is reduced (Forest Plan, G-5 p 2-30; Oregon State University Ext. 1983; BMP NH 2004). • Upon completion of operations at a landing, the area of disturbance would be graded and stabilized as needed to prevent erosion. Even though these surfaces are nearly flat, this action insures that runoff from the landing would not erode soils (BMP NH 2004). Waterbarring and seeding as needed on 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 and USFS Handbooks 2509.18 and 2509.22). • The operating period of timber sale activities is limited to specific season of harvest and/or ground conditions specified by harvest unit in the Timber Sale Contract to minimize adverse soil and water environmental effects. This insures that erosion and compaction would be minimized and no long-term soil productivity effects would occur (Martin 1988). Water Resources 21. A 100 foot no-cut Riparian Management Zone would be placed in the following locations: • around the perimeter of Oliverian Pond; • along Hogsback Brook in stands C1-3, 4, 12, 21 and 24; • along Owls Brook in stands C4-1, 9, 30 and 32. Studies have shown that partial cuts and the use of Riparian Management Zones are effective in reducing water quality changes (Patric, 1980, Aust and Blinn, 2004). This larger no cut zone would increase the flowpath through undisturbed forest soils, reducing the potential for water quality changes to occur in harvested areas. 22. No cutting or skidding would occur in any known seep or spring during sale operations, to reduce the potential for rutting and water quantity or quality changes (Forest Plan, G-8, p. 2-25). 23. The single stall, concrete vault toilet proposed in Alternative 2 would be located 100 feet from nearby waterbodies. Large isolation distances between vault toilets and waterbodies minimize potential impacts to water quality from nutrients and pathogens, if the concrete vault were compromised. 24. Where multiple prescribed fire treatments are proposed in a subwatershed, these areas will not be burned simultaneously, to allow monitoring of effects on riparian areas and water resources during the burn. If riparian areas need further protection, this will be put in place before the next burn is implemented. If no further protection is needed, additional burns could be implemented that day. Additionally, burns will occur in the spring or fall

31 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

season, when wet conditions are present, to prevent burning of riparian vegetation. Wildlife and Habitat 25. To maintain hard mast component as a food source for wildlife, beech trees with abundant bear claw-marks would not be marked for cutting unless the tree is expected to die in the near future. In areas with a heavy concentration of bear-clawed trees, patches of habitat will be reserved to minimize damage to the trees (Forest Plan, G-2 and 3, p 2-33 and G1, p 2-35). Exceptions may include hazardous trees, trees located where there are skid trails or landings that cannot be moved because of land features, and trees with greater than 75 percent crown damage since there is a high probability they will die in the near future. Retaining heavily clawed beech trees is effective because these are the most productive beech trees, repeatedly producing beech nuts, as evidenced by foraging black bears (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; NHFG 2006). 26. Protect known active raptor nest areas. Avoid marking trees with evidence of active raptor nests and report their presence to the District Biologist, who will determine the level of protection needed (Forest Plan, S-3, p 2-33). This standard is effective because it would not reduce nest sites and would provide a no-disturbance buffer of at least 66 feet around nest sites from the nest site selection to fledging period, generally March through July (DRED & SPNH, 1997; Forest Plan Revision Rationale for Development of Wildlife Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines, 2005). 27. NH Audubon annually posts voluntary seasonal climbing restrictions on cliffs where falcons are actively nesting on the Forest to protect falcons from human disturbance, which could ultimately result in nest failure. The Forest Service would continue to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NHFGD, and NH Audubon Society and other organizations involved with future falcon management efforts to monitor and protect nesting falcons at Owls Head and Sugarloaf Cliffs. Through this collaboration, specified areas of the cliffs will typically be temporarily and informally posted closed to climbing for a portion of the spring and summer. Voluntary compliance with these efforts to protect nesting sites has been successful across the Forest and will continue to serve as the model for peregrine falcon management. The Audubon Society will coordinate with the Pemigewasset District Biologist before posting seasonal climbing restrictions of any cliffs. The climbing community, Audubon Society, and the Forest Service will monitor the effectiveness of these seasonal climbing restrictions. If voluntary compliance with posted informal closures are ineffective or it is determined that human disturbance is affecting falcon breeding success, additional management actions potentially including an enforceable closure order would be developed. 28. If U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, New Hampshire Department of Fish & Game, or New Hampshire Audubon determine that peregrine falcon-related management actions should change at Owls Head or Sugarloaf Cliffs, then adaptive management methods would be coordinated with the White Mountain National Forest.

32 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

29. When harvest reduces the basal area of a stand below thirty square feet per acre, uncut patches totaling five percent of the harvested area must be retained, with each at least one quarter acre in size (Forest Plan, S-1, p 2-35). 30. To protect Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) American ginseng and three-leaved black snake root, all areas containing these species will be excluded from timber stand improvement treatment areas (Forest Plan, S-2 and G-3, p 2-13). 31. To protect and benefit Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) butternut (Juglans cinerea) and piled-up sedge (Carex cumulata) occurring in area proposed for timber stand improvement, populations (individuals or collections of individuals) of these species will be flagged and the surrounding timber stand improvement practices will be designed to benefit these species.

33 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

34 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 — Environmental Effects 3.1 Recreation Executive Summary There are two main components to recreation effects from the Oliverian Project: effects to recreation opportunities from timber harvest operations and development of recreational opportunities on the Forest Service’s newly acquired parcel in the Owls Head Cliff area. Both action alternatives have the same effects on recreation in terms of timber harvest, but the two alternatives differ slightly in their proposals for the Owls Head tract. Affected Environment The project area is in the far western portion of the WMNF, in an area tradition- ally receiving recreational use primarily by local residents. The project area does contain several recreation opportunities. It is bisected by the Blueberry Mountain hiking trail, which begins at Long Pond Road and heads northeast across the ledgy summit of Blueberry Mountain, terminating on FR 107 off Page Road. This trail is most frequently used by day hikers traveling to the open summit of Blueberry Mountain. It is also a designated snowmobile route managed by the Asquamchumauke Snowmobile Club, although the route is narrow, not groomed, and receives little use. The eastern side of the project area is bounded by Long Pond Road, an unpaved seasonal through road connecting Glencliff to Benton. It provides the only vehicular access to Long Pond, a recreation area popular for boating, picnicking, and fishing. In winter months, Long Pond Road is a part of the statewide snowmobile system. The project area includes Owls Head Cliff and associated lands recently purchased by the US Forest Service. There is some development of climbing routes on this cliff, and a “climber’s trail” exists to access the base of the cliff. Below the cliff is a large, seasonally wet “meadow” which affords some excellent views of the cliff and provides wildlife watching opportunities. Between Route 25 and this opening runs Oliverian Brook, a brook trout fishery. Several Forest roads originating near the east and west ends of the Blueberry Mountain Trail are used for walking, mountain biking, and access for hunting. The old Sugarloaf hiking trail, no longer maintained, still receives some use and provides access to the summit of Sugarloaf Mountain. A small segment of the Appalachian Trail, including the Jeffers Brook Shelter, runs through the southeastern portion of the project area. The project area is visible from Route 25 and other less-traveled paved and unpaved roads. These roads are occasionally used for recreational driving. The scenic views of Owls Head Cliff, the Blueberry Mountain area, and the Mount Moosilauke ridgeline are visible from Route 25 and from higher points along other roads.

35 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Recreation and vegetation management have co-existed here for many years. Roads originally constructed as carriage roads or for logging now support recreational uses such as snowmobiling and hiking. Recreation settings for this analysis area are described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which defines a range of unique recreation experiences: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-motorized (SPNM), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Roaded Natural, and Rural (Forest Plan p 1-10 and Map 1-01). The lands within the project area fall into three ROS areas: SPNM, SPM, and Roaded Natural. The ridgeline between Sugarloaf and Blueberry Mountain provides the most remote recreation opportunities (SPNM except for winter motorized use on the Blueberry Mountain Trail) in the area. Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on recreation is the Oliverian Project Area and the section of Long Pond Road adjacent to the project area. The timeframe for this analysis is 20 years into the future because the 2005 FEIS demonstrates that it takes about 20 years for signs of timber harvest to “become essentially unnoticed by the casual visitor” (FEIS p. 3-312). This timeframe was selected because the visual evidence of timber harvest may affect the recreation experience of the area. Prescribed fire, which may be implemented for up to 15 years in order to achieve silvicultural objectives, would also have a longer-term effect. All other direct and indirect effects, however, would last only for the actual duration of the Oliverian project, expected to be 2–4 years depending on the alternative selected and sale operations. This area and duration were selected because the direct and indirect effects on recreation activities are primarily related to harvest operations and would essentially cease when the harvesting operation is complete. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would neither alter nor enhance current recreation opportunities. There would be no impact to the Blueberry Mountain Trail or any Forest roads in the project area. Recreationists would continue to park along the shoulder of Route 25 to access Owls Head Cliff and Oliverian Brook and would be exposed to high speed traffic along Route 25, Moosilauke Highway, as the shoulder of the road is narrow (approximately ten feet). It is possible that motorists will pioneer wider spots of the road in search of safer places to park. The Oliverian Brook crossing would remain difficult at high water and climbers would continue to access the cliff via a network of ill-defined, unmanaged trails. Alternative 2 This alternative would have the most short-term direct and indirect effects on the recreation opportunities and experiences in the analysis area than Alternative 2. Short-term effects of timber harvesting activity may impact hunters, hikers, snowmobilers, and other users along the Blueberry Mountain Trail and elsewhere in the project area. Trail and parking lot construction activities associated with Owls Head Cliff access and parking along Route 25 would affect the recreation experience in this area. Once complete, however, the improvements to these areas would considerably enhance recreation opportunities.

36 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Blueberry Mountain Trail Timber harvest adjacent to both the east and west ends of the Blueberry Mountain Trail would affect recreationists using this trail and the Forest roads associated with it. Should logging activities or equipment pose a safety hazard to the public due to tree felling, skidding, or hauling operations, the trail would be posted temporarily closed. Recreationists would be alerted to logging operations by signs in the project area as well as web postings on the Forest website. Most of the logging associated with this trail would be done in the winter, therefore minimizing not only effects to the ground, but also effects to the majority of recreationists using the area. Harvesting would be timed so as to minimally impact the public. Visual effects from timber harvest would be observable from sections of the trail. Harvest units are adjacent to much of the trail for approximately ¾ mile from the western trailhead and ½ mile from the eastern trailhead; they have varied prescriptions, ranging from single tree selection to two clearcutting units. Mitigation measures and design features (see Chapter 2) have been developed in a collaborative effort by the Forest’s landscape architect, a District forester, and a District recreation specialist in an effort to minimize negative effects to recreationists while capitalizing on opportunities to expand desirable views into the forest. In particular, the units to be clearcut adjacent to the trail would use a “feathering” technique to minimize impacts to recreationists. This would protect the trail corridor by maintaining a varying depth of forested area adjacent to the trail within the harvest area. Trees in the immediate foreground would not be harvested, but distant views through the remaining vegetation would be improved for hikers along the trail. An effort would be made to minimize risk of blowdowns by keeping the area and density of remaining trees sufficiently large. Recreationists in the vicinity of the Blueberry Mountain Trail may hear an increase in noise during harvest operations, but this would not exist across the entire project area at any given time. It would only emanate from portions of stands currently open to harvest and roads or trails in use for hauling or skidding. The amount of noise would depend on many factors, including distance to operations, slope, wind, and canopy cover, but should be essentially inaudible within approximately 1–2 miles from the source of the noise (Timerson 1999). Due to buffering effects of vegetation, wind, or topography in forested situations, research indicates that noise of this type is generally not audible beyond one mile from its source. 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; Jaeger 2007). The distance is based on calculations of average decibels produced by machinery and measured over distance from their specific source. The analysis area is also regularly used by hunters. The effect of proposed harvest on hunting depends on the timing of logging. If harvest occurs during hunting seasons, increased activity in the area could temporarily displace animals (see Wildlife Resources section) and reduce the quality of the hunting experience. Once harvest is complete, however, hunting opportunities would likely improve in harvested stands. When stands are young, they provide additional habitat

37 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

and browse for game species, and this habitat change could improve hunting opportunities in the area for approximately ten years during times when logging and the hunting season don’t overlap. There are 14 prescribed burn units proposed in this alternative. Three are adjacent to some portion of the Blueberry Mountain Trail and FR 107A, one unit is adjacent to FR 191, and the other eleven prescribed burn units are not adjacent to any trails or Forest roads. Each burn would be implemented in one day during the spring or the fall and could potentially impact recreationists during this time period. Some units may be burned up to three times over the next fifteen years (but not more than once in any given year) in order to meet silvicultural objectives (see Prescribed Fire section). The presence of Forest Service vehicles, firefighters, smoke, and noise would all impact the recreation experience on the day of a burn. If a burn occurs during hunting season, it would temporarily displace wildlife, and smoke, noise, and fire personnel would disrupt hunting in the vicinity of the burn. The public would be restricted from traveling through the unit on burn day until mop-up is complete and the controlled burn is declared extinguished. Appalachian Trail (AT) and Jeffers Brook Shelter Approximately one mile of the Appalachian Trail (called locally the Town Line Trail) passes through the Oliverian project area and includes the Jeffers Brook Shelter. For approximately ½ mile, timber stands proposed for group selection harvest are within 200 feet of the trail. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the AT (MA 8.3) would be employed to protect the quality of recreation. Groups would be harvested in winter and would be placed in areas with minimal visual and noise impacts to hikers. Long Pond Road (FR 190) Alternative 2 proposes several winter-only timber harvest units in the vicinity of Long Pond Road. FR 191 and the southern 0.65 miles of Long Pond Road would be used for hauling in winter months when these units are logged. The presence of logging trucks and other increased vehicle traffic in this area would impact snowmobiling, and would occasionally limit access to the trail system from this trailhead. Driving for Pleasure Some of the units proposed for harvest in Alternative 2 are visible from Route 25 and other local roads. Impacts to recreational drivers have been analyzed in the Scenery section of this EA. Forest Plan standards and guidelines serve to minimize visual effects on areas with exceptional viewpoints. Drivers along these roads may observe some evidence of harvest, but effects would be temporary and minimized by either the shape or location of harvest units. Owls Head Cliff and Access to This Area from Route 25 Alternative 2 proposes several improvements to the recreational opportunities in the Owls Head Cliff area.

38 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Parking In this alternative, a parking lot would be constructed off Route 25 to allow for safer access to the cliff, river, and opening. Recreationists would also have an interpretive kiosk, trash receptacle, picnic table, and toilet facilities available at this site. Increased visibility of an established parking area could result in some increase in use; the area is currently unsigned, unmarked, and it is unlikely that most passers by are aware that it is under public ownership and open for use. The parking area proposed in Alternative 2 would be paved, would accommodate approximately 14 cars and would have an RV turn-around. Landscaping would use native vegetation and would not be mowed. This alternative accommodates a larger number of vehicles and has a more “developed”-looking parking area than that proposed in Alternative 3. Hiking Trail to Owls Head Cliff This alternative proposes constructing a 1.2 mile hiking trail from the proposed parking area along Route 25 to the base of Owls Head Cliff. This trail would be the only designated access route for rock climbers or other recreationists wishing to access the base of the cliff. The trail would consist of three segments: 1. Parking lot to Oliverian Brook crossing: This segment of trail, including the bridge across Oliverian Brook, would be built following Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG). The bridge would be approximately ten feet wide and would support passage of ATVs for emergency access and a tractor for possible future maintenance of the opening. The bridge would be barricaded to prevent unauthorized motorized use, but would provide at least 32 inches of clear passage as directed by FSTAGs. 2. Oliverian Brook crossing to toe of slope: This segment of trail would be built to Forest Service trail standards, and would be constructed around the perimeter of the existing wetland/opening so as to minimize impacts to saturated soils and reduce trail maintenance needs. Sections of trail may use boardwalks, bog bridges, or other structures to protect water and soil resources. 3. Toe of slope to base of Owls Head Cliff: This section of trail would generally follow the existing climber’s trail. Improvements such as stone staircases or short trail relocations would be made in order to establish the trail in as sustainable a manner as feasible. This trail would have positive direct and indirect effects to most recreationists in the Oliverian Brook and Owls Head Cliff areas. It would provide safer access available to a larger user group. The presence of a more defined route to the opening and cliff may result in a slight increase in recreational use, but due to the current generally low use, it is not expected to cause a large impact on the recreational experience. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 with the exception of the degree of development to the parking area along Route 25 and the silvicultural prescriptions for six harvest units, none of which are adjacent to hiking trails or roads.

39 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Blueberry Mountain Trail, Long Pond Road, Appalachian Trail (AT), and Jeffers Brook Shelter All effects are the same as proposed in Alternative 2. Driving for pleasure In Alternative 3, six harvest units have different prescriptions than in Alternative 2. These changes all reduce the amount of harvesting in units, either by reducing clearcut acreages or increasing basal areas. Any of these changes would slightly reduce the visibility of harvest units from roads, thereby slightly minimizing visual impacts to recreational drivers. Owls Head Cliff and access to this area from Route 25 The intent of Alternative 3 is to address concerns raised during scoping regarding the level of new development in the Owls Head Cliff area. This alternative proposes a scaled-down version of the activities described for this area in Alternative 2. Parking In this alternative, a smaller parking lot, holding 4–7 cars, would be constructed off Route 25. The parking lot would be unpaved and without an RV turn-around, toilet, picnic table, or trash receptacle. A small kiosk would be installed to provide Forest messages. This parking area would likely attract less attention than the parking area proposed in Alternative 2, it would be a less desirable location for picnicking, and it would require less maintenance by Forest personnel. Increased visibility of any established parking area could still result in some increase in use. This alternative accommodates fewer vehicles and is more “natural”-looking than the proposal in Alternative 2. Hiking Trail to Owls Head Cliff The proposed hiking trail to Owls Head Cliff is the same as described in Alternative 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 3.1-1 summarizes the direct and indirect effects of all alternatives on recreation in the project area. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects is the piece of FS land bounded on the south by Route 25, the north by Routes 112 and 116, the east by the Tunnel Brook Road/Trail, and the west by the Forest boundary. This analysis area encompasses the entire Project Area, Forest System roads linked to roads in the Project Area, and local snowmobile and hiking trail networks linked to the project area. The time frame for this analysis is 20 years: ten years past and ten years into the future, a period that acknowledges past actions and anticipates reasonably foreseeable future actions that may cumulatively impact the recreation experience in the analysis area over a reasonable period of time.

40 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Table 3.1-1. Summary of Direct & Indirect Effects on Recreation.

Alternative Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects 1 • Would not alter current recreation opportunities. Safe parking for visitors to the cliff would remain a concern on Route 25. 2 • Increased noise and traffic associated with harvesting and prescribed burns may have short- term impacts on recreation experience. • Short-term changes to forest landscape along the Blueberry Mountain Trail and associated Forest roads may be visible to recreationists. • Improved opening habitat and browse for some game species; improved hunting opportunities. • Safer parking along Route 25; improved access to Oliverian Brook area and Owls Head Cliff. • Slightly increased visitor use is likely. Direct and indirect effects for Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 except for the following: 3 • Slightly fewer recreation opportunities at the Route 25 (Owls Head Cliff) trailhead. • Less developed experience and fewer amenities (no toilet, pavement, picnic table or dump- ster, smaller kiosk) at the Route 25 parking area. Recreation resources within the cumulative effects analysis area include, in addition to those in the project area: Long Pond, Tunnel Brook Trail and Road, and several gated Forest roads. Some of these roads (Tunnel Brook, Whitcher Brook, Titus Brook, and Long Pond snowmobile trails) are part of the statewide snowmobile system. Alternative 1 Since Alternative 1 would not alter recreation opportunities or experiences, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives 2-3 Neither of the action alternatives considered in this document would negatively affect the long-term recreation opportunities described in the Forest Plan for the analysis area. Timber harvest has occurred in the analysis area in the past, and people continue to use the area for recreation. In fact, roads such as FR 107A that were constructed for, or previously used for, timber removal are now part of the recreation system. Creation of early-successional habitat in the analysis area would likely improve hunting opportunities for the next decade, but beyond this timeframe, this effect would no longer be discernible. Cumulative effects on Forest System roads, the Blueberry Mountain Trail, Appalachian Trail, Jeffers Brook Shelter, snowmobile trails, and other recreation opportunities are not anticipated. No past, current, or foreseeable future activities have impacted, nor are they expected to impact, recreational use in the area. Therefore no additional cumulative effects from any action alternative are expected.

41 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

3.2 Water The Oliverian Stewardship Project is located within the Oliverian Brook watershed that drains into the Connecticut River, northeast of Haverhill, NH, approximately six miles from the project area. The Oliverian Brook watershed contains approximately 26,000 acres. Water resource features in the project area include streams, riparian areas, seeps/springs, wetlands, ponds, and vernal pools. Perennial tributaries (which flow year-round) associated with Oliverian Brook, near and within the project area, include Hogsback Brook, North Branch, Page Brook, Jeffers Brook, Owls Brook, Slide Brook, and several unnamed perennial streams. There are also several intermittent streams, which flow part of the year. Oliverian Pond and several forested and riverine wetlands are also within the project area. The change in elevation in the project area is from 2,960 feet at the headwater streams to 820 feet where Oliverian Brook flows westerly out of the project area. Water Quantity Affected Environment 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 WMNF, 62 percent of approximately 130cm 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 Oliverian project area. Therefore, the results of this research can be applied to the Proposed Action and the alternatives. Research has shown that removal of vegetation through timber harvesting can alter evapotranspiration rates, resulting in changes to streamflow. The magnitude of the change depends on the extent of change to the vegetation (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Research at Hubbard Brook indicates that as reductions in basal area approach 25 percent, a measurable response in annual water yield may be seen (Hornbeck et al., 1993). These increases in water yield become greatly reduced three to four years after timber harvesting, and undetectable seven to nine years after harvesting. Most of the increase in water 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 25 percent of the basal area is a Best Management Practice (BMP) for limiting the effects from harvesting on water quantity. and For the purposes of this analysis, basal area removal refers to a change in the total cross-sectional area of trees at 4.5 feet above the ground, as measured by White Mountain National Forest forestry staff. Change is calculated on a subwatershed basis, based on proposed treatment type and area treated.

42 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on water quantity is the small subwatersheds and drainage slopes where the proposed stands are located in 1st and 2nd order streams, and 3rd order perennial streams in the North Branch and Oliverian Brook subwatersheds, as shown in Table 3.2-1. These subwatersheds were delineated to analyze in closer detail potential localized effects. Some of the intermittent subwatersheds and slopes were also assessed due to the percentage of proposed treatments in these areas. As water flows downstream, pollutants are mobilized into the watershed, and changes in water yield related to the project merge with other waters within the Oliverian Brook watershed. The temporal scale for water quantity is 10 years in the past and 10 years into the future since changes to water quantity are gone within seven to nine years as shown by research at Hubbard Brook. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 There would be no new direct or indirect effects on water quantity from implementation of Alternative 1. 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. Streams and riparian areas would continue to function much in the same way as present. Alternative 2 No measurable increase in discharge is expected in the channels associated with the subwatersheds of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order streams in the project area because this alternative does not exceed the 25 percent threshold, as previously discussed regarding Hubbard Brook research (Table 3.2-1). Because of this, and as described in the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, no measurable increase in water yield is expected in the channels associated with any of the subwatersheds. Therefore, there would be no change in stream stability in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order steam channels resulting from an increase in discharge from the proposed timber harvest activities (FEIS). There would be no cutting or skidding in any known seep/spring in the project area. This protection measure would reduce the potential for rutting and water quantity changes to occur in known seeps/springs. There are approximately 195 acres of prescribed burning proposed in the project area, including site preparation for tree species regeneration, maintaining oak-pine species, maintaining wildlife habitat, and reducing hazardous fuels. Fire has the potential to increase water quantity; however, research indicates that a successful prescribed burn is designed to consume only part of the forest floor fuels. For this project, prescribed fire is proposed in oak- pine communities where leaf litter would be removed and understory and midstory shade levels would be reduced. The fires would occur within less than 11 percent of the subwatersheds where they are located (Table 3.2-2). For a subwatershed where multiple stands are proposed for prescribed fire treatments, the burns would not be simultaneous, and the effects of the burn on water resources would be monitored. If monitoring indicated a need for more protection of riparian areas, it would be put in place before the next burn was

43 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Table 3.2-1. Percent Basal Area Removed in 1st , 2nd, and 3rd order Subwatersheds.

Subwatershed Stream Type % Basal Area Removed by Alternative 1 2 3 #1: Hogsback Brook (535.8 ac) 1st order Perennial 0 19.7 16.5 #1A: No. Branch (313.4 ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 5.1 5.1 #2: Larger 1 No. Branch (849.2 ac) 3rd order Perennial 0 14.3 12.3 #3: Page Brook (1666.0 ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 12.9 12.0 #4: Intermittent Page Brook (362.5 ac) 1st order Intermittent 0 7.0 7.0 #5:Largest No.Branch (2922.3 ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 12.4 11.3 #6: All No. Branch (5243.0 ac) 3rd order Perennial 0 6.9 6.3 #B1: Jeffers Brook (1245.4 ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 5.0 5.0 #B1A: Intermittent Jeffers Brook (166.8 ac) 1st order Intermittent 0 14.5 14.5 #B2: Owls Brook (426.1ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 14.8 14.8 #B2A: Intermittent Owls Brook (51.7 ac) 1st order Intermittent 0 11.6 11.6 #B3: Slide Oliverian Head (4138.0 ac) 3rd order Perennial 0 0.8 0.8 #B3A: Intermittent Oliverian Brook (65.1 ac) 1st order Intermittent 0 4.3 4.3 #B4: Tributary Oliverian Pond (778.5 ac) 1st order Perennial 0 14.2 14.2 #B5: Farmland Brook (913.7 ac) 2nd order Perennial 0 12.0 12.0 #B6: Oliverian Brook (2392.2 ac) 3rd order Perennial 0 1.1 1.1 \Note: GIS maps of the subwatersheds and spreadsheet data calculations are in the Oliverian Stewardship Project Planning Record.

Table 3.2-2. Percent Prescribed Burning Area in Subwatersheds.

Subwatershed % Prescribed Burning Area by Alternative 1 2 3 #1: Perennial Tributary No. Branch (535.8 ac) 0 2.2 2.2 #1A: No. Branch (313.4 ac) 0 4.1 4.1 #2: Larger 1 No. Branch (849.2 ac) 0 2.8 2.8 #3: Page Brook (1666.0 ac) 0 0.4 0.4 #4: Intermittent Page Brook (362.5 ac) 0 10.7 10.7 #5: Largest No. Branch (2922.3 ac) 0 4.5 4.5 #6: All No. Branch (5243.0 ac) 0 2.5 2.5 #B1: Jeffers Brook (1245.4 ac) 0 0.0 0.0 #B1A: Intermittent Jeffers Brook (166.8 ac) 0 0.0 0.0 #B2: Owls Brook (426.1 ac) 0 4.4 4.4 #B2A: Intermittent Owls Brook (51.7 ac) 0 0.0 0.0 #B3: Slide Oliverian Head (4138.0 ac) 0 0.9 0.9 #B3A: Intermittent Oliverian Brook (65.1 ac) 0 4.1 4.1 #B4: Tributary Oliverian Pond (778.5 ac) 0 5.3 5.3 #B5: Farmland Brook (913.7 ac) 0 2.2 2.2 #B6: Oliverian Brook (2392.2 ac) 0 0.1 0.1

44 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

implemented. Prescribed burns would take place in the spring or fall season, when wet conditions would prevent burning riparian vegetation near water resource features (phone conversation with John Neely, 3/2/09, project record). Thus, small prescribed burns would have localized and short term effect on water quantity. The construction of a paved parking lot for 14 cars, plus an RV stop zone adjacent to Route 25, is proposed to provide safe, adequate parking for visitors to the Owls Head Cliff area. The construction of a bridge over Oliverian Brook and an approximately one mile designated trail to the cliff base is proposed to concentrate the recreation use. Though these actions would increase the impervious surface area, they occur within less than one percent of the subwatershed where they are located. The proposed bridge would be designed with an adequate span to protect and not constrict the stream banks. One or both of the existing bridge abutments may need to be removed to construct the new bridge according to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, which require unimpeded passage of bankfull discharge (p. 2-31). The proposed bridge would be designed to be high enough to withstand high water flows. Thus, bridge construction would have a positive effect on passage of high stream flows and bank stability at one trail crossing. The proposed parking lot and trail would have only localized and short-term effects on water quantity. There would be no additional effect to water quantity from proposed Forest Road actions since these activities would not affect stream flow quantities. Alternative 3 Vegetation management activities proposed in Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2, except for a reduction in silvicultural treatments from 2,062 acres to 2,011 acres. No subwatershed would have more than 25 percent of its basal area removed, and the Hogsback Brook and Page Brook subwatersheds would have less basal area removed than under Alternative 2 (Table 3.2-1). Since no watershed would exceed the 25 percent threshold, no significant effects on water quantity are expected (Hornbeck et al. 1993). The proposed prescribed burns are the same as those in Alternative 2, with only localized and short-term effects on water quantity expected. Alternative 3 proposes the same recreational activities as Alternative 2, except that the parking lot would be gravel surfaced, with room for only four to seven vehicles adjacent to Route 25. Though these recreational activities increase the impervious surface area, they would occur within less than one percent of the subwatershed where they are located. Thus, the proposed parking lot, bridge, and trail would have only localized and short-term effects on water quantity. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for water quantity is similar to that described in the direct and indirect effects. However, many of the subwatersheds are combined into the larger watershed of North Branch and the larger watershed of the headwater streams feeding Oliverian Brook for analysis. These subwatersheds were selected because they include all the headwaters of the streams that flow through the project area; and at this scale, the effects of multiple uses within

45 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

the subwatersheds could become additive and result in cumulative effects. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on water quantity is 10 years into the past and 10 years into the future (1998–2018). Ten years is adequate for water quantity analysis because research at Hubbard Brook has shown that increases in water quantity following timber harvest became undetectable seven to nine years after harvest (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Past and present activities that occur in the cumulative effects analysis area subwatersheds on National Forest land that have the potential to impact water quantity include timber harvest, roads, trails, developed areas, and fire. Timber harvest and fire have the potential to increase water quantity, as described previously in this report. These increases are temporary, and recover within 10 years as vegetation grows back. Roads, trails, and developed areas also increase water quantity through compacted and less permeable surfaces which increase runoff and provide pathways for the movement of water downstream in a watershed. This results in increases in water quantity during rainfall and snowmelt. Developments for residential purposes on private land, and for recreational purposes on private and National Forest land, result in the same impervious surfaces which also increase runoff. Increases to water quantity from permanent roads, trails, and developments are long-term, and last as long as these features are present in the watersheds. Some of these activities occur on private land within the analysis area. No cumulative effects related to increased water quantity are expected in the analysis area, because the action alternatives are not expected to cause increases in water quantity in the 1st , 2nd, or 3rd order streams. Timber harvesting on National Forest land has occurred in portions of the analysis area subwatersheds in the last ten years: the Sugarloaf (1998-2001) and Titus Brook II (1999-2003) timber sales. When combining this past harvesting with the proposed level of harvest, basal area reductions do not exceed 25 percent in any 1st, 2nd, or 3rd order streams (see the project record for data). There is a possibility that a timber sale could be proposed on National Forest land in the analysis area in the next ten years. However, such a project would be analyzed at that time to ensure the 25 percent basal area reduction is not exceeded. Therefore, no increases in water quantity are expected. A known past timber sale occurred on land within the analysis area watershed, the TPL/Riveroaks (2006) Timber Sale, which resulted in severe compaction, erosion, and sedimentation. The private parcel where this timber sale occurred has since been purchased by the Forest Service, and measures have been taken to stabilize the area. Private land accounts for 38 percent of the analysis area watershed. The private land is dotted with residences, cleared land, some farms, and camps. It is anticipated that some clearcutting would occur on private lands in the future, but private activities in the watershed should not cause water quantity effects in the streams at the scale of the cumulative effects analysis area. Over 54 percent of the private land in the cumulative effects area would have to be clearcut to surpass the threshold for impacts on water quantity. This seems unlikely to occur within the cumulative effects period due to the existing infrastructure, uses, and areas unsuitable for clearcuts on much of the private land.

46 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

In the TPL/Riveroaks Tract area, additional activities are planned to stabilize eroding skid trails and roads, restore a wetland area, and significantly reduce the sediment inputs that are occurring. In the eroding areas, woody material would be placed to collect sediment and slow runoff velocities (Burroughs and King 1989). Therefore, it is unlikely that cumulative increases in water quantity or related channel adjustments in streams of the analysis area subwatersheds related to increases in water quantity would be observable as a result of the proposed project activities or when combined with past or future activities. Also, there would be no cumulative effects on water quantity from past, present, or proposed burning activities, Forest Road activities, or recreation projects on National Forest land since none of these activities would increase runoff velocities. Climate Change Effects of climate change on water quantity are likely to be small within the cumulative effects period. Downscaled climate models for New England predict a long-term increase in the quantity of overall annual precipitation, with a greater proportion as rain relative to snowfall and more intense storms (Hayhoe et al. 2007). Higher temperatures would also lead to earlier timing of snowmelt and ice break-up, a trend which has already been observed (Huntington et al. 2009). Historic data show a gradual increase in average annual precipitation (about 0.4 inches per decade) and spring streamflow for the region as a whole, but some individual weather stations yield conflicting results (Huntington et al. 2009). No cumulative effect would be expected from an increase in precipitation, since harvest in the cumulative effects area would not affect water yield. Though existing infrastructure may by impacted by intense storms, any new, permanent stream crossing structures would be designed to withstand increased flood flows. In summary, no significant, negative cumulative effects are expected under either action alternative. Further discussion of effects of climate change on hydrology, and practices that would mitigate such effects can be found in the Oliverian Project Record. Water Quality Affected Environment Basic water quality data and water samples were collected from streams in several subwatersheds in the project area in the fall of 2008. The water samples taken at these locations were sent to the FS Water Quality lab in Durham, NH, for further analysis, and the results are in the Oliverian project record. On October 6 and 7, 2008, the following measurements were taken (Table 3.2-3). In 2007, total aluminum concentrations were 73.1 ppb and 68.3 ppb at Oliverian Brook and an unnamed tributary of Oliverian Brook, respectively. This is below the State of New Hampshire’s chronic water quality standard, 87 ppb, for total aluminum.

47 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Table 3.2-3. Stream Water Quality Data.

Stream pH Conductivity Alkalinity Temperature (uS/cm) (mg/l) (º F) Oliverian Pond (off Rt. 25) 6.5 50.0 6.0 52 Blueberry Mountain Brook (tributary to Oliverian Pond, 7.6 No Data 1.3 No Data near Comp. 3 stand 19 and 18 (C3-19 and 18)) Hogsback Brook (near C1-12 and 21) 6.6 35.7 10.0 47 Page Brook (near C2-12) 6.5 23.6 5.5 46 Farmland Brook (near C3-48) 6.4 35.2 8.2 46 Jeffers Brook (near C4-1) 6.4 24.8 5.8 45 Pond Brook (near C4-9) 6.1 18.2 2.7 46

The state’s water quality standard for pH is 6.5 – 8.0, or as naturally occurs (New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Surface Water Quality Regulations, Section 1703.18). Relative to this standard, the sampled streams are slightly acidic, but are within the typical range of pH values for the White Mountain National Forest (Hornbeck et al. 2001). The low baseline pH value 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. These waters meet State Water Quality Standards related to the use of aquatic life, such as fish and macroinvertebrates. None of the streams in the project area are on the State Impaired Water list. Field reviews of streams in the subwatersheds were conducted in October 2008 to characterize proper functioning condition (see project record for data sheets). A Water Resource Goal in the Forest Plan (p 1-18) directs, “The Forest Service would manage streams at proper functioning condition (PFC) to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality.” Blueberry Mountain Brook, a tributary to Oliverian Pond, was in proper functioning condition and Hogsback Brook was in proper functioning condition/functional-at risk due to a couple of reaches exhibiting streambank instability and erosion. Field observations of other streams in the subwatersheds indicated that streambank instability and sedimentation of streams did not appear to be an issue. No algae blooms have been noted in Oliverian Brook near the location of the parking lot proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3. Therefore, the presence of algae- promoting nutrients from human waste is currently not a concern. All waters of the National Forest are designated as “Outstanding Resource Waters” (ORW) and water quality and supported designated uses shall be maintained and protected in surface waters that constitute ORW (NHDES 1999). Some 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 ORW. Site- specific standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices, and Soil and Water Conservation Practices are designed to protect and maintain designated uses and prevent degradation should Alternative 2 or 3 be selected.

48 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

The State of New Hampshire designates stream reaches within the project area as Class B, the second highest quality. Designated uses include fishing, swimming, and other recreational purposes; and after adequate treatment, as a water supply. Stream and lake waters in the project area are not currently used for public water supply purposes. Public water supplies in the project area include surface water and groundwater uses; there are no municipal water supplies. Five public water supply sources and three private water wells are located 0.5 mile to 1.5 miles away from any proposed harvest treatments; there are no springs used as water sources in the project area. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on water quality is the same as for water quantity: the 1st , 2nd, and 3rd order perennial and intermittent subwatersheds delineated in the project area where treatment activities are proposed. This includes perennial tributaries associated with Oliverian Brook: Hogsback Brook, North Branch, Page Brook, Jeffers Brook, Owls Brook, Slide Brook, and several unnamed perennial and intermittent streams. Oliverian Pond and several forested and riverine wetlands are also within the project area. These subwatersheds were delineated in order to analyze potential localized effects to water quality in closer detail. The temporal scale for direct and indirect effects on water quality is five years in the past and five years into the future since measurable changes to water quality are gone within three to five years for Total Aluminum and pH changes. Direct and Indirect Effects There are three ways that timber harvesting can alter water quality: from the chemical changes that occur in streams after trees are cut, through temperature change, and from roads, skid trails, and other disturbed surfaces that cause erosion and subsequent transport of sediment into water resource features. Alternative 1 There would be no new increased direct or indirect effects on water chemistry, temperature, or sediment from implementation of Alternative 1 within the project area. The current condition would remain. Ongoing forest activities would not change water quality or impact existing uses through the use of New Hampshire BMPs, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and site-specific soil and water conservation practices. Water chemistry Timber harvesting has the potential to affect water chemistry at the localized scale. The 2005 Forest Plan EIS stated that impacts to temperature and water chemistry are minimized through the use of standards and guidelines and BMPs. These include the use of riparian buffers, watersheds being only partially harvested, and staggering harvest activities (Forest Plan, p 3-51). Riparian buffers are considered the most effective factor for preventing nutrients and sediment from reaching water resource features (Gilliam 1994). Research at Hubbard Brook has indicated that intensive forest harvesting practices, such as clearcutting an entire watershed, have the potential to lower the pH in water. Other research (Wang et al. 2006; Baldigo et al. 2005) reports a similar

49 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

effect during less intensive harvest treatments. Water quality data on the White Mountain National Forest has indicated that lower pH values are associated with higher total aluminum concentrations (Hornbeck et al. 2001). The pH of the majority of streams sampled in the subwatersheds is slightly acidic. Further decreases in pH are a concern due to metal mobilization, including aluminum, and effects on existing uses such as cold water fishery. Acidity has been shown to mobilize inorganic aluminum in the soils, which then enters stream water (Lawrence and Driscoll 1988). A compilation of research on water quality effects from timber harvesting in the Northeast showed that when 17 percent or less of the basal area within a watershed was removed, downstream water chemistry was not likely to change (Martin et al. 1986; Wang et al. 2005; Baldigo et al. 2005; Lawrence and Driscoll 1988). The 17 percent is a conservative value which can be applied to most watersheds with confidence that this limit would maintain water quality. It is possible that higher levels of basal area could be removed from a watershed without causing water chemistry changes, but without additional information and analysis it is difficult to predict which watersheds those are. Forest Plan monitoring is being implemented with assistance from research to further refine these parameters and related thresholds for vegetative harvesting in watersheds. Since most of the watersheds in the project area have total aluminum levels below chronic and pH levels above 6.0, the sensitivity is not as great as evidenced in other watersheds on the Forest (Crowley 2008). Alternative 2 As shown in Table 3.2-1, under Alternative 2 all the subwatersheds would have less than 17 percent of their basal area removed, with the exception of the Hogsback Brook subwatershed. No significant effect on acidity or aluminum mobilization is expected in watersheds with less than 17 percent basal area removal, based on the literature described above. Harvesting 19.7 percent of the basal area in the Hogsback Brook subwatershed would exceed the 17 percent threshold, below which no significant effects on water chemistry are expected. Though much research on timber harvesting and water quality has focused on much more intensive harvesting, it generally appears that effects on water quality increase as a higher percentage of the basal area in a watershed is removed (Baldigo et al. 2005; Lawrence and Driscoll1988; Wang et al. 2006). While water quality effects are not apparent below 15 percent basal area removed, one study in the White Mountains found increased acidity, nitrate concentrations, and aluminum mobilization when 19 percent of the subwatershed was whole-tree harvested (Lawrence and Driscoll 1988). The small drainage area and shallow soils tend to increase the sensitivity of the Hogsback Brook subwatershed to aluminum mobilization (Palmer et al. 2005). However, a combination of relatively low acidity and use of practices such as buffer strips may mitigate the effects of vegetation removal. In summary, the risk of decreasing pH and increasing toxic forms of aluminum in Hogsback Brook is elevated as a result of Alternative 2, but to an extent that is difficult to predict. A combination of acidic conditions and high inorganic aluminum can be toxic to fish species such as brook trout (Baldigo et al. 2005), which are common on the National Forest. Any effects would most likely be limited to the Hogsback

50 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Brook drainage due to dilution by the waters of North Branch. Another potential consequence of harvesting is elevated nitrate, which negatively impacts drinking water quality (NHDES 1999; Wang et al. 2005). Dilution effects and the long distance to public and private water supplies make effects on these drinking water sources unlikely. Effects on water chemistry and aquatic life would likely subside within three to four years after harvest (Martin et al. 1986). As an additional design feature, a 100 foot no-cut zone would be implemented along • A 1st order perennial stream, #1, Hogsback Brook, a tributary to North Branch; and • A 2nd order perennial stream, #B2, Owls Brook, a tributary to Oliverian Brook. This design feature would be implemented along these streams in Compartment 1, Stands 3, 4, 12, 21, and 24; and Compartment 4, Stands 1, 9, 30, and 32, respectively. These larger riparian no-cut zones would mitigate water quality changes by increasing flowpaths through undisturbed forest soils and by reducing the potential for water quality changes to occur in the streams. Studies have shown that partial cuts and the use of streamside no-cut zones are effective in reducing water quality changes (Patric 1980; Aust and Blinn 2004). The perennial streams in all the other subwatersheds, except Hogsback Brook and Owls Brook (mentioned above), would be treated with a 25 foot no-cut zone along their stream banks and only limited uneven-aged harvesting within an additional 75-foot Riparian Management Zone (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-1 and G-2, p 2-24). Since harvesting at the levels proposed in Alternative 2 is not expected to lower the pH (increase acidity) of most streams, increase of aluminum concentrations in these streams is not expected. There would be no cutting or skidding in any known seep/spring in the project area. This protection measure would reduce the potential for rutting and water quality changes to occur in known seeps/springs. For Alternative 2, increased visibility of an established parking area could slightly increase visitor use (see 3.1 Recreation), with a corresponding slight increase in risk to water resources from human impact. This alternative incorporates features designed to mitigate the risk of fecal contamination as well as bank disturbance and sedimentation. The single stall concrete vault toilet proposed for the parking area has the potential to affect water quality by introducing nutrients and fecal pathogens into nearby waterbodies and local groundwater. These potential impacts are minimized by locating the vault toilet at least 100 feet from nearby waterbodies, by maintaining the integrity of the concrete vault to ensure there is no leakage into groundwater, and by following any state regulations for design and placement. Therefore, the proposed concrete vault toilet would have no effect on water quality. This would pose a lower risk than alternatives with no toilet (Alternative 1 and Alternative 3), as it would discour- age deposition of human waste within 100 feet of the stream. Installation of a bridge on Oliverian Brook would be expected to mitigate the risk of bank disturbance and resulting sedimentation due to individuals crossing the stream. Having a bridge would prevent foot traffic on the banks, and

51 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

the bridge itself would be designed to avoid stream impacts, following Forest Plan standards and guidelines for passage of flood flows and aquatic organisms. In Alternative 2, approximately seven acres of Japanese knotweed, a non-native invasive species (NNIS), is proposed for eradication on private and state land. The method used would be a cut stem herbicide (glyphosate) application: cutting the stem of the plant and then injecting or wiping the herbicide into the exposed stem. This would limit the contact of the herbicide with surrounding soil or water and also limit the amount applied. Spraying of herbicides is not proposed. Due to the small area treated, methods used, and herbicide selected, no measurable impact on water chemistry is expected. For further information on the characteristics of glyphosate, see 3.8 Soils and the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment (USDA-Forest Service 2007). In summary, it is likely that changes in water quality arising from implementation of Alternative 2 would be minimized in most areas. However, there would be an increased risk that acidity and aluminum concentrations in Hogsback Brook would not meet New Hampshire surface water quality regulations or Forest Plan standards for maintaining and protecting water quality. Based on available science, the likelihood and magnitude of such a change are somewhat uncertain. However, it could potentially affect a perennial stream for up to four years. Alternative 3 As shown in Table 3.2-1, under Alternative 3, all the subwatersheds would have less than 17 percent of their basal area removed. As an additional mitigation, 100-foot and 25-foot no-cut zones would be applied in an identical manner to Alternative 2. With these mitigations in place, no significant effect on acidity or aluminum mobilization is expected in any perennial stream under this alternative. In Alternative 3, construction of a parking area accommodating up to seven cars would be less likely to increase visitor use than Alternative 2, though some increase is still possible (see 3.1 Recreation). The proposed parking area would not have a single stall concrete vault toilet. Site characteristics such as the concentration of vegetation cover near Oliverian Brook northwest of the proposed parking area, and poor filtering capacity of soils (see soil resources section), pose some risk of impact to stream water quality from the introduction of nutrients and fecal pathogens. This risk would only be slightly greater than under Alternative 1, depending on the level of visitor use and whether visitors choose to avoid waste elimination in streamside zones. As in Alternative 2, installation of a bridge on Oliverian Brook would be expected to mitigate the risk of bank disturbance and resulting sedimentation due to individuals crossing the stream. Approximately seven acres of NNIS eradication are proposed in Alternative 3. This is identical to the method proposed in Alternative 2. Therefore, no measurable impact on water chemistry is expected. Temperature When timber harvesting reduces canopy shading along water resource features, the potential exists to increase water temperatures. In one study, cutting all trees in a watershed at Hubbard Brook in the White Mountain National Forest

52 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment resulted in a 6 degrees Celsius increase in water temperature of a stream (Pierce et al. 1993). Such increases in water temperature can be prevented or reduced through the use of riparian area buffers of uncut trees along the edges of water resource features (Davies 1984; Stafford et al. 1996). Alternatives 2 and 3 Forest Plan Guidelines for mapped perennial streams and their riparian areas provide for a 25 foot no cut zone unless prescribed to benefit hydrological or ecological functions associated with perennial streams or their riparian areas (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-1, p 2-24). In addition, no subwatershed would be entirely harvested, thereby reducing the potential for temperature increases in water resource features. These practices have been shown to be effective in maintaining cold temperatures in water resource features during timber harvest activities in New Hampshire and Maine (Pierce et al. 1993). Sediment Alternatives 2 and 3 Research has shown that harvest practices, such as those on the White Mountain National Forest, do not result in sediment movement and do not pose a risk to water quality (Brown 1983). Implementation of the 2005 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would minimize any opportunity for sediment to reach the banks of any streams. No cutting would occur within 25 feet of perennial stream banks and only limited uneven-aged harvest would be allowed within an additional 75-foot Riparian Management Zone, except along Hogsback Brook and Owls Brook in Compartment 1, Stands 3, 4, 12, 21, and 24; and Compartment 4, Stands 1, 9, 30, and 32, respectively, where a 100 foot no-cut zone would be implemented. Skid trail stream crossings can cause increased sediment inputs to streams during installation and use. Approximately 18 skid trail crossings would be needed in the project area to cross perennial and intermittent streams (Table 3.2-4). These would be designed to pass bankfull flows and would be located to minimize potential sediment inputs. Following harvest, all temporary crossing structures would be removed, stream banks restored as necessary, and any sediment inputs would be reduced to pre-harvest levels. Sediment problems associated with skid trail stream crossings can be very persistent (Stafford et al. 1996), so visual monitoring would occur at stream crossing sites to catch and rectify any problems in the early stage. This practice has been used successfully on the WMNF for many years, including on the Pemigewasset Ranger District (Boyer email 2009, in the project record). Manual control of NNIS on seven acres through cutting or hand-pulling may disturb soil and temporarily increase sediment mobility; however, no more than a highly localized, short-term increase in sedimentation would be expected.

53 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Table 3.2-4. Ground Disturbance, by Alternative.

Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Landings (acres) 0 5.25 5.25 New Landings (acres) 0 3.75 3.75 Roads Construction (miles/acres)1 0/0 0/0 0/0 Roads Decommissioning (miles/acres)1 0/0 0.60/1.44 0.60/1.44 Road Maintenance (miles/acres) 0/0 3.7/8.88 3.7/8.88 Skid Trails (miles/acres)1 0/0 17.9/43.0 17.9/43.0 Paved and Unpaved parking area (acres) 0 0.34 0.20 Hiking trail to Owls Head Cliff (miles/ acres)2 0/0 1.20/0.73 1.20/0.73 Prescribe Fire (acres) 0 195 195 Skid Trail Stream Crossings (7 Perennial) (acres)3 0 3.5 3.5 Skid Trail Stream Crossings (11 Intermittent) (acres)3 0 5.5 5.5 Total Disturbed Acres 0 63.73 63.59 Total % of project area Disturbed 0% 3.1% of 2062 ac. 3.2% of 2011 ac. landing size=0.75 acres 11 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance width of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile 2hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles, 3skid trail stream crossings=0.5 acres/stream crossings Transportation Approximately 1.9 miles of existing forest road is proposed for pre-haul maintenance, approximately 1.5 miles of existing forest road is proposed for reconstruction, approximately 0.3 miles of existing forest road is proposed for restoration, and approximately 0.6 miles of existing forest road is proposed for decommissioning (Table 3.2-4). Although road maintenance, reconstruction, restoration, and decommissioning activities may initially cause ground disturbance, maintaining and improving roads for their level of use, or decommissioning a road can limit future sediment transport. Research has shown that maintenance reduces sediment losses (NCASI 2000). Recreation The proposed parking lot, bridge and trail to access Owls Head Cliff would result in temporary disturbed areas during construction (Table 3.2-4). Erosion control practices and site runoff control would be used during construction to contain these direct and indirect effects. In addition, bare soil would be stabilized after construction is completed. By using these common construction BMPs, water quality would be protected and maintained during these activities. The parking lot, bridge and trail would provide long term protection of water quality by lessening the potential for erosion along Oliverian Brook and along the many trails presently being used to access the cliff. Sediment Summary Any direct and indirect effects to water quality from soil sedimentation as a result of the action alternatives are anticipated to be short-term and localized. The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to areas of

54 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment disturbance. Areas which lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. As areas of temporary disturbance, i.e., landings and skid trails, (Table 3.2-4) revegetate, sediment contributions related to these areas decrease to near zero. Sediment contributions from existing classified roads would continue; however, they would likely return to pre-project levels over time. Most studies show that BMPs are very effective at reducing or eliminating the transport of sediment into water resource features (summarized by Stafford et al. 1996). Low turbidity measurements indicate that there is currently not an issue with sediment movement into surface waters in the Oliverian Brook watershed. BMPs are monitored as part of the forest-wide monitoring of the 2005 Forest Plan. By employing 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, site-specific soil and water conservation practices, and New Hampshire BMPs, the Outstanding Resource Waters standards would be met. In addition, the effectiveness of these BMPs has been monitored in Maine and documented (Maine Department of Conservation Forest Service 2005). This monitoring indicates that “BMP use was effective in avoiding soil deposition into surface waters on 82 percent of harvest sites with water bodies present.” WMNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines require larger riparian buffers than Maine BMPs. It is therefore likely that the effectiveness of these buffers at avoiding soil deposition into surface waters would exceed 82 percent. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area on water quality is similar to that described in the direct and indirect effects. However, many of the subwatersheds are combined into the larger watershed of North Branch and the larger watershed of the headwater streams feeding Oliverian Brook for analysis. These subwatersheds were selected because they include all the headwaters of the streams which flow through the project area; and at this scale, the effects of multiple uses within the subwatersheds could become additive and result in cumulative effects. Analysis of a larger watershed area (such as the Oliverian Brook watershed) would dilute potential cumulative effects to water quality since, as analyzed, no effects related to the implementation of any of the action alternatives would be detectable even at the smaller scale. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on water quality is five years into the past and five years into the future, 2003–2013. Five years is adequate for water quality analysis because research at Hubbard Brook has shown that changes to water quality from timber harvesting were undetectable 3-5 years after harvest activity (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Water Chemistry The single stall concrete vault toilet proposed in Alternative 2 for the parking area located at least 100 feet from nearby waterbodies, with the concrete vault’s integrity maintained, would have no effect on water quality. The lack of a single stall, concrete vault toilet in Alternative 3 results in a slightly higher risk of fecal contamination in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2, based on the poor filtering capability of soils and location of most vegetative cover near the stream. Since no evidence of bacteria or nutrient impairment has been found in the area

55 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

at present, the increase in risk relative to Alternative 1 would be slight, and no cumulative effect would be likely. As described in the Forest Plan EIS, an existing cumulative effect to water chemistry has been caused by atmospheric deposition (FEIS, pp 3-51, 3-52). A summary of acidic deposition in the Northeast (Driscoll et al. 2001) concludes that the leaching of base cations has delayed the recovery of ANC (acid neu- tralizing capacity) in lakes and streams and toxic forms of aluminum (Al) have increased in surface waters. The aluminum concentrations in the subwatersheds are unknown, except for the aluminum levels measured in 2007 in Oliverian Brook and a tributary to Oliverian Brook, which were below the chronic standard for total aluminum in the state’s water quality standards and meets water quality standards for aquatic life. However, it is possible that toxic forms of aluminum are part of the total aluminum concentrations, a form of aluminum more toxic to aquatic life and related to atmospheric deposition (Lawrence et al. 2007; Hornbeck et al. 2001; 1999-2005 Forest monitoring data). The slightly lower pH values and mostly unknown aluminum levels in the project area are likely related to the base cations and toxic forms of aluminum effect mentioned above. To protect against the effects of atmospheric deposition on water quality from past and future timber harvesting, the Forest Plan includes a guideline that limits the amount of even-aged regeneration harvesting within the watershed of a 1st or 2nd order perennial stream to no more than 15 percent of the area of a watershed in a five year period (Forest Plan, p 2-29). Past timber sales that have occurred on National Forest land within the CEA watersheds include the Sugarloaf (1998-2001) and Titus Brook II (1999-2003) Timber Sales. Past and proposed even-aged regeneration harvesting in the CEA subwatersheds within the last ten years was calculated to be below 15 percent in the 1st or 2nd order subwatersheds in the project area. In addition, harvest levels are generally below 15 percent to 17 percent basal area removed, which prevents water quality changes related to timber harvesting. It is also anticipated that some harvesting may occur in the CEA subwatersheds on private land in the next ten years. However, all of the private land in the CEA subwatersheds would have to be harvested within a five year period for this guideline to be exceeded. This far exceeds current trends of harvest on private land in the CEA subwatersheds. Because of this, it is unlikely that timber harvest would exacerbate water quality concerns related to atmospheric deposition. Research has indicated that watersheds with approximately ten percent impervious surfaces have surface waters which are degraded and do not meet water quality standards (Morse and Kahl 2003). In the CEA watersheds, known landings, roads, skid trails, and hiking/snowmobile trails on public and private land account for less than two percent impervious surfaces. Buildings, driveways, and parking areas on private land could increase these impervious surfaces, slightly, given current development trends in the CEA subwatersheds. Therefore, water quality changes related to large-scale impervious, developed surfaces is not expected to occur as a result of past, present, and future cumulative activities. In addition to the seven acres of non-native invasive species eradication proposed on state and private land, an additional 53 acres of NNIS eradication

56 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment would occur on National Forest land in the cumulative effects area. The effects of these combined actions on water resources are expected to be minimal to nonexistent, as outlined in the forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment (USDA-Forest Service, 2007). Temperature Temperature measurements collected in the CEA subwatersheds indicated cool temperatures which support the existing uses in the watersheds (Project Planning Record). The proposed project, past or present timber sales, are not anticipated to cause increases in temperature due to the use of BMPs as explained earlier. A cumulative effect related to stream temperature is not anticipated, even when combined with activities on private land. Sediment The direct or indirect effects from past timber sales that occurred on National Forest land within the CEA subwatersheds, Sugarloaf (1998-2001) and Titus Brook II (1999-2003) timber sales, were short-term and localized. A known past timber sale occurred on private land within the CEA subwatershed, the TPL/ Riveroaks (2006) sale, which resulted in erosion and sedimentation of nearby waterbodies. The privately-owned parcel where this timber sale occurred has since been purchased by the Forest Service, and measures have been taken to stabilize the area. As discussed previously, any direct or indirect effects from the proposed harvesting activities are expected to be short-term and localized. Therefore, no cumulative effects related to sediment are expected from past, present or future harvesting activities in the CEA subwatersheds. Past, present, or future road maintenance, reconstruction/restoration, and decommissioning activities should reduce potential sediment inputs of existing roads (NCASI 2000). Wildfires have occurred in the cumulative effects area (see 3.6 Fire for more detail). The proposed prescribed burning activities would treat approximately 195 acres in the project area, including maintenance of less common forest types, preparing sites for regeneration of tree species (which may be re-burned in the next ten years), and reducing hazardous fuel loading. Since these stands proposed for prescribed fire have a vegetative buffer strip, it is unlikely that any increased erosion from the prescribed fire would reach flowing water. Cumulative effects of prescribed fire on sediment are therefore not anticipated. A future watershed improvement project on National Forest land in the TPL Riveroaks Tract area may occur. The future activities would stabilize eroding skid trails and roads, restore a wetland area, and significantly reduce the sediment inputs that are presently occurring. In the eroding areas, woody material would be placed to collect sediment and slow runoff velocities (Burroughs and King 1989). Also, future activities may occur to restore floodplain function and prevent streambank erosion along Oliverian Brook. It is proposed that two old bridge abutments be removed, stream banks be restored, and approximately 300 feet of an old road bed along the brook be obliterated as part of this restoration project.

57 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Some soil disturbance would occur as a result of the future watershed improvement projects. These impacts, however, would be minimal and short term, as the proposed project is designed to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation of a wetland and a portion of Oliverian Brook, resulting in positive cumulative effects to the watershed, including long-term reductions of sediment inputs to streams, increased infiltration and reduced surface runoff. Sediment problems related to recreational activities in the CEA have been observed in the TPL Riveroaks Tract area from parking and access to the unique features in this tract. The proposed parking lot, bridge and trail to access Owls Head Cliff would result in temporary disturbed areas during construction (Table 3.2-4). The parking lot, bridge and trail would provide long term protection of water quality by lessening the potential for erosion along Oliverian Brook and along the many trails presently being used to access the cliff. No cumulative effects are expected from the recreation project, sinceimprovement sites would be revegetated once the work is completed. Climate Change Effects of climate change on water quality are likely to be small within the cumulative effects period (see Cumulative Effects section for Water Quantity). The most likely change in water quality would be a tendency for stream temperatures to increase. Air temperatures in the region have increased at a rate of 0.45°F per decade from 1970-2000 (Huntington et al. 2009); therefore any increase in water temperature is likely to be small. Vegetation treatments are designed to maintain canopy cover near streams, vernal pools, and edges of ponds, as well as to avoid excessive harvest in any watershed. This is likely to buffer temperature changes for some time on the National Forest. See the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Report and climate change literature reviews in the project record for further information on the potential for temperature change to affect aquatic life. Increased storm intensity and warmer winters could have a long-term effect on sedimentation without proper mitigation. Because high flows tend to scour streams, erode banks and increase runoff, turbidity in streams could increase at certain times of the year. Implementation and monitoring of BMPs to prevent erosion would continue to be emphasized to avoid sedimentation. Warmer, shorter winters could have implications for winter harvest, which relies on frozen conditions to minimize sedimentation. The current practice of monitoring conditions on the ground to ensure they are sufficiently frozen would serve as an adaptive management tool in case of earlier thaws or wetter conditions. The analysis of sedimentation in this report does not indicate that effects beyond short-term, localized disturbance are likely under either action alternative. Given the relatively slow rate of climate change, a cumulative effect on water quality is unlikely. Further discussion of effects of climate change on water quality can be found in the Oliverian Project Record.

58 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.3 Scenery Affected Environment The project area is located in the southern half of the Benton Range. It includes the moderate to steep slopes of the southern and southwestern flanks of Sugarloaf Mountain, The Hogsback, and Jeffers Mountain, as well as the eastern and southeastern slopes of Blueberry Mountain and Owls Head Cliff. Small amounts of level terrain exist in the southwestern and southeastern boundaries of the project area: at the southwestern base of Blueberry Mountain where it meets with New Hampshire Route 25; in the Oliverian Brook floodplain and on the eastern side of Owls Head where the grade meets Long Pond Road and the confluence of Jeffers Brook and Slide Brook. A blanket of softwood trees covers the highest of elevations while sharing the lower tops and ridges with a mixture of softwood and northern hardwood. Draping over the slopes extending into the lower elevations are similar fields of softwood trees, hardwood trees, and a mixture to the two. Seen occasionally are granite outcrops as they are interspersed throughout the upper elevations. Flanking the northern and southern sections of the project area are two expan- sive yet vastly different rock faces. The most impressive face, bordering the southern section of the project area, is the spectacular, near-vertical granite Owls Head Cliff 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. Older harvest openings (clearcuts) and partial harvests (group selection) are difficult to detect, but do influence the visible pattern. More recent, but infrequent on the landscape, are noticeable clearcuts reminiscent of cleared agricultural lands of days past as well as those still in use on the boundary of the lower section of the project area. Low to moderate human use occurs within and bordering the project area (as compared to the more active areas of the WMNF, such as the area encompassed by the Kancamagus Highway). The heaviest of that use is concentrated along the Blueberry Mountain hiking and snowmobile trail, the Appalachian Trail, and NH Route 25. Long Pond Road, which forms the eastern boundary of the project area, receives use but is not nearly as active as NH Route 25. Other local roads provide views and access to the project area, but their use is mostly limited to those living and working in those areas. The “seen” area changes according to vantage points due to the angle of repose, foreground vegetation, and aspect of the viewed landscape. Within the project area, views of stands proposed for treatment are predominately blocked by vegetation from trails and summits, except where the stand is bisected by a trail. The project area is dominantly viewed by travelers and property owners to the west and southwest. Limited, stationary, and short-duration traveler’s views of the project area are seen from the south moving toward the east and looking north, and traveling west looking north. The longest duration and most dramatic traveling views of the project area are from the west, while moving east on NH Route 25. The most significant stationary views are from the road or roadside,

59 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

residences, the nearby school, farms, and businesses along Lily Pond Road, Lime Kiln Road, Flat Iron Road, and NH Route 25 in the towns of Benton, and Haverhill, NH. Direct and Indirect Effects for All Alternatives

Background for the Analysis The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects is the project area because this is the zone within which the proposed vegetation management activities would alter the scenery. The viewshed for a majority of the views does not extend 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 also due to the project area containing visually interesting features that attract the eye; or make the surrounding area less visually interesting, thus keeping ones attention or focus. The amount of visible opening, or seen acres, would be a result of the treatments proposed within the project area and the distances from which they are viewable. The project area does not contain any foreground viewsheds (0–1/2 mile); it contains only middleground and background views. Middleground viewsheds are those visible from 1/2 mile to 4 miles distant. Background viewsheds are those visible from 4 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 significant. Significance is reduced with distance, and eventually the opening may cease being a noticeable attraction to the eye. The analyses of scenery includes views from locations providing the broadest range of view, the most direct views, and views that are from different distances and angles. The three viewpoints selected for final analysis were chosen from a series of eight roadside points found to best represent all of the longest duration and focused views of the analysis area. They also represent the areas of highest potential usage from the road, thus providing an increased viewing opportunity. The viewpoints selected for analysis are points 001, 002, and 005. Viewpoint 001 is located roadside, adjacent to a farm and residence along Lily Pond Road. It peers with a semi-superior viewshed nearly due east, across and into the project area. Viewpoint 001 provides middle to background views of the project area (Figure 3.3-1).

Figure 3.3-1. Photo Viewpoint 001. Lily Pond Road. WMNF photo by Ken Allen.

Viewpoint 002 is located at the school parking lot, east of Lily Pond Road and west of Lime Kiln Road, within the NH Route 25 corridor. It provides a spectacular open view of the western facing mountain sides of the project area and beyond to Mount Moosilauke from a baseline elevation. Viewpoint 002 provides middleground views of the project area (Figure 3.3-2).

60 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.3-2. Photo Viewpoint 002. School Parking Lot. WMNF photo by Ken Allen. Viewpoint 005 is located at the farm on Flat Iron Road, east of Lime Kiln Road. The viewshed provides relatively close and undisturbed middlegound views of the northern to central portions of the project area. Although viewpoint 005’s location is not as frequented as some of the other viewpoints, it provided a different perspective from the others and allowed the overall analysis to be all- encompassing, with the best range of distance zones and view angles sampled (Figure 3.3-3).

Figure 3.3-3. Photo Viewpoint 005. Farm on Flat Iron Road. WMNF photo by Ken Allen.

Views from within the analysis area on trails and from peaks or openings were discarded after initial analysis. They did not provide much, if any, view due to reasons such as not being the correct viewing direction or not being within the viewshed of the project area or having foreground topographic or vegetative barriers obstructing any potential views. Thinning and single tree selection treatments result in naturally-appearing stands; they are barely noticeable from foreground views and not noticeable at all from middleground and background views. Group selection openings are not expected to be noticeable from the viewpoints due to the angle of the line of site (repose) combined with the leading edge of untreated vegetation conceal- ing the small-scale openings. When considering the distances from the three viewpoints analyzed, these small openings should be very difficult to detect. This analysis, therefore, concentrates on the scenic effects of the alternatives in which clearcut and overstory removal treatments are proposed, and which are visible from the viewpoints. The timeframe for effects is 20 years, as it allows all of the harvest openings to fully restock, put on a full canopy of vegetation, and reach a height of enough significance to allow the shadow and textural differences to begin to blend with the adjacent surroundings as seen from a typical viewing distance by the casual observer. Visibility of Treated Areas and Landscape Features Views differ according to their location, elevation, proximity to the units, and the project area’s aspect of the slope. The intensity of scenic impact of a view is affected by the duration of the view while traveling along a route. From a

61 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

stationary viewpoint, the intensity 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. Where views of openings are afforded, the leading edge of the trees along the opening, and any reserve patches designed within the opening, would partially block some to all of the opening from view. Again, viewsheds blocked with leading edge vegetation depend greatly upon the viewpoint, the elevation of the viewpoint, and the aspect of slope the opening is on. For example, from viewpoint 005 on Flat Iron Road (closest of the three viewpoints) stand 1-25 is 1.5 miles distant. Due to the lack of elevation of the viewpoint as compared to the elevation of the stand, angle of the slope, direction of the slope, and the leading edge vegetation; of the 11 acres open, less than approximately 9 acres are seen. For all stands, from all of the viewpoints, acreages visible (seen) estimates will always be less than the total acres treated (even if only slightly) due to natural screening by topographic features, leading edge vegetation of the viewed opening, and by any reserve areas placed within these openings that would create additional visual barriers. Field observations, photographs, and GPS points were taken from viewpoints during the winter of 2009. GIS 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 what stands in the project area would be visible from that given point. This GIS-created map (visibility model) was produced with contrasting colors representing areas of visibility and those blocked from view. The stand boundaries were overlaid to allow further analysis as to which of the proposed openings (clearcuts and overstory removals) fall within the visible area for that particular viewpoint. (See Visibility Maps 001, 002 and 005, Figures 3.3-4, -5, and -6.) Viewpoint photographs and GPS points were then analyzed, cross referenced, and coordinated with simulated terrain models. The areas evaluated by the models closely match the viewshed, elevation, and distance of those in the panoramic photographs (depiction was matched as closely as technologically possible). The stand boundaries were then overlaid onto the terrain of the three dimensional model and colored to allow a simulated view of the proposed treatment on the simulated landscape from the viewpoint. With these data, it was possible to visualize the view from the viewpoints and determine how the landscape would appear in the future following the proposed treatments in each action alternative. (See Visual Simulation models 001, 002, and 005, Figures 3.3-7, -8, and -9.)

62 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.3-4. Visibility Map 001.

¹ Visibility Map Legend Oliverian Timber Treatments clear cuts Not Visible Visible

Figure 3.3-5. Visibility Map 002.

6 5

0 7

2/13/2009 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.3-6. Visibility Map 005.

005 )" 9 004 )" 1

6 003 )" 002 5 )"

0 006 )" 7 001 )"

007 )" 4

") oliverian_gpspts

Oliverian Timber Treatments

Clear Cuts Not Visible Visible

3/5/2009 Viewpoint 001 provides middle to background viewsheds, with the closest proposed visible opening of concern, stand 1-21, being in the middleground. It is located in the northwest corner of the project area and is 3.6 miles distant. The furthest stands of concern are 2-5 and 2-4 and are in the background of the viewshed. Both stands are at 4.5 miles distant and located in the northern central portion of the project area (Figure 3.3-7). Figure 3.3-7. Visual Simulation Model 001.

64 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.3-8. Visual Simulation Model 002. Viewpoint 002 provides strong middleground viewsheds, with the closest proposed opening of concern being stand 2-3. It is located in the central to western portion of the project area and is 3.4 miles distant. The furthest stands of concern are again 2-5 and 2-4, and are both 3.9 miles distant from the viewpoint (Figure 3.3-8). Viewpoint 005 provides a very close middleground viewshed. Some would think of it as foreground, since it appears closer than reality due to the lack of any foreground barrier that would create depth of field. The closest proposed opening of concern, stand 1-21, appears at only 1.1 miles distant. By definition of viewsheds, viewpoint 005 is actually over 1/2 mile into the range of middleground viewsheds (1/2–4 miles). The furthest stand of concern is stand 2-4, 2.2 miles distant from the viewpoint, not even halfway into the middleground viewshed’s range of depth (Figure 3.3-9). The remaining five viewpoints, that ranged the entire length of the project area and beyond, were not analyzed any further as they provided little difference in distance zones from those viewpoints chosen, had limited to no visibility into the project area, were repetitive of other viewsheds, short in viewing duration, indirect, or a combination of those reasons previously stated.

65 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.3-9. Visual Simulation Model 005. Meeting Scenic Integrity Objectives of the Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are identified in the Forest Plan and this project area falls into sensitivity levels of Very High, High, and Moderate. There are some stands in the project area that cross more than one SIO and are analyzed by the acreage that falls into each SIO. See the Scenic Integrity Objective Map for a visual representation of the project area overlaid with the Scenic Integrity Objectives. The results are shown in Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -3. There are no effects on Scenic Integrity under Alternative 1, thus it is not listed nor analyzed in Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -3. Table 3.3-1. View Point 001.

Clearcut Dist Distance Zone Visible Scenic Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 3 Stands from Integrity Acre Acre Acre Acre View Objective Seen Seen PT 001 H ~5 Ac miles M ~10Ac 1-21 3.6 Middleground Partial Mod 15 ~8 15 ~8 1-25 4.0 Middleground Yes Mod 11 ~10 0 0 1-17 4.2 Background Yes Mod 6 ~6 6 ~6 2-5 4.5 Background Yes Mod / H 15 ~14 11 ~10 2-4 4.5 Background Yes Mod / H 29 ~26 22 ~10 & ~9 2-2 4.2 Background Yes Mod 20 ~19 15 ~9 & ~6

66 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Clearcut Dist Distance Zone Visible Scenic Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 3 Stands from Integrity Acre Acre Acre Acre View Objective Seen Seen PT 001 H ~5 Ac miles M ~10Ac 2-3 3.9 Middleground Partial Mod 27 ~25 22 ~10 & ~10 3-21 4.3 Background Yes Mod / H 30 ~28 29 ~17 & ~12 3-48 3.2 Middleground No High 8 0 8 0 4-19 5.4 Background No Mod 16 0 16 0 4-13 5.2 Background No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-39 5.5 Background No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-31 5.4 Background No Mod 11 0 11 0 4-33 5.2 Background No Mod / H 16 0 16 0 4-6 5.4 Background No Very H / H 13 0 13 0 4-41 5.6 Background No Very High 14 0 14 0

Table 3.3-2. View Point 002.

Clearcut Dist Distance Zone Visible Scenic Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 3 Stands from Integrity Acre Acre Acre Acre View Objective Seen Seen PT 002 H ~5 Ac miles M ~10Ac 1-21 3.0 Middleground No Mod 15 0 15 0 1-25 3.4 Middleground No Mod 11 0 0 0 1-17 3.6 Middleground No Mod 6 0 6 0 2-5 3.9 Middleground Yes Mod / H 15 ~14 11 ~10 2-4 3.9 Middleground Yes Mod / H 29 ~26 22 ~10 & ~9 2-2 3.7 Middleground Yes Mod 20 ~19 15 ~9 & ~6 2-3 3.4 Middleground Partial Mod 27 ~25 22 ~10 & ~10 3-21 3.7 Middleground Yes Mod / H 30 ~28 29 ~17 & ~12 3-48 2.8 Middleground No High 8 0 8 0 4-19 5.0 Background No Mod 16 0 16 0 4-13 4.8 Background No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-39 5.0 Background No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-31 5.0 Background No Mod 11 0 11 0 4-33 4.8 Background No Mod / H 16 0 16 0 4-6 5.0 Background No Very H / H 13 0 13 0 4-41 5.2 Background No Very High 14 0 14 0

67 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Table 3.3-3. View Point 005.

Clearcut Dist Distance Zone Visible Scenic Alt 2 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 3 Stands from Integrity Acre Acre Acre Acre View Objective Seen Seen PT 005 H ~5 Ac miles M ~10Ac 1-21 1.1 Middleground Partial Mod 15 ~1 15 ~1 1-25 1.5 Middleground Yes Mod 11 ~9 0 0 1-17 1.7 Middleground Yes Mod 6 ~5 6 ~5 2-5 2.0 Middleground Yes Mod / H 15 ~12 11 ~8 2-4 2.2 Middleground Yes Mod / H 29 ~23 22 ~8 & ~6 2-2 1.9 Middleground Yes Mod 20 ~17 15 ~7 & ~5 2-3 1.7 Middleground Partial Mod 27 ~18 22 ~9 & ~3 3-21 2.1 Middleground Yes Mod / H 30 ~24 29 ~15 & ~10 3-48 1.8 Middleground No High 8 0 8 0 4-19 3.3 Middleground No Mod 16 0 16 0 4-13 3.1 Middleground No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-39 3.5 Middleground No Mod 6 0 6 0 4-31 3.4 Middleground No Mod 11 0 11 0 4-33 3.5 Middleground No Mod / H 16 0 16 0 4-6 3.9 Middleground No Very H / H 13 0 13 0 4-41 4.0 Middleground No Very High 14 0 14 0

The proposed treatments under Alternatives 2 and 3, as shown in Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -3, list seen areas (acres) from the three key viewpoints (001, 002, 005) compared to the Forest Plan guidelines for the High and Moderate sensitivity levels (Forest Plan, pp 2-26, 2-27, S-1, S-2, G-1; and p. 3-6, G-1 to G-7). The Very High SIO was not further investigated as the visibility simulation models showed that the stands within the Very High SIO were not visible from any viewpoint in either alternative. Note: Compare Visibility Maps 001, 002, and 005 with Scenic Integrity Map (Figure 3.3-10). Forest Plan guidelines (Forest Plan p 3-6, G-3) for High sensitivity levels suggest that a maximum observed size of 4–5 acres are visible for created openings from key vantage points. In Moderate sensitivity levels (Forest Plan p 3-8, G-5), the guideline states that observed acreages of approximately 10 acres normally achieve a Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective. The Forest Plan also states that “observed opening acreages will vary under different situations and in relationship to the viewing position” (Forest Plan 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. Each stand needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Stands that are prescribed as

68 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.3-10. Scenic Integrity Map.

69 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

clearcuts and overstory removals for Alternatives 2 and 3, listed in Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -3, are the focus of the analysis, as these treatments create the most visual disturbances to the landscape for the longest duration of time. These guidelines, with the addition of viewpoint photography matched to visual simulation models and coordinated with visibility maps and cross referenced with the Scenic Integrity Objective Map, provided the interdisciplinary team with tools for discussions that resulted in a redesign of some units, the dropping of others, and prescription adjustments (design features) under Alternative 3. The redesign applies the best available science (silvicultural practices) to reasonably meet visual objectives. The use of design features such as adjustments to stand boundaries, splitting of stands to create more leading edge, and the addition of reserve areas, under Alternative 3 would greatly reduce the potential visual impacts these openings would have on the landscape as viewed from the key viewpoints. By taking acreage out from a high SIO and leaving the remaining acreage (that falls within a moderate SIO), the amount of allowable visible acreage increases by approximately 5 acres in this case. The allowable visible acreage increases because the stand would exist only within the moderate SIO, the reference changes from G-1 (high SIO) to G-4 (moderate SIO) of the Forest Plan guidelines. In order to maintain an overall environmental balance, each stand individually needs to be assessed but then also looked at as an entire proposal to visualize and calculate how the reductions in basal areas removed or not removed affects other ecological or environmental components of the proposal. An example of this rationale is demonstrated with stand 3-21 that had seen acres in both the Moderate SIO to the High SIO in Alternative 2. Based on issues identified by the ID Team, the District Ranger decided to remove the acreage that was in the High SIO from Alternative 3 (see Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -3). From viewpoint 001, the seen acres (split into two openings of approximately 17 and 12 acres each) are in the background at 4.3 miles distant. The same approximate amount of seen acres is visible from viewpoint 002, with a middleground view at 3.7 miles distant. Viewpoint 005 is also in the middleground and at 2.1 miles distant, but only approximately 15 and 10 acres remain visible due to the angle of the viewshed. The size of stand 3-21, 30 acres, would not substantially change the quality of the overall landscape because of its naturally-appearing, erratic boundary; the location in the landscape in relation to natural and previous openings and rock outcrops; the angle of repose; and the distance from the viewpoints. The ID team’s assessment found stand 3-21 meets Guideline G-4 for Moderate SIO, and would better meet silvicultural and wildlife objectives if not reduced significantly in size. This was a compromise in the overall Alternative 3 proposal, as the remaining stands were brought within a stricter interpretation of the guidelines due to their projected appearances on the overall landscape. From viewpoint 001, Alternative 2 has the most cumulative seen acres — approximately 136 acres. Viewpoint 002, Alternative 2, has 112 seen acres, and Viewpoint 005 totals 109 seen acres. In contrast, Alternative 3 shows a 21 percent reduction in seen acres from Viewpoint 001, with 107 seen acres. Alternative 3, viewpoint 002, shows a 17 percent reduction with 93 seen acres. Viewpoint

70 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

005 in Alternative 3 has the greatest reduction, with a 29 percent decrease in seen acres, leaving a total of 77 seen acres remaining. The individual stands are accessed for compliance with the guidelines (amount of allowable seen acres) in Tables 3.3-1, -2, and -5. Part of the reason Viewpoint 005 shows the least amount of seen acres and greatest percent reduction is due to its proximity to the stands. One would naturally assume the closer the viewpoint, the more that would be visible. But that is not true in this case because the foreground vegetation acts as a natural visual barrier. More of the openings are hidden by the leading edges of the stands as well as the angle they are viewed from, assisted further by the aspect of the slope in which the stands are situated on the landscape. Design features incorporated into stands 2-5, 2-4, 2-2, 2-3, and 3-21 in Alternative 3 follow Forest Plan guidelines for SIO, resulting in the significant reduction in total and individual stand seen acreages. Those stands included in Alternatives 2 and 3 that would potentially exceed SIO guidelines if visible (yet are not from any of the three viewpoints) are 3-48, 4-19, 4-31, 4-33, 4-6, and 4-41. In both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, from viewpoint 002 only, stands 1-21, 1-25, and 1-17 are not visible. Although these stands may be visible from other viewpoints (that were not further assessed), not being visible from key viewpoints equates to meeting SIO guidelines. Stands 1-21, 1-25, and 1-17 are visible from viewpoints 001 and 005, but do not exceed SIO guidelines. In Alternatives 2 and 3, seen acres in stand 1-21, from viewpoint 001 are less than 8 acres, and from viewpoint 005 less than 1 seen acre. Due to the change in angles and distance, viewing stand 1-17 from viewpoint 001 to viewpoint 005 (in both Alternative 2 and 3) results in less than 6 acres seen from viewpoint 001 compared to less than 5 acres seen from viewpoint 005. All three stands are within Forest Plan guidelines for a Moderate SIO (approximately 10 seen acres in this case). Stand 1-25 is within the guidelines for a Moderate SIO in Alternative 2 from viewpoints 001 and 005 and need not be assessed any further. It was, however, removed from Alternative 3 by the ID team during discussion in response to a hydrology-related issue. Two stands (4-13 and 4-39) do not exceed the SIO, are not visible from any of the viewpoints, and required no further examination or mitigation by the ID team. Both are 6-acre clearcuts and remain in both alternatives. The stands with proposed prescriptions other than clearcuts, overstory removals, or large group opening are not significantly contributing to the overall seen open acres of the two action alternatives, and are therefore analyzed only briefly in the following sections. Effects on Scenery Along New Hampshire Route 25 Background Driving for scenic enjoyment is very popular among the visitors of the White Mountain National Forest. Views of the forest and mountains, exposed rock faces, and water features account for this popularity. Fall foliage, viewed from along the roads of the Forest, is considered by some to be second to none. The scenery changes throughout the year, creating beautiful seasonal highlights, and accentuating the colors and patterns of the views.

71 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

When assessing the effects on scenery from the vehicular traveler’s visual perspective, the major factors include the angle of repose (perspective from driving or riding positions in a vehicle), direction of the view (direct or indirect to the viewer), and the duration of the view resulting from movement and speed. The viewable area is limited by these factors. For this section. all of the Route 25 viewpoints are taken into account, not just the three viewpoints analyzed for the clearcuts and overstory removal stands. Presently, the overall visual experience for the casual observer while driving the project area is of an attractive pattern of vegetation. Colors, shades, shadows, and textures combine to create this vegetated mosaic. The more unique and visually interesting features of the project area include the details of Owls Head Cliff and the views of the mountains exposed by the open agricultural areas in the foreground of the project area. Near Owls Head Cliff, the road is bordered with a forested corridor. The southern boundary of the project area, following NH Route 25 (particularly from east to west), only provides a few openings through which to see the cliff and mountainsides. The traveler may occasionally notice extended views of adjacent landscapes beyond the road corridor where limited distant views of upper elevation mountains become evident. With roadside vegetation fairly close to the pavement in the southeastern section, the sensation experienced by those in vehicles is that of a partial sense of enclosure. This vegetated corridor is considered by some to be a trademark of New England landscapes. The broad and deep views are from west of the project area, traveling east through the agricultural areas. The openness and lack of tall foreground vegetation allows for sweeping views of the middle- and background landscape. Alternative 1 There would be no changes to this landscape under this alternative. Alternatives 2-3 The visual experience resulting from implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be noticeably different from the roadside as the treatments and features related to the harvesting are visibly reduced from one alternative to another as discussed earlier. Alternative 3 provides a 17–29 percent reduction in proposed open seen acres over Alternative 2 (depending upon the viewpoint). The reductions take place in the northern central portion of the project area, on the mid to upper slopes as viewed from Route 25. The majority of the other treatment types in both alternatives retain a substantial portion of the existing stand but reduce the stand density. This is not overly noticeable from the viewsheds at their distances as viewed from the west. Clearcuts such as in stands 2-3, 3-21, 2-2, 2-4, and 2-5 do share borders with previous harvest openings. This will both emphasize the new opening and at the same time allow them to blend into the working forest mosaic. Although this would not be visually attractive initially, it is within the historic character for the surrounding landscape. Due to the vegetation and topography along and just behind the southern boundary of the project area (road corridor), much of the treatments proposed in the 2 action alternatives would not be visible or noticeable from the south or

72 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment east. Those openings visible would be seen for a short duration while driving, and from an indirect view. Clearcuts would also be present as a proposed treatment within this project area; however, their affect would be partially mitigated in Alternative 3 from Route 25 due to the angle of repose and the foreground topography, and vegetation blocking a portion of the visible harvest openings. The clearcut units most noticeable and visible to the vehicular traveler would be seen from a straight section of the highway (Viewpoint 002) peering directly toward, looking east-northeast at stands 2-5, 2-4, 2-2, 2-3, and 3-21. The stands all fall under the Moderate and High Sensitivity Level in Alternative 2, and Moderate only in Alternative 3, due to stand design modification and reductions. The Forest Plan guidelines allow for up to a maximum of 10 acres being visible in Moderate SIO and up to 5 acres in High SIO. Alternative 2 does not meet SIO guidelines. Alternative 3 meets the guidelines, and its stands fall below the maximum allowable acreage visible with one exception, stand 3-21, which was intentionally allowed to exceed the guidelines for wildlife and silvicultural purposes. The visibility of these stands 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 and season for much longer into the future. The casual observer would probably stop noticing the opening as a distinct feature after approximately 15–20 years of regeneration. This has been verified with personal interviews of visitors at Mt Washington, Iron Mountain, and Attitash Ski Area during 2003 to 2006; and from the UNH trail and Sugar Hill Overlook in 2008 during research for the Kanc 7 Management Project. None of the interviewed visitors considered the 15 to 30-year-old viewed openings as an unnatural scene, despite the changed color, texture, and shadows, nor could they explain what they were seeing once the texture change was pointed out. The keen eye may notice a shadow created by the difference in height between the top of canopy of the newly grown vegetation and the far edge of the previously existing (taller) timber. Sun angles or during certain kinds of weather may fade these shadow “lines” and go generally unnoticed to the casual observer with a quick glance. Single tree selection (STS) is the least visually invasive of all the treatments (stands 1-1, 1-5, and 1-18). The only stand actually visible from sections of Route 25 is 1-18, and even that is in the background. This treatment results in a naturally-appearing stand with a mosaic of size classes and species of trees. Diseased trees are often removed to favor thriving mature and young trees, reducing the number of trees competing for sun and water and resulting in improved health. Most travelers would perceive the treated areas as nearly the same as they had been, and the harvest would probably go unnoticed by all but the very keen observer. Within a few years the treated areas would present the appearance of healthy mature trees and young thrifty understory regeneration where sunlight reaches the forest floor. Views of the forest in the treated areas would be of a more open forest condition until the developing regeneration attains a height of twenty feet. Within the 20 year analysis timeframe, this regeneration would include a variety of species with continuity of color, shadow, and texture, blending into the existing vegetative mosaic.

73 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The traveler would not experience noticeable adverse effects related to visual quality. Within the first season, these areas would benefit from a slightly more open, healthier overall appearance. There would be continuity of color, shadow, and texture, blending with the existing vegetative mosaic. Due to the visual disturbances being minimized and mitigated with design features and practices, there would also be no significant adverse affects to the overall Scenic Integrity. Some people may actually prefer the slightly more open appearance of the treated stands to that of the existing condition, if they notice it at all. Similar to that of the single tree selection, only close or roadside group selection/ STS stands would be immediately visible to the traveler. The group selections are small openings, so the scenic impact is greater than that of an STS treatment alone. Stand 3-19 is the only stand meeting this qualification, and is only partially visible from Route 25, for a few moments and indirectly, while traveling. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the group selection/STS stands outside the road corridor and in middleground toward background viewsheds, such as 3-14, 1-4, 1-19, and 2-13, should not be overly noticeable from the road and therefore would not affect the vehicular traveler. Group selection treatment stands are typically limited to very small openings. Even though stands 3-52 and 3-15 are near the roadside, it is only for a short viewable duration. Through the use of design features, the groups would be laid out away from the highway and out of view of the traveler. Following the second to third year of growth, the openings partially visible or noticeable would provide the benefit of diversity to the landscape in this area. When properly located and laid out in combination with the other groups in the project area, the visual impacts can be relatively small. Again, design prac tices would provide buffers where necessary, and the alignment of the groups would be coordinated such that the casual observer would only notice a change in lighting, shadowing, and openness but not see it as a significant disturbance (such as in stand 3-7). Other stands in a middleground and distant viewshed where groups are pre scribed (i.e., 1-8, 2-9, 2-15, 2-6, 2-17) would not likely have great visual impact from Route 25. Due to the distance from the highway observer, movement at speed, and the angle of repose, the majority of these openings may not be overly apparent to the casual observer. If noticed they may appear more as textural and shadow differences rather than openings on the landscape. Larger groups may be more apparent and create a stronger impression than smaller groups. None of the stands in the southeastern corner of the project area are visible from Route 25. Thinning treatments, like a single tree selection, create a visual reduction in the density of the stand, and leave the stand with a more uniform look. Again, the design practices would leave the visible stands appearing as they have been improved for forest health by reducing density. After a short-term disruption, the area would have a very clean, attractive appeal with intentional enhanced visibility. The stands to be thinned that are partially visible and closest to Route 25, potentially affecting the appearance of the viewshed along the road, include stands 3-50, 3-34, 3-49, 3-16, and 3-17. The stands would barely appear to have been treated except to the keen eye for several years following the stand density

74 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

treatment. As with STS, thinning stands draws positive attention from those that prefer the slightly more open appearance of the treated area to that of the high density in the existing condition. Foreground vegetation in all likelihood would obscure a good portion of the treatment in the lower, flatter areas. From the highway observer’s distance, there would be little visual impact noticeable. For those in closer proximity and more than likely on foot, the feeling of openness created by this treatment would also add to the scenic quality and interest of the landscape. These treatments should have little to no bearing on the overall visual quality in the action alternatives as they would mostly go unnoticed. Because shelterwood treatments would be in the middleground and retain a fair amount of basal area and canopy, they may not appear as stark a change on the landscape as an overstory removal but would appear more open compared with single tree and thinning prescriptions. In stands where prescribed fire is also to be applied, the combination of remaining canopy and remaining basal area of vegetation would mask the ash and charring left below. The viewsheds should not be significantly affected, nor should these treatments present anything more than a slight change to the overall appearance of the landscape from a middleground distance. Within the 20 year analysis timeframe, regeneration would obscure the blackened trunks and replace ground cover, blending into the existing vegetative mosaic of neighboring stands. Effects on Views from Trails The discussions above regarding the effects and appearances of various proposed silvicultural prescriptions along Route 25 apply also to the experiences that hikers might have along the trails. All of the prescriptions described above are proposed along or near one or another of the trails. Efforts were taken during project planning to leave uncut areas (buffers) along trails and to reduce the marking and cutting intensity when in close proximity to trails. Design features described and alternative descriptions in Chapter 2 provide perspective on the harvest prescriptions and protections planned under each alternative. Chapter 3.1, Recreation, provides additional detail on the expected outcomes of the proposed treatments on each of the affected trails. These descriptions support a position here that the scenic effects of the treatments on the user experience would be acceptable. While evidence of harvesting and an occasional skid trail crossing a hiking trail to reach a landing may occur, regrowth would begin to obscure the changes in approximately five years time (see Trail Buffer Sketch, figure 3.3-11). Since most of the harvest along trails is group cutting, the affect on foreground scenery along trails would be a more open forest condition. Within approximately five years, evidence of the harvest would begin to be muted by natural processes that occur as forest vegetation grows back. Forbs and new trees would begin to obscure any previously visible skid trails and stumps, and tree crowns would fill openings in the canopy. Overall, appearance of the forest adjacent to the trails would be of a healthy, vigorous and more open forest for fifteen to twenty years. Ground foliage and young trees growing into the middle layer of the forest after this period would return appearances along these trails to a condition similar to that presently experienced.

75 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.3-11. Sketch of Trail Buffer.

The recreation analysis, in trail-by-trail effects statements (Chapter 3.1), shows that harvest of adjacent areas would temporarily alter the character of the affected portion of each trail. It is anticipated that within 20 years the treatments would be fairly unnoticeable due to their relative positions on the landscape, the use of uneven harvest boundaries along a trail, and the rapid growth of vegetation in harvested areas. A 50 to 100 foot slash disposal zone (depending on slope and remaining basal area) around a trail would reduce scenic impacts from these trails. Beyond the areas proposed for harvest, the character of the other portions of these trails would remain unchanged.

76 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Effects of Owls Head Trailhead Parking The design of the parking area under Alternative 2 would accommodate 14 passenger vehicles and incorporates a turnaround loop that could allow an RV or emergency vehicle to stop. The area would be paved with asphalt and include an outhouse-style restroom (vault toilet), picnic table, garbage can, and informational kiosk. The topography in the proposed location is lower than the road and would be easily masked with vegetation, obscuring any view of the parked vehicle from travelers on Route 25. Alternative 3 has a more limited design, accommodating up to seven passenger vehicles and includes only a small kiosk (no vault toilet). The surface would be gravel. Again, the topographical change between the road and the proposed parking is low enough, and the addition of vegetation would easily disguise the parking area. There would be no significant visual impact created by the installation of either alternative’s design. Most users of Route 25 would drive by at the normal road speed and not take notice of the parking area. Advance warning signs would be necessary to inform drivers of its existence and the potential of vehicles braking, entering, or exiting the location. Those stopping to use the space would benefit from a stationary, direct, and mostly unobscured view of Owls Head Cliff framed by the brookside vegetation. Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

Scenery from Viewpoints The cumulative effects analysis area includes landscape views into the project area from the same viewpoints mentioned above, and analysis of existing harvested openings and wildlife openings within the project area. The timeframe is the same as for direct and indirect effects for the same reasons. Existing openings are included, as some are intended to be maintained in an open condition for wildlife purposes or agriculture (on abutting lands). The new growth’s green color and texture conceals evidence of past harvest to the average forest visitor, the young tree leaves already providing a lush layer of green foliage and thick stem density. 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 of slope. Based on previous WMNF experience, management actions quickly re-forest, returning to a green color within two to three years. The proposed clearcuts would be very noticeable to the casual observer primarily during that period. Other man-made features noticeable from Route 25 and from the analyzed viewpoints include various sections of Route 25, surrounding agricultural lands, a prominent utility corridor, and previous timber harvests. These openings appear as normal features and add to the diverse landscape (except that the utility corridor, with its hard linear features, stands out as unnatural). Existing openings from past harvests are marginally evident when viewed from 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. Although there is a shadow line evident, the vegetation looks natural to most casual observers.

77 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

When closer than three miles, these former openings are quite noticeable, especially in the winter. But they appear as texture and shadow changes that mostly blend with the existing historic landscape during the rest of the seasons. Openings that pose a cumulative effect include 1990s clearcuts harvested on the slopes in and near the project area that can be seen from the surrounding roads and viewpoints. These openings are most noticeable in winter from Route 25 and other nearby travelways, farms, the school, and residences. There are no cumulative effects under Alternative 1 because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Total acres viewed for Alternatives 2 and 3 fall below the Forest Plan recommended threshold of 4 percent (Forest Plan p 3-6, G-1). Under the action alternatives, cumulative scenic effects of newly created openings would blend with the existing landscape to a great extent, becoming nearly unnoticeable when leaves are on the hardwoods. Finally, the ability of new forest regeneration to grow and occupy the newly created openings, along with careful placement on the landscape, would ensure that the scenery will remain significantly intact under either of the alternatives. Cumulative Effects to Trails and NH Route 25 The cumulative effects to scenery along the trails and Route 25 are the same for each alternative as the direct and indirect effects disclosed above. The trails are buffered, except where intentional views for recreational diversity are left open. No other projects are known or planned on the National Forest or adjacent private land that would cause new or additional cumulative effects with this proposed action.

78 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.4 Vegetation Executive Summary This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the three alternatives on the vegetation resource. Under Alternative 1, No Action, trees would respond to natural conditions and would move toward a climax type forest. Shade intolerant species would be replaced with more shade tolerant trees. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, trees would be harvested and would either provide room for other existing older trees to grow, conditions for new trees to germinate, or space for young trees to grow (see Table 3.4.1). Affected Environment Within the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area of the Oliverian HMU, northern hardwood forest predominates (69 percent). Species composition, site factors, and other resource values have been examined for each stand to determine if management is appropriate, whether even-aged or uneven-aged management would be the most desirable management strategy, and which silvicultural treatment would best fit the current condition and the site-specific desired future condition of the stand examined. Portions of the project area are former pastures and croplands, cleared in the 1800s. These areas now contain much of the oak-pine habitat: as the fields and pastures reverted to forest, white pine and red oak colonized the open space and gained a foothold. There is recorded history of natural and human-caused fire in the project area. Portions of the nearby Jeffers and Blueberry mountains have burned, and it is likely that the pastures and hayfields were intentionally burned by landowners in the past. Historical descriptions of Native American activities near the Town of Haverhill include the use of fire (Powers 1841). Many of the stands within MA 2.1 in the Oliverian HMU that have been identified for vegetative treatment are well-stocked mature northern hardwood, oak-pine, mixed hardwoods, aspen-birch, or mixedwood stands (see project record for the existing condition of stands identified for treatment). These stands contain trees that are approaching an age where mortality is imminent, or are of low timber quality because of a damaged component within the branches or stem. This means that the stands are at least 60 years old for the hardwoods, and 40 years old for the softwoods and aspen-birch. According to the Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (Leak et al. 1987) and the Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised) (Safford 1983), harvesting trees and controlling stocking in these stands would improve the quality and vigor of the remaining trees. Since these lands came into public ownership, they have avoided conversion to other uses such as house lots. There has also been an opportunity to manage stands over long time periods, resulting in high quality sawtimber. There are no large industrial timber operations adjacent to the project area. Tree mortality due to insect and disease is minimal in the Oliverian HMU. Borer damage to sugar maple is occasional, while much of the beech in all of the stands proposed for treatment suffers from beech bark disease Nectria( ditissima).

79 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The Oliverian project area has long been actively managed for wood products due to its capability to regenerate and sustainably produce crop trees. Logging has played an important role in the White Mountains since the 19th century, and present vegetative conditions are largely the result of historical logging practices, previous agricultural use, and more recent silvicultural activities. There is no documentation or other evidence that this area was ever considered prime farmland, although there is evidence of homesteads. Some of these same areas are still maintained as wildlife openings, which are mowed or burned periodically to keep them open. Historically, harvest operations have been scheduled by calendar dates established by seasonal weather patterns and/or resource or silvicultural requirements. For example, fall and winter operations are required when dry or frozen ground conditions are necessary to protect soil and water resources, or in partial cuts where frozen conditions are necessary to minimize bark damage on residual trees (trees are more susceptible to bark damage in summer). Summer is chosen when operations on non-frozen ground are required to create a seedbed necessary to establish regeneration of particular tree species, where soils can support equipment without adverse effects, or where harvest prescriptions would remove all trees from a site. Today, operations occur when site conditions are appropriate. For example, winter harvest may take place in November instead of December if the ground is sufficiently frozen. Conversely, harvesting operations would be halted if conditions are unsuitable or become unsuitable, even during a “winter” month. Calendar dates established to protect nesting wildlife, however, do not change. As in the past, harvesting operations would be overseen by a Timber Sale Administrator, a Forest Service employee with the authority to halt timber sale operations at any time to protect resources. Measuring Effects to Timber Resources The relevant timber element for the Oliverian Stewardship project is forest health and productivity, which refers to the mix of stand conditions such as age, density, diversity, and land suitability that contribute to the stand’s suscep- tibility to damage and disease and its ability to thrive with optimum growth. Measuring effects to forest health and productivity is a qualitative prediction, based on the typical vegetative responses to various silvicultural treatments, other proposed activities, or natural forces as described below. Road decommissioning would have no measurable effects on timber resources in the analysis timeframe, because the roads proposed for decommissioning have mostly revegetated and returned to forest productivity. The 2005 Forest Plan used best available science to develop goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for vegetation management on the White Mountain National Forest. The analysis used to evaluate affects on vegetation for the Oliverian Stewardship Project incorporates by reference information from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (pp 3-73 through 3-164), as well as literature cited in this report.

80 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on timber resources is the Management Area (MA) 2.1 lands within the Oliverian HMU. This analysis area was chosen because MA 2.1 lands are the National Forest lands within the HMU where vegetation management using various silvicultural techniques is appropriate and allowed. Any noticeable direct and indirect effects on timber resources would be in and near the harvested stands. The MA 6.1 lands within the Oliverian HMU are not subject to vegetation management. The analysis area encompasses approximately 4,091 acres of the 7,490 acres of National Forest land within the HMU. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects on timber resources is up to twenty years after the proposed activities occur on the ground. This time period was chosen because it represents the length of time for regeneration to become established in the understory. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, no silvicultural activities would occur. All stands would continue to grow and mature in their present condition. Trees would eventually die from natural forces such as competition from other trees, weather damage, forest insects or disease, age, or a combination of these. Conditions for the germination and establishment of shade-intolerant tree species could be created, or release of shade-tolerant tree species previously established in the stand would replace the trees that have succumbed to natural mortality. Over a long period of time, the stands would begin to resemble a climax vegetation type (not within the timeframe of this analysis). There would be a species shift from stands containing paper birch, red maple, white pine, balsam fir, white ash, red oak, and aspen to stands dominated by American beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, or red spruce. Even beyond this, species conversion would continue to occur, and stands largely dominated by American beech could eventually be realized throughout the project area. Natural mortality, weather events, and insect and disease attacks could influence the succession of the forest by temporarily providing forest openings of varying sizes that would encourage establishment of less shade-tolerant species. Older trees would die and the remaining healthy trees would grow larger. Shorter-lived species (aspen, balsam fir, paper birch) would grow older and eventually succumb to natural mortality. The remaining trees in the stands would also eventually grow older and die. This process would continue and the wood products, only available from these trees while they are alive, would not be harvested and put to use. As trees reached maturity and grew old, they would become more susceptible to attack from forest insects and diseases. As stands progressed into maturity and began to experience widespread age-related mortality, they would become less able to withstand ice and wind events. These events would expedite mortality in the stand and facilitate insect and disease occupation in the trees already stressed by age and damage from weather events. Tree mortality would occur in small pockets or over larger acreages of the project area. Overall stand vigor might decline, and timber quality would decline, because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone.

81 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Dominant and co-dominant oaks in the overstory of oak stands would continue to control site conditions in these stands. However, without periodic disturbance and silvicultural treatments to reduce competition from other faster growing hardwood tree species, the forest floor would be too shaded for oak and pine seed to germinate and become established in the stand. The indirect effect of no action would be continuation of the gradual conversion of oak stands to mixed hardwood and mixedwood stands, and eventually oak would not be a component of the stand. Silvicultural prescriptions that would increase growth rates on selected quality sawtimber trees with the use of timber harvesting would not be implemented. Neither the Forest Plan goal nor the Oliverian purpose and need for providing high quality sawtimber and other wood products on a sustained yield basis would be achieved. A direct effect of Alternative 1 is that no regeneration age stands would be created. An indirect effect of Alternative 1 is that the stands in the project area would continue to age. With each year that passes there would be a shift among the trees and the stands to the older age classes. That would continue the overall trend of few stands in the regenerating age classes being represented in the project area and in the Forest. Most stands currently are in the mature age class. Alternative 2 Implementing Alternative 2, the proposed action, would maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions and improve species composition by specifically increasing the amount of aspen-birch and northern hardwood regeneration-age class, which is a desired future condition (see HMU Rationale in project record). Alternative 2 would also increase the amount of oak-pine in the project area. Much of the vegetation in the Oliverian project area has been managed in the past, most recently in the mid-1990s. A variety of harvest methods were used. Stands planned for group selection (653 acres) would have “groups” (small regeneration cuts) 1/10 acre to 2 acres in size located variably throughout the stand. Group selection is an uneven aged silvicultural treatment; as practiced on the White Mountain National Forest, it is used to regenerate approximately 20 percent of the acreage of the stand with each management entry. Each future entry into the stand would treat an additional 20 percent of the stand area. After 5 entries of group selection, 100 percent of the stand would be regenerated, with five distinct forest age-classes occurring in 1/10 acre to 2 acre pockets throughout the stand. In some stands in the project area, group selection has been applied in past projects, the current proposal would continue this uneven- aged silvicultural treatment. Group selection can cater to regeneration of a broad mix of shade-intolerant, intermediate, and shade-tolerant tree species. Nearly all the species currently represented in the stored seed mix, or those originating from nearby seed trees, would have an opportunity to germinate and grow in these varied light conditions. There would be some variation in species mix from year to year due to seed periodicity and seed dispersal. Present advanced regeneration in the areas designated for group selection treatment would be strongly represented immediately following treatment, and would comprise the majority of the initial seedling and sapling stocking of the group.

82 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Stands planned for single tree selection (120 acres), would release or regenerate hardwood and softwood tree species by focusing on the removal of older and lower quality trees from the stand. In these stands, a portion of the trees would be cut and removed to stimulate regeneration and to harvest defective, declining, or mature trees currently in the stand. Approximately 1/3 of the stocking would be removed to create space and provide light for tree seeds to germinate and for young trees to grow. Trees would be cut from all age classes, leaving stands of trees of various ages and diameters and a dense understory of tree regeneration and other woody plants. Over time, residual tree growth and new-growth would fill in and return the stand to full stocking. The residual stand would restrict and filter sunlight so that the treatment would favor shade-tolerant plants. There would be a shift in species toward American beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, white ash, and red spruce. Eventually, shade-intolerant tree species, such as aspen, and paper birch, would be eliminated from the population of the stand. Single-tree selection, an uneven-aged silvicultural treatment, would allow managers to improve the quality of shade-tolerant growing stock. American beech trees that are afflicted beech bark disease, sugar maple trees affected by the sugar maple borer, and trees with significant physical damage to their crowns or stems would be harvested and removed from the stand. Trees not affected by insects or disease with healthy stems and crowns would be retained. 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 among the species population of the stand. In stands planned for group and single tree selection (290 acres), group selection would occur on up to 20% of the acreage of the stand with single tree selection occurring throughout the remainder of the stand (in between the groups). This treatment would be utilized in stands where neither group selection nor single tree selection alone would adequately treat the current conditions in the stand. Group and single tree selection would release or regenerate the stand completely by focusing on the removal of older, lower quality trees, or short-rotation tree species (aspen, balsam fir, paper birch). Even though single tree selection would occur throughout the remainder of the stand, group selection would remain a viable management option for stand treatment in future projects. In some areas of the stand, group selection would promote a mix of faster- growing hardwood species, including paper birch, yellow birch, aspen, and white ash, while the single tree selection would promote American beech, sugar maple, white ash, yellow birch, and northern red oak. These treatments would maintain an uneven-aged stand, leading to greater diversity of age classes while promoting the regeneration of an array of tree species. Species diversity would be enhanced by retaining all advance regeneration, where present. One example of a stand condition where group and single tree selection would be applied is in Stand 15/2 (see Map 2-1), a mixed hardwood stand comprised of sugar maple, American beech, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen, white ash, and red maple. Groups would be located around areas more heavily dominated by mature paper birch and aspen (short-lived species) or areas of trees heavily affected with health and quality defects. The single tree selection would target aspen and paper birch for removal from areas more heavily dominated by other long-lived hardwood species. Single tree selection would also target mature

83 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

trees and trees heavily affected with health and quality defects for removal from the stand. Upon completion of group and single tree selection, an uneven-aged condition and full regeneration of the stand would be fully realized. The stand would then be available for a variety of treatments in the next entry (approximately 15 years), including the use of group selection. Stands planned for seed tree (29 acres) and shelterwood (100 acres) treatments would attain growing conditions for tree species that have high–intermediate tolerance of shade. Shelterwood treatments can be effective in regenerating northern red oak and eastern white pine by leaving an average residual basal area of 40–60 square feet per acre, while the seed tree method can be effective by leaving an average residual basal area of 20–30 square feet per acre. Both the shelterwood and seed tree treatments would select the highest quality trees in the present stand to retain as residual trees. These residual trees would then have dual roles: to act as crop trees for future yield and to provide partial shade to the forest floor during the heat of the growing season, protecting oak and pine regeneration from sun scald and heat stress (as relates to direct sunlight). By reducing the basal area to 40–60 and 20–30 square feet per acre respectively, competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients among the residual crop trees would be reduced while also creating space on the forest floor to benefit present oak or pine seedlings and saplings, or conditions favorable for the successful germination of oak and pine seedlings (where oak and pine advanced regeneration presently does not occur). In Alternative 2, prescribed fire would be applied in the majority of oak-pine stands proposed for treatment. Northern red oak and eastern white pine require periodic disturbance in order to regenerate or maintain dominance in a stand. These habitat types are also well-adapted to fire. Fire is one form of disturbance that would give oak-pine seedlings and saplings the ability to compete with other faster growing hardwood regeneration. Mortality of trees presently stressed by insect, disease, or physical damage (wind and ice) may increase as a result of prescribed burning. Oak-pine is a less common habitat type on the WMNF. The treatment goal for these stands is to improve growing conditions for eastern white pine and northern red oak. Eastern white pine has the ability to colonize both open, disturbed sites, and small gaps in the overstory. In both cases, however, white pine would eventually be succeeded by more shade tolerant hemlock and northern hardwood species. White pine’s optimal regeneration occurs in areas with low levels of understory shade and exposed mineral soils. The proposed treatments would create these conditions, with an initial shelterwood or seed tree cut that leaves a partial overstory to promote seedling establishment, followed by a prescribed burn that would reduce the understory shade and remove accumulated leaf litter and logging slash from the ground. A spring burn would also help to control white pine cone beetle larvae incubating in dead cones on the forest floor. The prescribed burn would be timed to take advantage of a good white pine cone year so a maximum amount of seeds would be available to regenerate. Several low intensity fires may need to be applied to the site. Similar burns in other locations on the WMNF have proven effective at reducing understory competition and preparing a seedbed while minimizing damage to mature white pine trees (see project record).

84 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

The interruption of the natural fire regime in oak stands has been cited as the main reason for their decline in the East. Northern red oak is neither an aggressive colonizer, like aspen, nor a slow growing shade tolerant species, like sugar maple. Red oak relies on advanced regeneration to take advantage of gaps that appear in the canopy as a result of windthrow, timber harvest, or the mortality of competing vegetation from natural or prescribed fire. The treatment objective would be to create these conditions with an initial shelterwood or seed tree cut followed by a prescribed burn. The shelterwood or seed tree cut would increase light in the understory, improving conditions for oak establishment and regeneration without stimulating growth in more shade intolerant species. Prescribed fire would then be used to further reduce competing species occurring in the seedling/sapling layer, prepare a seedbed, and increase soil warming. An added benefit to fire would be the interruption of the curculio weevil lifecycle. Several applications of fire may be necessary for optimal results and achievement of objectives in these stands. A low to moderate intensity backing fire would be applied in the oak-pine stands, where flame lengths should not exceed 2 feet. Past experiences burning in similar oak-pine stands have shown relatively low mortality in the mature red oak and white pine trees, but some damage and crown scorch would be expected. The location of fire control lines, using the contour of the slope as a guide and implementing post-burn erosion control measures where needed, would minimize the short-term impact on exposed soil by preventing the erosion of topsoil, and would aid in reestablishing vegetation on the site. The prescribed burns would be conducted during the spring or fall months, when there is sufficient soil moisture to prevent soil damage and erosion. The highest priority before and during the prescribed burns is public and fire-fighter safety. A prescribed burn plan, written for each stand planned for prescribed fire treatment, would outline the goals and objectives of the treatment and explain how to safely and effectively achieve them. The burn plans would be reviewed and signed by a burn boss, the WMNF Fire Management Officer, and the District Ranger. Prior to implementing the prescribed burns, fire control lines would be placed around each stand which would, in conjunction with fire control pumps, hose lines, engines, and personnel, ensure that the prescribed burn remains controlled and any adjacent private land and structures remain protected. Similar prescribed burns in oak-pine habitat have been planned (in other projects) by the WMNF in the towns of Rumney, Ellsworth, and Warren, Grafton County, New Hampshire. Overstory removal is an integral final phase of the seed tree/shelterwood treatment. Stands planned for overstory removal (25 acres) would receive a full removal of the existing overstory of the stand. Upon one or two entries of a shelterwood treatment, or one entry of a seed tree treatment, overstory removal would be necessary to fully release the tree seedling and sapling re-generation that was stimulated from the prior seed tree/shelterwood treatment. The high quality growing stock that was retained in the shelterwood or seed tree treatment would be harvested, providing full sunlight and reduced resource competition for the advanced tree regeneration on site. One of the two stands in this project where overstory removal has been proposed (Stand 12/1) was

85 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

treated with a shelterwood treatment during the last management entry into the stand; the other stand in this project where overstory removal has been proposed (Stand 3/3) has not been treated in the past, but has a layer of desirable advanced regeneration growing beneath a mature overstory that would need to be removed for the understory to grow to full potential. Clearcuts (247 acres) are proposed in stands of low quality or mature trees to allow the next generation of trees the opportunity to grow at their full potential. Clearcutting is a silvicultural treatment that focuses on the removal of all the trees in a stand, promoting a mix of shade intolerant trees that require high levels of sunlight, such as aspen and paper birch. Paper birch requires large openings and full sunlight for successful germination and regeneration. It is intolerant of shade and competition from older trees, woody shrubs, and herbaceous species (Safford 1983). Stands planned for clearcutting are generally of poor quality or declining growth rates due to stand maturity. Harvesting these stands would provide regeneration-age forest habitat while salvaging timber value and promoting the regeneration of vigorous, fast-growing trees that can effectively use the site. A few species of woody or herbaceous vegetation that have seeds with a long period of dormancy, such as raspberry and pin cherry, would have an opportunity to germinate and become part of the ecosystem for a period of time, thus increasing species diversity. A direct effect of clearcutting in northern hardwood stands is the promotion of suckers and stump sprouts in species such as aspen and red maple. According to a study on four sites in New England (Pierce et al. 1993) stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings begins in the first growing season after harvest. Within five years after cutting, young, dense stands were established on all four sites. Stocking surveys conducted on the Forest three years after treatment have shown successful regeneration in even-aged and uneven-aged harvested stands (see project record). This harvest method is most likely to result in aspen and paper birch representation in the regeneration mix; it also produces the most productive, managed, early-successional habitat. Thinning (444 acres) is an intermediate treatment designed to improve stand quality. Stand thinning would reduce the basal area through the removal of dying and defective trees, undesirable tree species, or acceptable trees that are crowding trees with high-value stems. By removing low quality trees, future harvesting in these stands would lead to a higher percentage of quality sawlogs. The objective of this treatment would be to provide adequate growing space for the stems with the highest value (Leak et al. 1987). Thinning would lead to a higher percentage of sawlogs in the future. Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) (154 acres) is the thinning of tree seedlings, saplings, and small diameter trees using chainsaws and hand tools. It is applied in stands with dense growth of tree seedlings and saplings and a relatively open canopy to increase stand growth, shorten rotation length, improve or maintain tree species composition, and increase potential stand value by encouraging the development of healthy, well-formed growing stock. The objective of timber stand improvement in the Oliverian project is to improve tree species composition by releasing high value tree seedlings and saplings, such as northern red

86 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

oak and sugar maple, from suppression by nearby poorly formed saplings, or undesirable species such as red maple or American beech. All woody material felled in the application of TSI would remain on site and would not inhibit the growth of the favored growing stock. Related to the treatments described in Alternative 2, there is a potential for windthrow in the partially cut stands. Areas of stands adjacent to groups and stands adjacent to clearcuts may have increased windthrow until tree crowns expand to fill the canopy and the roots become wind-firm. Some residual tree damage would occur from harvesting operations, but skid trails would be planned adjacent to trees marked for removal in order to provide adequate working space for logging equipment without damage to residual trees. Connected Actions and Other Proposed Activities Road maintenance activities would include occasional removal, trimming, or mowing of woody and non-woody vegetation in some areas to accommodate equipment. Forest vegetation affecting the passage of vehicles on the road surface would be trimmed or removed. Road maintenance activities would not have an effect on conditions in stands for which they bisect. Trees would continue to grow roadside. The trees growing near or adjacent to roads would be able to, or continue to, occupy the space above the road surface (above the clearance height of vehicles) with branches, and use this space to capture sunlight with leaves. Hiking trail construction would include occasional removal and trimming of trees. Forest vegetation affecting the passage of hikers on the trail surface would be trimmed or removed. Hiking trail construction would not have an effect on conditions in stands for which they bisect. Trees would continue to grow trailside. The trees growing near or adjacent to the trail would be able to, or continue to, occupy the space above the trail surface (above the clearance height of hikers) with branches, and use this space to capture sunlight with leaves. Parking area construction would include removal of few trees and mostly non- woody vegetation (shrubs and herbaceous plants). Construction would not affect stand conditions because the parking area proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 is located in a stand that is presently designated as a permanent wildlife opening. Non-native invasive species control would include cut-stem or foliar application of herbicide to shrubs and herbaceous plants, but would not be applied to tree species. Non-target vegetation in the immediate vicinity of targeted vegetation may be effected by overspray or drift of herbicide during application (see pages 51-52 of the Forest-wide NNIS Control EA for more information). Alternative 3 The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 on the vegetation resource would be the same as Alternative 2, with the exception that six stands proposed to receive a treatment in Alternative 2 would either receive no treatment, a different treatment, or a reduction in treatment acreage in Alternative 3. The changes to these six stands would reduce total silvicultural treatments in the project area by 51 acres.

87 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Stands 18, 24, and 25 in Compartment 1 are located in the Hogsback Brook subwatershed. In Alternative 2, the silvicultural activities proposed here were found to exceed 17 percent of basal area reduction in the subwatershed. By reducing the treatment acreage from 70 acres to 55 acres in stand 18, and performing no silvicultural activities in stands 24 and 25, the basal area reduction would no longer exceed 17 percent (see the Water Resources section for further analysis). Stands 2, 4, and 5, located in Compartment 2, are proposed to receive a clearcut treatment in Alternative 2. However, this would exceed Forest Plan Scenery Management guideline 5 (Forest Plan, page 3-8). Alternative 3 follows treatment designs provided by the Forest landscape architect that would continue to allow clearcutting in stands 2, 4, and 5 but reduce the treatment acreage by 27 acres (see the Scenery section for further analysis). Stand conditions in the areas of the six stands that would not receive treatment in Alternative 3 would continue to be controlled and managed by natural forces. This would include 15 acres of stand 18 and all of stands 24 and 25 in Compartment 1; and 5 acres of stand 2, 7 acres of stand 4, and 4 acres of stand 5 in Compartment 2. The changes in silvicultural treatments to these stands are summarized as a reduction in clearcutting from 247 acres to 220 acres, a reduction in thinning from 444 acres to 435 acres, and a reduction in single tree selection from 120 acres to 105 acres. Unless influenced by weather events or an attack by forest insects or diseases, stand regeneration would be subject to the natural mortality of the trees com- prising the overstory of the stands. Natural mortality of the trees would be slow and sporadic, and would create conditions on the forest floor that may be conducive to shade-tolerant tree species only. The improvement of stand health and productivity, and quality of wood products would not occur on these 51 acres. In addition, fewer wood products would be entering the marketplace. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on vegetation encompasses approximately 15,198 acres: • White Mountain National Forest lands in the Oliverian HMU (approximately 7,470 acres); and • Non-White Mountain National Forest lands in the towns of Benton, Haverhill, and Warren, NH, that are adjacent to or near the Oliverian project area (approximately 7,728 acres). This area was chosen because it includes the activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, past and potential future activities in the Oliverian HMU, and past timber harvesting on state and private lands adjacent to the project area. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on timber resources is twenty years in the past and twenty years into the future (1988 to 2028). Twenty years is important in tracking effects because it is the length of time after an uneven harvest (such as a group selection) that the stand would be considered for re-entry. Map 3.4-1 shows the cumulative effects analysis area for the vegetation resource and the location of past, present, and future projects on White Mountain National Forest land. Map 3.4-2 shows the analysis area of the state and private

88 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

lands adjacent to or near the project area. When considering the past and future harvest in the cumulative effects area, the cumulative effects would be the same as direct and indirect effects. The majority of the northern hardwood and mixedwood stands are at least 80 to 90 years old and growth is slowing. By harvesting now, sites supporting the trees with slowing growth rates would be restocked with younger, more rapidly growing trees, and therefore the average future growth per acre would increase (Forest Plan FEIS). Overall, removing diseased, damaged, and low quality trees promotes a healthy, vigorous future forest that increases in value over time due to higher quality residual trees. Alternative 1 This alternative would not contribute incrementally to the effects of timber harvest or land clearing over the 40-year period from 1988–2028. Without the proposed timber harvest, forest age class, structural diversity, and tree species composition would remain static or diminish. Diversity may be enhanced by natural disturbance such as a weather event, fire, disease, or insect infestation that can create forest openings and provide some limited opportunities for shade-intolerant plant species to grow. However, on National Forest lands, regenerating and young stands would age and grow closer to the surrounding canopy of mature stands. Sunlight to the forest floor would diminish, as would shade-intolerant species. Mature stands of the short-lived (40–60 years) paper birch and aspen community types would continue to age toward mortality, many to be replaced by shade-tolerant species now growing in the understory of these stands. The Forest Service may evaluate harvest opportunities in the future in the compartments in the eastern portion of the Oliverian HMU; however, the extent of foreseeable future harvesting is not known and would be determined by future stand examinations. Timber harvest on private lands has, and would continue to, result in changes in age class and distribution. The cumulative effects would be the same as direct and indirect effects. Alternatives 2-3 The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS (pp 3-73 to 3-164). Even-aged harvests and the additional acres of permanent wildlife openings would have the cumulative effect of reducing acreage in closed-canopy forest and would contribute to age class diversity and species diversity in the forested landscape. Data regarding timber harvests in the cumulative effects area (NFS and non-NFS land) were collected from National Forest databases, roadside assessments, and inspection of aerial photos. As expected, a variety of activities have, or are planned, to take place in the cumulative effects analysis area, including timber harvest in the form of commercial thinnings, clearcutting, group selection, group and single tree selection, shelterwood, seed tree, single tree selection, and overstory removal. The following information is known.

89 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Map 3.4-1. Cumulative Effects Analysis Area for Vegetation.

l i

T a l i r l tu d i T s n e h o l

B i r r P b 9 o o

e o k g m

v 8 R n w

o a o 1 o a d L n H S S 7 n d o a w o

m R

o h b t il u e o

T S r Benton a h i t 3 l r Page Road o

N B e n t o n

2 T r a i l Blueber ry M (Hiking o and u sn n o ta L ) w i o m n e o T n s g u b r a e il P il " d e i b l o

u o a

n s m o

d e w

)

R o

o s

4 g

a d a

i d n a r g r n i a ik

(H 5 il

a ke ook Tr (!25 Br u l e a nn l Tu 6 si

Oliverian 13 il M ra Pond T iff 15 ncl 12 le 10 G

e 14 11 r t Hu S rrica h n g i e M H t n. Town Line Tra Wachipauka Pond Trail Trail il (!25 Glencliff 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles Warren

Oliverian Project Area Streams

Oliverian Habitat Management Unit Roads

National Forest outside Oliverian HMU Hiking Trails

Town Line Snowmobile Trails

Ponds 00.08.106.204.32 Miles

90 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Past Harvesting • Over the past twenty years, 865 acres of National Forest lands have been harvested in the Oliverian HMU. • In the past, approximately 139 acres (1 percent) of non-National Forest lands adjacent to, and nearby, the project area were clearcut or nearly clearcut. Future Harvesting • The Forest Service may evaluate harvest opportunities in the future in the compartments in the eastern portion of the Oliverian HMU. The extent of foreseeable future harvesting is not known and would be determined by future stand examination. • In the next twenty years, harvesting is expected to continue in the Towns of Benton, Haverhill, and Warren, although types and amounts of harvests can-not be known. It is expected that past harvesting trends would continue. Table 3.4-2. Comparison of Silvicultural Treatments by Alternative.

Activity Stand Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Even-Age Management Clearcut 0 247 220 Overstory Removal 0 25 25 Seed Tree 0 29 29 Shelterwood 0 100 100 Thinning 0 444 435 Timber Stand Improvement 0 154 154 Total 0 999 963 Uneven-Age Management Single Tree Selection 0 120 105 Group Selection 0 653 653 Group and Single Tree Selection 0 290 290 Total 0 1063 1048

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 usual 10 year period of our cumulative effects analysis, climate change should have little if any measurable effect on our local forests. The exceptions might be isolated pest infestations, if those are actually related to climate change, and slight changes in the location of some forest species at higher elevations. Within a few decades we could begin to see measurable changes, but the extent of those changes is uncertain. Maintaining optimal forest and tree health is widely supported as a means to buffer climate changes (Millen 2009a). Monitor- ing of regeneration, as required by National Forest Management Act at the project and Plan level, would lead to reconsideration of harvest techniques if climate-related influences were detected. It is important to improve forest resiliency to better withstand stressors such as climate change. The diversity of species composition, age, and structure are several factors that affect resiliency.

91 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Map 3.4-2. Forestry & Private Land Cumulative Effects Analysis Areas.

Oliverian Project Forestry & Private Land Cumulative Effects Analysis Areas

2.1

6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3

2.1

9.3 8.3 6.2

8.3

Project Area Management Area 2.1 Oliverian HMU Boundary 6.1 CE Areas for Private Land abutting Oliverian HMU 6.2 Ponds 6.3

All shaded areas are 8.3 National Forest Lands. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.20.40.60.8 9.3 " Miles Miles

92 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

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 2008d, Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change). Management actions such as thinning, prescribed fire or altering species composition through final harvest and planting could create these characteristics that increase resiliency in the face of climate change (Millen 2009a; Millen 2009b; USDA Forest Service 2009b).

Some literature indicates there are already small elevational shifts in tree species and changes in seedling abundance occurring in some northern tree species. How quickly noticeable changes in tree species composition will occur is uncertain; best estimates are that it will be very slow unless insect or disease outbreaks cause disturbances that precipitate faster changes (USDA Forest Service 2009b). Two climate change studies were highlighted during the scoping and analysis of the Oliverian Stewardship project. “A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont (Beckage, et.al) and “Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications (Leak, W.B., 2009a). 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 Oliverian Stewardship Project, validate the effects analysis and the predicted changes over the next 20 years. We expect that we will be successful in regenerating the treated stands. The time scale for regeneration is shorter than the time scale over which species distributions change in response to climate (5-10 years, vs. the 90-year endpoint of the tree distribution models, Shugart et al. 2003). Stocking surveys (stocking surveys 2007, 2008 and 2009) indicate that we can establish the desired species, after which they will be relatively resilient to longer-term trends, especially if stands are maintained and insect and disease outbreaks are treated.

93 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

94 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.5 Wildlife Executive Summary Existing Condition: The Oliverian Project Area contains the Sugarloaf and the Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) deer wintering areas and the Owls Head and Sugarloaf Cliffs (which are occupied by breeding peregrine falcons). There are four permanent apple orchards and a large opening near Owls Head Cliff that provides habitat diversity for an array of wildlife. The Oliverian HMU (including the Oliverian Project Area) is dominated by the northern hardwood habitat with a strong representation of oak-pine and relatively fewer acres of mixedwood, spruce-fir, aspen-paper birch, and hemlock habitat types. The mature age class dominates all the habitat types, and there is no regeneration age class for all the habitat types in the entire HMU. Portions of the newly acquired 360 acre TPL Riveroaks Tract were recently harvested; however, the remaining high basal area and overstory did not meet the definition and habitat structural value and function for the 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class. Of the 360 acres, 174 acres were identified as suitable for harvest located in MA 2.1 and these acres were assigned into the young and mature age classes in the Oliverian HMU. There are relatively minor amounts of young age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU for northern hardwood, aspen- birch, and oak pine. The mature red oak and beech produces food sources for black bear, white-tailed deer, and other wildlife. The spruce-fir and hemlock type (hemlock in particular) provides wildlife cover in the winter. Summary of Effects: The No Action alternative would not perpetuate the oak- pine and spruce-fir habitat types and would risk losing the aspen-paper birch in the HMU and the Project Area. Alternative 1 does not meet the Purpose and Need and would not move the forest towards the desired future condition for regeneration age class or habitat diversity on MA 2.1 lands in the HMU as outlined in the Forest Plan. The No Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 would not adversely affect WMNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) population trends and viability within the Forest-wide planning area. A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Regional Forester Sensitive Species completed for the Oliverian Stewardship Project determined there is habitat for two Federal-listed species and habitat and / or documented occurrence of several sensitive species in the Project Area. The BE details the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these species and their habitat and determined the Proposed Action or alternatives would cause no effect to Federal-listed species and no loss of sensitive species population viability. Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause negative effects on wildlife such as disturbance, displacement, and / or mortality from increased human presence, noise, and habitat alteration. These effects would be relatively minor and localized (except for mortality and conversion of habitat into a parking lot and trail) in MA 2.1 lands in the Oliverian Project Area. Alternative 2 has more potential to perpetuate oak-pine, aspen-birch, spruce-fir and hemlock habitats and create more hardwood browse adjacent to the Sugarloaf and Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) deer yards, but would not cause adverse effects to the deer yards

95 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

and no impact to peregrine falcons or their habitat. Alternative 2 would affect approximately 51 more stand acres with vegetation treatments than Alternative 3 (9 more acres of thinning, 27 acres of clearcuts, and 15 acres of single tree selection) and therefore create more wildlife habitat diversity within the project area, and HMU, than Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, the recreation improvements would cause more negative, yet minor, effects on wildlife, and their habitat, due to more acres affected by a larger parking area, larger kiosk, a vault toilet, a picnic table, and a garbage can, as compared to Alternative 3. The forested private land adjacent to the HMU contains a mix of habitat types and age classes, and paved and dirt roads and developments. The adjacent private land contributes to habitat diversity, but not substantially to the 0 to 9 year-old regeneration age class by habitat types, especially northern hardwood. Future activities on private land are not expected to create substantial amounts of regeneration age class habitat. Affected Environment Extensive scientific studies and literature reviews conducted by DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) and DeGraaf et al. (2006) documented that a wide array of wildlife uses the WMNF seasonally or year-round and use a variety of habitat types and age classes for all or part of their life cycle needs. Many species use multiple age classes and habitat types. The WMNF Forest Plan used the best available science to develop goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines to manage wildlife species and their habitats. The Forest Plan established Forest-wide habitat composition and age class objectives for a desired range of conditions well distributed across the Forest to support all wildlife species (Forest Plan, pp 1-20 to 1-22). The WMNF uses Habitat Management Units (HMUs), which are blocks of land approximately 6,000 to 49,000 acres established across the WMNF, to help achieve Forest- wide objectives. Habitat composition and age class objectives are set for each HMU based on land capability, which contribute to the Forest-wide objectives (Terrestrial Habitat Management Document, USDA Forest Service 2006). The 2005 Forest Plan FEIS evaluates the impact of meeting those objectives, and proposed management actions on populations of MIS at the landscape scale. This EA also uses the best available science and current habitat conditions in and around the Oliverian Project Area to evaluate the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on those habitat conditions and wildlife, including MIS, ecological indicators, and TEPS. Oliverian HMU The Oliverian HMU contains approximately 7,470 acres of National Forest land, of which approximately 4,107 acres (or 55 percent) are in MA 2.1 lands, and the remaining acres are in MA 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 8.3, 9.3. Approximately 762 acres (or 18 percent) of the 2.1 lands in the Oliverian HMU are unsuitable for timber harvesting. Therefore, there are approximately 3,345 acres (or 45 percent) of MA 2.1 lands suitable for timber harvesting to achieve the habitat composition and age class objectives in the Oliverian HMU (Table 3.5-1).

96 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Table 3.5-1. Total Acres of MA 2.1 Land in the HMU

Total Acres in Total Acres in Unsuitable Acres in Total MA 2.1 Acres (Percent) Suitable For the HMU. MA 2.1 Land. MA 2.1 Land1. Harvest To Meet The Habitat Management Objectives. 7,470 4,107 (55%) 762 3,345 (45%)

1Land Unsuitable for harvest in MA 2.1 is based on in-operable ground, etc. Need for Change — Wildlife Habitat The desired future condition for the Oliverian HMU is to manage forest composition for the broad habitat types (hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir), maintain less common habitat types (aspen-birch and oak-pine), maintain high quality mature forest, and provide regeneration age forest and open habitats to sustain biological diversity and support species that prefer those habitats (Forest Plan, Chapter 1, pp 1-20 to 1-22). An Interdisciplinary Team reviewed the Oliverian HMU and set the wildlife habitat management objectives for the HMU (Forest Plan pp 2-33, S-1) that were based on but not limited to: Ecological Land Type (ELT) capability, forest inventory (stand examinations), historical records, databases, GIS maps, and field reviews. Table 3.5-2 shows the current and desired habitat objectives for MA 2.1 land in the Oliverian HMU (Oliverian HMU Analysis Tool Tables 1-4, Project File). Table 3.5-2. Current & Desired Habitat Objectives for the Oliverian HMU.

Habitat Type Acres in MA 2.1 Acres of Current and Desired Age Class by Habitat Type (for MA 2.1 land suitable for harvest to meet HMU objectives) Regeneration Young Mature Current Desired Current Desired Current Desired Current Desired Hardwood 2,679 2,450 0 234-281 484 351-469 2,196 1,265- 1,429 Mixedwood 129 123 0 6-13 0 1-6 129 57-68 Spruce-fir 162 370 0 5-10 0 15-30 162 329-369 Aspen-birch 94 164 0 28-33 21 16-21 73 5-9 Oak-pine 845 862 0 (3) 158 2 687 2 Hemlock 14 41 0 (3) 0 2 14 2 WL Openings 55 55 Other1 129 41 Total Acres 4,107 4,107

All figures are approximate and rounded-up. 1Other = Not a wildlife opening. Identified as non-forest habitat (i.e. wetland, rock, alpine habitat). 2Oak-pine and hemlock objectives for this HMU are to maintain and/or increase these habitat types were possible. There are no ELTs for aspen-birch, oak-pine, hemlock, or WLOs. Regeneration = 0-9 years old for all types. Young = 10-59 years old for northern hardwoods and mixedwood; and 10-39 years old for all other types. Mature = 60-119 years old for northern hardwood and mixedwood; 40-89 years old for spruce-fir; and 40-69 years old for aspen-birch.

97 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

In comparing the Current with Desired Future Condition, the mature age class dominates all the habitat types, and there is no 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class for all habitat types in the entire Oliverian HMU and Oliverian Project Area. There are relatively minor amounts of young age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU for northern hardwood, aspen-birch, and oak pine. There are approximately 40 acres of mixedwood stands located on a strong spruce-fir ELT in MA 2.1 land. Therefore, there are some opportunities to convert mixedwood stands into spruce-fir. The Oliverian HMU objective for spruce-fir is to increase the current 3 percent to 4 percent. Over a long term of, one to two hundred years, some mixedwood and northern hardwood stands would naturally convert into spruce-fir. Uneven-aged management of mixedwood and hardwood stands with a spruce-fir component would gradually favor spruce-fir over several decades. Aspen-Birch: Much of the aspen-birch type on the WMNF (including the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area) is degenerating and falling apart, and even immediate regeneration harvest might not result in stands that are primarily dominated aspen-birch. Implementing only enough regeneration harvest to meet the identified age class objectives for the next 10 years would result in further loss of aspen-birch habitat, and greater time and cost to regain that habitat. Therefore, the WMNF FEIS describes an expected deviation from the aspen- birch age class objectives for the first decade to allow the Forest to regenerate higher levels (far more than is strictly necessary to meet the age-class objectives) before it degenerates further and the Forest risks losing aspen-birch habitat. This approach would return the aspen-birch forest to active management that would eventually allow for long-term maintenance within the specified age- class regime. Management of aspen-birch is focused on maintaining the percentage of the stands currently in aspen-birch habitat type. This includes converting some mixedwood or northern hardwood stands to aspen or paper birch where aspen and paper birch has a good chance of survival (such as Oliverian Project Area), meanwhile allowing areas of existing aspen-birch convert to another habitat type where aspen paper birch has low capability of successful regeneration. Management of other habitat types, such as oak-pine and hemlock habitat types, and permanent wildlife openings, would focus on maintaining these habitat types, meanwhile establishing new openings where uplands rank high in providing herbaceous or shrubby habitat features and have access for maintenance (Forest Plan). The White Mountain National Forest Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document provides additional guidelines for management of wildlife habitat at the HMU level (USDA-FS 2006). Oliverian Stewardship Project Area The existing condition of habitat and species occurrence in the project area is based on several multi-year, multi-seasonal, and site-specific surveys and database reviews including but not limited to the following: (Audubon 2009; Mattrick 2007; NHFG 2007 & 09; NHNHB 2008; NHNHI 1992; USDA-FS 2007, 2008a, b, c & 2009, 1993, & ID-Team field reviews). The project area is approximately 5,188 acres of National Forest located in MA 2.1 lands in the Oliverian HMU, and contains approximately 100 acres of

98 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment non-NFS lands to address non-native species. Of the 100 acres of non-NFS lands, approximately seven acres of NNIS is proposed for treatment. The 28.5 acre Oliverian Pond, Blueberry, Hogsback, Page, Owls, Jeffers, and Oliverian Brooks, and unnamed tributaries, are located in the Project Area. There is a large field/ wet meadow opening, four orchards, Sugarloaf and Owls Head Cliffs (occupied by breeding peregrine falcons), and two deer wintering areas (Sugarloaf and Oliverian) in the Project Area. The Project Area (and HMU) contains predominately the northern hardwood habitat type, with lesser amounts of mixedwood, oak-pine, spruce-fir, hemlock, and aspen-paper birch habitat types. The mature age class dominates all the habitat types. There is no regeneration age class and relatively few amounts of young age class habitat (663 acres) in the HMU and the Project Area. Outstanding Natural Communities: The WMNF FEIS (pp. 3-293 to 3-298) identified Outstanding Natural Communities (ONC) that would receive additional protection (such as 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 (NHNHB 2008), and multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific plant and wildlife surveys and forest inventories, there are no stands specifically identified as old growth forest within the Oliverian Project Area. Therefore, neither Alternative 1, 2, nor 3 would cause any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on old growth forest; therefore the old growth ONC is not addressed further in this EA. The ONC montane circumneutral cliffs and talus, and the red pine rocky ridge natural community (located on top of Owls Head Cliff) are considered further in the Fire Section in Chapter 3. The NHNHB ranks the red pine community as rarity rank S2–NH State imperiled because of rarity and vulnerable to extinction. There are no other features such as alpine ravines, bog meadows, caves, mines, or tunnels in the project area. Peregrine Falcons and Cliff Nesting Habitat: The peregrine falcon is an ecological indicator for cliff habitat and both Sugarloaf and Owls Head Cliffs have been, and are expected to continue to be, occupied by breeding falcon pairs in the future. During the national peregrine falcon restoration program between 1976 and 1987, New Hampshire Audubon (NHA) and Forest Service staff and volunteers released dozens of hand raised peregrine falcon chicks at a temporary hack site located at Owls Head Cliff. Since then NHA annually monitors the Owls Head and Sugarloaf sites for peregrine falcon occupancy. In 2009, breeding falcons successfully produced 4 chicks at Owls Head Cliff and 3 chicks at Sugarloaf Cliff. Currently, portions of the Owls Head Cliff are used by recreational cliff climbers. White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The availability of quality wintering areas (dense spruce-fir and/or hemlock stands) for deer 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 (NHDFL / SFPNF 1997, NHFG 2007 & 09).

99 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The documented Sugarloaf and Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) deer wintering areas (yards) are located in Compartments 2 and 3. The Sugarloaf yard historically covered approximately 100 acres and was used by approximately 5 to 10 deer annually, and Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) yard covered approximately 300 acres and was used by approximately 15 deer annually (USDA-FS Multi-dated historic compartment records in the project file). The Oliverian Stewardship Project Area contains spruce-fir and hemlock habitat that is used by white-tailed deer, and is part of the Sugarloaf and Blueberry Mountain deer yards. Pre-project monitoring of the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area included site-specific field reviews of stands with spruce-fir and hemlock components to determine deer use (NHFG 2007 & 2009; USDA-FS 2007, 2008a, b, c, 2009). Also, multi-year and multi seasonal site-specific field reviews detected moderate levels of recent deer use (summer and winter fecal pellets, browsing pressure, bark-scarred trees, and scattered game trails) throughout the project area (Mattrick 2007; NHFG 2007 & 09; USDA-FS 2007, 2008a, b, c & 2009, 1993, & ID-Team field reviews). These reviews indicate that white-tailed deer occupy, and travel through, the project area throughout the year, especially during winter. NH Fish and Game manages white-tailed deer as a game species harvested annually, and their populations are viable in the state, the WMNF, and in NHFG WMU D2 (NHFG 2008). Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: The project area contains areas of red oak and American beech trees that produce acorns and beechnuts, a hard mast food source for black bear and other wildlife. Concentrations of beech trees clawed by foraging black bear were observed in portions of the project area during field reviews (NHFG 2007 & 09; USDA-FS 2007, 2008a,b,c & 2009). NH Fish and Game manages black bear as a game species that is harvested annually. Black bear populations are viable in the state and on the WMNF. NHFG goals call for a population decrease in Wildlife Management Unit D (NHFG 2008). White-Nose Syndrome and Woodland Bats: White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) is a condition recently found in the northeast bats. Affected bats may have a white fungus on their noses and occasionally other hairless body parts including arms, wings and ears. The exact cause of WNS is still being investigated and it is not known if the recently identified fungus is the cause of mortality. WNS was first identified in 2006 in New York, and has been associated with high mortality rates at some sites. WNS has been confirmed in hibernating bats in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, and recently New Hampshire. In March, 2009, WNS symptoms were observed for the first time in three hibernacula in New Hampshire, two of which are in Grafton County. Laboratory testing has not been definitively proven to match other WNS sites, but NH Fish and Game Department is treating these sites as positive for WNS (USDA 2009a). No Indiana bat or eastern small- footed myotis were observed in these hibernacula. WNS has been detected in Indiana bats, little brown bats, northern long eared bats, small-footed myotis, and eastern pipistrelles elsewhere (USDI 2008, WMNF Biologist L. Rowse personnel communication with USFWS Biologist S. von Oettingen). The Northeast Region of the USFWS is maintaining a web site on WNS with some of the most recent scientific information on this syndrome: .

100 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

The vast majority of bats with WNS have been found during the winter in caves where the bats hibernate. No bat hibernacula are known to exist on the WMNF (including the Oliverian Project Area), although there are several small caves throughout New Hampshire. Recent winter surveys of these hibernacula located off the National Forest by bat experts found evidence of WNS in several caves adjacent to the WMNF (NHFG 2009a). To date, no confirmed cases of WNS have been found on the WMNF. There have been reports of dead and dying bats in some buildings in New Hampshire in 2008. Some bats, caught in 2008, had white spots, holes, and tears in their wings, and there were reports of bat pups dying. It is not known if this was caused by WNS that spread to this area, or if these individuals were already afflicted when they left their winter hibernacula. The only recommendation developed by the USFWS, and their partners, at this time, is 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 (see above USFWS website for details). Several woodland bat species have been recorded across the WMNF during bat surveys in the early 1990s and 2000s (Krusic et al. 1996; Sasse 1995; Chenger 2002, 2004). Bats that may forage or roost in or near the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area that may have been affected by WNS in NY and VT include little brown bat, northern long eared bat, eastern pipistrelle, and eastern small-footed myotis (Indiana bat does not occur on the WMNF). Unlike the eastern small-footed myotis, these other bat species commonly roost in trees (most often snags and partially dead trees near foraging habitat) or buildings (see the TEPS Section of this EA regarding Indiana bat and eastern small-footed myotis). Management Indicator Species (MIS) Table 3.5-3 discloses the WMNF MIS (FEIS) and their representative habitat in the analysis area (MA 2.1 lands in the HMU including the project area). MIS probability of occurrence was based on known documented occurrence and/ or suitable habitat present in the analysis area (suitable habitat was assumed occupied). Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on wildlife (including MIS) and their habitats are the MA 2.1 lands in the Oliverian HMU. This analysis area was used because: • The habitat objectives are based on Ecological Land Type (ELT) capability of MA 2.1 lands within the HMU and provide a measurable assessment of how the No Action and alternatives contribute to the Forest-wide habitat objectives defined in the 2005 Forest Plan. • Timber harvest and other proposed activities would affect wildlife and habitat conditions in the area where the activities would occur. • The scale is large enough to include home ranges of varying sizes for an array of wildlife species. The temporal scope is the past and future 10 years (1999 to 2019). This timeframe was used because:

101 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Table 3.5-3. WMNF MIS Probability of Occurrence in The Analysis Area.

MIS and Representative MIS and / or Habitats MIS Population Trends Habitat Condition in the Analysis Area Chestnut-sided warbler 0 acres regeneration hardwood WMNF breeding bird monitoring Regeneration age class hard- habitat in MA 2.1 land in the HMU. & BBS data show a statistically woods (predominantly seedling / No chestnut-sided warblers seen significant declining trend. The sapling stages of northern hard- or heard during several field re- amount of regeneration age habi- woods, but could include some views of the project area. tat on the WMNF has declined in scattered regeneration softwoods). recent decades Scarlet tanager 2,196 acres mature hardwood WMNF bird monitoring shows a Mature hardwoods (predominantly habitat in MA 2.1 land in the HMU. declining trend since 1992. BBS northern hardwood, could include Suspect tanager could occur in the data shows a stable trend last 4 scattered pole-size softwoods). analysis area, but none seen or decades (NH data show declin- heard during several field reviews ing trends, while VT & ME show of the project area. increasing trends). Magnolia warbler 0 acres regeneration age spruce- WMNF bird monitoring data shows Regeneration age softwoods (pre- fir habitat in MA 2.1 land in the no statistically significant trend. dominantly spruce-fir, but could HMU. No magnolia warblers seen BBS data shows stable trend include some scattered regenera- or heard during several field re- (trends declining in northern NH & tion age hardwoods). views of the project area. ME & increasing in southern NH & northern VT). Blackburnian warbler 162 acres mature spruce-fir pres- WMNF bird monitoring data shows Mature softwoods (predominantly ent in MA 2.1 in the HMU. Suspect no statistically significant trends. spruce-fir, but could include some this warbler could occur in the BBS data shows a stable trend. scattered regeneration age hard- analysis area, but none seen or woods). heard during several field reviews of the project area. Ruffed grouse 94 acres total aspen/birch in MA WMNF bird data shows no statisti- All ages of aspen / paper birch. 2.1 land in the HMU. Grouse were cally significant tends. BBS data seen in the project area during shows gradual decline from large several field reviews of the project peak in mid 1970s, but overall area. trend stable.

WMNF breeding bird monitoring survey data taken from MacFaden and Capen (2000). BBS = Breeding Bird Survey data (Sauer et al., 2003). Suitable Habitat = Meets species’ life history needs (food, cover / shelter, water, breeding, and young rearing). Range and suitable habitat definitions were taken from USDA-FS FEIS 2005; DeGraaf et al. 2006; DeGraaf andYamasaki 2001. The determination of no occurrence of MIS considers the potential for occasional, incidental and infrequent travel through or flyover of a species within theAnalysis Area (including the project area).

• The benefits of regeneration age class for some wildlife diminish after approximately 10 years (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001); • The scope includes past and future timber harvest and recreation activities that have and would affect wildlife and their habitat. Indicators to Measure Effects to Wildlife & Habitat: • Management Indicator Species–changes in the amount and quality of habitat for MIS and the ecological indicator peregrine falcon. • HMU Objectives–changes in acres of habitat types and age classes (habitat diversity).

102 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

• TEPS–impacts to species populations and habitats. • Season of harvest. Alternative 1 Direct Effects There would be no tree or vegetation removal, soil or snow compaction, or noise and human presence from harvesting or parking lot and trail construction, or smoke from prescribed fire. There would be no direct effects of mortality, disturbance, displacement, or interruption of wildlife travel to, from, or within the project area from vegetation management or construction and use of recreation improvements at this time. Alternative 1 would not cause any direct effects on peregrine falcons and cliff habitat, bear-clawed beech trees, deer wintering areas, or woodland bat summer roosting and foraging habitat in the project area or the HMU. However, there would be lost opportunities to increase peregrine falcon and woodland bat foraging habitat via vegetation management by creating openings in the forest canopy, reusing forest roads, and opening up old (now revegetated) landings. There would be lost opportunities to concentrate the existing dispersed parking activity and user defined hiking trails leading to the base of Owls Head Cliff. The user defined trails and parking would continue to occur randomly and continue to trample vegetation and displace some wildlife especially in the open field below Owls Head Cliff. NH Audubon Society and Forest Service Biologists would continue to monitor the peregrine falcons and post seasonal climbing restrictions to protect breeding falcons and their habitat at Owls Head Cliff. Indirect Effects Under Alternative 1, forest habitat would continue to grow and mature and openings in the forest canopy would likely result from trees dying or from pockets of blow down. Changes in the existing habitat types or age classes would occur through the natural processes of forest succession or through larger scale natural disturbances such as wind events, ice storms, hurricanes, fire, or forest insect or disease infestation, which tend to be infrequent and sporadic occurrences in the New England Region (Lorimer and White 2003). Spruce- fir understory in hardwood and mixedwood stands on spruce-fir ELTs would remain the same. Balsam-fir in mature spruce-fir stands would continue to die gradually; tree species occupying the understory would take their place. Young age class forest would evolve into mature forest with no new regenerating forest to take its place unless stand-replacing natural disturbances occur. There would be an increase in the amount of mature forest as young forest matured. The mature age class is already dominant in the project area, the HMU, and forest-wide, and is available to wildlife including MIS Scarlet tanager and Blackburnian warbler. Over time, Alternative 1 has a greater potential to develop large diameter cavity trees and accumulate downed woody material for wildlife habitat compared to the harvest units proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. However, there would be lost opportunities to improve wildlife habitat diversity in the project area (regenerate oak via harvest and prescribed fire, and regenerate

103 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

aspen-birch for MIS grouse). There would be lost opportunities to increase bat foraging habitat by creating openings in the forest canopy and re-using forest roads and old log landings. The No Action alternative would perpetuate the decline of the aspen-paper birch (early successional) habitat type in the 2.1 lands in the HMU (currently there is zero acres of regeneration, and minor amounts of young age class in the project area). Beyond the analysis timeframe, the loss of regeneration and young age classes and loss of oak and aspen-paper birch habitats would cause long- term adverse indirect effects of a decline in habitat diversity for a wide array of wildlife species, including some MIS, in the project area. Alternative 1 would perpetuate the lack of regeneration age class habitat (0 to 9-years old) in all forest types, which is already absent in the Oliverian Project Area and the entire HMU (see project record). Lack of this age class could cause wildlife species to not occur in the area, including MIS chestnut-sided warbler and ruffed grouse. Alternative 1 would cause an adverse indirect effect of perpetuating the lack of regeneration age class of northern hardwoods (a source of browse for wildlife, especially deer browse adjacent to wintering areas) within the project area. There would be lost opportunities to perpetuate oak as food source for deer, bear, turkey, and to perpetuate softwood, or speed conversion of mixedwood into softwood, for wildlife habitat diversity (spruce-fir habitat type is important for deer wintering cover). There would be an increase in the amount of mature forest as young forest matures. The mature age class is already dominant in the project area, the HMU, and Forest-wide, and is available to wildlife species including MIS scarlet tanager and blackburnian warbler. Therefore, Alternative 1 does not meet the Purpose and Need, and would not move the forest towards the Desired Future Condition identified in the Forest Plan for the regeneration age class or wildlife habitat diversity (USDA-FS 2005a, pp. I 20-21). Alternatives 2-3 Direct Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause relatively minor, localized, and short-term increase in human presence and noise in the project area from timber harvesting, prescribed fire in oak-pine stands, and timber stand improvement, as well as from construction of the trailhead parking area and hiking trail. The proposed vegetation management activities would not occur in the entire project area all at the same time. Direct negative effects could include mortality, disturbance and/or displacement of nesting birds, roosting bats or denning mammals. Direct negative effects could also include temporary alteration of wildlife travel patterns, including amphibians, reptiles, and small and large mammals. Beneficial effects include the regeneration of northern red oak and the perpetuation of hard mast from oak, regeneration of aspen-birch habitat for MIS grouse, increased mobility for some wildlife species on snow compacted by timber harvesting equipment during winter operations, and increased browse for moose and deer from residual treetops scattered on the ground. There would be relatively minor

104 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment differences in the level of direct effects between the two Alternatives 2 and 3 because similar harvest acres and treatments would apply. Based on the amount of harvest acres and similarity in silvicultural treatment types, as well as recreation improvements proposed, Alternative 2 would have greater potential for minor negative, and beneficial, effects as compared to Alternative 3. Season of Harvest: The season when a unit is harvested may directly affect wildlife and their habitat, especially during critical times in their life cycle, such as breeding, rearing young, feeding, and winter survival. Individuals could be disturbed, displaced or killed during any season of harvest operation. Summer harvest could affect species that use trees for roosting, nesting, cover, and foraging (including woodland bats and breeding birds MIS scarlet tanager, MIS blackburnian warbler, and MIS ruffed grouse that use mature habitat), and ground disturbance could affect ground dwelling species (amphibians, reptiles, and insects). Fall harvest would affect fewer nesting species but could potentially affect autumn breeding species, including some amphibians, species that feed on fall mast (acorns and beechnuts) such as black bear, and small ground-dwelling mammals. Winter harvest would not directly affect roosting bats because they would be hibernating elsewhere. However, other species could be affected by winter harvest, such as owls that breed in the winter. White-tailed deer gather, or “yard”, in areas of lowland conifers where cover and warmer temperatures provide protection from the elements, and where they would also be vulnerable to disturbance during this time of year. The project area contains softwood habitat that is part of the Sugarloaf and Oliverian (Blueberry Mountain) deer wintering areas (surveyed in 2007 and 2009 to document deer activity). Species that utilize cavities in winter, such as chickadees and nuthatches, or species that den, such as squirrels and raccoons, could be affected if roost or cavity trees were harvested. Raptors begin to breed in February, with young fledging in June and July (NHDFL / SPNF, 1997), and could be affected by both winter and summer harvest. Peregrine Falcons and Cliff Nesting Habitat: The breeding peregrine falcons (ecological indicator for cliff habitat) at both Sugarloaf and Owls Head Cliffs are not expected to be negatively affected by the proposed recreation improvements (such as the hiking trail to concentrate users and reduce dispersed impacts) or timber harvesting under either Alternative 2 or 3. Based on over two decades of experience working with recreational climbers and climbing associations in New Hampshire, New Hampshire Audubon and WMNF biologists believe it is possible, and desirable, to manage cliff resources in a manner that protects raptor nesting habitat while providing recreational opportunities to climbers and other users. The use of temporary seasonal climbing restrictions (very successful at protecting breeding falcons at Rattlesnake Mountain in Rumney, NH) have, and would be, used to protect falcons during the breeding season at Sugarloaf and Owls Head Cliffs. White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the amount of tree limbs and tops on the ground from timber harvesting operations, which would provide a localized, short-term source of browse for deer when they need it most for overwinter survival. Two to three years after implementation, the clearcuts would begin to provide browse for moose and deer. The removal of individual trees from some stands, and group selection cuts

105 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.5-1. Audubon biologists leg- band a peregrine falcon chick at Owls Head Cliff in May 2009 where seasonal climbing restrictions successfully protected peregrine falcons during the breeding season. NH Audubon photo by Susan Hammond.

Figure 3.5-2. Post project monitoring has shown that placement of group selection cuts adjacent to a deer wintering area successfully provided browse for white-tailed deer in the Right Angle Timber Sale, WMNF, Rumney, NH. WMNF photo by Jason Walker.

(groups) designed to regenerate softwood, would enhance and perpetuate existing softwood trees, possibly providing winter cover for deer in the future. The prescribed fire proposed would not occur in deer wintering habitat. In the long term, prescribed fire may increase some oak regeneration within the project area, providing a source of hard mast in the future. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not adversely affect mobility patterns or travel corridors of large mammals such as moose and deer traveling to, from, or within the project area and private land. These large mammals have large home ranges, and appear to adjust quickly to disturbance or displacement from human presence, including noise, and may adjust their foraging behavior to avoid human activity.

106 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Over the course of 18 years on the WMNF, the District biologist has observed effective practices of placing small-sized groups in softwood habitat to perpetuate softwood regeneration, therefore cover, as well as the placement of clearcuts, or larger groups, in hardwood or oak habitat to create hardwood browse near softwood stands. These observations have occurred on numerous vegetation management projects across the Pemigewasset District. This effective practice was photo documented at the recently harvested Right Angle Timber Sale located in Rumney, NH (see the project record). Alternatives 2 and 3 would follow WMNF Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines that would avoid impacts to softwood habitat that is necessary to support wintering populations of white-tailed deer. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: While Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in removal of some bear-clawed beech trees (causing a slight reduction of fall foraging habitat), wildlife design feature #19 (Chapter 2.5), that retains bear clawed beech trees, would minimize this effect within the stands proposed for silvicultural treatments (see Chapter 2). Over a period of 18 years, the District biologist observed that this design feature is effective. Fall harvesting could temporarily displace bears feeding in beech trees, but they would likely move to adjacent hardwood stands until harvesting ended. There is mature northern hardwood habitat with a beech and red oak component in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU that would not be affected in Alternatives 2 and 3. Prescribed fire in the fall would likely not affect bears feeding in beech trees because fire is prescribed for oak/pine stands that do not have beech trees occupying the overstory.

Figure 3.5-3. Example of a bear clawed beech tree that would be protected through design features at Oliverian Stewardship Project Area. WMNF photo.

107 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

White-nose Syndrome (WNS) and Woodland Bats: There is potential that WNS could spread to the WMNF in the future and affect bats that forage or roost in or near the Oliverian Project Area. The proposed timber harvesting activity in Alternatives 2 and 3 for the Oliverian Stewardship Project could create an additional stress (mortality, disturbance and/or displacement) to individual woodland bats if they had WNS and were occupying a roost tree that was harvested. Winter harvests would not disturb roosting bats as they would have left the Forest for their winter hibernacula (usually a cave or old mine site). However, the potential effects of mortality, disturbance or displacement of individual bats and reduction in the amount of summer bat roosting habitat from timber harvesting or recreation improvements proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely be very minimal for the following reasons: • Most of the common woodland bats that summer roost in trees prefer to use snags (Sasse 1995). Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines designed to protect snags and retain wildlife trees (USDA-FS 2005a, pp. 2-35-36) minimize the potential loss of roost habitat (USFWS letter dated 08/09/2005). • Bats oftentimes select roost sites in open areas that receive ample solar radiation (Sasse 1995). Some bat species rely on solar radiation to help keep warm (e.g. bats are often found in homes attics or in snags in openings where they are exposed to direct sunlight for much of the day). Much of the forest habitat proposed for treatment in the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area has a closed canopy and would not provide suitable roosting habitat sites for bats seeking a site that is exposed to the sun. • In Alternatives 2 and 3, mature trees would remain in the stands proposed for uneven-aged silvicultural treatments, which would be available as roosting habitat. • Approximately 3,990 acres (78%) of the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU would be affected by treatments at this time, leaving a large area of mature habitat available as bat roosting habitat in the remaining MA 2.1 and 6.2 lands in the HMU. Upon completion of harvesting, the residual stand condition of most harvested units (except those proposed for clearcuts and parking lot and trail construction) and surrounding forest in the HMU would still retain adequate numbers of live and dead trees that could provide roosting habitat for woodland bats. • Some of the silvicultural treatments, and associated activities, proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 (clearcuts and reconstruction of roads, and re-use of landings) would provide open forage area and expose more suitable roosting sites to sunlight. Research on the WMNF found that bats often forage near water bodies, trails, roads, and forest openings (Krusic et al. 1996), presum- ably because insect prey may be more abundant in more open habitats and maneuvering in the air is easier. • There are no known management activities that are directly affecting WNS or woodland bats with WNS on or near the WMNF (USDA-FS, 2009a). Season of Harvest: Winter harvesting typically occurs from December through March; summer/fall/winter harvest usually occurs from June through March; summer harvest occurs from June to September; and fall/winter harvest from September through March. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the majority of stands would

108 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment be harvested in fall/winter or winter only. There would be very minor differences in magnitude of effects to wildlife, including woodland bats, from season of harvest because the difference in possible acres of summer or fall harvest is minor. While conducting spring breeding bird surveys that included portions of the recently completed Moose Watch Timber Sale (located on the WMNF in Bethlehem, NH), the District biologist observed that winter harvest operations, performed on frozen ground conditions, were effective in protecting vegetation, water, and soil substrates for wildlife habitat (see project record). In Alternatives 2 and 3, the direct effects of prescribed fire on wildlife and their habitat may vary by species and conditions. Fire would occur between November 1st and May 15th, thereby avoiding direct effects to most nesting birds and roosting bats. No raptor nests were found in the proposed harvest or prescribed burn units during site-specific surveys of the project area (Mattrick 2007, NHFG 2007, 09; USDA-FS 2007, 2008a, b, c & 2009, 1993, & ID-Team field reviews). If raptors, such as Northern goshawk, nest before May 15th in a burn or harvest unit, they are often vocal and would likely be detected during harvesting and pre-burn inspections of the unit. Any active raptor nest that is detected in a burn or harvest unit would be protected under Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as stated in wildlife design feature 16 (Chapter 2). The District biologist observed that the standards and guidelines were effective in protecting raptor nests during active harvest and sale area closure work on the recently completed Moody Ledge Timber Sale located on the WMNF in Benton, NH (see the project record). Indirect Effects Tree and vegetation removal during forestry, prescribed fire, and recreational improvement activities could cause a reduction in the amount of roosting, nesting and denning habitat for wildlife within the treated areas. Indirect effects also include potential decreases in the amount of large woody material recruitment onto the forest floor, used by birds, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles and insects. Although recreation improvements (parking area and trail construction) would cause a minor reduction in the amount of habitat for wildlife, these improvements would concentrate the existing user-defined dispersed parking and hiking use, and reduce overall impacts of displacement of wildlife and trampling of vegetation occurring over a broader area. Even-aged harvest methods and creation of northern hardwood regeneration age class habitat: Forest-wide, less than one percent of the WMNF is in the 0 to 9 year northern hardwood regeneration age class (FEIS pg. 3-170). There are zero acres of regeneration age class northern hardwood forest in the project area compared to a Desired Future Condition of approximately 234-281 acres in MA 2.1 land in the Oliverian HMU (HMU Objective Rationale Document and Addendum in the project record). Specifically, even-aged management under Alternative 2 would treat approximately 999 stand acres and Alternative 3 would treat approximately 963 stand acres via even-aged harvest methods (clearcut, overstory removal, seed tree, shelterwood, thinning, and TSI). See 3.4 Vegetation for harvest method definitions. However, thinning and timber stand improvements (TSI) are intermediate harvests that affect the condition of a stand, but would not change the stand

109 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

age class. Thinning and TSI methods do not create the same structural value for wildlife compared to clearcut, shelterwood, and seed tree treatments that immediately establish regeneration age class habitat. Thus, Alternative 2 would create approximate 247 acres, and Alternative 3 would create approximately 220 acres of 0 to 9 regeneration age class northern hardwood habitat using the clearcut silvicultural treatment. Clearcutting would increase habitat diversity and cause long-term beneficial effects to an array of wildlife including MIS chestnut-sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. Creating aspen-birch regeneration age class habitat: There are zero acres of regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat in the entire HMU (including the Project Area). Alternatives 2 and 3 would create regeneration age class habitat including some in the aspen-birch type using the clearcut silvicultural treatment (Alternative 2 approximately 247 acres; Alternative 3 approximately 220 acres). Clearcuts would encourage aspen-birch to perpetuate and benefit species that use shrub layers, herbaceous ground vegetation, soft mast, and minimal overstory, such as MIS chestnut-sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. Without some type of disturbance, aspen-birch succeeds into northern hardwoods or softwoods. Guideline 1 (Forest Plan pg. 2-33) states habitat should be managed according to guidance provided in the Forest’s Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document (see the project record). This reference document (pg. 5) states there is an expected deviation from the age class objectives for the first decade to allow the Forest to regenerate higher levels of aspen-birch forest before it degenerates further and is lost. The clearcuts in Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, which reserve large mature and overmature trees, and softwood areas, within 5 percent of the acreage of the harvest units. Eventually many of the reserved trees become cavity trees, providing vertical structural diversity available to forest bats, songbirds, small mammals, hawks, and woodpeck- ers, as roosting and nesting habitat. Approximately 150 species use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; DeGraaf et al. 1992), including MIS chestnut-sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. The male aspen-birch buds and catkins are an important food for MIS ruffed grouse (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; DeGraaf et al. 1992). Even-aged management with clearcut regeneration provides large patches of early successional habitat, young forest, and mature and old forest conditions in a shifting mosaic over time. Such management provides habitat for the most diverse wildlife community and maintains forest and wildlife diversity through time. Most of the wildlife diversity is associated with seedling and sapling stands. Once beyond the pole timber stage, stands have about the same wildlife species whether they are even-aged sawtimber or old forest. MIS chestnut-sided warblers are among the first birds to breed in hardwood clearcuts. They abandon the site after about ten years, when dense foliage is no longer present within three feet of the ground (DeGraaf et al. 2005). In Alternatives 2 and 3, site conditions on the forest floor within the harvest units would be hotter and drier for about 2 to 5 years after cutting, with increased decomposition of leaf litter. This micro-site condition could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as the red-backed salamander (DeMaynadier and Hunter 1998). If they do not relocate, individual salamanders in large

110 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment unshaded openings would likely not survive. Amphibians and small mammals in clearcuts would likely be more vulnerable to predation. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that reserve patches of trees within the harvest units would continue to provide some escape and shading cover for these and other wildlife species (Forest Plan). The District biologist has observed intact patches of trees reserved in clearcut units being used by wildlife in the Moody Ledge and Moose Watch project areas on the District, and at the Bartlett Experimental Forest (see the project record); the same Standards and Guidelines would apply to the Oliverian Project as well. Habitat Connectivity: Forest-interior birds such as the ovenbird are vulnerable to brood parasitism by the brown headed cowbird and predation by blue jays, raccoons, and red squirrels, particularly in forests fragmented with agricultural land with pasture used by cattle. A local study on the WMNF by DeGraaf and Angelstam (1993) on depredation of artificial ground and cup nests in even- aged seedling/sapling, pole, and mature stands of northern hardwood forest found no increase in the nest predation rate in the early stages of stand growth (e.g., 0 to 9 age class), nor was rate of predation related to stand area. This study indicates nest predation of forest interior species in largely forested landscapes is not influenced by the presence of clearcuts. Another study in the same forest type compared predation rates in large blocks of managed areas vs. remote reserved areas. No differences in nest predation rates were found for either ground or shrub nests between the even-aged clearcut regenerated areas and the reserved forest blocks (DeGraaf 1995). On the WMNF, Forest-wide bird monitoring detected six cowbirds within managed, unmanaged, and remote areas, and during wetland inventories. Conversely, forest interior ovenbirds were found at over 90 percent of the survey points (USDA-FS 1993, Monitoring Report). Relevant studies on the WMNF show no increase in brown headed cowbirds (Yamasaki et al. 2000). Breeding Bird Surveys (1966-98) within Partners In Flight Physiographic Area 28 (includes the WMNF) show significant declining brown-headed cowbird population trends (Rosenberg and Hodgman 2000). Since occurrence of cowbird and elevated predation rates are usually indicators of forest fragmentation, the results of these local and relevant scientific studies (plus over ten years of Forest-wide songbird monitoring on the WMNF) suggest that hardwood-dominated forests in northern New England are not fragmented by even-aged management. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase regeneration age forest and habitat diversity in the HMU and the Oliverian Project Area for wildlife that use shrub layers, herbaceous ground vegetation, soft mast, and minimal overstory components (Alternative 2 more than Alternative 3, based on the amount of clearcut and shelterwood harvest proposed). Alternatives 2 and 3 would create short-term, localized edge habitat along the proposed clearcut boundaries and group selection units until the new and released vegetation attained vertical height. Because some bird species prefer edge habitat, young successional stages within older forests can enhance species diversity. Ovenbird habitat-use and reproductive success were examined in northern NH to determine the effect of edge in predominately-forested landscapes. The proportion of nests that failed from all causes, including predation, was higher along edges in 1992 than in 1993. The number of young fledged per female and the proportion of pairs fledging at

111 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

least one young did not differ between edge and interior in either year. This local study concluded that the effects of clearcutting are moderated by the abundance of mature forest cover in the region and ovenbirds tend to re-nest after initial nest failure (King et al. 1995 cited in Harlow et al. 1997). These local and relevant scientific studies suggest applying a mix of both even-aged and uneven-aged methods in the WMNF would cause no adverse effects to wildlife including MIS and Neotropical migrant songbirds. Reducing mature northern hardwood age class habitat: Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause a relatively minor decrease in the existing high amount of mature northern hardwood acres within the project area and the HMU (Alternative 2 more than Alternative 3, based on amount and type of treatment acres). This would cause a minimal short-term change in the amount of mature age class in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU, as the young age class would move into mature age class relatively soon. There is an abundance (81 percent) of mature age class northern hardwood across the WMNF landscape (FEIS, p 3-84) available as habitat to MIS scarlet tanager and ruffed grouse and woodland bats. Uneven-aged treatments: Alternative 2 proposes approximately 1,063 acres of uneven-aged silvicultural treatments (group selection, single-tree selection, group & single-tree selection), and Alternative 3 proposes approximately 1,048 acres of silvicultural treatments (see Table 2-3 in Chapter 2). These silvicultural treatments would remove some mature trees and open the canopy to partial sunlight, causing minor changes to shading of the forest floor. The open canopy would release trees occupying the understory to create, and enhance, vertical stand structure and vegetation layers, diversifying the overall stand structure while increasing amounts of understory vegetation and browse availability for wildlife, but to a lesser extent than even-aged harvests. The uneven-aged treatments would maintain the mature character of the stands. The group selection harvests would perpetuate spruce-fir, and would move pine, northern hardwood, or mixedwood types on ELTs that indicate softwood capability towards spruce-fir (favorable to MIS magnolia and MIS blackburnian warblers). This would move the project area toward the long-term objectives of the HMU to maintain the mature age class within each habitat type and move stands with softwood ELTs towards a spruce-fir habitat type. After uneven-aged harvest, there would be habitat diversity in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU (including the project area) for wildlife that use open-canopy and closed-canopy forest, beech mast, dead trees (roosting and denning), or softwood cover (Alternative 2 more than Alternative 3, based on the amount of proposed acres of uneven- aged harvest). Shelterwood treatment with prescribed fire in mature oak/pine habitat: Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 100 acres of shelterwood treatments (some with prescribed fire) in stands with an oak-pine component. These treatments would maintain the mature character of the stands and encourage regeneration of oak and pine over existing northern hardwoods or spruce/ fir/hemlock regeneration. One HMU objective is to increase the oak and pine habitat type (see HMU Rationale in project record). There would be a temporary reduction of understory vegetation in these stands from proposed site prep and prescribed fire that would affect wildlife species that use understory vegetation. Prescribed fire has few discernible impacts on birds and large and

112 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment small mammals, and has relatively little direct mortality and little effect on overall amphibian abundance and diversity. Prescribed fire may decrease the abundance of invertebrates, with some recovery or increases in a year to two, which is related to litter cover and depth (Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers Conference 2005). Dead and down wood recruitment and vernal pools: In stands proposed to be treated with even-aged silvicultural activities in Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be less large, dead and down wood (>11” DBH) on the forest floor for approximately 10 to 60 years after treatment. Residual trees left in all other harvest units would continue to supply a component of dead standing, and dead down, woody material as trees die, branches break, and annual leaf litter accumulates on the forest floor. Over a period of 18 years, the District biologist observed past Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (similar to current Standards & Guidelines on pp 2-35 to 2-36 of 2005 LRMP) that effectively retained wildlife trees in harvest units. These past and current Standards & Guidelines ensure an adequate amount of cavity trees and dead and down wood is available for wildlife that use these habitat features including woodland bats. Riparian and Aquatic Standards and Guidelines (2005 LRMP, pp 2-24 to 26) would also maintain a 25 foot no cut buffer around vernal pools and perennial streams (excluded from harvest and burn units), and retain dead and down logs. Timber Stand Improvements (TSI): TSI would create browse available on the ground for some wildlife including white-tailed deer especially during the winter when deer need nutrition the most. TSI would regenerate patches of aspen-birch that would create habitat diversity in the project area (Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the same amount of approximately 154 acres of TSI). Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS): Forest Service botany surveys documented the location of NNIS on National Forest land located within the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area, and documented NNIS on state and private lands located outside of the project area (see NNIS location map in the project file). NNIS Treatment-Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Wildlife Species and Habitat: The WMNF completed a Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control EA (USDA-FS 2007a) that disclosed in detail the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of mechanical, chemical (herbicide), and biological (purple loosestrife beetle) control techniques on wildlife species and habitat (including TEPS species) on National Forest land. In summary, the WMNF Forest-wide Plant Control EA determined the risk of negative direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife from action alternatives as very low to immeasurable, with no long-term impacts on National Forest land (Plant Control EA, Sec. 4.0, pages 37-75). The direct and indirect effects of NNIS plant control on National Forest land (including effects of herbicide use on wildlife and aquatic life) was analyzed under a Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control EA. Therefore, the treatment of 53 acres of NNIS on National Forest land proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 within the Oliverian Stewardship Project would not add any additional negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wildlife species or habitat in the Project Area or the cumulative effects analysis area (see NNIS Section).

113 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Because the same plant control techniques proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 on the 53 acres of National Forest land would be applied on approximately 7 acres of NNIS located on private land, no new direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be introduced that were not already analyzed in the Forest-wide Plant Control EA. Therefore, it is anticipated that the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on National Forest land as disclosed in the WMNF Forest- wide Invasive Plant Control EA are likely to occur on state and private land surrounding the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area. Under the No Action alternative no eradication treatments of state or private land would occur. Therefore, the No Action would add a negative cumulative effect of the risk of spread of NNIS to un-infested areas thus affecting wildlife habitat. Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain habitat connectivity for wildlife travel to, from, or within the HMU and the project area, and would not cause fragmentation. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not introduce new, nor increase predators already known or expected to occur in the project area (barred owl, red-tailed and broad-winged hawks, porcupine, raccoon, mink, weasel, fisher, fox, coyote, bear, bobcat), nor alter existing predator-prey relationships. These determinations are based on but not limited to: • Existing species or their signs noted during multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific field reviews of the project area. • Results of wildlife monitoring data gathered in similar habitat as the project area located in adjacent watersheds and HMUs. • Prior BEs for projects located within adjacent and nearby watersheds and HMUs (e.g. Stevens Brook, Batchelder Brook, Ellsworth, Titus II, North South Road, and Sugarloaf Vegetation Management Projects, Rumney Rocks Climbing Management Plan, and the Warren to Woodstock Snowmobile Trail). Alternative 2 has potential to cause more of the negative direct effects to wildlife and their habitat than Alternative 3, because more acres would be affected by similar types of silvicultural treatments and recreational improvements. However, the negative direct effects would be relatively minor in magnitude and short-term in duration (except mortality) because winter harvest designated skid trails, and previously cited Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines would protect and maintain wildlife habitat. Alternative 2 would cause greater positive indirect and long-term beneficial effects to wildlife habitat diversity because a greater amount of 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class habitat would be created. Alternative 2 would perpetuate oak and softwood due to more acres treated, and best meets the intent of the goals and objectives (Objectives 2 and 4) for wildlife habitat management stated on the Forest Plan page 1-20. Management Indicator Species Table 3.5-4 shows the effects on the amount and quality of habitat for MIS within the analysis area (includes the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area). Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would affect the amount and quality of habitat for MIS differently.

114 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 would not create any new habitat for MIS that use regeneration habitat (ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided and magnolia warbler). The MIS scarlet tanager and blackburnian warbler would benefit in the long term through perpetuation of mature northern hardwood and softwood habitats respectively. In Alternatives 2 and 3, these same MIS would benefit from the immediate establishment of regeneration age class habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause a relatively minor reduction in the overall amount and quality of existing mature habitats available in the HMU and the project area for these MIS (Alternative 2 more than Alternative 3 due to more acres proposed for treatment). Table 3.5-4. Effects of Alternatives on the Amount & Quality of MIS Habitat.

MIS Alternative 1 Alternative 2* Alternative 3* Chestnut-sided Warbler Perpetuates the lack of Greater increase in hard- Lesser increase in hard- Regeneration (regen) hardwood regeneration wood regen age class wood regen age class Northern hardwood. age class habitat in the habitat via habitat via analysis area. 247 clearcut; 220 clearcut; 100 shelterwood 100 shelterwood 347 even-aged acres. 320 even-aged acres. Scarlet tanager Continued increase in the Greater decrease in ma- Decrease in the mature Mature Northern hard- mature hardwood age ture hardwood age class hardwood age class via wood class that is already domi- 247 clearcut; 220 clearcut; nating the analysis area. 100 shelterwood 100 shelterwood 347 even-aged acres. 320 even-aged acres. (The 653 group; 120 (The 653 group; 105 singletree; 290 ST/Group singletree; 290 ST/ treatment acres would Group treatment acres maintain mature forest would maintain mature at the stand scale with forest at the stand scale canopy gaps). with canopy gaps). Magnolia warbler Perpetuates the lack of Increase of softwood re- Same increase of soft- Regeneration Softwoods softwood regen age class gen age class habitat via wood regen age class habitat in the analysis 100 shelterwood habitat via area. 653 GS 100 shelterwood 25 Overstory removal 653 GS treatments 788 stand acres. 25 Overstory removal 788 Stand acres Blackburnian warbler Continued increase in the Decrease in mature soft- Same decrease in Mature Softwoods mature age class that is wood habitat age class mature softwood habitat already dominating the via age class via analysis area. 25 Overstory Removal 25 Overstory Removal 100 Shelterwood 100 Shelterwood 653 Group Selection 653 Group Selection 778 stand acres 778 stand acres (group treatments would (group treatments would remove some mature remove some mature softwood but maintain softwood but maintain mature forest habitat at mature forest habitat at the stand scale). the stand scale). Ruffed Grouse Perpetuates the contin- Increase in aspen-birch Lesser increase in No distinction for age ued decline & long term habitat via: 247 clearcut aspen-birch via 220 class loss of aspen-birch via no even-aged acres. clearcut even-aged Aspen / Birch. regen harvests. acres. *Acreage numbers are approximate. 115 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on wildlife and their habitat for all alternatives includes all National Forest lands (MAs 2.1 and 6.1-3, 8.3, 9.3) in the Oliverian HMU, totaling approximately 7,470 acres. The analysis area also includes approximately 12,422 acres of private land within sub-watersheds located north and south across NH Route 25 adjacent to the western boundary of the Oliverian HMU. Additional private land located to the southeast of the HMU was included. The HMU is surrounded on 3 sides by private land. On the west side of the HMU there are relatively larger open pasture fields. On the south side, there are small openings along NH Route 25 for residential homes. On the east side the private land is surrounded by National Forest with small openings for residential homes. This cumulative effects analysis area boundary was used because it: • Includes the Oliverian Project Area and the larger HMU designed with logical watershed boundaries with habitat diversity objectives to meet the needs of an array of wildlife species. • Is large enough to address habitat connectivity and wildlife travel and migration corridors to and from private land, the project area, and the HMU. • Addresses habitat diversity at the landscape level (includes rivers streams, lakes, paved and dirt roads, developed areas, manicured lawns, and a mix of open and forested habitat on private land. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on wildlife and their habitat (including private land) is ten years past and ten years future (1999-2019) because the benefits of regeneration age class for some wildlife diminish after approximately 10 years (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). In New England, large-scale regional disturbances from catastrophic weather and fire events occur at intervals of about 1,150 and 800 years, respectively. Some localized, mid-to large-size natural disturbances (some severe) do occur in the Northeast (including the WMNF), but they are infrequent, sporadic, and unpredictable (Lorimer and White 2003). Past field reviews and aerial surveys of the WMNF documented that the majority of the 1998 ice storm event affected mostly the hardwood forest type in parts of the Forest located outside of the Oliverian project area and HMU. The 1998 ice storm did not create any substantial amounts of early successional habitat within the Oliverian HMU nor the project area (see previously cited multi-FS field reviews). Although wind has a dramatic effect on forest overstories, it has little impact upon successional trends and overall species composition. The majority of wildlife on the WMNF use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle (DeGraaf et al. 1992, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001). The project area has a history of agricultural use dating back to the early 1800s, as evidenced by the presence of “old field” white pine, apple orchards, stone walls, cellar holes, and several stone culverts. During the early 1900s, the area reverted naturally to forest land. Since the 1940s, it has been actively managed for wildlife habitat and forest products. The most recent Forest Service timber harvests in portions of the Oliverian Project Area were the Sugarloaf, Blueberry

116 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Mountain South, and the North South timber sales, each of which took place in the 1990s. Timber management activities, land clearing for residential or commercial development, and agriculture have occurred on private land in the past ten years and are likely to continue over the next ten years. Based on recent activities on adjacent private land, these activities are not expected to create substantial amounts of regeneration age class habitat. The adjacent private land currently contributes to habitat diversity via a mix of habitats, but not substantially to the 0 to 9 year old age class by forest type. There is no guarantee that open habitat on private land created via agriculture would stay in an open state (i.e. maintained as permanent openings), and no guarantee that the 0 to 9 year old age class or some of the forested areas (including mature forest) would not be converted from habitat to non-habitat such as permanent developments. Alternative 1 Mature northern hardwood and mixedwood forest would continue to dominate the HMU (including the project area). Individual dead or dying trees would continue to fall to the ground via natural disturbances and create very small, infrequent, sporadic, and unpredictable canopy openings allowing sunlight to the forest floor and creating very limited amounts of regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old) habitat in the HMU. Alternative 1 would add an adverse cumulative effect to the lack of regeneration age class and add to the steadily decline of the aspen-birch habitat type in the analysis area. Alternative 1 would also cause a lost opportunity to perpetuate northern red oak mast. Field observations and aerial photos indicate the private land adjacent to the HMU does not contribute substantially to the 0-9 year old age class and does not contain stands of aspen-paper birch habitat. Aspen-paper birch habitat would be present in the HMU in 10 years, but would have matured and possibly begun converting towards northern hardwood or spruce-fir types. This alternative does not preclude future options for creating early-successional habitat or diversifying community types in the HMU. The Forest Service would maintain the designated road and trail system in the project area, and visitors would continue to use the area. Alternative 1 would not add a cumulative effect of increased human activity in the analysis area associated with vegetation or proposed recreational improvements at this time. Alternative 1 would not add any cumulative effects to bear clawed beech trees, deer yard habitat, or add stress to woodland bats that summer roost in trees if WNS spreads to the WMNF. However, Alternative 1 would not move the HMU or the Forest toward the wildlife habitat diversity objectives outlined in the LRMP for the full range of wildlife species on the WMNF in the reasonably foreseeable future (USDA-FS 2005a, Chap. I, pages 20-22). Climate Change Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scientific information (summarized by L. Prout 2009) indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitat or species’ populations from climate change within the Oliverian Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (1999-2019).

117 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Alternatives 2-3 Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future Forest Service management activities in the Oliverian HMU within the temporal scope include vegetation management, recreation improvements, and wildlife habitat (orchard and opening) maintenance. These activities have and would affect wildlife and their habitat within the HMU. The recreation and vegetation management projects have or would use a similar mix of Standards and Guidelines that protected riparian and wildlife habitat described in Chapter 2 and the previous direct and indirect effects section. The stands treated in past projects have grown out of the regeneration age class and into the young age class. The current Oliverian HMU analysis shows a current lack of regeneration age class for all forest types within the cumulative effects area. The MA 6.1-3, 8.3 and 9.3 lands within the Oliverian HMU are not subject to vegetation management, and mature northern hardwood and mixedwood forests would continue to dominate the HMU and be available to MIS scarlet tanager, blackburnian warbler, and ruffed grouse. The non MA 2.1 land plus the 762 acres of 2.1 land unsuitable for harvest in the HMU would develop into older forest habitat. Peregrine Falcons and Cliff Nesting Habitat: Because neither Alternatives 1, 2, nor 3 would cause any direct nor indirect effects to breeding peregrine falcons, or cliff nesting habitat, no cumulative effects to these resources are anticipated in the Oliverian HMU (see TEPS Section). White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The WMNF LRMP contains Standards & Guidelines that ensure deer wintering habitat is maintained in the HMU and Forest-wide (USDA-FS 2005a, II-34, G-6). Past vegetation management projects in the Oliverian HMU adhered to similar Standards & Guidelines that protected deer wintering habitat. Because the Oliverian Stewardship Project would follow wintering habitat Guidelines, Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause no adverse cumulative effects to deer wintering habitat within the HMU. Under Alternative 1, there would be lost opportunities to increase hardwood browse and regenerate aspen-birch adjacent to deer yard habitat. Timber harvesting on private land, adjacent to the HMU, that emphasizes single tree selection and group selection treatments in softwood or mixedwood stands would enhance softwood habitat. Even-aged harvest in softwood or mixedwood stands, and clearing for residential development on private lands, could reduce the amount of wintering habitat available to white-tailed deer. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: Past, present and future timber harvest may have or could result in a minor reduction of bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU. The HMU contains substantial amounts of mature hardwood, mixedwood, and some oak-pine forest, which provides hard mast for wildlife including black bears. Harvesting and residential development on private lands adjacent to the HMU most likely affected bear-clawed beech trees, and some loss is likely to occur with future development on private land. With use of design features (see Chapter 2), Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause relatively minor direct and indirect effects to bear clawed beech trees within the project area; therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative effects to bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU.

118 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

White-nose Syndrome and Woodland Bats: There is potential that WNS could spread to the WMNF in the near future. The effects of timber harvest on woodland bats in the cumulative effects analysis area are similar to those described under direct and indirect effects (i.e. disturbance of bats roosting in trees, decrease of roosting habitat, and increase in foraging habitat via forest- canopy openings and re-opening of roads and landings). Past timber harvest did not add any additional stress to bats with WNS, as the disease was then unknown. Present and future summer/fall timber harvests could potentially add an additional stress via disturbance or displacement of woodland bats that summer roost in trees if WNS spreads to the WMNF. However, potential disturbance of individual bats or reduction of summer roosting habitat from timber harvest would be minimal for the same reasons discussed under direct and indirect effects section. Very few individual bats would likely be disturbed or displaced from summer/fall timber harvests annually, as less than 1% of the WMNF is actively harvested each year, and only a portion of this occurs during the period of time when bats would be present. While timber harvest would result in some loss of potential roost tees, there are hundreds of potential roost trees in and near the project area that would still be available to bats upon completion of harvesting. Predicting what the potential threats might be to bat populations on the WMNF is difficult and it is impossible to take action to limit the spread of this disease except at hibernacula. The WMNF is in close contact with the USFWS and New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to stay informed about this issue and take appropriate actions as needed regarding WNS. WNS has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project. At this time, WNS is limited to hibernacula caves and mines. All activities proposed in the Oliverian project would occur outside of these areas, which are off-Forest, with no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USDA 2009a). Future projects within the HMU would also use similar standards and guidelines for protection of aquatic and terrestrial resources. As a result, there would be no adverse cumulative effects to wildlife or their habitat within the HMU including the project area. Private Land: Activities on private land have, and would, affect habitat (altered habitat, loss of habitat, improved habitat) and would likely cause a minor cumulative effect of increased human presence adjacent to the HMU. Increased development of surrounding private lands may result in some increases in human presence in the HMU and project area over time, resulting in possible increased disturbance to wildlife in the HMU. In summary, based on relatively minor, localized, direct and indirect effects to wildlife and their habitat from past projects, Alternatives 2 and 3 of the proposed Oliverian Stewardship Project would add very minor and localized cumulative effects to wildlife resources in the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Oliverian Stewardship Project would move the Forest toward the objective of providing wildlife habitat diversity (especially regeneration age class, early successional habitat, and conversion to softwood habitat in the future) within the Oliverian HMU (Alternative 2 more than Alternative 3 based on the amount and type of harvest and recreation activities proposed).

119 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Management Indicator Species Table 3.5-5 summarizes the effects determinations of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on WMNF MIS within the analysis area, including the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area. The effects to MIS and their habitat are within the range of those described in the WMNF FEIS (USDA 2005). The MIS framework is useful for indicating the effects of Forest Plan implementation. MIS may be affected by individual project actions or lack of actions. However, viable populations of MIS are to be maintained or monitored in the Forest-wide planning area. Table 3.5-5. Effects of Alternatives on MIS & Habitat in the Analysis Area.

WMNF MIS Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Perpetuates the lack of regen age Would cause a relatively minor Chestnut-sided Warbler class, declining trend in aspen-birch decrease in the dominant mature and habitat diversity in the analysis age class and inversely increase the Scarlet Tanager area including the project area. Over amount of regen age class currently the long term, MIS that prefer regen lacking in the analysis area including Magnolia Warbler age class and paper birch habitats the project area. Aspen-birch would would decline within the analysis area continue to occur and habitat diversity Blackburnian Warbler including the project area and would in the analysis area and project area seek these habitats elsewhere. would be maintained. Ruffed Grouse Alternative 1 (in the near term) Alternatives 2 and 3 would not would not adversely affect popula- adversely affect population trends tion trends and viability of WMNF and viability of WMNF MIS within MIS within the Forest-wide planning the Forest-wide planning area. area.

Rationale: 1) The approximately 2,062 stand acres proposed for treatment under Alternative 2 would only affect approximately 0.05% of the entire 752,000 acre WMNF. (Alternative 3, with 2,011 stand acres proposed for treatment, would only affect 0.03% of the WMNF). 2) Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the amount of regeneration age class hardwood and softwood acres in the project area, enough for several breeding pairs of MIS chestnut-sided and MIS magnolia warblers; and increase age class diversity and the aspen-birch habitat type for MIS ruffed grouse. 3) Alternatives 2 and 3 would not interrupt the processes necessary for genetic interaction for maintaining population viability of MIS within the Forest- wide planning area.

120 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, & Sensitive Species (TEPS) Biological Evaluation (BE) The District biologist completed a BE of the potential effects to Federally-listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Regional Forester-listed Sensitive Species (TEPS) for the Oliverian Stewardship Project. The BE provides details on the following sources used to determine potential TEPS species and/or habitat occurrence that included (but were not limited to): • Several multi-year, multi-seasonal, and site-specific surveys, field reviews, and database checks conducted within the project area (Audubon 2009, Mattrick 2007; NHFG 2007 & 2009; NHNHB 2008; NHNHI 1992; USDA-FS 2007 & 2008a, b, c & 2009, 1993, & ID-Team field reviews). • Numerous field visits by WMNF biological and forestry staff to the project area. • Prior Biological Evaluations of TEPS for projects within adjacent and nearby watersheds and HMUs (e.g. Stevens Brook, Batchelder Brook, Titus II, North South Road, and Sugarloaf Vegetation Management Projects, the Rumney Rocks Climbing Management Plan, and the Warren to Woodstock Snowmobile Trail). • Results of wildlife monitoring data gathered in adjacent watersheds and HMUs having similar habitat as the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area. Based on a review of all available information, the BE (Tables 4 & 5) disclosed that two Federal and several Regional Forester-listed species have suitable habitat, and/or documented or suspected occurrence in the Oliverian Project Area. The BE details the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these species and their habitat. The effects determinations with rationale taken from the Oliverian project BE are summarized below (BE in Project Record). The BE and effects determinations were based on best available science, on internal and external database and scientific literature reviews, information from internal and external professional biologists, and site-specific stream, plant, and wildlife surveys and field reviews. Affected Environment The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on terrestrial TEPS species and their habitat is MA 2.1 lands in the HMU (including the project area) for similar reasons described in the Wildlife Section. Perennial streams in the project area were used for aquatic species due to restricted habitat needs, and MA 2.1 lands in the project area were used for plants because plants are sessile. The analysis area for cumulative effects to terrestrial TEPS is all lands (MA 2.1, 6.1-3, 8.3, 9.3) in the HMU and adjacent private land to address wildlife travel and migration corridors and habitat connectivity for similar reasons described in the Wildlife Section. The LAU 13 was used for Canada lynx. For aquatic species, perennial streams in the HMU and adjacent private land were used due to restricted habitat needs, and MA 2.1 lands in the project area were used because plants

121 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

are sessile. The temporal scope for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all TEPS species is the past and future ten years (1999-2019), for similar reasons previously described in the wildlife resources section. BE Effects Determination and Rationale Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, & Sensitive Species Indiana Bat Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no effect” to individual Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). There is no federally designated critical habitat for Indiana bat within New Hampshire. Under No Action, there would be lost opportunities to open the forest canopy and create more favorable roosting and foraging habitat for woodland bats due to no vegetation management at this time. Rationale: This determination was based the best available science and new information (USDA-FS 2009a), site-specific Forest Service field reviews of the Oliverian Project Area, forest-wide mist-net surveys on the WMNF (BCM 2002, 2004; Yamasaki 2000), recent cave surveys in NH (USDI 2008), and woodland bat surveys off-Forest in NY and VT. 1) USDI-FWS rendered no occurrence of Indiana bat on the WMNF (USDI 2008a). Indiana bats are likely not present on the WMNF, and there is very limited roosting habitat available to the occasional male that might (though unlikely) occur on the WMNF (USDI-FWS, 2005). 2) Forest Plan Wildlife Standards & Guidelines for reserve trees (not specific to Indiana bats but applicable to all tree-roosting bats) would maintain habitat. Implementation of the Wildlife Standards & Guidelines for site-specific projects should be considered sufficient for no effect determinations on timber harvest, and wildlife and recreational management projects (USDI-FWS 2005). 3) There are no recent voucher specimens or photo documented occurrences of Indiana bat in NH. Recent multi-year mist net surveys of NH woodland bats (included portions of the nearby Batchelder Brook Project Area) detected no Indiana bat (BCM 2002, 2004). 4) There is no federally designated critical habitat in NH and no documented winter hibernacula (caves) or swarming habitat used by Indiana bat, and no documented maternity colonies or lactating female Indiana bat within NH. The closest hibernaculum is located in Brandon, VT, approximately 70 air miles southwest from the proposed Project Area. 5) Most of the WMNF is unsuitable bat habitat due to high canopy closure, cooler temperatures, steep terrain and distance from known hibernacula. Female bats from NY hibernacula traveled <40 miles to summer habitat (UDSA-FS 2005). 6) WNS has been found in NH caves per recent surveys by bat experts. There is potential that WNS could spread to the WMNF, but it is unlikely that proposed activities that harvest trees would result in cumulative effects

122 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

to Indiana bat because this bat does not occur on the WMNF. WNS has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities proposed in the Oliverian Project. At this time, WNS is limited to hibernacula caves and mines. All proposed activities would occur outside of these areas (which are off-Forest), with no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USDA 2009a). Canada lynx Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no effect” on individual Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). There is no federally designated critical habitat in NH. Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines outlined in the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2005a). Rationale: 1) Canada lynx were considered extirpated/absent from the WMNF (USDI-FWS 1998, 2005). In winter 2006, DNA tests confirmed track and scat found on private land north of US Route 2 were from one female lynx (USDA 2006a,b). Tracks were considerably further north and closer to known lynx source populations than the Oliverian Project Area. Canada lynx are likely not present in Project Areas south of US Route 2 (USDI-FWS 2006). 2) USFWS did not designate critical habitat in the Federal Register (USDI 2000a) including the entire WMNF. The USFS would initiate consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA if lynx reoccupy the WMNF. 3) Lynx, or their sign, were not detected via past surveys on the WMNF (Kingman 1986; Litvaitis et al. 1991 in Brocke et al. 1993), or during recent Forest-wide winter track surveys (unpub. data 1993-97 & 2002-08), or during 1999 & 2004 forestwide National Lynx Detection hair snare surveys. 4) No sign of lynx was documented during several years of winter tracking on the Walker Brook and Lost River wildlife monitoring transects located near the Oliverian Project Area (USDA-FS District data). 5) Canada lynx have a large home range and the proposed Oliverian Project Area is not a limiting factor in lynx survival. Alternatives 2 and 3 would adhere to the WMNF Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines that would enhance and maintain snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat. Regional Forester Sensitive Species: Peregrine falcon Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no impact” to the population or species of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). Rationale: This rationale is based on Audubon (2009) monitoring, site- specific Forest Service field surveys, internal and external database and scientific literature reviews, and information from professional biologists. 1) The Sugarloaf and Owls Head Cliffs, in the Oliverian Project Area, are occupied by breeding peregrine falcons (Audubon 2009). Audubon annually posts seasonal climbing restrictions to protect breeding falcons.

123 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

2) Construction of the proposed parking area and hiking trail to the base of Owls Head Cliff would concentrate existing parking and hiker/climber activity. 3) Timing of road maintenance and timber harvesting would not affect falcon courtship, breeding, nesting, foraging, or migration. Eastern small- footed myotis Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 “may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” of Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Rationale: This determination was based new information (USDA-FS 2009a), the best available science, and site-specific Forest Service field reviews of the Oliverian Project Area, recent cave surveys in NH (USDI 2008), Forest-wide mist-net surveys on the WMNF (BCM 2002, 2004; Yamasaki 2000) and woodland bat surveys off- Forest in NY and VT. 1) There are no documented overwinter hibernacula (caves, mines, or tunnels) or old buildings exposed to sun as roost sites (USDA-FS 2005a, Appendix G, pgs 224-227) within stands proposed for silvicultural treatment in the Oliverian project area. 2) Alternatives 2 and 3 would affect a very small percentage of potential bat habitats on the WMNF. Riparian and Wildlife Standards & Guidelines (USDA-FS 2005a, LRMP Chap. II 24-26 and 33-36) would maintain habitat diversity within the project area. Plus, the MA 6.1-3, 8.3, 9.3 lands are not subject to vegetation management, and woodland bat habitat would be available Forest-wide. 3) Winter timber harvest design features would avoid disturbance to bats because bats would be in-hibernation elsewhere. Prescribed fire would occur when bats were not present (or bats would move away from smoke and fire). Silvicultural treatments, which open portions of the forest canopy, and allow sunlight into stands and adjacent areas, could improve solar conditions for roosting and open foraging habitat for woodland bats. 4) WNS has been found in NH caves in recent surveys by bat experts. There is potential that WNS could spread to the WMNF, but it is unlikely that proposed activities that harvest trees would result in cumulative effects to eastern small-footed myotis; literature indicates that this species does not favor roosting in trees during the non-hibernation season. There are no known management activities that are directly affecting WNS, or bats with WNS, on or near the WMNF (USDA 2009). WNS has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project. At this time, WNS is limited to hibernacula caves and mines. All activities proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project occur outside of these areas (which are off-Forest), with no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USDA 2009).

124 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Northern bog lemming Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no impact” to the population or species of Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphagnicola). Rationale: This determination was based the best available science and site-specific surveys of the project area that included riparian areas, and past Forest-wide searches and surveys for bog lemming. 1) There is no documented occurrence of northern bog lemming within the Oliverian Stewardship Project Area, and the likelihood of occurrence is extremely low. There are limited amounts of potential marginal habitat (riparian/wetland) in the project area, which would be excluded from recreational improvements, Silvicultural treatments, and the timing and duration of prescribed fire would likely not affect the wetter areas where northern bog lemming could occur. 2) WMNF Forest Plan Riparian and Wildlife Standards & Guidelines would maintain existing dead and down woody materials and residual vegetation and provide cover for n. bog lemming if present in the project area (USDA- FS LRMP 2005a, II 24-26 and 33-36). Proposed winter harvest would limit soil and snow compaction. 3) The proposed hiking trail would concentrate the user-defined trails to the base of Owls Head Cliff and protect habitat. 4) NH State wetland and water quality laws would protect potential marginal northern bog lemming habitat on private land adjacent to the HMU. Wood turtle Implementation Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no impact” to the population or species of wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta). Rationale: This rationale was based on internal database checks and site-specific Forest Service surveys of the project area. 1) There are no current or historic documented occurrences of wood turtle, and only limited amounts of potential marginal suitable wood turtle habitat, within the Oliverian project area. Oliverian Pond, streams, riparian zone, wet opening area, and upland forest (very low potential where wood turtle could occur) would be avoided through design features for timber harvesting and recreational improvements. 2) Any change in habitat caused by Alternative 2 or 3 would be relatively minor in magnitude, adding no cumulative effects. 3) NH State wetland and water quality laws would protect potential suitable wood turtle habitat on private land adjacent to the HMU. Mayflies Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would cause “no impact” to the population or species of mayflies Ameletus( browni) or (Ameletus tertius).

125 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Rationale: The rationale is based on site-specific reviews of the streams in the project area, and personal communication with external professional biologists. 1) There is no recent or historic documented occurrence of either Ameletus species in Benton, NH or in Oliverian Brook or tributaries. 2) There are limited amounts of potential suitable mayfly habitat within aquatic portions of the Oliverian project area. 3) WMNF Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines protect riparian areas and maintain aquatic habitat for mayflies that is well-distributed across the Forest (USDA-FS 2005a, I 20-22, II 33-36). Regional Forester-listed Sensitive Plants Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, or 3 “may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” of Missouri Rock-cress (Arabis missou- riensis), Bailey’s Sedge (Carex baileyi), Piled-up Sedge (Carex cumulata), Goldie’s Woodfern, (Dryopteris goldiana), Boreal Bedstraw (Galium Kamtschaticum), Butternut Tree (Juglans cinerea), Northern Adder’s Tongue (Ophioglossum pusil- lum), American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), and Three-leaved Black Snake Root (Sanicula trifoliata). Rationale: This rationale is based on multi-year, site-specific plant surveys, internal and external database and scientific literature reviews, and information from professional botanists. 1) There is documented occurrence of butternut trees and American ginseng plants within localized portions of the project area that would be protected by a design feature of “avoidance”. There would be no cutting of butternut; removal of competing species around butternut trees would improve growing conditions. 2) There are limited amounts of suitable habitat in the Oliverian project area for other RFSS plants, but no documented occurrence thereof, and several multi-year and site-specific plant surveys found no other TEPS plants occurring in the Oliverian project area. 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, but current scientific information (summarized in L. Prout 2009) indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Oliverian Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (1999-2019). Therefore, climate change is not expected to affect wildlife species or how well the Oliverian Project alternatives achieve the desired outcomes.

126 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.6 Fire: Oak-Pine Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Executive Summary This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the three alternatives on oak-pine habitat and hazardous fuel loads in the proposed project area. Under Alternative 1, oak and pine habitat would diminish as forest succession continues toward a climax (birch, beech, and maple) type forest. Fuel loads would continue to accumulate until reduced by wildland fire. Under the action alternatives, selected oak-pine communities would be targeted for improvement and fuels that could support wildfires would be reduced (see Table 3.6-1). Background The proposed Oliverian project plans prescribed burns on 195 acres of habitat in selected oak-pine stands in order to improve growing conditions for these valuable but underrepresented species, and to reduce the hazardous fuel loads in these stands. Prescribed fire was chosen over other methods of timber stand improvement because of its lower cost, efficiency, and compatibility with restoration objectives (Fight and Barbour 2005). It is expected that the stands would need repeated burns (up to three in a fifteen year period), in order to provide the conditions needed for oak-pine seedlings to establish themselves and successfully compete against birch, beech, and maple for sunlight and space. The proposed project area contains some of the largest and highest quality oak-pine habitat on the Forest, a habitat that has begun to diminish on the White Mountain National Forest and in the eastern United States generally. Oak- pine habitat requires periodic disturbance, such as fire, in order to perpetuate. Without this disturbance, shade tolerant northern hardwoods gradually replace all age classes of oak-pine, eventually removing oak-pine from the stand. Oak-pine is the most fire-adapted and fire prone habitat on the WMNF. The leaves and needles of oak and pine are resistant to decay and compaction, drying quickly to support wildfires that can exhibit rapid rates of spread and burn more than the usual 0.1–5 acre fires seen in other Forest habitat types. Fire return intervals (the average years between fires necessary to maintain a specific habitat type) for oak-pine sites in the Northeast are estimated to range from 40 to 130 years (Landfire 2008). The last recorded fire in the project area was a lightning strike on the summit of Owl’s Head cliff in late August, 2007. This fire occurred outside the 2.1 management area and was monitored by WMNF fire staff as a Wildland Fire Use (WFU) incident. The fire burned approximately 0.5 acres before rain put it out. The last large fire in the proposed project area was in the mid 1800s, and evidence of smaller fires have been found. Because of the proximity of houses, roads, and other values in and around the proposed project area, and the management direction in MA 2.1 lands, wildland fire use (WFU) is not an option, and all wildfires in the majority of the oak-pine stands would continue to be suppressed.

127 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

As development pressure in New Hampshire increases, and as people inhabit and use this area, the chance of a human-caused fire is expected to increase. Prescribed burning in these habitat types is a pro-active way to promote oak- pine and reduce the impact of a human-caused wildfire. For these reasons, the number of acres planned for prescribed burning is larger than in other vegetation management projects. Affected Environment

Habitat Restoration Anthropogenic disturbance has been cited as a key factor in the rise and decline of oak-pine species in the eastern United States. Use of prescribed fire by Native Americans as well as land clearing, large scale timber harvest, and the severe wildfires associated with European settlement provided optimal growing conditions for oak-pine species. 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, a marked loss of oak and pine regeneration in the east has occurred (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 sites to damp, shaded, closed canopy hemlock and northern hardwood sites (Nowacki and Abrams 2008). This loss of species diversity is a concern to land managers. In New Hampshire, oak-pine sites provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife species including deer, turkey, squirrel, and neotropical migrant birds.

Figure 3.6-1. A 2008 WMNF prescribed burn in an oak stand, New Boston Air Force Station. Native Americans and European settlers also used fire for habitat management. WMNF photo by Chris O’Brien.

128 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Blueberry, huckleberry, and uncommon flowers, grasses and sedges are also associated with oak-pine habitat (Sperduto and Nichols 2004). In addition, red oak and white pine are valuable timber species, and an important component in the local wood industry. Northern New Hampshire probably never had vast stands of oak and pine prior to European settlement, but at least some smaller pockets did exist (Sperduto personal communication 2008). An estimate of pre-European settlement forest patterns concludes 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 New Hampshire prior to European settlement was probably found on dry sites within a larger matrix of northern hardwood and hemlock. These stands maintained a position in the larger matrix by relying on natural disturbance (fires, windstorms) and prescribed fire by Native Americans to provide the conditions needed to out-compete the surrounding species. Fire, especially, was an effective disturbance. 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 would kill competing vegetation (Fire Effects Information System). Because dry rocky hilltops like those found on Owls Head and Blueberry Mountain in the proposed project area were the most likely to receive lightning strikes that started fires, the oak-pine vegetative communities (which include blueberry, huckleberry, grasses, and sedges) became dependent on such disturbance. Historical maps of Native American settlements, camping places, and trails indicate that there was a moderate level of activity near the proposed project area (Price 1958). Historical descriptions of Native American activities near the town of Haverhill include the use of fire (Powers 1841). Red oak acorns, as well as blueberry and other fire-adapted soft mast crops, were an important food source for Native Americans in the Northeast. The use of fire to clear ground for hunting and travel was also common (Davis 1984). It is not unreasonable to assume that prescribed fire and other forms of habitat manipulation favoring oak and pine were used in the proposed project area by Native Americans. The extensive land clearing and railroad fires associated with European settlement in the region also favored these habitat types. Many of the fields and pastures abandoned during the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries were recolonized by white pine, with red oak (probably cached by blue jays and squirrels) existing in the understory. In later years the white pine was harvested and the red oak assumed the dominant position in the canopy (Desmaris 1998). Although it may be considered that the pine and oak were favored because they took advantage of an artificially created opening, it is also likely that they were an original dominant species in that area and reclaimed the site they were removed from. Anyone who has spent time in the woods observing remnant stone walls and cellar holes knows that former pasture and cropland would revert to shade tolerant northern hardwoods if the growing conditions are favorable for those species. In this case, the dry, ledgy conditions found in parts of the proposed Oliverian project favor oak-pine and fire. The reduction

129 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.6-2. Red Oak seedling, Green Mountain National Forest, VT. Oak seedlings must survive shade, deer browsing and competition from other species in order to reach the next age class. GMNF photo by C. Casey.

of wildfires in the state is also a factor; a comparison of the amount of acres burned during 1910–1934 with the amount burned during 1986–1995 shows a 95 percent reduction in acres (Desmaris 1998). A historical account of the town of Warren references large fires on Owls Head and surrounding areas in the 1800s, although it is not known whether these were natural or human caused (Little 1870). By using timber harvest and prescribed fire in the proposed project area that support oak-pine, the Forest would attempt to restore the balance of habitats and improve the diversity of species. Hazardous Fuels Reduction On the WMNF, oak-pine habitat is the most fire-adapted and fire prone. Oak- pine communities are generally found on drier sites, with southerly aspects and low to moderate slopes that would 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 40 to 120 years (Landfire assessment) but can burn more frequently if human-caused ignitions occur (Map 3.6-1). 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 and in very similar habitat to what is found in the proposed Oliverian project area (Map 1). The WMNF is concerned that if recreation levels in the area increase so will the chance of a human-caused fire. The majority of the proposed prescribed burns would target oak-pine stands in MA 2.1 lands where all wildland fire must be suppressed in order to minimize impacts to nearby communities, watersheds, timber, and other resources. Through the use of controlled fire in these areas, fuels would be reduced and a wildfire would be easier to control. 130 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Map 3.6-1. Recent fire history on Rattlesnake Mountain, Rumney, NH. 12 miles from proposed Oliverian project.

Measuring Effects to Oak-Pine Habitat and Fuels Reduction: The relevant measurement of success for oak-pine habitat restoration and fuels reduction on the proposed Oliverian project is the creation of a mix of conditions such as age class, density, and diversity of species within the oak-pine stands selected for treatment. The secondary benefit from prescribed fire would be a reduction in fuel accumulations on the forest floor. The controlled application of fire to these stands would return an important disturbance element to the stands and reduce the severity of an uncontrolled wildfire. Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to oak-pine habitat and hazardous fuels is the proposed Oliverian project area because any direct and indirect effects on oak-pine and fuels would be observed in and adjacent to the treated stands. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is fifteen years into the future after sale is completed, to account for the possible need for up to three burn rotations during that time period.

131 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Alternative 1 Under the no action alternative, no prescribed fire would be applied to the oak-pine stands. A wildlife opening near the Oliverian Pond dam might see prescribed burn treatment under a separate project. The risk of wildfire would continue to grow in the proposed project area. Oak and pine species would continue to decline unless stimulated by a wildfire or similar disturbance. Alternatives 2-3 Approximately 155 acres would be treated through a combination of timber harvesting and prescribed fire, while 40 acres would be treated with prescribed fire only (Table 3.6-1). The treatment goal is to provide the conditions necessary for oak-pine to regenerate in sufficient numbers that multiple age classes would eventually be represented in the proposed project area. Table 3.6-1. Planned Treatments for Oak-pine stands.

Compartment Stand Treatment Acres* 1 3 Seed Tree and Prescribed Fire 6 1 12 Overstory Removal and Prescribed Fire 20 2 8 Shelterwood and Prescribed Fire 13 2 12 Shelterwood and Prescribed Fire 19 2 20 Seed Tree and Prescribed Fire 9 2 28 Shelterwood and Prescribed Fire 14 3 3 Overstory Removal and Prescribed Fire 5 3 26 Shelterwood and Prescribed Fire 25 3 44 Prescribed fire 35 3 47 Seed Tree and Prescribed Fire 8 4 6 Clearcut and Prescribed Fire 13 4 15 Seed Tree and Prescribed Fire 7 4 22 Prescribed fire 5 4 33 Clearcut and Prescribed Fire 16

*Numbers are approximate After timber harvest, prescribed fire would be used to further reduce competing species, prepare a seedbed, and increase soil warming. Several applications of fire may be needed for optimal results in these stands. A low to moderate intensity backing fire would be applied in the oak-pine stands, where flame lengths should not exceed two feet. Past experiences burning in similar oak-pine stands have shown relatively low mortality in the mature red oak and white pine, but some damage and crown scorch would be expected. The location of fire control lines, using the contour of the slope as a guide and implementing post-burn erosion control measures where needed, would minimize the short- term impact on exposed soil by preventing the erosion of topsoil, and would aid in reestablishing vegetation on the site. The prescribed burns would be conducted during the spring or fall months when there is sufficient soil moisture to prevent soil damage and erosion (see 3.8 Soils). Some evidence of fire would be visible from portions of the Blueberry Mountain trail (see 3.5 Scenery).

132 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Some amount of smoke would be emitted into the atmosphere (see 3.7 Air Quality,). The highest priority before and during the prescribed burns is public and firefighter safety. A prescribed burn plan would be written for each stand, outlining the goals and objectives of the treatment and explaining how to safely and effectively achieve them. The burn plans must be reviewed and signed by a burn boss, the WMNF Fire Management Officer, and the District Ranger. Prior to implementing the prescribed burns, fire control lines would be placed around each stand which, in conjunction with fire control pumps and hose, engines, and personnel, would ensure that the prescribed burn remains controlled, as well as protecting any adjacent private land and structures. Similar prescribed burns in oak-pine habitat are planned on the WMNF in the towns of Rumney, Ellsworth, and Bartlett, NH, and Mason Township, ME. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on oak-pine habitat encompasses approximately 15,000 acres: • National Forest lands in the Oliverian HMU (total 7,490 acres). • Adjacent private land in the Towns of Warren and East Haverhill (outside the National Forest boundary: total 7,000 acres). This area was chosen because it includes the Proposed Action (in the Oliverian HMU) and past harvest on adjacent private land. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on oak-pine habitat is twenty years in the past and twenty years into the future (1986 to 2026). Twenty years is important in tracking effects because it is the length of time after a harvest that the stand would be considered for re-entry. At the next potential re-entry, the success of the prescribed fire would be evaluated and a decision made to continue or suspend burning for the next rotation. A temporal scope tied to the natural fire return interval (40–120 years) in oak-pine stands was not chosen due to the lack of accurate fire data for the area. Alternative 1 Without the proposed timber harvest and prescribed burns, species, age class, and structural diversity of oak-pine in the analysis area would remain static or diminish. Diversity may be enhanced by natural disturbance such as a weather event, fire, disease, or an infestation that can create forest openings and provide some limited opportunities for oak-pine regeneration. Fuels would continue to accumulate until reduced by wildland fire. Alternatives 2-3 The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS (pp 3-73 to 3-112 and 3-413 to 3-428). Prescribed burning would improve plant community composition in the Oliverian HMU by influencing the scale and pattern of vegetation across the landscape, including changing successional patterns, while maintaining ecological functions and processes.

133 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

3.7 Non-Native Invasive Plants Affected Environment 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 gravel, seed and mulch brought to the Project Area from off-site are the most likely entry for non-native invasive species (NNIS). Newly created openings, parking areas, roads, and log landings are also potential entry sites. The Analysis Area for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the lands within the Oliverian HMU, and the adjacent public and private land in the surrounding towns of Benton, Warren, and Haverhill. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixedwood intermixed with lakes, ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential development. The temporal scope for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the past and future ten years (1998 to 2018). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (anything over ten years will have re-established a canopy and re-vegetated areas of soil disturbance making it highly unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.) This time frame also allows consideration of the forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society (2001–2004) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap. 3-154-155). 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. 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 adjoin- ing 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

134 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

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 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, and 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 geographi- cal scale. Disturbance in and around riparian areas, would greatly increase the risk of introducing and spreading non-natives to these vulnerable ecological communities. A number of discreet infestations of multiple invasive species were located during project surveys. These include infestations of knapweed (Centaurea sp.), Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), and common reed (Phragmites australis) (Mattrick 2007, Schori 2008). Several additional invasive plant species, Japanese knotweed and Japanese barberry, were documented in multiple infestations along Oliverian Brook on both National Forest lands and private and state-owned lands during a stream corridor survey (Mattrick 2008). 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. Targeted NNIS Species Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) These plants are often used as ornamentals and therefore are frequently found adjacent to former or current residential areas. These species are commonly found at cultural sites such as old homesteads. Barberrys have also invaded mixed deciduous/coniferous forest on the WMNF. They spread vegetatively and by birds carrying seeds. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii) 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.

135 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Highly aggressive, vegetatively spreading perennial grass invades wetlands, roadsides, and open lands. It is ubiquitous on the WMNF and in New England. Widely dispersed due to its use in conservation seed mix. It is suspected to have both native and non-native gene strains. Common Reed Grass (Phragmites australis) This large, non-native genotype of common reed grass invades wetlands and displaces species valued as forage for migratory wildfowl. It can grow 14 feet high and form dense mono-specific patches. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) This member of the buckwheat family is a creeping perennial with bamboo-like stems and creamy white flowers. The creeping rhizomes spread rapidly, and new plant colonies can grow from small plant fragments carried by water. The roots provide poor erosion control making this plant a threat to riparian areas. This species is the most abundant NNIS on the WMNF and in the surrounding landscapes. It primarily occupies roadsides, and river and stream banks. Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) Coltsfoot is a member of the Aster family (Asteraceae). The flowers of this species strongly resemble those of dandelion and it is one of the earliest blooming plants in the spring. The large deltoid shaped leaves arise after the flowers. This species is ubiquitous on the WMNF along stream banks, in seeps and along roadway edges. Its impact on native plants and native plant habitats is somewhat in ques- tion. Widespread control of this species on the WMNF is not feasible; however site specific control efforts are desirable when specific resources are threatened by this species. Proposed Treatment Methods All treatments proposed would involve a combination of mechanical (hand pulling) and chemical (targeted application of herbicides). Mechanical: In this proposed project mechanical treatment methods would consist of hand pulling. Mechanical methods of removing NNIS plants are listed at Table 3.7-1. Digging or the use of heavy equipment, such as excavators and bulldozers, would not be considered for use under this project. Mechanical control would be a secondary control method only being applied to single stems or small clumps of the target species. All plant parts with viable reproductive material would be removed from the site and disposed of in designated disposal sites. Mechanical methods may be used alone or in preparation for treatment with chemical herbicides. Chemical: controlled hand application of herbicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and available “off the shelf.” Application of chemical treatments would meet or exceed standards and requirements prescribed by all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. This includes adherence to state permitting and licensing requirements for the application of herbicides. Safety would be of primary concern during applications. All applicators would wear personal protective equipment that meets or exceeds standards prescribed by the product’s label and applicable laws and regulations.

136 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Herbicides proposed for use have been selected based on their effectiveness and low toxicity. Application methods would include dabbing, brushing, or spraying herbicide on cut stumps or stems and foliage (see Table 3.7-1). Spray applications would direct a narrow spray of herbicide directly on target plants with minimal overspray or drift. Herbicide wouldnot be applied by aerial application (plane or helicopter) or via the use of a truck mounted spray device. Table 3.7-1 Techniques of Herbicide Application Considered for Use in Alternative 2.

Technique Description Dabbing/brushing Direct hand application of herbicide to cut surface of stem via absorbent materials (i.e. foam tipped paint-brush, absorbent glove, weed wand, etc) Foliar spraying Portable spraying equipment (backpack or hand held) consisting of a tank capa- ble of holding mixtures of herbicides in liquid form. Herbicides are sprayed directly onto foliage of target species. Cut stem Stems of target individuals are cut off at ground level with loppers or saw and herbicide applied directly to cut stem using spray or brushing technique.

Chemical treatments within 250 feet of surface waters would be restricted to registered aquatic formulations of the herbicide in order to protect aquatic organisms and water quality. A single treatment per year would be scheduled, and would be scheduled to minimize negative impacts to non-target resources. Follow-up monitoring would be undertake to determine if treatment in subsequent years is necessary. In most cases, two to three years of follow up treatment are required to effectively eradicate small to moderately sized infestations. Large infestations may require additional follow up applications. All necessary state and federal permits would be acquired prior to any project implementation. Table 3.7-2 Herbicides Considered for Use in Alternative 2.

Common Chemical Some Examples of Targeted Use Target Species Name Brand Names glyphosate Glialka®; Glifonox®; Gly- Cut stem and/or basal Japanese barberry cel®; Muster®; Rondo®; bark treatment; foliar Roundup®; Sting®; Spa- spray. Non-selective. sor®; Sonic®; Tumble- weed® glyphosate – aquatic Rodeo®; Glyphos Cut stem; wand or glove Japanese knotweed, formulation Aquatic®; Pondmaster®; application near open Japanese barberry, Accord®; Eagre® water. Non-selective. coltsfoot Direct and Indirect Effects

Determination of Risk Forest Service Manual 2080.44.6 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

137 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Oliverian Project is “moderate” (USDA-Forest Service 2005e, Project NNIS Risk Assessment 2008). Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would introduce no new migration routes for invasive species. The continued use of the wildlife opening between Oliverian Brook and Owl Cliff by rock climbers accessing Owl Cliff may spread NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. This wildlife opening is currently infested with reed canary grass, and the banks of Oliverian Brook (which must be forded) is infested with Japanese barberry, Japanese knotweed, and coltsfoot. Rock climbers may spread these species into suitable, and yet uninfested habitats elsewhere in the vicinity. Under the No Action alternative NNIS control efforts would not take place on State and private lands in the Oliverian Brook corridor. These existing infestations would continue to persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur overtime creating additional infestations at currently uninfested locations. It is expected that NNIS would be present in increasing numbers within and adjacent to the Project area, and would spread into currently un-infested, less disturbed and higher quality ecological habitats. There would be a lost opportunity to eradicate NNIS growing on State and private lands abutting Oliverian Brook. Control of NNIS infestations on National Forest lands would continue under the authority granted by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project. Alternatives 2-3 NNIS Control NNIS control proposed in both Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce or eliminate propagule sources of NNIS on State and private lands in the Oliverian Brook corridor. The elimination or reduction of these propagule sources would result in a decrease in the spread of invasives from State and privately owned parcels along Oliverian Brook. NNIS found on federal lands within the project area would be controlled under the authority granted by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project. Other Project Activities All project activities will implement the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines related to NNIS. This reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS. Equipment, fill, and seed mixes utilized during the project activities (forestry, wildlife and recreation) may cause NNIS to migrate to or spread within the project area. The most likely locations of these effects include areas of road maintenance, parking lot and trail construction, the development of new of log landings, haul roads, skid trails, and stands prescribed for clearcut. These effects are the greatest for 1-2 years after harvesting, when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites and decrease dramatically when project activities cease. In clearcut stands where the canopy is removed, migration can occur via wildlife or wind transporting seeds after project activities have finished. Foot and vehicle traffic visiting the proposed newly developed parking area with toilet and access trails to Owl Cliff provide new migration routes for NNIS via tire

138 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

and footwear treads. This may allow for the introductions of new species infestations. Foot traffic to and from Owl Cliff along the proposed route of a trail passes through wildlife opening containing large amounts of reed canary grass. The definition of a single trail crossing this wildlife opening and the construction of a bridge over Oliverian Brook will likely decrease the risk of spreading existing infestations further in the project area. There is a slightly decreased risk of NNIS introduction between Alternative 2 and 3 due to the lack of toilet and scaled down parking and other facilities in Alternative 3. The parking area and associated facilities in this Alternative will likely attract fewer visitors to the parking lot, thereby reducing the probability of NNIS introduction based on the size and scope of the proposed parking lot and facilities. Cumulative Effects 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. The Forest-wide NNIS inventory (USDA Forest Service 2008) 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 (FEIS, pp 3-154 and 3-155). There are no restrictions on introduction of non-native invasive species on private lands, particularly in residential development, where NNIS often shows up in gardens. Even though there are known NNIS populations within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, and with incorporating the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect of implementing the Proposed Action or one of the action alternatives incurs a minor risk of introducing additional NNIS into the Analysis Area. Alternative 1 Under the No Action alternative NNIS control efforts would not take place on State and private lands in the Oliverian Brook corridor. These existing infestations would continue to persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur overtime creating additional infestations at currently un-infested locations. It is expected that these NNIS infestations would become source populations for additional infestations within the analysis area both on and off the WMNF. Control of NNIS infestations on National Forest lands would continue under the authority granted by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project. Nationally, the rate of spread has been estimated at three percent per year (National Invasive Species Council 2001) and at 8-12 percent per year (USDA FS 1999, Stemming the Invasive Tide), but given the climate and landscape condition of the Forest, and the comparably low level of current infestation it is anticipated that the rate of spread for the WMNF would be on the lower end of the national scale. At a rate of spread of 3 percent per year, if no control was undertaken, these infestations would increase by roughly 50 percent in ten years. It is certain that without the implementation of control efforts, the number of acres infested would likely grow rapidly.

139 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Since 2007, roughly four acres of NNIS control has taken place on the WMNF within the analysis area. It is anticipated that this number will increase to roughly 20 acres in the next ten years based on newly discovered infestations on the WMNF in the Oliverian Project Area. There are no known control projects, other than that proposed as part of this project, which have or will take place on non-federal lands within the analysis area. It is reasonable to conclude that NNIS would continue to spread throughout the analysis area. The uncontrolled spread of NNIS from sources on and off the WMNF would allow for an increase in NNIS infestation and a general decrease in ecological function within the analysis area. Alternatives 2-3 Cumulative effects would be identical under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Concerted efforts to control existing infestations of NNIS on State and private lands in the Oliverian Brook corridor would allow for an immediate reduction in the number of infested acres and NNIS propagule production in the analysis area. These actions would also bolster efforts taking place within the analysis area on the Forest. Increased visitation to the Owl Cliff climbing area due to improvements in access (parking, trail, bridge, etc) would increase both climber-related and other visitation. This slight increase in visitation has a greater potential to draw visitors from other regions and proportionally increases the possibility of the introduction of NNIS not currently found within the analysis area. Introduction of new NNIS could further disrupt natural ecological functions of native plant communities and systems. Most other project activities (road construction, forestry, fire, etc) would have negligible effects on NNIS in the analysis area. The application of the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines related to NNIS dramatically reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS into the analysis area. Climate change may have some affects on the distribution and abundance of NNIS in the longer term. A recent literature review conducted by WMNF Resource Specialists included document potential impacts to 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. In the study of plants and climate change, NNIS are little studied at present and what information can be gathered must be extrapolated from other studies. Additional information can be gathered from various sources such as the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, which maintains an on-line database of NNIS locations throughout the region (Invasive Plant Atlas of New England 2008). Although several invasive plant species appear to be spreading northward, there does not seem to be any correlation to 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.

140 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.8 Air Quality Executive Summary Activities associated with the proposed Oliverian project that could temporarily affect air quality are the release of particulates from prescribed fire and dust, and the release of pollutants from vehicle exhaust. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), no direct increase of particulates or pollutants would occur. Hazardous fuel loads would continue to increase, and could support wildfires that produced amounts of particulates in excess of the action alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 would temporarily increase amounts of particulates and pollutants but not enough to adversely affect air quality. Fuels that could support a wildfire would be reduced. Background The proposed project area currently contains some of the largest and highest quality oak-pine habitat on the WMNF, habitat that requires periodic disturbance such as fire in order to perpetuate. Oak-pine is also the most fire-adapted and fire-prone habitat on the Forest, and can exhibit rapid rates of spread that burn more than the usual 1/10th to 5 acre fires normally seen on the WMNF. The proposed Oliverian project plans a prescribed burn of 195 acres in selected oak-pine stands to improve growing conditions for these valuable but underrepresented species, and also to reduce the hazardous fuel loads in the stands. It is expected that the areas would need repeated burns (up to three in fifteen years), in order to achieve objectives. Fire return intervals (the average years between fires necessary to maintain a specific habitat type) for these stands range from 50 to 200 years. As recreational use of the area increases the chance of a human-caused fire is also expected to increase. For these reasons, the amount of acres planned for prescribed burning is larger than in other vegetation management projects (see the Fire section for more information). Affected Environment The proposed Oliverian Project is located within the White Mountains airshed, which is the air over the forest. The project area is located along the east-west trending valley of the Oliverian Brook watershed, the north-south trending valley of the Jeffers Brook watershed, and The Hogsback, a prominent ridge running northwest from Jeffers Mountain to Sugarloaf Mountain. A smaller portion of the project area is located upslope from the North Branch of Oliverian Brook, another north-south trending valley. Regional winds move from west to east, and local winds are dominated by mountain and valley dynamics interact- ing with large-scale atmospheric movements. In the Forest, the Class I air quality areas are located in the Presidential Range- Dry River Wilderness and the Great Gulf Wilderness. The project area is about 30 miles southwest (downwind) of the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness, the nearest Class I air quality area. The towns of Warren, East Haverhill, and Glencliff, as well as homes, roads and other infrastructure, exist near the proposed project area. A smoke-sensitive area, The Glencliff Home, is less than a mile from the proposed project area.

141 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The short distance from these areas to many of the burn units will restrict the burning conditions to periods when wind, weather, and fuels cause smoke to quickly disperse away from sensitive areas. Measurement Indicators There are six major federally-regulated air pollutants called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). They are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Localities where these pollutants persistently exceed NAAQS are designated “nonattainment areas”. The project area is not located in a nonattainment area for any of the NAAQS. Merrimack County, located 30 miles south of the project area, is the closest nonattainment area to the project. It is in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone (USEPA, 2006). 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. Existing emissions in the air or air pollution that occurs in the airshed are mostly related to regional and industrial sources. Local pollution, such as from vehicle emissions and dust from roads, is minor. Fire contributes particulates and carbon monoxide to the air. Dust from roads contributes particulates. Automobile emissions are associated with carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. While in the presence of sunlight, some of these pollutants combine to form ozone. None of these air pollutants currently exceed New Hampshire or federal ambient air quality standards except over short time periods from wood stoves, wildland fires, and prescribed fires. 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. Wildland and prescribed fire do not occur in the area on a regular basis; however, on occasion fires have exceeded 100 acres in size and the proposed project area contains what is considered to be fire-prone habitat. The air pollutant of most concern for the Oliverian project is particulate matter emissions less than or equal to ten microns in diameter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) produced by smoke and dust. PM 2.5, especially, can cause health problems and affect visibility in an area. Effects are measured using NAAQS: adverse effects can result if the standards are exceeded by the proposed activities. The current Federal and State standards for PM are: PM 10: The concentration of PM 10 must not exceed 150 micrograms per cubic meter over a 24 hour period. PM 2.5: The concentration of PM 2.5 must not exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter over a 24 hour period; or the annual arithmetic average must not exceed 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services monitors PM 2.5 levels statewide. Annual arithmetic averages of PM 2.5 in Grafton County for the years 2002–2007 were 8.5µ/m3 (NHDES raw data report 2008).

142 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.8-1. Rattlesnake Fire, Rumney, NH, June, 2008. This wildfire burned for six days and consumed 54 acres. WMNF photo by Richard Alan Dow.

Direct and Indirect Effects The direct/indirect effects airshed is bounded by the Connecticut River valley to the west, the Wild Ammonoosuc River to the north, the series of peaks and ridges between NH Route 112 and Mt. Kineo to the east, and the area between Mt. Kineo and Cottonstone Mountain to the south. This airshed was selected because the potential effects to air quality generated by any of the proposed activities are likely limited to those areas of operation within the airshed, and they are not expected to extend any further. Outside the valley, air pollution enters the larger air mass and is diluted. The ridges within this airshed form a boundary to local air pollution effects by blocking movement of pollutants, keeping the pollutants within the valleys. The effects of prescribed burning on air quality in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be short and localized. Adverse effects of smoke produced by prescribed burning would be mitigated by restricting prescribed burning to periods when wind, weather and fuels cause smoke to quickly disperse away from sensitive areas. By choosing when, where, and how to ignite the units, emission levels are reduced. 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 long period of time. In the case of a wildfire, emissions would be concentrated and there would be no control over when, where, and how it would burn (Figure 1). Two computer models, First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) and Fire Emissions Production Simulator (FEPS), were used to estimate the emission levels that would be produced by the alternatives. The results of these models were then incorporated into a third computer model, V-SMOKE GIS, to produce a report and map of estimated emissions concentrations on an hourly basis.

143 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Alternative 1 No activities are proposed so no emissions related to the proposed Oliverian 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 fuel levels in the oak-pine stands would continue to accumulate and could support a wildfire that may be difficult to suppress. A 10 acre oak-pine wildfire will produce more emissions than a 10 acre oak-pine prescribed burn. These emissions could reduce visibility along roads, and increase health concerns for segments of the population. Under a separate project, the proposed Forest-wide Wildlife Opening Maintenance project 2009, 36 acres of grassland habitat near the Oliverian dam may be prescribed burned every 3-5 years (Table 3.8-1). Alternatives 2-3 The primary source of concern for air quality from the proposed project is the prescribed burn proposed in compartments 1, 2, 3, and 4. The major pollutant of concern in smoke from fire is fine particulate matter, both PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter); (USFS, 2002). Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations also increase as a result of smoke emissions (USEPA, 2001). The Forest First Order Fire Effects model was run to predict smoke emissions for the proposed prescribed fire (Table 3.8-2). This program considers the region, vegetation type, and the season of burn. Table 3.8-1 Total Proposed Oliverian Project Emissions Estimates (tons/acre)*.

Emission Alternative 1 Alternatives 2-3 Alternative 1 Type without 36 acre WLO (250 acres) Including 36 acre WLO project project PM 2.5 0 15.62 0.40 PM 10 0 18.37 0.49

*For first burn rotation. Second and third rotations will produce fewer emissions. If second or third burn rotations are necessary to achieve objectives, emission levels would be lower as repeated burns reduced available fuels (Table 3.8-2). Table 3.8-2 Total Proposed Oliverian Project Emissions Estimates (tons/acre).

Emission Type Alternatives 2-3 Alternatives 2-3 Rotation 1 Rotations 2 and 3 PM 2.5 15.62 7.75 PM 10 18.37 9.12

The Fire Emissions Production Simulator computer model was used to estimate the emission levels that would be produced by a 15 acre prescribed fire in the

144 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

proposed project area under typical burning conditions. The results were then incorporated into a third computer model, V-SMOKE GIS, to produce a report and map of estimated emissions concentrations on an hourly basis (Figures 3.8-2 and 3.8-3). Public notification of the proposed prescribed burn would be given prior to the start of the burn. Because a smoke sensitive area, The Glencliff Home, is near the project area, burns will not occur unless winds and weather conditions are present to quickly disperse smoke away from the facility. Potential health effects of high exposure of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions include respiratory symptoms

Figure 3.8-2. V-SMOKE Estimate of PM 2.5 Emissions on 35 acre Proposed Burn Unit. The red line indicates Route 25.

Figure 3.8-3. V-SMOKE Graph Showing Smoke Dispersal Into Atmosphere.

145 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Figure 3.8-4. Smoke from 7 acre Rx Burn on the Androscoggin Ranger District 2008. Burning parameters require smoke to rise and disperse quickly into the airshed. WMNF photo by Rebecca Peterman.

and aggravation of heart or lung disease (USFS, 2002). Potential health effects of high exposure of CO include reduced blood-oxygen levels (USEPA, 2001). However, increases in these emissions are short-term and localized. Smoke plumes may degrade air quality in an area for just a few hours before moving and dispersing. As of 2002, prescribed fires were not considered to be a significant cause of nonattainment of NAAQS (USFS, 2002). It is therefore unlikely that the acreage burned in a 24 hour period (at most 60, the size of the two largest units) in the proposed project area would cause nonattainment of NAAQS particularly since not all stands would be burned at once. An additional concern to air quality is the use of heavy equipment and gas- operated tools during timber harvest and road maintenance operations. Ground level ozone is worst during summer months, so fall or winter harvest would minimize this effect so that ozone is unlikely to form at elevated levels as a result of the proposed activities. Prescribed fire most often occurs in the spring or fall, when ozone is not a concern. Timber harvesting activities would occur within approximately 1,022 stand acres in the fall or winter. Because of the limited duration of operation, season of operation, and the relative amount of this emission-generating equipment, it is unlikely that the proposed operations would cause the NAAQS to be exceeded. Increased vehicle traffic has the potential to increase dust in the air. Most trucking on the roads would be in the winter, which would help mitigate this potential effect. If dust becomes a problem due to limited trucking in the summer, then the contractor could mitigate these effects by applying water, calcium chloride, or magnesium chloride to the surface of the road (see Design Features, Chapter 2).

146 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for air quality is the same airshed as direct and indirect effects. This was selected because at this scale the effects of multiple uses within the airshed could become additive and result in cumulative effects. The time frame analyzed is from 1996–2025, which includes any activities in the past that could add to cumulative effects, as well as provide a look far enough into the future that the effects of the project and any known future activities are fully considered. If the proposed project objectives are not met by the initial prescribed burns, further burn rotations (up to three in fifteen years) may be necessary. This would be determined on a unit by unit basis through monitoring. As discussed above, the project is not located in a nonattainment area. Prescribed fire most often occurs in the spring or fall, when ozone is not a concern. It is possible, however, to burn in the summer if conditions allow. Many of the cumulative effects to air quality occurring on the White Mountain National Forest come from upwind, thousands of miles away in the Midwest. Large coal burning plants and other industrial emission sources contribute oxides of sulfur and nitrogen that have resulted in acid rain. This in turn has led to the acidification of ponds and streams across the forest where the buffering capacity is low (see the Water Resources section). Some large sources within the state and region also contribute to these effects. Smoke from wildfires in the Western US and Canada may also occasionally contribute emissions (Allen, pers. Comm.). As described under Affected Environment, ground-level ozone in the project area occasionally exceeds air quality standards, but not frequently enough to be considered in nonattainment. The source of this ozone is large urban centers. All of the New England states, except Maine, will have a compliance deadline for 8-hour ozone of June 2010 (USEPA, 2004a). Maine will be in compliance by June 2009 (USEPA, 2004b). Once all counties in New England are in compliance with standards, less 8-hour ozone will be moving into the White Mountains from the urban areas, which should minimize the temporary exceedances which occur in the project area. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has reported that there are no stationary sources of air pollution within the cumulative effects area (NHDES, 2006). Alternative 1 No local emissions related to the proposed action would occur. The existing condition and trends described under Affected Environment would remain much the same. The same activities that currently are occurring in the cumulative effects area would continue to occur. Future vehicle emissions are likely to increase as more visitors come to the White Mountain National Forest, and this would 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. As fuel loads in the project area increase, the potential for wildfire in the project area would also increase. Two vegetation management projects near to the proposed Oliverian project, Batchelder Brook

147 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

and Stevens Brook, include prescribed burning on 102 acres spread out over 10 years. The proposed 2009 Wildlife Opening (WLO) Maintenance Project includes prescribed burning on 36 acres of grassland east of Oliverian Dam. The grassland will be burned every three to five years. Alternatives 2-3 The action alternatives would result in the same emission-producing activities discussed under Direct and Indirect Effects. However, if second or third burn rotations are necessary to achieve objectives emission levels would be lower as repeated burns reduced available fuels (Table 3.8-3). Table 3.8-3 Total Proposed Oliverian Project Emissions Estimates (tons/acre)

Emission Type Alternatives 2-3 Alternatives 2-3 36 acre WLO Rotation 1 Rotations 2 and 3 Grassland Burn Rotations 2 and 3 PM 2.5 15.62 7.75 2.1 PM 10 18.37 9.12 2.4

None of these emissions are expected to contribute to existing cumulative effects already present in the cumulative effects area. This conclusion is reached because, as discussed under Direct and Indirect Effects, the emissions related to the action alternatives are expected to be local to the project area and of limited extent due to the limited duration of the emissions. Effects of activities both on and off National Forest System lands are not expected to cause NAAQS to be exceeded within the time frame analyzed.

148 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.9 Soils Soil Erosion and Compaction Affected Environment The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction are the stands proposed for treatment as part of the Oliverian Project. It 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 2,062 acres. Under Alternative 3, the stand analysis area total is approximately 2,011 acres. The project analysis area lies almost entirely within the Oliverian Brook watershed. Part of analyzing the direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction is to consider how the soils have responded to the effects of similar past actions. The analysis area has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest, which are, on average, moderate to well-drained fine sandy loam or sandy loam. 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 2008). Therefore, soil erosion and compaction are the physical hazards that could result from the proposed action. 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 method of harvesting to use (even- or uneven-aged management) and in which seasons harvesting should occur to minimize soil disturbance. Table 3.9-1 lists the ELTs represented in the stand area. Where past clearcutting has occurred, regenerated stands clearly show adequate stocking (see project record). Table 3.9-1. Ecological Land Type (ELT) by Forest Stand

ELT Description 415G The climax species for this ELT is sugar maple, ash and beech. It is found on the lower mountain slopes. It has a restricted layer. Surface soil erosion is high and summer harvest operation suitability is moderate to low. 6D The climax species for this ELT is a red spruce and balsam fir with a subclimax species of yellow birch and paper birch. It is usually found on valley walls and floors and mountain slopes.The soil type is very well drained and is a fine sandy loam. Surface soil erosion is moderate.This soil has moderate suitability for summer operations 15J The climax species is red spruce and sugar maple with a subclimax species of yellow birch and red maple. It is found on higher mountain slopes. The soil is very fine sandy loam to silt loam with moderate suitability for summer operations. 102C The climax species for this ELT is beech and sugar maple with subclimax species of yellow birch, paper birch and red maple. It is a moderately deep soil on hardwood ledge. The soil type is sandy loam. Surface soil erosion is high and is well drained. This soil has low suitability for summer operations.

149 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

ELT Description 115A The climax species for this ELT is fir, spruce & hemlock with a subclimax species of yellow birch, red maple & paper birch. It is usually found lower slopes and intervals at lower elevations with slopes less then 45%. The soil type is moderately well drained, and is a fine sandy loam. Surface soil erosion is high. These soils have moderate to low suitability for summer operations. 415C The climax species for this ELT is sugar maple, beech and oak, with a subclimax species of yellow birch, red maple & paper birch. It is usually found lower slopes and intervals at lower elevations with slopes less then 45%. The soil type is moderately well drained, and is a fine sandy loam. Sur- face soil erosion is high. These soils have high suitability for summer operations. 105D The climax species for this ELT is beech, spruce, and hemlock with subclimax species of aspen, paper birch and red maple. It is found on lower mountain slopes. Surface soil erosion is moderate. The soil type is deep washed till, moderately drained, loamy sands, with high suitability for summer operations. 11 The climax species is spruce and fir with a subclimax species of red maple and white pine. It is an outwash soil. The soil type is well drained loamy sand with high suitability for summer operations 2 The climax species for this ELT is a red spruce and balsam fir. It is a softwood ledge usually found on mountain slopes. The soil type is moderately well drained and is a fine sandy loam. Surface soil erosion is high. This soil has low suitability for summer operations

Effects are analyzed in terms of Forest Service Soil Quality Standards (USDA- Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1). The standards define thresholds for soil characteristics that are used as indicators of detrimental soil disturbance. 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. Past monitoring has shown that fewer than three passes in the same spot on a piece of land with logging equipment does not produce measurable detrimental results. Past monitoring includes an extensive review of the best available science and regeneration exams of previous clearcuts with no loss in biomass accumulation on this forest (see project record). The 2005 FEIS states that “research findings and on-the-ground experience of previous timber projects confirm that accelerated soil erosion due to roads and skid trails can be reduced — and its effects on streams largely eliminated — by timely application of well-known best management practices (BMPs).” (FEIS, p 3-29) The State of Maine recently published monitoring data supporting the conclusion that properly applied Best Management Practices would mitigate effects from soil erosion (Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service 2005; Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001- 2005, 2006). While the results of a similar study in New Hampshire have not yet been published, Maine and New Hampshire BMPs and soils are similar and the effectiveness of these BMPs should also be 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

150 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

on the road surface. BMPs would be followed to minimize erosion on skid trails during and after harvest 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. 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 2008). 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 2.5 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 early 2000s, which was the last time some of these skid trails were used (Colter 2008). 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 early 2000s, indicating no detrimental soil disturbance (Colter 2008). 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

151 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

that bulk density of soil returns to pre-harvest levels two to three years after harvest (Donnelly et al. 1991). Soil Quality Standards for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service require that soil disturbance (exposure of mineral soil) should be limited to no more than 15 percent of a land unit scale area (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1, Section 2.2). Direct and Indirect Effects Table 3.9-2 displays the ground disturbance by alternative. Table 3.9-2. Ground Disturbance, by Alternative

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing Landings (acres)1 0 5.25 5.25 New Landings (acres)1 0 3.75 3.75 Roads Construction (miles/acres)2 0/0 0/0 0/0 Roads Decommissioning (miles/acres)2 0/0 0.60/1.44 0.60/1.44 Road Maintenance (miles/acres) 0/0 3.7/8.88 3.7/8.88 Skid Trails (miles/acres)1 0/0 17.9/43.0 17.9/43.0 Paved and Unpaved parking area (acres) 0/0 0.34 0.20 Hiking trail to Owls Head Cliff (miles/ acres)3 0/0 1.20/0.73 1.20/0.73 Prescribed Fire (acres) 0/0 195.0 195.0 Total Disturbed Acres 0 63.73 63.59 Total % of Project Area Disturbed 0% 3.1% of 2062 ac. 3.2% of 2011 ac.

1Landing size =0.75 acres 21 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance with of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile 3 Hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles Alternative 1 In the absence of activities such as timber harvest, no increase in surface soil erosion or soil compaction is expected with this alternative because there is no reconstruction or re-established use of existing skid trails and landings. No indirect effects to soil erosion or compaction are expected from this alternative. See 3.2 Water in this EA for analysis of indirect effects of sedimentation. Alternatives 2-3 Approximately 3.7 miles of existing road is proposed for maintenance activities under Alternatives 2 and 3. Maintenance would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. Although road maintenance may initially cause ground disturbance, improving and maintaining roads to their level of anticipated use can 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.

152 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Following use, roads and trails and camp sites would be rehabilitated to BMP standards, which have proven effective in preventing soil erosion (BMP New Hampshire 2004; Maine Forest Service 2002 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996). Approximately 0.60 miles of existing road would be decommissioned in Alternatives 2 and 3, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. The majority of the activity area is moderately sloped, with steep slopes in some locations; however, harvest would only occur on slopes less than 35 percent. The lengths of these slopes are short enough to limit potential for notable soil erosion. The combination of moderately sloped terrain with post-harvest measures in accordance with Forest standards and guidelines and BMPs, such as soil stabilization and waterbars, should prevent soil erosion and promote revegetation (BMP New Hampshire 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996). Most units would be harvested only in the winter months while others have the option of summer/fall harvesting. 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 (BMP New Hampshire 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford et al. 1996). Over-snow 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 (Forest Plan, p 2-30), and limiting operations to dry soil conditions (New Hampshire BMPs) 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). In Alternatives 2 and 3, seven existing and five new log landings are proposed for use during harvest. The log landings are well placed because of their gentle terrain and well-drained soils. Although 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, 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. At the time of sale closeout, the log landings would be graded and stabilized to prevent erosion before they can revegetate, and to accelerate recovery from temporary soil compaction (FSH 2509.22, Section 6.38). Approximately 195 stand acres are proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 in the project area for prescribed fire to help promote oak regeneration. 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 organic matter may be lost, actual experience indicates that prescribed burning does not affect rainfall infiltration rates. This is because most of the site continues to remain covered by organic matter and mineral soil aggregation is

153 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

not 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 up to 18 inches wide around the perimeter of the burn area, consisting of a break up of the organic matter layer. However, this would be designed to have minimal impact, and no erosion is expected. A parking area for the Owls Head Cliff trailhead is proposed under both Alternative 2 (approximately 0.34 acre) and Alternative 3 (approximately 0.20 acre). This parking area would create a new permanent opening, and ground disturbance is expected with both proposals. The area would be leveled, trees removed, and the soils covered with a paved material (in Alternative 2), or a compacted gravel surface (in Alternative 3). In either alternative, the surfacing would result in the site becoming non-productive from a soils perceptive. There is a potential for some surface erosion with the unpaved surface in Alternative 3, but this is predicted to be localized and not detrimental to adjacent soil. Alternative 2 proposes that a single stall concrete vault toilet be placed adjacent to the parking area. Its construction is designed to prevent introduction of nutrients and fecal pathogens into the soil and local groundwater (see 3.2 Water). Therefore, the proposed concrete vault toilet would have no effect on soil or water quality. Alternative 3 has no provision for a toilet, and there is a possibility that visitors using area could dig their own “cat holes” in vegetation cover near the stream. The poor filtering capability of the outwash soils there may result in an impact to the stream water quality from the introduction of nutrients and fecal pathogens (see 3.2 Water). Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 1.2 miles of new trail construction having a 3 foot wide zone of surface soil compaction. As long as this trail exists, soil under the trail is detrimental impacted by compaction. During trail construction, additional soil would be trampled by workers up to 1 foot out from either side of the treadway. This additional compaction would revert to productive soil production after construction by following the provisions of the BMPs. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 7 acres of non-native invasive Japanese knotweed eradication on private and state land through the use of herbicides. The application method proposed involves cutting the stem of the plant, then injecting or wiping the herbicide into the exposed stem. This limits the contact of the herbicide with surrounding soil or water, and reduces the amount applied. Herbicide spraying is not proposed. The state of New Hampshire would determine the terms and conditions under which the proposed herbicide use is approved. Conditions may include providing notice of treatment, posting signs, adjusting application rates, etc. All state standards would be abided by and all permits would be obtained prior to the start of work. Manual methods of non-native invasive species control (cutting and hand-pulling) may also be used in the project area. Any resulting increases in sediment would likely be small, and the effects would be short-term. Glyphosate is an herbicide which binds readily with soil particles, which limits its movement in the environment. Studies have indicated that since it binds

154 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment strongly to soils, it is unlikely to enter waters through surface or subsurface runoff. It can reach waters when the soil itself is washed away, but it remains bound to soil particles and unavailable to plants (summarized by Tu et al. 2001). Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time, depending on soil texture and organic matter content. Its half-life can range from three to 249 days. Soil microorganisms break down glyphosate (USDA-FS 1997), and studies have shown no adverse effects on soil microorganisms, including soil nitrogen cycling processes (USDA-FS 1984). Sedimentation of streams is the most likely indirect effect from road restoration and maintenance, culvert removal, skidding, stream crossings, stream restoration, and watershed rehabilitation. See 3.2 Water for an analysis of the indirect effects of sedimentation. 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 rapidly and naturally. Well-distributed rainfall, abundant seed sources, and favorable seedbeds all contribute to 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 invade these locations. Timber harvesting has the potential to effect forest productivity; however, the Forest Service has a responsibility for the long-term productivity of National Forest land. Measurement of northern hardwood forest plots since 1931 at the nearby Bartlett Experimental Forest has not seen statistically-distinguishable change in forest productivity due to human impacts, even including the impacts of acid deposition (Nuegenkapian 1998; FEIS 3-13). All former clearcuts in the project area have regenerated since prior harvest, and would be expected to do the same following the implementation of Alternative 2 or 3. 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). This project does not have an effect on forest productivity Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is the Oliverian Brook watershed, with a total acreage of approximately 25,974 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 ten years in the past and ten years beyond the proposed action and its alternative. This period was chosen to incorporate the last timber harvesting operations

155 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

on National Forest lands within the analysis area (the last sale was in the early 2000s). 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. Climate change was researched and analyzed in regards to erosion and compaction with no detrimental effects expected with the cumulative effects time period. (Colter, 2009). Although possible, no additional timber harvest is planned on National Forest lands within the cumulative effects analysis area over the next ten years, and no other projects are anticipated within this area during this timeframe that would use the skid trails or landings. Forest roads, recreational trails, and permanent wildlife openings in the cumulative effects analysis area would continue to be maintained and used for public and administrative access. There is a future watershed improvement project planned to remove up to 800 cubic yards of fill from of Old Highway 25 where it was placed in side channel of Oliverian Brook. The area of fill averages approximately 170 feet long, 40 feet wide, and is three feet high. The road fill would be placed in the old highway ditch line and be reshaped into the existing landform between the brook and the side channel. Removal of this fill would allow a portion of flood waters (greater than two- year flood frequency) of Oliverian Brook to move down into the open meadow. The plan is to obliterate 300 feet of compacted roadbed from the current location of Route 25 to where old Route 25 crossed Oliverian Brook. This project is designed to restore the watershed function to this area. Any other past, present, and future projects listed in this Environmental Assessment are considered to be minute from a soil erosion and compaction stand point. Alternative 1 There would continue to be localized erosion related to ongoing maintenance of Forest roads, recreational trails and private roads, and timber harvesting on public and private lands. Alternatives 2-3 Compaction can accumulate on the ground due to repeated activities. However, there is little or no evidence of compaction from previous harvesting activities using the shovel test method to check some of the harvest units (the last timber sale in this area occurred in the early 2000s) on National Forest lands (Colter 2008), 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 (FEIS, p 3-29; BMP New Hampshire 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996). By using 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.

156 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

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, prescribed fire, 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. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately seven acres of non-native invasive species eradication on private and state land using BMPs. Japanese Knotweed is proposed for removal through herbicide use and manual treatments (cutting or hand-pulling). Any resulting increase in sediment would likely be small and the effects of such increases would be short-term. The Oliverian project would result in a short-term increase in the amount of the analysis area that has disturbed soils. Table 3.9-2 shows soil disturbance on approximately 63.73 acres, or 3.1 percent of the 2,062-acre analysis area, under Alternative 2, and 63.59 acres, or 3.2 percent of the 2,011-acre analysis area, under Alternative 3. The cumulative effects watershed (Oliverian Brook) totals approximately 25,974 acres, with privately-owned lands within it totaling approximately 14,000 acres or 54 percent of the watershed. For adverse impacts to occur (15 percent disturbance of the land), approximately 3,896 acres would need to show disturbance over the life of the cumulative effects period. The Forest Service proposes approximately 63.73 acres, under the most highly impactive alternative for this project, so 2,036 acres of private land could be disturbed and the watershed would still be under the disturbance threshold in ten years. Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause some cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction, but these are likely to be site-specific, limited in magnitude and duration, and not severe enough to be detrimental. They are also well within the soil disturbance limits established by the Soil Quality Standards for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1, Section 2.2) as well as within the scope of effects anticipated and analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS (FEIS, pp 3-29 to 3-36). Soil Productivity The Forest Service defines soil productivity as “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 a variety of ways, including volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation (USDA-Forest Service, FSH 2509.18).

157 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

The Forest Plan FEIS identifies a general concern and analyzes in detail the potential impacts of acid deposition and timber harvest 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 and 3 incorporates, by reference, the soil productivity analysis in the FEIS, and summarizes below key points relevant to this project level analysis (FEIS, pp 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: o 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). o 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). o 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). o 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).

158 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

• 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 that “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) The direct effect of timber harvesting is the removal of calcium with forest products. In general, harvest that removes only the bole of a tree, removes only a portion of the calcium in the tree. Tree species vary in amount and distribution of calcium. Sugar maple is one of the most calcium rich; and the tops, limbs, and leaves equal about 35 percent of the calcium within a tree (FEIS, p 3-17). Forest harvest removes calcium that would otherwise be recycled to the forest floor. Whole-tree clearcut harvest removes the most calcium from a site (FEIS, pp 3-18, 3-19, 3-27). The indirect effect of timber harvesting includes possible changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium, base saturation, and possible impacts on forest health, tree mortality and decay, productivity, or species composition that are attributed to forest harvest (as compared to acid deposition). (FEIS, p 3-18) No impact is expected on forest health or productivity related to the timber harvest program across the forest during the next two decades (FEIS, p 3-27). 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 (FEIS, p 3-18). “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 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) Affected Environment The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil productivity 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 in the early 1900s to ten years into the future; which is the reasonable planning horizon for a future harvest. Early harvesting is considered because land use

159 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

may affect soil nutrients, including soil calcium (Hornbeck 1990). Future harvest and acid deposition are considered for the same reason. The Oliverian project has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: moderately deep, well- and moderately-well drained, fine sandy loams on 10 to 30 percent slopes. For the most part, soils are a mix of well- and moderately-well drained sandy loam and fine sandy loams (see Table 3.9-1 for corresponding Ecological Land Types). Land use records indicate that in the early 1900s 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 others), including softwoods (Goodale 2003). Early historical records do not exist for all parts of the project area, but examin- ing the vicinity overall, the records available appear representative. Since those early times, there have been conventional, bole-only harvests in this vicinity (the tops and limbs of the trees have been left in the forest), which means that approximately 35 percent of the calcium that could be taken from the forest through harvest 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. 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. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 The No Action alternative has no direct impact on long-term soil productivity or forest health. The indirect impact of no timber harvest 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). (FEIS 3-18) Given that acid deposition is the primary mechanism affecting soil acidification, deferring treatment is likely to exert little impact on soil productivity or forest health. Alternatives 2-3 The Proposed Action and other action alternatives are summarized in Table 3.9-3, which is organized by harvest, including clearcut, selection, group, and thinning. This distinction is made because the quantity of calcium removed in harvest varies by area and by harvest method. Clearcutting, for example, removes about 350 Kg/ha of calcium when bole-only harvest is used, and 539 Kg/ha when whole-tree harvest is proposed the other methods 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 Oliverian Project is bole-only tree harvest. The 25 percent for other harvest methods represents the proportion

160 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

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 harvest is used, compared to bole-only clearcut harvest or selective or thinning harvests. Thinning and selective harvest have less impact than clearcutting. However, over time, even-age harvests remove the same amount of forest as uneven-age methods, so the cumulative impact is nearly the same. There are instances, however, when uneven-age harvest actually removes more (Adams et al. 1996). Table 3.9-3. Stand Acres by Silvicultural Activity

Bole-only, clearcut harvest would remove an estimated 2 percent of the calcium from a site, and a whole-tree harvest clearcut would remove approximately 4 percent when compared to the total calcium that resides in the soil. The other bole-only harvest methods would remove up to 1 percent of the calcium when compared to the total calcium that resides in the soil. (FEIS 3-19). Based on these measurements, Alternatives 2 would remove more in the amount of calcium verses Alternative 3. With respect to indirect impacts, 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 FEIS, p 3-20). There is no peer-reviewed evidence that soil buffering capacity has declined on the White Mountain National Forest. From the perspective of the Forest Service requirements for assessment of soil productivity, based on biomass accumulation, research evidence does not indicate any change in observable trends in biomass accumulation since the early 1930s (USDA-Forest Service 2005b FEIS, p 3-13). Also, recent measurements related to forest productivity at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and elsewhere on or in the vicinity of the White Mountain National Forest, reveal similar results for

161 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

both hardwoods and softwoods (FEIS, p 3-13). Therefore indirect effects from harvest are not expected under any alternatives. The prescribed burning of the timber treatments proposed in the action alternatives 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 can be removed from a site by erosion. Some soil nitrogen would be lost when the organic matter burns, but nitrogen is not considered to be a limiting factor in tree growth on the White Mountain National Forest. With respect to indirect impacts, research has shown no change in exchangeable soil calcium and soil base saturation, and no change in biomass accumulation as a result of timber harvest. Research is underway to determine additional sources of calcium (possibly deep rooting reserves or non-exchangeable reserves or calcium oxalate) not accounted for in existing studies that could replenish the exchangeable calcium reserve that is removed in the short-term by timber harvest (FEIS, pp 3-20 to 3-27). Cumulative Effects The percent of total loss takes into account calcium depletion for the last 59 years, foreseeable calcium depletion for the next 10 years, previous harvests, and current harvest proposed. Climate change was researched and analyzed in regards to soil nutrient productivity with no detrimental effects expected with the cumulative effects time period. (Colter, 2009). Alternative 1 Early land use is estimated to remove calcium from harvested forest stands (Hornbeck 1990). Within the analysis area, early forest harvest appears to have been a mixed of cutting. Based on soil nutrient depletion tables, this may have removed <1 percent of the calcium per acre of harvest (Fay 2003). Atmospheric deposition may also remove calcium from the soil irrespective of timber harvest. 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 4 percent over 120 years. (FEIS, p 3-24) Given that the cumulative effects time period goes back 75 years, it is possible that up to 3 percent of the total soil calcium may have been removed during that time due to atmospheric deposition, and another <1 percent due to early harvesting methods. 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 (FEIS 3-26). So, an estimated 4 percent soil calcium may have been lost over 120 years (FEIS 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 productivity.

162 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2-3 Effects of atmospheric deposition would be no different in Alternatives 2 and 3 than in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 have the potential to add new harvest impacts with the removal of trees and their biomass. Alternative 2 would remove more calcium, because it proposes 247 acres of clearcut, bole-only tree harvest and 1815 sts/ gs/ thinning bole-only tree harvest acres, versus Alternative 3 which proposes 220 acres of clearcut, bole-only tree harvest and 1791 sts/gs/ thinning bole-only tree harvest acres (see Table 3.9.4). 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 (FEIS, pp 3-23 to 3-25). By applying Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, tiering to the FEIS, and using best available science, no detrimental effects on soil productivity are anticipated with either Alternative 2 or 3. Table 3.9-4. Estimated Calcium Removal Cumulative Effect total loss by Harvest Practice.

No Action with One Previous Bole-only Clearcut Harvest 5.5% Estimated Ca loss Bole-only Clearcut and One Previous Clearcut Harvest 8.7% Estimated Ca loss Bole-only Thin and One Previous Bole-only Clearcut Harvest 5.6% Estimated Ca loss Bole-only Uneven-Age and One Previous Bole-onlyClearcut Harvest 6.3% Estimated Ca loss

163 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

3.10 Heritage Executive Summary This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the three alternatives on cultural resources in the proposed Oliverian project area. Under Alternative 1, No Action, there would be no effect on cultural resources. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, historic and archaeological sites would be protected from impact by avoidance. This undertaking would have no effect on heritage resources which might be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (historic properties). Background Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966, as amended) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A combination of pre-field research, consultation with local sources, and field surveys were performed by forest heritage resources staff in order to assess the current condition of known sites and to search for previously unknown sites. All known sites are managed as if they are eligible for National Register inclusion, and are afforded protection from damage during project implementation. The protection method most often used on the WMNF isavoidance : timber sale units are laid out so that known historic and archaeological sites lie outside flagged unit boundaries, or, if this is not possible, by flagging site buffers within timber sale units to avoid damaging cultural resources. The results of the survey, maps, and recommendations are compiled into a Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report (CRRR) and reviewed by the District Ranger, the Forest archaeologist, and the NH State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). All parties must agree with the report’s findings in order to proceed with the project. Affected Environment The proposed Oliverian project area contains examples of a variety of land use activities, historic and modern. In the past 25 years, five timber sales have occurred in the proposed project area, and 17 historic or archaeological sites have been recorded. Two new sites were found while surveying the proposed Oliverian project area. The majority of the sites are old homesteads, including the farm of former New Hampshire Governor John Page. Additional sites include a logging camp, stone bridge abutments, a springhouse, a fireplace, and rock cairns. A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report (CRRR#1-08-129) was completed for the project area. A field survey for cultural resources was done in the proposed units. A clause in the timber sale contract states that if any previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during project activities, work will cease in that area and the Forest Archaeologist or District heritage resources paraprofessional would make an assessment of the finds and offer suggestions for line officer consideration to protect or mitigate for the loss of any cultural or scientific values present. All known cultural resources have been identified on the ground with flagging, and their locations have been mapped using GPS.

164 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

On January 1, 2009, the SHPO concurred with the forest’s determination of “No Effect” and issued a written statement that use of site avoidance as the protection method would prevent adverse effects to the cultural resources in the Oliverian project area. Direct & Indirect Effects The area of potential direct and indirect effects on cultural resources is the project area. This analysis area was chosen because it encompasses all locations where project implementation may affect cultural resources. Direct effects of project implementation may include ground disturbance of unknown cultural resources. Indirect effects of project implementation may include increased risk of vandalism or looting of historic or archaeological sites due to increased visibility of resources post harvest. Effects may also include discovery and protection of previously unknown cultural resources. Sites near even-aged harvest units are buffered so that, in combination with best management timber harvesting practices, there would be little or no erosion around the site. A design feature requires that known cultural sites be flagged and avoided and that operations cease when new sites are discovered until an archaeologist or paraprofessional can evaluate the findings and determine how to proceed (see Chapter 2, 2.5 Design Features). The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects on cultural resources is fifteen years. This temporal scope was chosen to account for the time period from project implementation (3–5 years) to the time period when increased recreation use (hunting, hiking) diminishes (10 years). Alternative 1 The no action alternative would not alter the current situation and so would have no effect on cultural resources in the project area. Alternatives 2-3 All known historic and archaeological sites within the project area have been identified and would be avoided during timber harvest operations. As agreed in previous consultations with NH SHPO skidding of logs across stone walls would be done at a 90 degree angle to minimize disturbance. Possible direct and indirect effects to undiscovered sites could include destruction of artifacts and degradation of human-made alterations such as logging camp berms. Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres of timber harvesting and therefore would provide greater protection to undiscovered sites than Alternative 2. Design Features for Alternatives 2 and 3 would lessen or eliminate any impacts to undiscovered sites caused by timber harvesting, road restoration, log landing restoration, or prescribed burning. The timber sale contract also provides protection to cultural resources through cancellation or modification of the contract if significant cultural resources are identified during timber harvest operations. Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would change the forested environment and may temporarily increase recreation use (hunting, snowmobiling) around known and unknown cultural resources. Some vandalism or looting by the public could occur. Sketches and photographs have been taken of the sites and could be referenced if vandalism was suspected. Law Enforcement would be

165 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

notified if sites are disturbed. Additional impacts to these sites are expected to be low but may occur. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on cultural resources is the Oliverian project area. This analysis area was used because resources that might be impacted are encompassed in this area. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on cultural resources is 20 years past and 20 years into the future from when proposed actions would occur (1988–2028). This temporal scope was chosen to account for the earliest earth-disturbing activity that took place in the project area in this analysis timeframe (Blueberry Mountain South Timber Sale, 1992). Alternative 1 The no action alternative would result in no change in risks to cultural resources in the project area. Alternatives 2-3 Neither Alternative 2 nor 3 would negatively affect cultural resources in the long term. The protection method of avoidance would minimize indirect impacts to the sites. The sites would be re-evaluated during the next earth-disturbing activity, which could occur within twenty years. White Mountain National Forest land management activities have occurred in the analysis area since the 1950s, and the majority of the sites described in CRRR#01-08-129 have been present since the mid-1800s. The avoidance protection method has been applied successfully to these sites and will continue to protect them during the Oliverian Project.

166 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

3.11 Socio-Economic Executive Summary This section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each of the alternatives on the socio-economic conditions in the Town of Benton, NH. The Town of Benton will be the focus for this socio-economic assessment because the revenue-generating activities proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project would occur solely in this town. None of the alternatives would adversely affect the quality of life or the rural character of the area. Alternative 1 would not generate funds through the NH Timber Tax nor the 25% Fund. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide Benton with revenue in the form of timber tax and the 25% Fund. There is little potential for minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities. Mention of the word “towns” in this assessment is in reference to the towns within Grafton County, New Hampshire. 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 (FEIS, pp 3-472 to 3-486), and the Forest Plan recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies (p 1-3). While many of the communities surrounding the White Mountain National Forest share a history of reliance on natural resources and tourism for their livelihoods, it is recognized that social and economic patterns are now changing, with marked differences between the south and north. Populations and the economy are growing in the communities surrounding the southern portions of the White Mountain National Forest, while populations and the economy in the north have slower economic growth, some decline in population, and a greater dependence on traditional natural resource-based manufacturing industries. The Town of Benton, in Grafton County, New Hampshire, is in the western section of the White Mountain National Forest. Benton was incorporated in 1764 as Coventry and covers approximately 48.5 square miles of land. The population has rebounded from a high of 333 in 1980 to 344 in 2007. Most (approximately 88 percent) of employed residents work elsewhere, commut- ing to jobs in other towns or states (Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, NH Employment Security 2008). While recreation use is relatively low when compared to other parts of the White Mountain National Forest, local residents use the Oliverian area for walking, fishing, hunting, and other recreational pursuits. Recreation values and uses are described in the Recreation section (3.1). New Hampshire is the second most forested state in the nation, with 84 percent of the state’s total land covered with trees. Forestland plays a significant role in the state’s economy. The forest-based manufacturing economy provides employment for almost 9,600 people and generates payrolls of $320 million. Wood provides approximately six percent of energy use in New Hampshire annually (NEFA 2007). The 2005 Forest Plan (Goals, p 1-3) recognizes the Forest’s

167 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

contribution to regional economies. The FEIS (pp 3-491 to 3-520) provides detailed information regarding the economic environment that the Forest oper- ates in, and the recent revenue contributions to regional and state governments. It also states that the “loss of land dedicated to producing commercial timber appears to be a continuing trend off-Forest.” (Thorne and Sundquist 2001) New Hampshire is losing about 17,500 acres of forestland every year (through conversion of land-use). The remaining large forests south of the WMNF are getting smaller (SPNHF 2005). This has implications for the WMNF in that the economic importance of its lands that permit timber management will likely continue to rise. There are several sawmills and forest product based manufacturers within close proximity to the project area that purchase timber from the White Mountain National Forest. The nearby towns of Warren, Wentworth, Rumney, and Bath each have saw mills located within the towns. Secondary wood products manufacturing facilities (furniture, pallets, and dozens of specialty products) are scattered throughout Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and distribute their products to businesses throughout the East. While the number of sawmills has decreased in recent years, those remaining have a production output of near record high levels compared with historic production highs in the 20th century (NEFA 2007). The Forest Service 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.” (Forest Plan, pp 1-3 and 1-17). Many local forest product manufacturers are within viable hauling distance to the project area, and it is reasonable to assume that wood products from the Oliverian project area would supply some of these businesses. Forest products for local markets are also available from private land, as well as from state and town forests. A steady demand remains for wood products sold by the National Forest, as reflected by bids on timber sales. The Forest’s high value sawtimber, especially, represents a key niche in the region, and has impacts on the local economy (FEIS, p 3-498). Planning costs for the Oliverian project include planning and analysis, as documented in this EA, which includes field surveys and examinations, literature reviews, public involvement, and preparation of documents. If the decision is made to move forward with either Alternative 2 or 3, costs would be incurred for timber sale preparation, stewardship and timber sale contract preparation, timber sale appraisal, timber sale contract administration, and personnel time for implementing the project activities. Funding options for some of the proposed work include money authorized by Stewardship Contracting or Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) laws, which allow the retention and use of timber receipts to accomplish restoration and improvement projects in and near the project area. For the Oliverian Stewardship project, the prescribed burning and non-native invasive plant treatments are examples of restoration activities considered for these funding sources. Reimbursements would be made to towns in which National Forest timber is harvested.

168 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

• New Hampshire Statute [Chapter 79 (Forest Conservation and Taxation), RSA Section 79:3, Normal Yield Tax] directs what is known as the “Timber Yield Tax.” Section 79:3 describes the tax as “[a] normal yield tax at the rate of 10 percent on the stumpage value at the time of cutting.” The Towns assess and collect the 10% yield tax from harvesting on private and public lands each year. • Under the 25 Percent Payment-to-States Fund (25% Fund), New Hampshire collects 25 percent of the annual revenue generated in the White Mountain National Forest from timber harvest and other revenue-producing activities. The state then transfers a portion of the revenue to the county or town in which the activities occur. The amount transferred depends on the amount of National Forest land within the municipality. If the activities occur in an unorganized township, the money is transferred to the county. If the activities occur in an organized town, the money is transferred to the town government. For the Oliverian project proposal, the calculation for the estimated funds would be 25 percent of the net timber value multiplied by the percent of National Forest land in the town of Benton, NH. The money is to be used for the benefit of public schools. Measuring Socio-Economic Effects On a project level, examination of social and economic effects is required if they are important to a reasoned decision. Also required is the consideration of effects on low income and minority populations (FSH 1909.15 Section 15). Although social and economic factors are not a significant issue in the Oliverian project analysis, nor a component of the Purpose of and Need for the project, comments and questions regarding social and economic effects were raised in the scoping period. The comments relevant to the project are responded to in this section. Social impacts analyzed in the Forest Plan were in the context of what people value about the White Mountain National 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 (FEIS, 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 because of changes in development levels and access. For the Oliverian Stewardship project, there are changes in development levels proposed; changes in human activity and access are expected. • Quality of life may be measured by the changes in safe drinking water, recreational opportunities, healthy ecosystems, scenic beauty, and the natural and cultural heritage of the area. • Public health and safety is an important social element when proposing timber harvest and other activities using large equipment and public travel ways, and may be measured by changes in traffic patterns. For the Oliverian Stewardship Project, public safety along Route 25 is expected to change in all alternatives. • Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) requires investigation as to whether minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately

169 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

affected by the proposed activities, as measured by the potential for them to be affected. Economic elements analyzed in the FEIS include regional employment and labor income as affected by an array of factors such as timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, recreation management and trends, state and local government activities, and the structure of the forest products industry (FEIS, 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 town of Benton, NH. • Reimbursement to WMNF communities under the 25 Percent Payment-to- States Fund. 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. Overall, the Forest Service strives to preserve and enhance natural resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the White Mountain National Forest as part of its mission in serving the public. The actions proposed in the Oliverian Stewardship Project that could have a measurable effect on socio-economics are timber harvesting and road maintenance. Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on socio-economics is the Town of Benton, because all of the proposed revenue-generating activities would occur there. In addition, because the majority of the acreage of the town is National Forest, it would be most affected socially and economically by the proposed activities. The Town of Benton encompasses 31,201 acres, with 23,656 acres federally owned and designated as National Forest. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is the duration of the project activities because any direct or indirect effects would occur during or soon after implementation of project activities. Table 3.11-1. Economic Characteristics by Alternative.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Costs Environmental Analysis and Project Planning $306,410 $306,410 $306,410 Engineering Planning – bridge Vegetation Recreation NNIS Parking Lot/trail Timber Sale Preparation & Administration $0 $200,030 $193,029 Regeneration Surveys & Prescribed Burn $0 $70,410 $69,990 Bridge Construction $0 $15,000 $15,000

170 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Parking Lot Construction and associated facilities $0 $111,200 $23,700 Non-native Invasive Species Control $0 $10,120 $10,120 TOTAL COSTS $0 $713,170 $618,249 Revenues Harvest Volume (MBF) 0 10,561 10,108 Stumpage Receipts $0 $1,610,325 $1,541,016 Estimated 25% Fund Payment $0 $402,581 $385,254 10% Timber Yield Tax to Benton $0 $161,032 $154,101.60 Net Value (Stumpage Receipts minus Total Cost) $0 $897,155 $922,767 Unit Cost (Net Value divided by Harvest Volume) $0 $85 $91

NOTE: Costs for Planning, Preparation, and Administration are based on average costs per acre displayed in Table B-11 of the FEIS (p B-20) and include costs for regeneration surveys. Alternative 2 proposes 1,416 acres of regeneration surveys; Alternative 3 proposes 1,374 acres of regeneration surveys. Alternative 1 No revenue would be generated and no reimbursements would come to the town. The cost of project planning and environmental analysis is approximately $306,410 regardless of the alternative selected. There would be no changes in rural character or public health because no activities would be implemented. . Safety along Route 25 would continue to be a concern, and access to recreation areas would compound the problem as time goes on. The recreational component contributing to quality of life would be slightly affected because the parking lot that would have been constructed and hunting opportunities that would have been available in newly harvested areas would be foregone. Alternatives 2-3 See Table 3.11-1 for estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing either Alternative 2 or 3. Direct and indirect effects to quality of life and rural character are expected to be minimal because the proposals mirror traditional activities occurring on private lands in the region and town. Recreation use would be negatively affected during the actual harvest, but enhanced by increased hunting opportunities for several years after harvest (see Recreation section). Scenic quality and heritage resources would be protected through the Forest’s Scenery Management System and Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as described in the Scenic Resource and Heritage Resource sections. Human activity would be increased for the duration of project operations as work crews and Forest Service personnel implement the proposed activities, but not to the level of having a noticeable effect on the rural character of the analysis area. No new roads are proposed and the new parking lot and hiking trail are expected to increase use levels slightly. The road decommissioning would not change public access because the road segments proposed for decommissioning are not currently used for public motor vehicle access. Human activity in the area would increase only for the duration of the operations.

171 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Direct and indirect effects to public health and safety, as measured by changes in traffic patterns, would occur with traffic increases on NH Route 25, Long Pond Road, High Street, Page Road, and Lime Kiln Road. Visitors on several Forest Roads would notice increased use by trucks associated with timber harvesting. This noticeable traffic increase is not without precedent, due to the traffic associated with timber harvests on private land in and near the project area over the past 15–20 years. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on socio-economic conditions includes the Town of Benton because it is adjacent to the project area. Seventy-six percent of the landbase of the town of Benton is federally owned, and designated as National Forest. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on socio-economics is ten years past and ten years into the future (1999-2019) from when the harvest would occur. Alternative 1 Revenue generated cumulatively from timber harvesting on National Forest lands and on private lands would continue to contribute to town budgets. As explained previously, there would be no changes to the existing rural character, quality of life, or public health. Public safety along Route 25 would continue to be a concern, and access to recreation areas would compound the problem as time goes on. Alternatives 2-3 Cumulatively, human activity associated with timber harvest operations on National Forest and private lands would continue to be steady and noticeable. There have been no permanent developments or changes in access resulting from past timber harvests, and only the construction of the hiking trail and parking lot are proposed or planned, so no cumulative effects to the rural character of the towns are anticipated. Human activity associated with timber harvesting may be viewed as a beneficial effect in this area, as several lumber mills are located within the nearby towns of Warren, Rumney, Wentworth, and Bath. It is impossible to predict what effect private timber harvests may have on ecosystems within the town, although New Hampshire Best Management Practices are assumed to be implemented in order to protect ecosystems, and New Hampshire State Forest Rangers are the state authority responsible for the inspection of timber sales for compliance with state forestry law. Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices, and design features are integrated into all WMNF past and planned timber harvests to protect soils, water, scenery, and heritage resources, so there would be no cumulative effects to those aspects of the existing quality of life in the town. Timber harvest prescriptions are site-specific and designed to promote healthy ecosystems, so no adverse cumulative effects are anticipated as a result of timber harvesting on National Forest lands. Cumulative effects to recreational opportunities would be minimal and are described in the Recreation section. Cumulative effects to public health and safety (i.e., changes in traffic patterns) would be noticeable but not considered

172 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

a threat because no other logging traffic would be planned on National Forest. There would be additional logging traffic on NH Route 25. The safety of public currently accessing WMNF lands from Route 25 for recreational purposes would be mitigated with the construction of the parking area in the vicinity of Owls Head Cliff. Assessing the cumulative economic effects for the Oliverian Stewardship project includes the past and predicted payments to the town from timber receipts, as displayed in Table 3.11-2. There are no other National Forest revenue-producing activities in the cumulative effects area that would contribute to the 25% Payment to States fund. Table 3.11-2. Potential Payments to Town of Benton and Grafton County, New Hampshire (1999-2019)

Timber Sales since 1999 • Total Timber Value – Sugarloaf Sale $55,555 $74,999 • 25% Payment to States Fund $13,889 • 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $5,555 Oliverian Stewardship Project • Total Timber Value – Alternative 2 $1,610,325 $2,173,938 • Potential 25% Payment to States Fund $402,581 • Potential 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $161,032 TOTAL POTENTIAL PAYMENTS (1999-2018) – Alternative 2 plus $74,999 $2,248,937 • Total Timber Value – Alternative 3 $1,541,016 $2,080,371 • Potential 25% Payment to States Fund $385,254 • Potential 10% NH Timber Yield Tax $154,101 TOTAL POTENTIAL PAYMENTS (1999-2018) – Alternative 3 plus $74,999 $2,155,370

Because each timber sale is site-specific and different in acreage, timber volume, timber value, road costs, harvest prescriptions, and the need for regeneration surveys, total costs vary widely. There are no cumulative effects associated with project planning, preparation, and administration. Costs are incurred as funding allows White Mountain National Forest staff to implement the Forest Plan and carry out the Forest Service mission. Environmental Justice Less than four percent of Grafton County is considered to be minority populations, and there are no recorded minority populations in the Town Benton (Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, NH Employment Security 2007). Approximately 3.8 percent of Benton’s population is below the poverty level. It is below the state average of 7.3 percent and the Grafton County average of 7.7 percent (US Census Bureau). No concerns about these populations were raised during scoping, and because they comprise a small percentage of the overall population in the town there is little potential for minority and low- income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.

173 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

3.12 Aquatic Species and Habitat Affected Environment (see Water Resources Section) The Oliverian Stewardship Project Area (Project Area) is located in the Oliverian Brook watershed (approximately 26,000 acres) that drains into the Connecticut River. The State of New Hampshire (NHDES, 1999) designated all waters on the White Mountain National Forest as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Maintaining the existing cold water fishery is required as part of the ORW status. NHDES also designates streams within the Project Area as Class B, the second highest designation, with uses including fishing, swimming, and other recreational purposes. The existing condition of the riparian and aquatic habitat and the occurrence of semi-aquatic and aquatic species in the Project Area is based on but not limited to the following: • Multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific stream surveys and field observations and water quality sampling (USDA-FS 1993, 2008a,b,c,d,e and GPS stream mapping 2009). • Atlantic salmon and Eastern brook trout fish stocking records (Multi-dated NHFG Fish Stocking Records, Pemigewasset Office). The Project Area contains the artificial Oliverian Pond with a large earthen dam constructed for flood control. The pond is approximately 28.5 acres with a maximum depth of 8 feet and 5 feet on average. The pond supports Eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and common waterfowl such as mergansers, mallards, and transient Canada geese. The pond is accessible via a boat ramp and the pond receives moderate levels of recreational use. Oliverian Brook is occupied by common coldwater fishes Eastern brook trout and sculpin (Cottus cognatus), and these fishes are suspected to occur in the perennial portions of the Blueberry, Hogsback, North Branch, Page, Owls, and Jeffers Brooks and other unnamed perennial tributaries in the Project Area. These streams also support common semi-aquatic and aquatic insects and potentially sensitive mayflies (see TEPS heading in this section). There are no aquatic Management Indicator Species identified for the WMNF. Oliverian Pond, and Blueberry, Hogsback, North Branch, Page, Jeffers, and Oliverian Brooks and the unnamed perennial tributaries eventually drain into and influence the water quality and quantity of downstream aquatic habitat within the Connecticut River. Collectively, these aquatic ecosystems are part of the Connecticut River Basin, where interagency efforts are ongoing to re- establish a self-sustaining population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Since 1994, the Connecticut River perennial headwaters (except Oliverian Brook) have been stocked with hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon fry. Adult salmon do not return to the upper Connecticut River watershed in NH (including Oliverian Brook) due to impassable dams on the lower Connecticut River system. The existing riparian vegetation prevents sediment from entering into streams, maintains stream bank stability, and provides streamside shade to maintain cooler summer in-stream water temperatures for aquatic species in the Project Area. The riparian vegetation provides a source of food (nuts, berries, fruits,

174 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

twigs, and leaves) for semi-aquatic and aquatic species. The riparian area adds leaf and wood material into streams and onto the forest floor providing fish, amphibian, and reptile habitat diversity. The riparian areas, wetlands, seeps, and streams in the Project Area provide habitat for common amphibians and reptiles. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species (TEPS) The Regional Forester-listed Sensitive Species (RFSS) wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) requires slow moving rivers with sandy bottoms and cut banks and exposed gravel areas. The fast flowing perennial streams with rocky substrate (Oliverian Brook and the perennial streams), and their upland riparian zones provide marginal habitat for the wood turtle. However, there are no known documented occurrences of wood turtle in the Project Area, and none seen during stream, riparian, or plant surveys, water sampling (USDA-FS 1993, 2008a,b,c,d,e and GPS stream mapping 2009), or several Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team field meetings. Several field reviewers heard a loon (Gavia immer) fly over a proposed harvest unit located upslope from Oliverian Pond; however, Oliverian Pond is considered unoccupied by breeding loons. There is potential habitat for RFSS mayflies (Ameletus tertius and Ameletus browni) within portions of the fast moving headwater streams located within the Project Area (see the Biological Evaluation in the project record and the TEPS heading in the Wildlife Resource Section of this EA for effects determinations to semi-aquatic and aquatic RFSS). Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators used to measure effects to semi-aquatic and aquatic species and their habitat include: • Reduction in riparian and aquatic habitat • Increase in stream temperatures • Increase in stream turbidity/sedimentation The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on semi-aquatic and aquatic species is riparian and aquatic habitats in the Project Area because these species have very specific requirements which restrict them to vernal pools, seeps, wetlands, streams, Oliverian Pond, and adjacent riparian areas. The temporal scope is 10 years past and 10 years into the future (1999 to 2019). This scope considers past and present WMNF Forest Plans Riparian, Aquatic, Soil and Water Standards and Guidelines that have, and would, protect aquatic resources. Also, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest research indicates increases in water quantity following timber harvesting becomes undetectable 7 to 9 years after harvest, and measurable changes to water quality from timber harvesting are undetectable within 3 to 5 years after harvest (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Alternative 1 Tree removal for recreation improvements (parking lot, trail, kiosk, toilet or foot bridge), timber harvesting, use of forest roads, skid trails, landings, bridges, skid trail temporary skid trail stream crossings, and prescribed fire would not occur in the Project Area. Routine activities such as road and gate maintenance would continue under Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

175 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Therefore, Alternative 1 would not cause any direct or indirect effects on fishes or other semi-aquatic or aquatic species or their habitat (the pond, vernal pools, seeps, wetlands, streams). Natural processes influencing streams and riparian areas would continue. Riparian habitat would continue to provide food, shade, and stream bank stability. Trees adjacent to the streams would mature, and eventually die, and some would fall into the streams, which would create habitat diversity. However, there would be lost opportunities to concentrate the existing dispersed recreational impacts such as random parking along NH Route 25 and several hiking paths to the base of Owls Head Cliff. These recreational activities would continue to trample and compact riparian vegetation with increased risk that recreationists may spread NNIS into un-infested habitat in the vicinity. There would be lost opportunities to treat NNIS infestations on state and private land in the Oliverian Brook corridor as described under the NNIS section heading. Alternatives 2-3 Turbidity/Sedimentation: Direct effects from recreation improvements, timber harvesting, and prescribed fire on semi-aquatic and aquatic species, and their habitat, could include immediate changes in water turbidity. Turbidity caused by suspended fine sediment from surface erosion entering streams can clog breath- ing gills and feeding structures in fishes and aquatic insects. Turbid water can decrease a trout’s ability to visually locate food and mates, and can force resident fish, and other species, out of their immediate territories until the water clears. An indirect effect of turbidity includes sedimentation, which can affect aquatic insects and fish populations long-term. The aquatic organisms, upon which fish feed, can be eliminated from their substrate habitat by scouring sediment, eventually affecting fish distributions and growth, especially during the fry stage. Heavy sedimentation of gravel substrate can smother bottom-dwelling insects, and the eggs and fry of gravel nesting fish, like Eastern brook trout. Recreation Improvements: Construction of the proposed recreation improvements has potential for erosion and for sediment entering aquatic habitat. However, erosion control utilizing Best Management Practices would minimize potential effects of turbidity and stream sedimentation. There is potential for a slight increase in visitor use of the area as a result of the recreation improvements under Alternative 2 or 3. Alternative 2 proposes a single stall concrete vault toilet for the parking lot area. The potential for the toilet leaking human waste pathogens into Oliverian Brook and affecting aquatic species or habitat would be minimized because the toilet would be located 100 feet away from the brook. Alternative 3 does not include a toilet, so there is greater potential for effects to aquatic species and habitat occurring in Oliverian Brook from pathogens. However, site-specific field reviews noted no existing algae blooms in Oliverian Brook from human waste near the location of the proposed parking lots or toilet. Under Alternative 3, monitoring the visitor use would occur. The proposed foot bridge would span Oliverian Brook, and would be high enough above the banks to withstand high water flows, and would not cause any fish, amphibian, or reptile passage or migration barriers. The recreation improvements would reduce the amount of habitat available for some semi-aquatic species that use riparian upland areas such as amphibians

176 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment and reptiles; however the effect would be relatively minor in magnitude and localized. In the long-term, a parking lot, toilet, foot bridge and trail would protect water quality by reducing the number of user defined parking areas and trails to the base of Owls Head Cliff. Also, the recreation improvements would occur within <1 percent of the sub-watershed they are located within. Timber Harvesting: Temporary skid trails that cross streams can cause sediment input during crossing-device installation and use. Approximately 18 temporary skid trail stream crossings would be needed in the Project Area. Temporary skid trail stream crossings would be designed and located to pass bankfull flows, and to minimize potential sediment input, and barriers for aquatic species passage. All temporary skid trail stream crossings would be removed when of use of that stream crossing would no longer be needed. Approximately 1.9 miles of existing Forest Road are proposed for pre-haul maintenance, 1.5 miles of existing Forest Road is proposed for reconstruction, approximately 0.3 mile of Forest Road is proposed for restoration, and approximately 0.7 mile of existing Forest Road is proposed for decommission (See Water Resources Section, Table 3.7-4). Road pre-haul maintenance, reconstruction, or restoration may cause very minor erosion and localized sedimentation if transported. The results of site-specific water quality sampling and field reviews of stream conditions in several subwatersheds in the Project Area in the Fall of 2008 show low turbidity readings and stable stream banks, which indicate that there is no issue with turbidity and sedimentation of streams in the Oliverian Brook watershed. In summary: Alternative 2 or 3 could cause a very minor, localized, and short- term direct effect of turbidity on aquatic habitat if soil entered streams during harvesting; road, skid trail and landing use, construction of recreation improvements, and prescribed fire activities (Alternative 2 has a higher potential than Alternative 3 due to greater number of acres affected). However, winter harvest proposed for several stands and Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines (i.e., 25 foot to 100 foot no cut buffers) would protect streams and riparian areas and reduce potential direct and indirect effects of turbidity and sedimentation on aquatic habitat. Based on 18 years of practical experience, the District biologist has observed effective Riparian, Aquatic, Soil and Water Standards and Guidelines that protected the riparian and aquatic habitat on numerous vegetation management projects across the district (i.e. Moose Watch Timber Sale, Bethlehem, NH). Riparian Habitat/Stream Temperatures A riparian area is a term used by the Forest Service that includes stream channels, lakes, adjacent riparian ecosystems, floodplains, and wetlands (Forest Plan). Benefits of a healthy riparian area include dissipating stream energies associated with high flows, filtering sediment, development of diverse channel characteristics to provide habitat for aquatic biota, and protection of stream banks from scour (Verry et al 2000). Proper Functioning Condition for riparian and aquatic habitats includes: • a diverse age-class distribution, • a diverse composition of riparian vegetation, • riparian plants exhibiting high vigor,

177 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

• adequate riparian vegetation to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows, • adequate plant communities as a source of coarse or large woody material. From the October 2008 field observations, the majority of streams in the project area have healthy riparian vegetation that is adequate cover to protect stream banks and dissipate energy during high flow storm events. Removing riparian vegetation that provides streamside shade during timber harvesting could increase in-stream temperatures, thereby affecting fish populations long-term. Loss of streamside shade could cause warmer in-stream temperatures, which decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen available in the water. Warmer in-stream temperatures also increases a trout’s demand for this less abundant dissolved oxygen, hence affecting fish and aquatic biota survival. Site-specific field reviews in the Project Area in October 2008 determined that the majority of streams have functional riparian vegetation. In-stream temperature measurements collected also indicated cool temperatures, which support the cold water fishery. Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Standards and Guidelines (G-1 and G-2, p. 2-24) would protect perennial streams in the Project Area via a 25 foot no-cut buffer, with limited uneven-aged harvesting within an additional 75-foot Riparian Management Zone (except for Hogsback Brook Compartment 1, Stands 3, 4, 12, 21, 24 and Owls Brook Compartment 4, Stands 1, 9, 30, 32, which would have a 100 foot no-cut zone). Also, a 100 foot no-cut Riparian Management Zone buffer would be placed along Oliverian Pond. Therefore, there would be little to no loss of riparian habitat from harvesting and prescribed fire and only minor, localized amounts of riparian habitat lost for recreation improvements (Alternative 2 has greater potential for minor loss of riparian habitat than Alternative 3 due to more acres affected). Vernal pools, wetlands, and seep areas: These features provide habitat for rare plants and certain amphibians and reptiles, and a source of water for wildlife (Tappan 1997; Taylor 1993; NHDFL/SPNF 1997). Vernal pools form in low lying areas with compacted sediments or underlying ledge with poor drainage. During site-specific surveys and field reviews, wetland areas and several seeps, but no vernal pools, were found. Based on 18 years of practical experience, the District biologist observed effective Forest Plan Riparian, Fisheries, Soil and Water Standards and Guidelines that protected water and soil substrates on numerous timber sales and recreation management projects across the District. Alternative 2 or 3 would not cause any direct or indirect effects to any known vernal pools, wetlands, or seeps within the Project Area because they would be excluded from harvest and fire units and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (pp 2-24-26) would protect aquatic habitat and minimize the potential for impacts. Prescribed Fire: Approximately 195 acres of prescribed fire is proposed in Alter- natives 2 and 3. Prescribed fire would occur in the spring or fall season, when wet conditions are likely to be present, which would prevent fire of riparian vegetation near seeps and streams. Prescribed fire would occur within less than 11% of the sub watersheds. Therefore, small prescribed burns would not cause any effects on streams and riparian areas.

178 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

In summary: The direct and indirect effects of turbidity, sedimentation, and reduction of riparian habitat with increased in-stream temperature on semi- aquatic or aquatic species and their habitat would be very minimal in magnitude, and localized, in Alternative 2 or 3 (more acres affected under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3). Alternative 2 or 3 would not cause any permanent terrestrial travel barriers (i.e., paved roads) or impassible large ditches, berms, or culverts for frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles, including the RFSS wood turtle. Alternative 2 or 3 would not cause any in-stream migration barriers or water diversions for Eastern brook trout, sculpin, or RFSS Ameletid mayflies. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on semi-aquatic and aquatic species are the aquatic and riparian habitats within the Oliverian HMU (due to the specific and restricted habitat requirements, and because the scale is large enough to include species with wider home ranges). The temporal scopes used include: • Past and future 10 years (1999 to 2019) was used because past and current WMNF Forest Plans Standards and Guidelines have, and would, protect aquatic and terrestrial resources. Also, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest research shows increases in water quantity following timber harvesting becomes undetectable 7 to 9 years after harvest, and measurable changes to water quality are undetectable within 3 to 5 years after harvesting (Hornbeck et al. 1997).

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not cause any direct effects to semi-aquatic or aquatic species or their habitat, but there would be lost opportunities to increase the amount of open forest canopy (allows light and solar warmth to reach the forest floor) and to increase the amount of regeneration age class in the HMU. Alternative 1 would add a cumulative effect to the steady decline in the light and thermal microclimate features and a decline in the habitat seral stage, important to adult stage aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate insects that use early successional plant hosts for food. In turn, these insects become prey-base for many wildlife species, including cold blooded amphibian and reptiles, which also use these open canopy areas in forested habitat to gain solar warmth (Thompson et al. 2001). Because there would be no NNIS treatments on state or private land in the Oliverian Brook corridor, there would be a cumulative effect of increased risk of NNIS spreading into un-affected habitat and negatively affecting semi and aquatic habitat in the vicinity. Climate Change Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scientific information on climate change (summarized in M. Prout 2009) indicates impacts to coldwater streams and aquatic life would be difficult to detect based on pro- jections from models from the Northeast U.S. Under No Action, there likely would not be any substantive changes to aquatic habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Oliverian Stewardship Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (1999-2019).

179 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Alternatives 2-3 Because there would be low potential for very minor and localized direct and indirect effects to semi-aquatic and aquatic species, and their habitat, from the proposed recreation improvements, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Construction sites would be revegetated and the proposed recreation improvements would provide long-term protection of water quality and semi-aquatic and aquatic habitat by consolidating foot traffic reducing erosion along Oliverian Brook and the multiple user-defined hiking trails to the base of Owls Head Cliff. Past, turn of the century, logging practices affected in-stream habitat conditions in New Hampshire (Likens and Bilby 1982). Past Forest-wide WMNF surveys indicate most streams have suitable cold water temperatures and good hiding cover for trout. However, the WMNF stream surveys indicate a lack of habitat diversity with the percentage of pools below natural occurrence (USDA-FS 1993), likely a cumulative effect from historical logging practices. Timber harvesting on National Forest land in the analysis area included the Sugarloaf (2001), Blueberry Mtn. (2000), North South (1997) and Still Brook (1994) Timber Sales. These past projects used Standards and Guidelines that protected streams and riparian areas with buffers, and had little to no cumulative effects to semi-aquatic and aquatic species or their habitat. The recent TPL Riveroaks Tract timber sale, occurred in 2006, when this 360 acre tract was previously privately owned, resulted in severe compaction, erosion, and sedimentation. The Forest Service purchased this 360 acre tract and stabilized the area of active erosion. Harvesting on private land adjacent to the HMU will likely continue to occur in the future. NH Division of Forest and Lands (2006) timber harvesting law requires no more than 50% of the basal area within 50 feet of the stream may be cut or otherwise felled each year, leaving a well distributed stand of healthy, growing trees. By implementing NH State regulations and WMNF Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, no cumulative effects to riparian and aquatic habitat within the analysis area from harvest activities are anticipated. Reasonable foreseeable future Forest Service activities that may occur within the HMU include reconnecting Oliverian Brook back to a portion of its floodplain by removing artificial berms at strategic locations, and obliterating approximately 300 feet of old roadbed along the brook. This future project would result in a beneficial cumulative effect to riparian and aquatic species and their habitat. Control of invasive plants in the Oliverian Brook riparian area on state, private, and National Forest System land is also planned in the future. NNIS Treatment Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Species and Habitat The WMNF completed a Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control EA (USDA-FS 2007a) that disclosed in detail the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of mechanical, chemical (herbicide), and biological (purple loosestrife beetle) control techniques on water resources and aquatic and semi-aquatic life

180 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

(including TEPS species) on National Forest land. In summary, the EA determined the risk of negative direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to water resources and aquatic and semi-aquatic species as very low to immeasurable, with no long-term impacts on National Forest land (Plant Control EA, Sec. 4.0, pages 35-75). The WMNF Botanist completed a NNIS Risk Evaluation (FSM 2081.03) and analyzed the likelihood of the no action and action alternatives of the Oliverian Stewardship Project causing or promoting introduction or spread of NNIS (see project record). The NNIS Risk Evaluation analysis area was defined as the towns of Benton, Warren, and Haverhill, NH, because of points of access to the Oliverian Stewardship project area where NNIS propagules could be transported. General effects of NNIS were disclosed, and roads, skid trails, and riparian areas were identified as primary conduits for transport and invasion points. The overall risk rating assigned for the Oliverian Stewardship Project is moderate. However, the proposed action alternatives for the Oliverian Stewardship Project would follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines to prevent or minimize the potential for introduction or spread of new NNIS infestations into the project area by proposed activities. It is highly unlikely that the proposed Oliverian Stewardship Project activities would cause the dispersal of propagules or the creation of new NNIS infestations on the Forest or in the surrounding NNIS analysis area. As mentioned, the direct and indirect effects of NNIS plant control on National Forest land (including effects of herbicide use on water resources and aquatic life) was analyzed under a Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control EA. Therefore, the proposed treatment of 53 acres of NNIS on National Forest land within the Oliverian Stewardship Project would not add any additional negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the aquatic habitat or species in the project area or the cumulative effects analysis area (see NNIS Section). Because the same plant control techniques used on the 53 acres of National Forest land would be applied on approximately seven acres of NNIS located on private land, no new direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be introduced that were not already analyzed in the Forest-wide Plant Control EA. Therefore, it is anticipated that the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on National Forest land as disclosed in the EA are likely to occur on state and private land surrounding the Oliverian project area. Past wildfires have occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area and temporal scope (most recently in 2007 at top of Owls Head Cliff). The proposed prescribed fire of approximately 195 acres, and future prescribed fire to maintain the large Oliverian Fields wildlife opening near Owls Head Cliff, would have buffers. Therefore, increased erosion from prescribed fire reaching aquatic habitat is unlikely, and cumulative effects of prescribed fire on aquatic species or their habitat is not anticipated. In summary: Alternative 2 or 3 of the Oliverian Brook Project are expected to cause very minor and localized direct and indirect effects to aquatic species and their habitat. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Eastern brook trout, RFSS wood turtle or Ameletid mayflies, amphibian or reptile species and habitat, or vernal pools, seeps, or wetlands in the Oliverian HMU. This reasonable conclusion is based on the fact that a relatively minor percentage of the

181 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

overall Oliverian Brook sub-watershed in the Oliverian HMU would be treated (see Water Resources Section) and Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Standards and Guidelines, and soil erosion preventive measures, would be implemented. Also, maintaining large trees adjacent to streams allows for large woody material recruitment into streams. This may increase the amount of pool habitat in these aquatic ecosystems in the future, since the presence of large woody material is one of the mechanisms for pool formation (Likens and Bilby 1982). During site-specific field reviews of the Oliverian Project Area, there was no evidence of active erosion on existing Forest Roads, skid trails, or landings that were used during past FS management activities; they are presently stable and revegetated. Future projects in the HMU would use Standards and Guidelines, and design features, similar to those for the Batchelder and Stevens Brook Projects to protect soil, water, and riparian resources. Based on 18 years of practical experience, the District biologist observed use of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that protected streams and riparian areas on numerous vegetation management projects across the District (e.g. Moose Watch Timber Sale). State laws would provide protection of streams on private land adjacent to the HMU. Timber harvesting, residential developments and road construction may result in impacts to semi-aquatic and aquatic species, and their habitat, on private lands adjacent to the Oliverian HMU. Alternative 2 or 3 would not cause any cumulative effects to semi-aquatic or aquatic species or their habitat within the HMU. Climate Change Current scientific information on climate change (summarized in M. Prout 2009) indicates impacts from climate change on coldwater streams and aquatic life would be difficult to detect based on Northeast U.S. models. . The WMNF has and continues to use sustainable ecosystem management practices to protect and maintain riparian and aquatic habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Most streams on the WMNF are well below the water temperature thresholds to maintain coldwater habitats. The current Forest Plan maintains and protects riparian canopy cover over streams, restores large trees within riparian areas for the recruitment of large woody debris, and provides for aquatic organism passage at new and reconstructed stream crossings. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, climate change is not expected to substantively affect aquatic habitat or species’ populations within the Oliverian Stewardship Project cumulative effects time- line (1999-2019).

182 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Appendix A — Response to Comments 30-Day Comment Report Fifty-six individuals and organizations received a hardcopy, or electronic notification, of the Oliverian Stewardship Project 30-Day Comment Report. Six individuals commented or expressed interest in the project during the 30-Day Comment Period. The following is a summary of the comments received during the 30-Day Comment Period. Commenter asked how many “interested parties” were scoped. 1,059 individuals and organizations received a hardcopy, or electronic notification, of the Oliverian Stewardship Project Scoping Report. Commenter asked where the actions of the non-native invasive species control are described in the 30-Day Comment Report. See Chapter 3, Section 3.7 of the EA. Commenter asked if a fee will be charged for use of the trailhead parking area and hiking trail to the base of Owls Head cliff. The parking area for the hiking trail to the base of Owls Head cliff will not be a Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) Fee Area. Based on current and projected use levels, impacts of visitor use, and available amenities, this site does not meet the criteria for a REA Fee Area. REA fee authority is an important resource for the sustainability of quality Forest Service recreation programs but based on implementation guidelines and the degree of development at this site, its use is not appropriate in this particular location.

183 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District - - -

Treatment Objective Treatment Improve stand quality Regenerate Northern Hardwood with Balsam Fir - Begin UAM Regenerate Eastern White Pine Improve stand quality Regenerate sugar ma ple, white ash, northern red oak and yellow birch Regenerate Eastern White Pine Regenerate Sugar Birch Yellow Maple & Regenerate Northern Hardwood Regenerate northern red oak - 2nd entry Continue UAM - Regen erate Northern Hard woods Regenerate Northern Red Oak & Softwood Regenerate Red Oak & Northern Hardwoods - Begin UAM Regenerate Northern Hardwoods

3 Method Treatment Thinning Group and Tree Single Selection Clearcut Thinning Single Tree Tree Single Selection Overstory Removal w/ prescribed fire Tree Single Selection Clearcut Seed Tree w/ Tree Seed prescribed fire Group and Tree Single Selection Tree Single Selection Group Selec tion Clearcut Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Fall, Winter Fall, Winter Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils)

2 89 93 93 114 110 112 110 112 108 108 108 108 108 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in Under Alternative 2 Under Stand Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Immature Immature Immature Condition Low Quality Uneven-aged

1 9 6 6 11 15 15 20 43 20 70 29 14 135 Stand Acres Type Type Sugar Maple Oak & Oak & Forest Eastern Eastern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Red Oak Red Oak Red Oak Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood White Pine White Pine Hardwoods Appendix B — Proposed Vegetation Management Activities Management Appendix B — Proposed Vegetation 1-1 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-8 1-24 1-21 1-22 1-25 1-17 1-19 1-12 1-18 & Stand Compartment

184 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment - - Treatment Objective Treatment Improve stand quality Regenerate Mixed Hard woods Regenerate Eastern White Pine Regenerate Northern Red Oak Improve stand quality Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Paper Birch Regenerate Northern Red Oak Regenerate to Increase Softwood Component - Begin UAM Regenerate Birch Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Northern Hardwoods with scat tered Softwoods - Begin UAM Regnerate Eastern White Pine & Northern Red Oak Regenerate Softwood Regenerate Northern Red Oak

- - - -

3 Method Treatment Thinning Group Selec tion Group Selec tion w/ Tree Seed prescribed fire Thinning Clearcut Clearcut Shelterwood & Prescribed Fire Group and Tree Single Selection Clearcut Clearcut Group Selec tion Shelterwood & Prescribed Fire Group Selec tion Shelterwood & Prescribed Fire Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Fall, Winter Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils)

2 76 78 79 73 84 91 81 89 111 115 105 107 104 104 106 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in Stand Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Immature Immature Immature Immature Immature Condition Low Quality

1 9 11 20 12 14 16 13 29 73 27 35 19 15 58 15 Stand Acres / Fir Type Type Birch Oak & Oak & woods Forest Eastern & Hard - Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Red Oak & Spruce Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Oak / Pine Oak / Pine White Pine Mixedwood Hardwoods Paper Birch Yellow Birch Yellow 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-8 2-9 2-20 2-17 2-18 2-28 2-29 2-15 2-12 2-13 & Stand Compartment

185 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District - - Treatment Objective Treatment Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Aspen, Regenerate Birch, and Balsam Fir Regenerate Softwoods Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Mixed Hard woods Regenerate Mixed Hard woods Regenerate Oak and Softwood Regenerate Northern Red Oak Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Northern Red Oak Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality

- - -

3 Method Treatment Thinning Clearcut Overstory Removal w/ prescribed fire Thinning Group and Tree Single Selection Group and Tree Single Selection Group Selec tion Group Selec tion Thinning Group Selec tion Thinning Thinning Thinning Thinning Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Fall, Winter Fall, Winter Fall, Winter Fall, Winter Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils)

2 89 96 72 59 94 91 70 99 72 113 116 103 100 106 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in Stand Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature Immature Immature Immature Immature Immature Immature Condition

1 5 11 24 30 27 47 57 20 32 12 14 42 36 10 Stand Acres - - Type Type wood wood Oak & Oak & Oak & Oak & Oak & Oak & Oak & woods Forest & Hard - Hemlock Northern Northern Northern Red Oak Red Oak Mixedwood Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods Hardwoods Paper Birch Mixed Hard Mixed Hard Hardwood & 3-3 3-7 3-9 3-11 3-25 3-10 3-15 3-21 3-14 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-12 & Stand Compartment

186 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment - - Treatment Objective Treatment Regenerate Mixed Hard woods Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Oak & Hard woods Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Northern Red Oak Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Northern Red Oak & Hardwoods to Provide Browse Near Yards Deer Regenerate Oak and Hardwoods & Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Improve Stand Quality Regenerate Eastern White Pine

3 Method Treatment Group and Tree Single Selection Thinning Thinning Group and Tree Single Selection Thinning w/ Tree Seed prescribed fire Clearcut Thinning Thinning Group Selec tion Shelterwood TSI TSI TSI Shelterwood & Prescribed Fire Winter Fall, Winter Summer, Fall Summer, Summer, Fall Summer, Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils) Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Fall Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Fall Summer,

2 87 106 108 154 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in 120 57 118 60 130 122 100 121 64 105 58 Stand Mature Mature Immature Immature Condition Mature Immature Mature Low Quality Immature Immature Mature Mature Immature Understocked Immature

1 16 38 25 12 Stand Acres 14 42 8 8 20 98 24 24 36 34 84 - - - - Type Type wood wood Forest Eastern Northern Red Oak White Pine Mixed Hard Mixed Hard Oak & Hardwoods Oak & Hardwoods Northern Red Oak Mixed Hard wood Northern Red Oak Oak & Hardwoods Northern Red Oak Oak & Hardwoods Mixed Hard wood Oak & Hardwoods Mixedwood 3-34 3-32 3-26 3-30 & Stand Compartment 3-37 3-45 3-47 3-48 3-49 3-50 3-52 3-60 3-68 3-69 3-70

187 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District - - Treatment Objective Treatment Regenerate Softwood Regenerate Softwood Regenerate Northern Red Oak Begin UAM - regenerate mixed hardwood Begin UAM - regenerate oak & hardwood Improve stand quality Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Northern Red Oak Aspen, Regenerate Birch, and Mixed Hard woods Regenerate Northern Aspen, Hardwoods w/ Birch, and Oak-Pine Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Mixed Hard woods & Softwoods Regenerate Northern Red Oak Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Northern Hardwoods

------

3 Method Treatment Group Selec tion Group Selec tion Clearcut & Pre - scribed Fire Group Selec tion Group Selec tion Thinning Clearcut w/ Tree Seed prescribed fire Clearcut Group Selec tion Clearcut Group Selec tion Clearcut & Pre - scribed Fire Group Selec tion Group Selec tion Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils) Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter Fall, Winter Summer, Winter Fall Summer, Fall Summer, Winter Fall Summer, Winter Fall Summer, Fall, Winter Summer, Fall, Winter Summer,

2 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in 74 79 104 93 80 83 88 122 90 72 93 78 112 114 91 Stand Condition Mature Mature Mature Low Quality Low Quality Immature Low Quality Mature Low Quality Low Quality Mature Low Quality Mature Low Quality Low Quality

1 Stand Acres 33 32 13 34 52 34 6 7 16 29 11 22 16 58 61 - - Type Type Forest Red Maple Mixedwood Northern Red Oak Mixed Hard wood Oak & Hardwoods Northern Hardwood Northern Hardwood Northern Red Oak Mixed Hard wood Northern Hardwood Northern Hardwood Mixedwood Oak & Hardwoods Northern Hardwood Northern Hardwood & Stand Compartment 4-1 4-2 4-6 4-8 4-9 4-12 4-13 4-15 4-19 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-36 4-38

188 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment - Treatment Objective Treatment Regenerate Northern Hardwoods Regenerate Mixed Hard woods

3 Method Treatment Clearcut Clearcut Season of Operation (Silvicultural & Soils) Winter Winter

2 Age Class/ Age in Years Age in 93 78 Stand Condition Low Quality Low Quality

1 Stand Acres 6 14 - Type Type Forest Northern Hardwood Mixed Hard wood & Stand Compartment 4-39 4-41

189 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Appendix C — Glossary Guideline: A required course of action or level of attainment. It is intended to move the Forest toward desired conditions in a way that permits operational flexibility to respond to variations in conditions. Guidelines can be modified or not implemented if site-specific conditions warrant a deviation. The rationale for deviating from a guideline must be documented in a project-level analysis and signed decision. Maintenance: An activity that is not construction, reconstruction, or restoration, that is performed on existing Forest Roads that require minor work and maintenance to return it to its original design and use standards and conditions. Existing, open roads require less pre-haul maintenance than roads that were physically closed after their last use. Activities could include one or more of the following: mowing or brushing of roadside vegetation, replacement of temporary culverts or bridges, cleaning of ditches, grading of the road surface, or replacement of surface gravel. Purchaser’s Option: Use of a road or road segment that would be available only upon written request by the timber sale purchaser and by approval of the timber sale contracting officer. Road work performed under Purchaser’s Option would be Maintenance (see definition above). All work required and costs incurred would be the responsibility of the timber sale purchaser and all road work performed would meet current Forest Service standards and requirements as designated by the timber sale contracting officer. Reconstruction: The upgrade of an existing Forest Road, or a section of a road, to a higher standard than was originally intended. Existing older Forest Roads were designed and constructed to lesser standards than used today. Forest Roads designed to lesser than current standards exhibit: steeper grades than standard for modern specification; use restricted to winter or frozen soil conditions-only as compared to use during summer, fall, or winter; and/or tighter curve radii that accommodated the then-standard design of haul vehicle, dual and tri-axle trucks. Upgrading roads to allow for spring, summer, or fall hauling, or to accommodate today’s standard design haul vehicle (53’ tractor-trailers) would require redesign and reconstruction of Forest Roads, or sections of a Forest Road. Restoration: Bringing an existing Forest Road back to its original standard, design, and/or use condition for which it was intended. This work is more than what could be considered maintenance, and may include the same activities as those noted for reconstruction. Standard: A course of action that must be followed, or a level of attainment that must be reached, to achieve management goals and objectives. In general standards limit project-related activities. Deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in a Forest Plan amendment.

190 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Appendix D — Literature Cited Adams, M.B. and T.R. Angradi 1996. Decomposition and Nutrient Dynamics of Hardwood Leaf Litter in the Femow Whole-Watershed Acidification Experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 83(1996) 61-69. Abrams, M. 2005. Prescribing Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Is Time Running Out? Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 22 No. 3 pg. 190-196. Allen, G. Personal Communication with J. Neely 08-19-2008. Audubon. 2009. NH peregrine falcon recovery group breeding season update. Unpublished email updates. Concord, NH. Aust, W.M. and C.R. Blinn. 2004. Forestry Best Management Practices for Timber Harvesting and Site Preparation in the Eastern United States: An Overview of Water Quality and productivity research during the past 20 Ears (1982-2002). Water, Air, Soil Pollution: Focus 4, p.5-36. Bailey, Scott W., Donald C. Buso, and Gene E. Likens. 2003. Implications Of Sodium Mass Balance For Interpreting The Calcium Cycle Of A Forested Ecosystem. Ecology 84, No. 2:471-484. Bailey, Scott 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. Baldigo, et al, 2005 Baldigo, B.P., P.S. Murdoch, and G. Lester. 2003. Response of water quality and macroinvertebrate communities to forest harvest in small watersheds of the Catskill Mountains, New York, USA. Presented at the North American Benthological Society, 2003 Annual Meeting in Athens, GA in Disturbance Ecology. Baldigo, B.P., P.S. Murdoch and D.A. Burns. 2005. Stream Acidification and mortality of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in response to timber harvest in Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1168-1183 Bat Conservation and Management (BCM), Chenger. 2002. Summer survey for New Hampshire woodland bats. Prepared for USFWS, NEFO. Carlisle, PA. 47pp. _____. 2004. Summer survey for New Hampshire woodland bats, Carlisle, PA. 38 pp. Beckage, B., B. Osborne, D.G. Gavin, C. Pucko, T. Siccama, T. Perkins. 2007. A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Blinn, C.R. and M.A. Kilgore. 2004. Riparian Management Practices in the Eastern US: A Summary of State Timber Harvesting Guidelines. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 4, p. 187-201. Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and Water Quality. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

191 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

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. Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. General Technical Report INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, lntermountain Research Station. 21 p CEQ. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Clark, B. 1992. An Historical Perspective of Oak Regeneration. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84 Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. pg. 3-11. Colter, Robert A. 2008. Oliverian Vegetative Management Project Soil Assessment. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, N.H. 03264. Colter, Robert A. 2009. Soils and Climate Change. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, N.H. 03264. Crowley, Livia, 2008. Personal communication. Davies, K. 1984. http://www.daviesand.com/Papers/Tree_Crops/ Indian_Agroforestry/ DeGraaf, R., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A. M. Lester. 2006. Technical guide to forest wildlife habitat management in New England. Univ. of VT Press, VT. 305 pp. _____. 2005. Landowner’s guide to wildlife habitat; Forest management for the New England region. Univ. of VT Press, VT. 111 pp. _____., M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 482 pp. _____. 1995. Nest predation rates in managed and reserved extensive northern hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 79:227-234. _____., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England wildlife: management of forested habitats. USDA Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-144. 271 pp. _____. and P. Angelstam. 1993. Effects of timber size-class on predation of artificial nests in extensive forests. Forest Ecology & Management. 61:127-136. DeMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, J. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on distribution & abundance of amphibians in New Hampshire. Conser. Biology: 340-352. Desmaris, K. 1998. Northern Red Oak Regeneration: Biology and Silviculture. UNH Cooperative Extension Educational Marketing and Information Office Pub. 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 United States: Sources and Inputs, Ecosystem Effects, and Management Strategies. Bioscience, 51 (3):180-198.

192 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

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. Dyer, J. 2006. Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56 No. 4 pg. 341-352 Fay, S. 2003. Re-Calculations of Calcium Depletion. Administrative Record. 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. Ferguson, L., C. Duncan, and K. Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry road maintenance and weed management. Tech. Rep. 0371-2811-MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 22pp. Fernaandez, 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. Fight, R. and J. Barbour. 2005. Financial Analysis of Fuel Treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-662. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Fire Effects Information System references: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinres/all.html#PLANT%20 RESPONSE%20TO%20FIRE http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinstr/all.html#FIRE%20 EFFECTS http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/querub/all.html#FIRE%20 ECOLOGY Fire Emission Production Simulator Version 1.1 Model Runs 10-07-2008 and 05-21-2009. First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) Run 11-23-2008. Forman, R. T. and R. D. Deblilnger. 2000. The Ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14(1):36-46. Gelbard, J. L. and J Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. Goodale, C.L. 2003. Fires in the White Mountains: an Historical Perspective. Unpublished draft submission to Appalachia. Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23 (5) 896-900. Harlow, R.F., R. Downing, and D. Vanlear. 1997. Responses of wildlife to clearcutting and associated treatments in the Eastern U. S. Dept. Of Forest Resources, Tech. Paper No. 19. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 66 pp. Hayhoe, K., C.P. Wake, T.G. Huntington, L. Luo, M.D. Schwartz, J. Sheffield, E. Wood, B. Anderson, J. Bradbury, A. DeGaetano, T. Troy, D. Wolfe, 2007. Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the U.S. Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28:381-407.

193 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Holman, Gregory T., Fred B. Knight, and Roland A. Struchtemeyer. 1978. The Effects Of Mechanized Harvesting On Soil Conditions In The Spruce-Fir Region Of North-Central Maine. Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station University of Main at Orono. Bulletin 751. Hornbeck, J.W., C.W. Martin, R.S. Pierce, F.H. Bormann, G.E. Likens, J.S. Eaton. 1986. THe Northern Hardwood Forest Ecosystem: Ten Years Recovery from Clearcutting. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. NE-RP-596. Hornbeck, J.W., C.T. Smith, C.Wayne. Martin, L.M. Tritton, and R.S. Pierce. 1990. Effects of Intensive Harvest on Nutrient Capitals of Three Forest Types in New England. Forest Ecology and Management 30: 55-64. Hornbeck, J.W. 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, 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 experi- ments 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, 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. Jaeger, K. and L. Oswald. 2007. Logging Equipment Noise Travel. Johnson, C.E., Arthur H. Johnson, Thomas G. Huntington, and Thomas 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. Rachel B. Romanowicz and Thomas G. Siccama. 1997. Conservation of Exchangeable Cations after Clear-cutting of a Northern Hardwood Forest. Can. Jor. For. Res. 27: 859-868. Kingman, D.B. 1986. A search for evidence of lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the white mountains of New Hampshire. WMNF Survey Report. Laconia, NH. 4 pp. Kiser, J.D., R.R.Kiser, V.Brack, Jr., and E.R.Britzke. 2001. A survey for eastern forest bats on Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Cincinnati, Ohio. 60 pp. Kiser, J.D., J.Beverly, and V.Brack, Jr. 2002. A survey of eastern forest bat community in the Lake Champlain valley, with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Cincinnati, Ohio. 47 pp.

194 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Krusic, R., M. Yamasaki, C. Neefus, P. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in the White Mountain National Forest. Journal Of Wildlife Management. 60(3):625-631. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model 2005 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 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, W.C. Shortle. 1997. Assessment of Calcium Status in Soils of Red Spruce Forests in the Northeastern United States. Biochemistry 00:1-21. Lawrence, G.B., J.W. Sutherland, C.W. Boylen, S.W. Nierzwicki-Bauer, B. Momen, B.P. Bladigo, and H.A. Simonin. 2007. Acid Rain Effects on Aluminum Mobilization Clarified by Inclusion of Strong Organic Acids. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 93-98. Leak, W.B., D.S. Salomon, P.S. DeBald. 1987. Silvicultural Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (revised) NE-603 Leak, W.B., 2009a. October 25, 2009. Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications. 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, D.C. Buso, T.G. Siccama, C.E. Johnson, G.M. Lovett, T.J. Fahey, W.A. Reiners, D.F. Ryan, C.Wayne. Martin, S.W. Bailey. 1998. The Bio-geochemistry of calcium at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 41: 89-173. Likens, John L. Stoddard, And Kathleen C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic Deposition in the Northeastern United States: Sources and Inputs, Ecosystem Effects, and Management Strategies. Bioscience, vol. 51, no.3. Little, W. 1870. The History of Warren: A Mountain Hamlet, Located Among the White Hills of New Hampshire. W.E. Moore Pub. 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. Lorimer, C.G. and A.S. White. 2003. “Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions.” Forest Ecology and Management 185:41-64. MacFaden, S.W. and D.E. Capen. 2000. White mountain national forest wildlife monitoring program: analyses of bird surveys on permanent plots, 1992-1999. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 79 pp. Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division. 2005 Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Forest Service. Department of Conservation. 2006. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001 – 2005.

195 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Maine Forest Service. Department of Conservation. 2002. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2000 – 2001. 12pp. Maine Forest Service. Department of Conservation 2005. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001 – 2003. 12pp. Maine Forest Service. 2005. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices–Use and Effectiveness 2001–2003. Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME Maine Forest Service. 2006. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices–Use and Effectiveness 2005. Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division, Augusta, ME. 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, Wayne C. 1988. Soil Disturbance by Logging in New England-Review and Management Recommendations. Northern J. of Applied Forestry. Vol. 5, No. 1: 30-34. Martin, W.W. and J.W. Hornbeck. 1994. Logging in New England Need Not Cause Sedimentation of Streams. NJAF, 11(1), p.17-23. Mattrick, Christopher. 2007. WMNF botanist survey of the Oliverian Project Area. Unpublished botanical report in the Oliverian project record. Holderness, NH. 16 pp. Mattrick, C. 2008. WMNF botanist survey of Oliverian Brook Corridor. Unpublished report in the project record. Holderness, NH. Mattrick, C. 2009. Climate Change and Botanical Resources on the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report in the project record. Campton, NH. Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S. A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2008. 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/ Millen, Wayne. 2009a. Estimated Climate Change Effects on New England Forests, Literature Review and Summary. Wayne Millen, March 26, 2009. Updates 9/17/09. White Mountain National Forest. 3pp. Millen, Wayne. 2009b. Forestry and Climate Change; Is There a Role for Forestry? What Do We Know At This Point That Relates To New England? A Review of Applicable Literature. January 26, 2009. White Mountain National Forest. 8pp. Moll, J., R. Copstead, and D.K. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program. Morse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/Publications%20To%20 Serve/Stream%20 Digest.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2005. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations.

196 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. National Invasive Species Council (online. 2001. Management plan: meeting the invasive species challenge. Available: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/ mpfinal/pdf. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www. natureserve.org/explorer. Neitzel, R. and M. Yost. 2003. University of Washington Forestry Vibration and Noise Exposure Project. Univ. of Washington Department of Environmental Health, Seattle. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1999. State of New Hampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations. Chapter 1700. http:// des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-wq1700.pdf Accessed January 25, 2010. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2006. OneStop Program GIS. . Accessed May 11, 2006. New Hampshire Department of Transportation. 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 Division of Forests and Lands. 1982. The Effects of Timber Harvest on Erosion and Sedimentation in New Hampshire New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. 1997. Good Forestry in the Granite state: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire. Published by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands. 2006. Basal Area Law (RSA 227- J:9). http://ceinfo.unh.edu/Pubs/ForPubs/BasalAL.pdf accessed February 1, 2006. New Hampshire Employment Security Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2007 New Hampshire Employment Security Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, 2008 NH Fish and Game Department. 2008. New Hampshire wildlife harvest summary. Concord, NH. 51 pp. _____. 2007. NHFG Biologist Karen Bordeau personnel communication with FS Biologist Clara Weloth re: Location of deer yards in Oliverian Project Area in preparation for site-specific field reviews. Oliverian Project Record. Holderness, NH. 1 pp. _____. 2009. NHFG Biologist Karen Bordeau faxed map with GPS points of 2007 field review of Oliverian Project Area to FS Biologist Clara Weloth. Oliverian Project Record. Holderness, NH. 3 pp. _____. 2009. FAX from Wildlife Biologist K. Bordeau to FS District Biologist with site-specific GPS points on 2007 field review of proposed stands for the Oliverian Stewardship Project in the town of Benton, NH. FAX dated 07/27/09located in Project record, Holderness, NH. 3 pp.

197 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

_____. 2009a. White Nose Syndrome found in bats in NH hibernaculum. NH Fish and Game newsroom press release. Concord, NH. 2 pp. NHNHI. 1992. An Ecological Inventory of WMNF MAs 2.1, 7.1, 8.1 & portions of 3.1. NHNHI-DRED, Concord, NH. Included Pemi Dist. Concord, NH. 61 pp. NHNHB. 2008. Rare plants, rare animals, and exemplary natural communities in NH towns. Division of Forest and Lands-DRED, Concord, NH. Northeast State Foresters Association. 2007. The Economic Importance and Wood Flows from New Hampshire’s Forests, 2007 Nowacki, G. and Abrams, M. 2008. The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience Vol. 58 No. 2 pg. 123-138 Nuengsigkapian, P. 1998. Have our Forests Stopped Growing? Detecting changes in forest productivity through analyzing 150 years of above ground biomass accumulation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. B.S. Thesis. 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. New Hampshire, State of. 2004. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. 63pp. New Hampshire, State of. 2004. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. A Pocket Field Guide. Nutt, E. A. September 2004.Coventry - Benton Revisited; A Supplement to William F. Witcher’s 1905 “Some Things About Coventry - Benton, N.H.” 287 pp. Ohio State University. 2005. Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers Conference. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Oregon State University Extension Service. 1983. Designated Skid Trails Minimize Soil Compaction. Woodland Workbook. Oregon State University Extension Service. 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). Patric, J.H., 1980. Effects of wood products harvest on forest soil and water rela- tions. J. Environ. Qual. 9, 73–80. Pierce, R.S., J.W. Hornbeck,C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, C.T. Smith, C.A. Federer, H.W. Yawney. 1993. Whole-tree Clearcutting in New England. Planty-Tabacchi, E. Tabacchi, R. Naiman, C. Deferrari, and H. Décamps. 1996. Conservation Biology 10(2):598-607. Poff, Roger J. 1996. Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Wildfire on Productivity of Forest Soils. Final report to Congress, vol II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Powers, R.G. 1841. Historical Sketches of the Discovery, Settlement, and Progress of Events in the Coos Country and Vicinity Between the Years 1754 and 1785. JFC Hayes Pub. pg. 37-40

198 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

Price, C. 1958. Historic Indian Trails of New Hampshire. Map. New Hampshire Archaeology Society. Primack, R. 2000. A primer of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. xiii + 319 pp. Reay, R. et al. 1990. Management guide for deer wintering areas in Vermont. Vermont Dept. Forests, Parks & Recreation and Vt. Dept. of Fish & Game. 35 pp. Rosenberg K.V., and T. Hodgman. 2000. Partners in flight land bird conservation plan: physiographic area 28: eastern spruce-hardwood forest. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, N.Y. 42 pp. Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised) NE-535 Sasse, D.B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. University of NH, Durham. MS Thesis. 54 pp. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2003. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2002. Version 2003.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Saunders, D., R. Hobbs, and C. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32. Schori, A. 2008. Field Survey of the Oliverian Project Area. Unpublished report in the project record. Holderness, NH. 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. Silander, J. A. (Jr) and D. M. Klepeis. 1999. The invasion ecology of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) in the New England landscape. Biological Invasions 1:189-201. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. 2005. New Hampshire’s Changing Landscape. Sperduto, D. and Nichols, W. 2004. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH. Pub. pg. 65-86 Sperduto, D. personal communication with J. Neely. 11-06-2008 Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forsetry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, Misc Report, 399. 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. 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.

199 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

Stone, Earl. 1977.The Impact of timber Harvest on Soils and Water. Reprinted from the Report of the President’s Advisory on Timber and the Environment. 1973. 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. Tappen, A. 1997. Identification and documentation of vernal pools n New Hampshire. NHFG Department, Concord, NH. 72 pp. Taylor, J. 1993. The amphibians and reptiles of New Hampshire. NHFG Department, Concord, NH. 71 pp. Thompson, F., R.M. DeGraaf, and M.K. Trani. 2001. Special Coverage: Conservation of woody, early successional habitats and wildlife in the Eastern U. S. Reprinted from the Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001: 29(2): 407-494. Thorne, Sarah and Dan Sundquist, 2001. New Hampshire’s Vanishing Forests. Society of the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Timerson, Brian. 1999. Guide to Noise Control. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Tu, M., C. & J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook. The Nature Conservancy. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, version: April 2001. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Air Quality 2001 Status and Trends. . Accessed September 1, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. EPA Identifies New England Areas out of Compliance with More-protective ‘Smog’ Standard; Non-compliance Areas Include Southern and Coastal Sections of New Hampshire. Release #04- 04-19. April 15, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. EPA Identifies New England Areas out of Compliance with More-protective ‘Smog’ Standard; Non-compliance Areas Include Southern and Coastal Sections of Maine. Release # 04-04-19. April 15, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. . Accessed June 5, 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Air Quality System Raw Data Report for PM 2.5 Levels in Grafton, Coos, and Belknap Counties, New Hampshire 2001-2007. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension: Protecting New Hampshire Water Quality. USDA Forest Service, 1984. Herbicides. Agriculture Handbook No. 633. USDA Forest Service, 1997. Glyphosate. Pacific Northwest Region. USDA-Forest Service, 1986a. Land and Resource Management Plan, White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH.

200 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

_____. 1993. Stream survey of Jeffers Brook (trib to Oliverian Brook) using the Hankin and Reeves method. Unpublished data. Pemigewasset District, Holderness, NH. _____. 1993a. White Mountain National Forest: Monitoring Report 1993. WMNF, Laconia, NH. 112 pp. _____. 1995. Title 2600–Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management: Forest Service Manual 2672.42 biological evaluations. Washington, DC. _____. Multi-dated. Compartment records on white-tailed deer activity at Oliverian Project Area. Unpublished data. Pemigewasset District, Holderness, NH. _____. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposal to list the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; proposed rule. 50 CFR Part 17. July 8, 1998 Federal Register. 63(130): 36994-37013. _____. 1998. Stemming the invasive tide: Forest Service strategy for noxious and nonnative invasive plant management. _____. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 5. 79 pp. . _____. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH. _____. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH. _____. 2005. Appendix H—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Final Environmental Impact Statement for WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH. _____. 2006. Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails. Technology and Development Program. 0623-2801-MTDC. _____. 2006. WMNF terrestrial habitat management reference document. Unpublished. WMNF, Laconia, NH. 17pp. _____. 2007. Field review of Oliverian. Project Area: Winter ocular survey included observations of deer use. Unpub. data in project file. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. 2 pp with map _____. 2007a. 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment. WMNF. Laconia, NH. _____. 2008. Oliverian HMU Analysis Tool. Tables with GIS maps located in the Oliverian project record. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. _____. 2008a. Field reviews of the Oliverian Project Area: Owl Head Cliff tract plant surveys eastern and western portions. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. _____. 2008b. Field review of the Oliverian Project Area: Flora and Fauna survey. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. _____. 2008c. Field reviews of the Oliverian Project Area: Oliverian Brook and tributaries surveys. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH.

201 White Mountain National Forest — Pemigewasset Ranger District

_____. 2008d. Forest Service Strategic Framework For Responding To Climate Change. Version 1.0. October 2008. _____. Project NNIS Risk Assessment. Unpublished document in project record. Holderness, NH. _____ Terra NNIS Database. WMNF, Laconia, NH. _____. 2009. Field review of the Oliverian Project Area: WMNF Deer Wintering Area Survey. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. 2 pp with forms & maps. _____. 2009a. WMNF Review of new information for White-nose Syndrome and forest bat populations. Project file. Holderness, NH. _____. 2009b. Summaries based on each of the WMNF literature reviews for climate change. White Mountain National Forest. 3pp. _____. Manager’s Guide to Impacts on Soils, Stream, and Regeneration. NE For. Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Re NE-172. Radnor, PA, 23 pp. _____. Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1 – Soil Quality Monitoring. _____. Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook. _____. Handbook 2509.22 – R9 Soil and Conservation Handbook. _____. 1986-1996. White Mountain National Forest Management Plan. A Retrospective. Laconia, NH. _____. 2000. White Mountain National Forest Management Plan. Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH. _____. 2007. White Mountain National Forest Management Plan. Monitoring Report. Laconia, NH. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Personal communication between FS Biologist L Rowse and USFWS Biologist S. von Oettingen re: status of WNS and cave surveys in NH. Memo located in Oliverian Project File. Pemigewasset District, Holderness, NH. 1 pp. _____. 2008a. Endangered species act-listed TEP species for the WMNF. Concord, NH. _____. USFWS website for updated information on WNS: http://www.fws.gov/ northeast/white_nose.html _____. 2006. Personal communication between FS Biologist Starke with USFWS Biologist Amaral re: lynx unlikely to occur south of State Route 2 in Jefferson, NH. Letter located in the Project File. Pemigewasset District Office, Holderness, NH. 1 pp. _____. 2006a. Results of scat sample collected from north of Route 2 in Jefferson, NH confirms lynx. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 2 pp. _____. 2006b. Results of scat sample collected from north of Route 2 in Jefferson, NH confirms female lynx. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 1 pp. _____. 2005. Concurrence letter on the BA for the revised WMNF LRMP. USDI- FWS, Concord, NH. 5 pp.

202 Oliverian Stewardship Project — Environmental Assessment

_____. 1972. Endangered species act of 1973: as amended through the 100th Congress. Washington, DC. 45 pp. Verry, E.S., J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff, eds. 2000. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis. 402 pp. 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. 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. 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. Yamasaki, M., T.M. McLellen, R.M. DeGraaf, and C.A. Costello. 2000. Effects of Land-Use and Management Practices on the Presence of Brown Headed Cowbirds in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and Maine. Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts. Univ. of Texas Press.

203