Somerset Integrated Resource United States Department of Project Agriculture

Forest Landscape Assessment Service

February 2018 Manchester Ranger District Green Mountain National Forest

Towns of Dover, Glastenbury, Searsburg, Somerset, Stratton, Sunderland, Wardsboro, Wilmington, and Woodford Bennington and Windham Counties; Vermont

Responsible Official: David Francomb District Ranger Manchester Ranger Districts

2538 Depot Street Manchester, VT 05255 (802)362-2307 x7212 Email: [email protected]

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

This document can be made available in large print. Contact Carol Knight (802)747-6749 or email: [email protected]

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 2 Proposed Project Location ...... 2 Landscape Assessment Outline ...... 3 Ecological Diversity ...... 4 Timber Resources ...... 21 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 32 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species – Animals ...... 40 Botanical Resources ...... 48 Fish and Water Resources ...... 53 Soil and Wetlands ...... 68 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality (Smoke) ...... 78 Recreation Resources ...... 81 Visual Resources ...... 101 Transportation System (Roads) ...... 109

i Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Introduction Integrated resource projects are one of the main Forest Service strategies for achieving the 2006 Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) goals, objectives and desired future conditions at the site specific level. They consist of the planning, implementation and monitoring of multiple resource project activities that are interrelated in their geographical location, scope and intended purpose.

The Somerset Integrated Resource Project (IRP) is located on the Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest primarily w within the towns of Dover, Glastenbury, Searsburg, Somerset, Stratton, Wilmington, and Woodford, but also includes small portions of Sunderland and Wardsboro (see Project Area Map). The Somerset IRP is planned for completion in separate phases covering a three year period:

• Phase 1 (2017), conduct inventory and determine current resource conditions • Phase 2 (2018), determine methods to obtain desired future resource conditions, and collaborate with the public to develop proposed activities • Phase 3 (2019), perform formal environmental analysis of the proposed activities per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and decide what to implement

Forest Service staff has completed Phase 1 of the Somerset IRP from resource inventory information and data collected during field surveys and analysis of existing information throughout 2017. The purpose of Phase 1 is to provide enough information to understand the existing resource conditions within the project area and compare it with the desired future conditions provided by the Forest Plan. The difference between these resource conditions is the basis for determining potential management activities to consider for implementation. The Somerset IRP Landscape Assessment is the culmination of Phase 1 for this project. It provides the existing condition, desired condition, and potential management activities to bridge the differences for multiple resources within the project area.

This landscape assessment is not meant to be the final word on what management activities will ultimately be chosen for implementation. It is merely a snapshot of the status of our efforts to consider the best combination of potential resource activities to meet Forest Plan direction.

Although the primary focus of Forest Service efforts will be management of National Forest System (NFS) lands, there is also a strong desire to work with state agencies, towns and private landowners to develop activities that will achieve common objectives across land ownership boundaries. The Somerset IRP Landscape Assessment will be the basis for entering the next Phase of the project which is to robustly engage with the public and build on the list of potential management activities to include in our final proposal. Proposed Project Location The project area boundary follows along the spine of the Green Mountains (Appalachian Trail/Long Trail) to the west, the Kelly Stand Road (Forest Highway 6) to the north, the State Route 100 to the east, and State Route (SR) 9 to the south. It consists of approximately 42, 603 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land (60% of the area) and 28,558 acres of non-NFS land (40% of the area) for a total of 71,161 acres. The majority of the non-NFS lands is located around Somerset Reservoir and the Deerfield River, and adjacent to State Route 100 on the eastern perimeter of the project area.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 2 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

The NFS lands within the project area are allocated to the following Forest Plan Management Areas – each having a unique desired condition and emphasis for management to collectively achieve Forest Plan goals, objectives and desired future conditions:

Table 1. Somerset IRP Management Areas Management Area Acres % of Area Diverse Forest Use 17,468 41 Diverse Backcountry 11,400 27 Remote Wildlife Habitat 6,142 14 Alpine Ski Area Expansion 422 1 Alpine Ski Areas 886 2 Appalachian National Scenic Trail 1,524 4 Ecological Special Area 449 1 Wilderness 4,312 10 Grand Total 42,603 100 Eligible Scenic/Recreational River1 4,836 n/a 1 The Deerfield River is an eligible scenic river, and Wardsboro Brook is an eligible recreational river; the Management Area applies to 1/4 mile each side of these rivers which overlays and runs through all other Management Areas thus the acres are not reflected in the grand total. Landscape Assessment Outline This landscape assessment provides information for all resources inventoried within the project area and considered for potential project management activities. Each resource section is organized using the following outline:

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process b. Inventory Findings

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description b. Opportunities c. Initial Possible Activity List

6. REFERENCES

7. MAPS

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 3 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Ecological Diversity 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description An assessment of ecological diversity within the Somerset Integrated Resource Project (IRP) area is driven primarily by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 which requires the agency to “…provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives…” (16 USC 1604 (g) (3) (B)). Ecological diversity is analyzed using both a coarse filter and a fine filter approach (USDA FS 2006, pp. 3-13 to 3-14). A coarse filter approach captures diversity by relying on management that maintains or restores the natural variety of ecosystems in an area – i.e. habitat (Kaufmann et al. 1994); this approach assumes that species diversity will be maintained as a result. Rare species and/or rare habitat often pass through the coarse filter, and so we also apply a fine filter approach consisting of specific management to protect individual species, species groups, and rare habitat.

This section of the Somerset IRP landscape assessment will focus on natural community/habitat and landscape diversity (above the species scale). Therefore, ecological diversity for this section of the assessment includes (1) diversity in composition of the various types and scales of ecosystems; (2) diversity in vegetation structure, including age class; and (3) diversity in function, focusing on ecosystems that are unique, old, rare, or of other ecological significance, as well as ecological processes like natural disturbances, fragmentation and connectivity associated with these ecosystems. This third element addresses part of the fine filter analysis related to ecological diversity by including an analysis of the less common ecosystems. Other sections of the overall Somerset IRP assessment will address the species level of ecological diversity, including rare plant and animal species, as well as other aspects of the ecology of the Somerset IRP area, including soils, hydrology, and wetlands.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

 Forest-wide composition objectives • Maintain habitat types on sites that ecologically support them • Increase mixedwood and softwood forests on mixedwood and softwood sites and enhance existing habitat • Increase oak forests on oak sites and enhance existing habitat • Increase aspen and paper birch forests • Increase upland opening habitat • Maintain forested and non-forested wetlands • Apply long-term composition objectives in the context of these other noted composition objectives (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-1)

 Forest-wide age class and structure objectives • Increase late-successional and old forest habitats within lands unsuitable for timber management.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 4 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Maintain a full range of age classes on lands suitable for timber management, including late successional, multi-age, and regenerating forest conditions • Manage at least 20% of suitable lands using uneven-age silvicultural systems to create multi-age conditions • Apply extended rotations found in to the Diverse Backcountry Management Area (MA), and other suitable lands as appropriate, to enhance wildlife habitat and ecological diversity

 Rare and exemplary natural communities • Coordinate with VT Department of Fish and Wildlife (VTDFW) to maintain and enhance habitat conditions for the State’s rare species and natural communities

Goal 6: Maintain or restore ecological processes and systems on the GMNF within desired ranges of variability, including a variety of native vegetation and stream channel types, and their patterns and structural components.

• Manage at least 5% of each ecological type for old growth characteristics • Manage oak-pine natural communities to maintain their presence and continuity through the use of disturbance, including fire use.

Goal 7: Protect rare or outstanding biological, ecological, or geological areas on the GMNF.

• Maintain or enhance areas with rare or outstanding biological, ecological, or geological features

Goal 9: Demonstrate innovative, scientifically, and ecologically sound management practices that can be applied to other lands.

• Develop demonstration forestry projects where state-of-the-art silvicultural practices are applied (e.g. silviculture to enhance softwoods and oaks, and for extended rotations).

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/process Forests are generally divided into units called “stands” for management purposes. Stands are areas of similar tree composition and structure, and can range in size from one acre to over 100 acres, depending upon the variability of the terrain, underlying soils and geology, and management history. All National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GMNF have been mapped into stands over time, and those stand boundaries often change as a result of management, disturbances, inventory protocol changes, new information, and better technology.

Inventory data used to measure composition and age class for general habitat types on the Forest is gathered through a stand exam. A stand exam consists of a series of measurement plots placed within a stand, measuring a variety of site, topographic, tree, and other vegetation variables. The stand exam protocols have been standardized since the 1970s, although the protocols have changed periodically based on increasing needs for statistical accuracy. When stand exams are not possible, coarser measures of composition and age class are gathered through modeling with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and existing data and imagery.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 5 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Stand mapping and inventory in the Somerset IRP was gathered primarily from the 1970s through the early 2000s, with less detailed inventory gathered since that time, particularly in newly acquired lands. The GMNF started to re-inventory some of these stands in 2017, and will continue this inventory through 2018. The field inventory is focusing on Management Areas (MA) in the suitable timber base; no new stand exam data has been or will be gathered within the Appalachian National Scenic Trail or Wilderness MAs, as well as on other lands unsuitable for vegetation management, although some data gathering has occurred in these areas for other purposes. As a result, stand mapping in these MAs will be based mainly on office adjustments using GIS and available imagery and feature maps.

Inventories to identify and evaluate rare, uncommon, or outstanding natural communities or features were conducted intensively by Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory (VNHI) during the 1990s, and has continued periodically by VNHI and GMNF staff since then. These inventories identify rare, uncommon, and outstanding examples of plant and animal species and natural communities, and the GMNF has point and polygon maps of these occurrences within GIS. These inventories were limited by the state of mapping and habitat modeling technology of the time.

b. Inventory Findings i. Landscape Context The Somerset IRP includes approximately 71,161 acres in Windham and Bennington Counties in Vermont within the Towns of Somerset, Glastenbury, Stratton, Dover, Wilmington, Searsburg, Woodford, Sunderland, and Wardsboro. It consists of approximately 41,581 acres of NFS lands (58% of the area) and 29,580 acres of non- NFS land (42% of the area).

The Somerset IRP area follows along the spine of the Green Mountains to the west, the Kelly Stand Road to the north, State Route 100 to the east, and State Route 9 to the south. The IRP landscape is dominated by the Southern Green Mountains, with the Deerfield River Valley running north-south to break the mountains between the main spine to the West and Deerfield Ridge to the East. Upper mountain slope landscapes fall along the ridgelines from the Woodford/Glastenbury town line north, and along Deerfield Ridge from Haystack Mountain to Mount Snow. Most of the remainder of the landscape is dominated by a mix of moderate to high elevation plateau with hills and footslopes, and small amounts of valley bottom landscapes associated with the Deerfield River.

ii. Composition Based on the most recently available National Land Cover Database (Homer et al. 2015) and GMNF data, most of the Somerset IRP area is forested, with 98% of the federal land and 92% of all lands in this condition. Another 3% is developed land which is almost entirely associated with the Route 100 corridor. Another 3% of the land area consists of open water while the remaining 3% is comprised of wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields.

Dominant Habitat Table 2 displays the current composition of the NFS lands within the Somerset IRP area by general habitat types as well as the potential natural vegetation one would expect based on site conditions. The NFS lands within the Somerset IRP area are dominated by deciduous forests, primarily northern hardwood forests; 82% of NFS lands are dominated by this habitat type according to GMNF data (according to the

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 6 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

NLCD, only 66% of NFS lands are represented by deciduous forest). Interestingly, beech does not appear to be a significant component of the IRP area (Stratton 2017). Therefore, beech-bark disease, which is afflicting many beech stands within the Forest, may not be a major factor here.

Uncommon Habitats Mixedwood forests of conifers and deciduous trees in this landscape tend to occur on mountain sideslopes and ridges, as well as on the hills, footslopes, and plateaus of the mountains. Mixedwood forests are far less abundant than northern hardwoods on NFS lands (9% or 14% based on GMNF and NLCD data, respectively) but are more common across the IRP according to the NLCD at 17%. These forests should be far more abundant based on Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV), which may be a result of historical land clearing in the area that removed most of the mature red spruce in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Red spruce is scattered to prevalent in the understories of many stands at middle and higher elevations, indicative of future potential shifts to a higher proportion of mixedwood forest over time. Neither white pine nor hemlock are important components of the mixedwood forests within the IRP.

Coniferous forests tend to be restricted to ridgelines and low, cold places on this landscape. According to NLCD data, about 9% of NFS lands as well as 9% all lands within the IRP are represented by coniferous forests; according to GMNF data, only 5% of NFS lands consist of this forest type. As with mixedwood forests, conifers at the higher elevations and in wetlands are mostly red spruce and balsam fir with some hemlock. There are also some small red pine and Norway spruce plantations scattered throughout (20 acres total). Based on PNV, a higher percentage of coniferous forests is expected on NFS lands in the project area.

Paper birch forests on NFS lands in the IRP are associated with higher elevations, primarily along Deerfield Ridge. This habitat is early successional in nature and transitions to longer-lived habitats with time. The paper birch stands are strongly associated with spruce-fir ecological land types and are in the process of transitioning to spruce-fir. The NLCD does not differentiate paper birch forests (they are included in deciduous forests), and so there is no estimate of their prevalence outside of NFS lands in the IRP area.

Upland openings include habitat dominated by natural vegetation, as well as habitat that is agricultural in nature. On NFS lands these openings include:

• 144 acres in a grassy, shrubby, or regenerating forested state maintained as open by the Forest Service. • 16 acres of powerline corridor in a grassy and/or shrubby state maintained by power/utility companies. • 32 acres of openings in a grassy and/or shrubby state that are not being maintained by the Forest Service for wildlife habitat, including blueberry barrens, old gravel pits, and campgrounds.

Open uplands are more abundant in the IRP as a whole (2%) than on NFS lands (0.5%). This is mostly due to the pasture and crop lands on private property within the Towns of Wilmington and Dover.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 7 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Non-forested wetland and open water habitats, including the 84-acre Grout Pond, represent almost 4% of the composition of NFS lands according to GMNF data. The NLCD model counts fewer open wetlands and as a result estimates only 1% and 3% of NFS lands and all lands, respectively, represent non-forested wetlands and open water. Most wetlands tend to be associated with the river valleys and are products of beaver activity. Several bogs and fens have also been documented.

Aspen is present as individual trees scattered throughout the Somerset IRP area, but it is not dominant in any stand.

iii. Age Class and Structure Age class and structure characteristics are difficult to ascertain for lands without field inventory data or high resolution remotely-sensed data. Currently only age class data is available for NFS lands within the Somerset IRP area which are displayed in Table 2.

Dominant Age Classes Across all habitats NFS lands are dominated by forests that are mature with 64% of the lands in this age class; when combined with the old age class, the proportion rises to 90%. Among habitats, hardwood, mixedwood, and softwood habitats are all dominated by the mature age class while the old age class dominates birch habitat. When comparing age class distribution with Forest Plan objectives for suitable even- aged lands, the proportion of the mature and old age classes for all habitats fall within or above desired ranges. The reason for this abundance of mature and old forest habitat has to do with the historical development of forested stands within the project area. The existing age class distribution shows a bubble of mature age class stands dominating the distribution; this bubble represents all the stands that regenerated when the land was abandoned by settlers prior to federal ownership.

In terms of habitat diversity the young age class and the early stages of the mature age class represent the least diverse stages of forest development (Carey and Curtis 1996). Few of the existing mature and old forest stands have matured enough to develop the more complex structure, broken canopy, and natural gaps associated with old forests under natural disturbance regimes. Usually the increase in complexity that comes with age creates additional habitat diversity, but over long periods of time. New research also suggests that the age-related increase in canopy structural complexity helps to maintain productivity in old deciduous and mixed stands (Hardiman et. al. 2013). Most trees in these mature and old forests will not reach their maximum natural lifespans for another 150-200 years, and so are still relatively resistant to disturbances that fell trees of old age.

Less Common Age Classes The regenerating age class does not currently exist in the Somerset IRP area (Table 2). Harvests have occurred in the past, but those stands have grown past this age class. These stands are now considered young, and are no longer providing habitat required by species that use the regenerating age class. The proportion of the young age class is also below desired levels for all habitats. All of the habitat types have enough acres in the mature and old age class from which to create regenerating habitat without reducing these age classes below desired amounts.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 8 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Stands on NFS lands totaling 1,310 acres are believed to be more than 150 years old and, therefore, may be showing old growth characteristics. These stands are located primarily on the ridgelines within the IRP area.

Structure On NFS lands in the Somerset IRP, over 4,540 acres or under 16% of the suitable NFS lands are currently either in an uneven-age condition or are under management using uneven-age silvicultural techniques. This is well below the minimum 20% required by Forest Plan objectives. Therefore, this will require a net increase in acreage under an uneven-age management system in order to meet this structural objective in the Forest Plan.

There are two Management Areas for which extended rotation ages are an important structural objective – Remote Wildlife Habitat and Diverse Backcountry. These two MAs comprise about 42% of NFS lands within the IRP area, and are dominated by mature and old age classes, although the proportion of each age class varies with MA. The Remote Wildlife Habitat MA is dominated by mature forest (82%) while the Diverse Backcountry MA has closer proportions of mature and old forest (53% and 36%, respectively). For these MAs the older the forest and the longer it has been since a thinning, the less likely the forest will still be commercially viable for an even- age harvest at the extended rotation age of 150-250 years. In other parts of the country where extended rotations have been successfully implemented, multiple thinnings are required to extend the growth of trees well into old age. There is very limited research on extended rotations for northern hardwood forests, but it is clear that northern hardwoods species do respond to thinnings in middle age. It is unlikely that any stands in these MAs have received more than one commercial thinning during their existence. Consequently, some stands may be too old to respond to a thinning, and may require early regeneration to prevent substantial losses of commercial value; other stands may still remain thrifty and have the potential to respond to a second thinning. Managing the mature stands in these MAs for extended rotation will require adaptive management if this approach is to be successful into the future.

For MAs whose forest structure is primarily regulated by natural disturbance regimes (e.g. Wilderness, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Ecological Special Areas), only 3% of these lands are over 150 years old. There is currently no evidence of regenerating habitat from stand-replacing natural disturbances in the project area. In around 70 years the bubble of stands that originated with mass land abandonment will have all started the transition to uneven-age structure. While individual tree- sized gaps will occur through tree death or ice or wind damage, these gaps will fill in from the side-growth of neighboring trees; few gaps large enough to provide quality early successional forb/shrub habitat will be created through natural disturbances until these even-aged stands start to fall apart as they near the lifespans of the resident tree species. Cumulatively, these patches of the 0-9 year old age class will likely comprise no more than 2% of the age class distribution under natural disturbance regimes (Lorimer and White 2003). In the case of the project area where land abandonment created a pulse of stands of similar age that are now starting to mature, these early successional patches will probably comprise less than 2% of the age class distribution until the even-aged stands start to break up, and then will perhaps comprise more than 2% while these stands are developing initial uneven-aged conditions. Given the legacy of land use and abandonment in the project area, increases in habitat diversity will depend on natural ecosystem

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 9 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

processes to drive stand development in these unregulated stands over the course of many decades.

iv. Process & Function Landscape Scale In 2013 the VANR completed a biodiversity assessment for the State that included the development of a map and database identifying Vermont's lands and waters supporting high priority ecosystems, natural communities, habitats, and species (Austin et al. 2013). The assessment is designed to guide strategic biodiversity planning, and was developed to capture both coarse and fine filter biodiversity elements.

Biodiversity conservation involves three elements:

• Conserving large core blocks of land and aquatic ecosystems that encompass a diversity of ecosystem types and scales, and represent the diversity of ecosystems within an ecological region (coarse filter); larger blocks have a better chance to maintain ecological processes and have the capacity to bounce back and adapt to disturbance and climate change. • Conserving small patch ecosystems and rare species and their habitats that are not adequately conserved and represented in the larger blocks (fine filter). • Conserving connectivity among the core blocks and small patches within and between ecological regions to facilitate species movement and migration, particularly in response to changes in climate.

For Vermont land and water are conserved for this purpose when these ecosystems are either protected from extractive or disruptive uses, or are managed sustainably to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and/or function while providing for some extractive uses. Generally speaking, core and connecting ecosystems can support sustainable management while small patch ecosystems and rare species are protected from disturbance unless disturbance is a requirement for their viability. Within the Somerset IRP area, approximately 71,161 acres or 58% are NFS lands managed by the GMNF. These are considered conserved lands.

VANR has also identified large contiguous blocks of forest land as “habitat blocks” indicative of the high value these habitats have for conservation of biodiversity. Nearly the entire Somerset IRP area is included in one of the highest priority interior forest blocks that is over 97,000 acres in size. Management of the NFS lands within this block should focus on biodiversity conservation and sustainability. Additional high priority interior forest blocks have been identified just north and south of the Somerset IRP area, and therefore State Route 9 and Kelly Stand Road are considered barriers to movement between these three blocks.

Vermont also identified connecting lands to connect this large block to adjacent blocks. Connectivity blocks have been identified on the eastern edge of the Somerset IRP area along the State Route (SR) 100 corridor. Conserving these connectivity blocks would foster movement from the Somerset IRP area to an additional high priority interior forest block located approximately five miles to the east of SR 100.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 10 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Natural Community Scale In order for ecosystem processes and functions to be in optimal condition at the landscape scale, the composition and structure of a majority of the component natural communities need to be at optimal levels. This is because functions like connectivity and processes like nutrient cycling, carbon storage, and disturbance will behave differently depending upon the species involved and their structure (e.g. juxtaposition to other species, their age and size). The composition and age class data suggest that the ecosystems within the Somerset IRP area are not within optimal conditions and are probably not providing the biological and structural complexity and diversity that they should be. This is in general due to the predominantly mature, even-aged structure of the landscape; and low amounts of compositional diversity due to missing small patch habitat types like openings and aspen, and predominance of northern hardwood forests. Many of the forested habitats are productive as they are still growing and sequestering carbon while others are stagnating.

There are small patch communities and rare species habitat in the project area that have been recognized by VANR as important for conservation. These areas provide the important function of serving as refuges for rare species in the landscape and region. In Vermont and on NFS lands, the IRP project area includes several high quality natural areas recognized by VANR as significant natural communities. They are as follows:

• Two black spruce swamps. One, known as Torrey Meadows North is north of Grout Pond. The other is within a large wetland complex east of the Somerset Reservoir and is only partially on NFS land. • One black spruce woodland bog. This is part of a wetland complex associated with Castle Brook. • Two dwarf shrub bogs. One is known as Pine Valley Bog and is located near Little Pond. The other is located east of Somerset Reservoir and like the black spruce swamp noted above, is partially on NFS lands. • Three poor fens. One is located east of Somerset Reservoir and is identified as the Somerset Fen Ecological Special Area. Another is identified in the wetland complex associated with Castle Brook. A third example of this natural community has been delineated adjacent to the headwaters of Rake Branch near SR 9. • Several red spruce-cinnamon fern swamps. These can be found in three discrete areas on NFS lands within the Somerset IRP area: within the wetland complex east of Somerset Reservoir (some of which are on private land), within the Castle Brook wetland complex, and near the headwaters of a small stream north of Somerset Road (this one is mostly on private land). • Two montane spruce forests. These are located on Deerfield Ridge and Glastenbury Mountain and represent the highest elevation sites within the Somerset IRP area. • Two montane yellow birch-red spruce forests. One can be found on the Deerfield Ridge just below the montane spruce forest and the other is located on the ridge in the northwest corner of the Somerset IRP area.

Entirely on private land within the Somerset IRP area, there is an intermediate fen east of Somerset Reservoir. There also exists a representative of the river cobble shore natural community along the Deerfield River north of Searsburg Reservoir.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 11 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Searches for additional rare or uncommon natural communities were conducted in 2017. To date no new sites of ecological significance have been noted, although field inventories will continue into 2018.

Natural Disturbances Natural disturbance regimes in the Somerset IRP area are predominantly wind events, mainly small scale events affecting single trees and small groups, and occasionally to rarely moderate scale events such as downbursts and tornados. Ridgelines and mountain tops in the area are generally shallow to bedrock and exposed to prevailing westerly winds; this level of exposure to wind, ice, and snow is an important factor driving composition and structure of these stands. While there is no historical or anecdotal evidence for Native American fire use in the area or natural fires from lightening, it is not unreasonable to assume that fire may have been used to a limited extent by Native Americans and settlers both to clear land and brush for better hunting and later for homesteading. Fire was unlikely to have been an important disturbance agent though in this landscape due to its protection from prevailing westerlies.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS To address ecological diversity within the Somerset IRP area, several questions are identified to highlight potential issues, concerns, and opportunities.

 Composition • How does the current composition compare to Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions as well as with climate change projections? • Are there habitats that are under-represented that could be created or enhanced through management, like aspen-birch, oak, or upland openings? • How are aspen, oak, and openings distributed across the landscape, and are there barriers to successful maintenance of or conversion to these types? What silvicultural treatments can be applied to maintain or increase the abundance of these habitats? • Are hardwood stands occupying sites that are ecologically more supportive of softwoods with adequate softwood reproduction to consider conversion? • Are there plantation forests of non-native species that should be converted to native species?

 Age Class and Structure • How does the current age class distribution compare to Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions? • Are the regenerating or old age classes under-represented on suitable lands within any or all habitat types? How are these age classes represented within the non- federal land base in the project area? • How many acres of land are being managed using uneven-aged management, or are in an uneven-aged condition? Does it constitute at least 20% of the suitable landbase? • In the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs, are mature stands healthy enough to be managed for extended rotations? If not, how should stands in these MAs be managed so that the old age class objectives can still be met?

 Process and Function

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 12 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• What are the landscape-scale ecological characteristics of the IRP, including historical and current disturbance and connectivity? • Are there any known or potential rare, uncommon, or exemplary natural communities in the area? What is their condition and should they be reserved in another MA designation? • Are there young and early mature stands within the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs to which a thinning prescription could be applied for extended rotation? • Are there opportunities to use prescribed fire management in and around scattered pockets of oak to maintain and enhance oak habitat? • Are there barriers to connectivity within the IRP and between the IRP and important state linkages? Are there actions that could be taken in collaboration with other landowners and managers to reduce these barriers? • Are any old stands showing old growth characteristics (e.g. development of uneven- aged structure, average age >150 years)?

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition The Forest Plan Desired Future Condition (DFC) defines the optimal condition for ecological diversity at the natural community and landscape scale on the GMNF based on goals, objectives, and management area direction. These conditions are described below.

b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition  Composition The optimal composition for the Somerset IRP area can be defined generally as a mixture of broad, large patch, and small patch natural communities in areas of the landscape that are ecologically well-suited to these communities. This mixture would include natural communities that have developed through natural disturbance processes, as well as those that have been created through direct management of vegetation. The composition objectives found in the Forest Plan represent general habitats at the broad or large patch scale, and are the most straightforward to use in defining these objectives on federal lands given our current information and technology. The optimal composition of these more general habitats on federal lands can be found in Table 2 under the columns labeled “Long- term Area Objectives”.

The types of plant communities or habitat types that occur within a particular region, landscape, or landform are governed by several factors, including the nature of the soils and geology that underlay the community, as well as the physiography of the landscape such as, landform, slope, aspect, and elevation. Plant species also compete among themselves for light, nutrients, and water, and are subject to predation by a variety of animal species. The history of land use and disturbance at a particular site also influences natural community development. The result of the interaction of all of these factors helps to define both why a particular plant community is on a particular site, and the ecological suitability of a site for a particular plant community.

Ecological mapping attempts to synthesize several of these interacting factors, and map the landscape into ecological types representing, among other things, “potential natural vegetation” (PNV). Potential natural vegetation is defined as “the plant community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without human interference under the present environmental and floristic conditions, including those created by man” (Winthers et. al. 2005), and represents the theoretical baseline for optimal composition. Ecological Land Type (ELT) maps were developed for the GMNF in the early

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 13 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

1980s. These maps are based on data from over 1,000 plots on which vegetation, soil, and physiographic variables were measured. These data have been analyzed over the years to identify ecological types that represent certain combinations of vegetation, soil, and physiography that recur in certain geographic regions of the GMNF. Ecological Land Types are mapped for the Somerset IRP area. In addition to ELTs the use of aerial imagery in color and black and white also help to validate and modify the PNV predictions from ELTs based on obvious characteristics like the presence or absence of conifers in the canopy and understory of stands. Ecological maps and aerial imagery together are used to predict PNV and thereby identify optimal composition.

Potential natural vegetation for the Somerset IRP area is shown in Table 3. The optimal composition (aka Long-term Area Objectives) is generally equivalent to PNV except for early successional and opening habitat. Note that the early successional aspen and birch habitats are not represented in the PNV for the area. This is a function of the definition of PNV which does not include early successional plant communities. Early successional plant communities are likely to occur under natural disturbance regimes in the project area due to windthrow, larger blowdown events, fire, and ice storms, among other disruptions. Lorimer and White (2003) estimate that anywhere from around 1-6% of the landscape in our typical northern hardwood, mixedwood, and spruce-fir types would be in an early successional condition based on various assumptions about disturbance type and return interval. Field surveys for aspen and paper birch indicate that much of this type is succeeding to other habitats, and that there is a very limited abundance of aspen trees in general in the IRP area. Paper birch is most abundant at the higher elevations along Deerfield Ridge where it will naturally succeed to spruce-fir. Given the limited abundance of these habitats in the area, the optimal abundance of this habitat in the Somerset IRP area has been set to 1-2%.

There are no natural barrens or outcrops of large enough size on federal lands in the project area to be considered a stand and be factored into the open upland PNV; there are certainly rock outcrops and cliffs in the project area, but all but the most vertical exposures are generally forested or are a mix of open and forest. The open uplands on federal lands are those created and/or maintained by human intervention. These open areas are not represented in the PNV for the IRP as they would return to forest quickly after abandonment and their abandonment is a decision over which the GMNF has control. Like aspen-birch, the Forest Plan has objectives for maintaining and increasing upland opening habitats on the Forest because of its importance in maintaining the abundance and distribution of a variety of plant and animal species. GMNF staff has estimated the optimal abundance for upland openings at 1-2%, as shown in Table 2 under long-term area objectives.

As there is little if any oak with the Somerset IRP area, there is no optimal composition identified for the oak habitat.

Optimal composition for the remaining general habitats on federal lands in the project area is similar to PNV (see Table 2).

 Age Class and Structure The optimal condition for age class and structure is to have a diversity of ages and structures present across the various habitat types within the Somerset IRP area. On federal lands the Forest Plan identifies a variety of desired structures across various MAs. For instance, within the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs extended rotations are recommended where forests will have a generally even-aged structure but with representative ages extending to 150-200 years and older. With the extension of rotation age these forests will also have the opportunity to develop more botanical diversity, more

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 14 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

canopy diversity, and a more diverse structure below the canopy (Carey and Curtis 1996). The Diverse Forest Use MA will have a similar even-age structure but with most stands and trees being less than 100-120 years old. On all suitable lands, the “shelterwood with reserves” even-age regeneration method may also be used to regenerate species more tolerant of shade which creates a two-age forest structure by leaving a light overstory of trees during regeneration harvesting. I n the Wilderness MA as well as on unsuitable lands within suitable MAs, natural disturbance processes generally regulate structure and age class. The optimal condition for these forests is a forest age structure similar to that modeled for pre-settlement forest conditions in the Northeast by Lorimer and White (2003) with 1-6% of the landscape in early successional young age classes and 60-90% over 150 years old. For the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Ecological Special Areas, Alpine Ski Areas, and Alpine Ski area Expansion MAs, age class and structure are not driving management in these areas and so there are no optimal conditions defined.

For all suitable forested lands within the GMNF, the Forest Plan further defines age class objectives for even and uneven-age conditions. Suitable forested lands are collectively required to have at least 20% under uneven-age management, meaning forested stands and landscapes under this management will have trees of several sizes and ages. For the Somerset IRP area, suitable forested lands account for 29,166 acres, and so the acreage under uneven-age management or in that condition should be at least 5,833 acres.

Based on the suitable even-age management objectives in the Forest Plan, a preliminary range of acres have been calculated in each age class by habitat types to represent the theoretical optimal age class distribution for federal lands in the IRP area (Table 3). These ranges are based on the preliminary long-term composition objectives for the area with adjustments for conversions of hardwood and mixedwood stands to aspen, birch, and opening habitats. Additional inventory may lead to adjustments in these numbers.

 Process and Function

The optimal condition related to ecosystem process and function is that ecosystems of various types and scales are present and distributed across the project area consistent with the ecological potential of the landscape to host them with most if not all of their full complement of associated native biodiversity. These ecosystems would be able to accommodate disturbance or change, either through being resistant to change, or being resilient and able to recover from or adapt to change with minimal losses in biodiversity. Natural disturbance processes, or human disturbances that mimic them, are able to operate within these ecosystems to enhance structural and compositional complexity. Organisms are able to move across the landscape to access habitats important to them at various life stages, or in order to find more suitable habitat. On NFS lands MA allocation and composition and structure objectives are designed to enable ecosystems on the Forest to function effectively in providing for biodiversity at several scales. These objectives represent the coarse filter approach to biodiversity, focusing on more common natural communities and species. Rare, uncommon, or outstanding examples of ecosystems of various scales are sometimes missed by the coarse filter approach.

Forest Plan Goals 2 and 7 define the optimal conditions related to these less common ecosystems on NFS lands. The Forest Plan requires that ecological types that are rare or outstanding are protected, and are managed to perpetuate both their value as habitat for specific species, and their value as functioning small or large patch ecosystems nested within larger scale systems. These patches generally include examples of ecological types considered very rare in Vermont (e.g. less than 6 examples), high quality examples of types

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 15 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

rare or uncommon in Vermont or the GMNF, and outstanding examples of common habitats in Vermont or the GMNF (e.g. a patch of old growth forest). There are four such areas within the Somerset IRP area on NFS lands:

• Torrey Meadows • Haystack Pond • Somerset Fen • Grout Pond

Forest Plan Goal 6 addresses ecosystem process and function by ensuring that natural disturbance regimes are allowed to regulate some of our ecosystems. Some species and natural communities have developed in concert with disturbances that are now missing or occurring more or less frequently than in the past. For example, although it is not likely that fire played a big role in shaping the natural communities of the Somerset IRP area prior to European settlement, Native Americans probably used fire in the valleys to create hunting opportunities. Also, while beavers are now common across Vermont, they were mostly absent from the landscape during the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century. It may be several decades before their influence causes the landscape to look the way it did before their extirpation.

Old growth conditions are also rare on the Forest and in the IRP. Land clearing for homesteading and farming dramatically reduced forest cover in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Timber harvesting since land abandonment in the early 20th century has perpetuated more frequent and larger-sized disturbances than would be typical under natural disturbance regimes (i.e. from insects, disease, wind, ice). Stands that have generally remained unmanaged since land abandonment have the greatest potential to develop old growth conditions over the next 100 years.

Connectivity has become increasingly understood as a critical ecosystem function, particularly in light of climate change and the need that species have to move to more suitable habitats. The Somerset IRP area is part of a high priority interior forest block (as identified by VANR). The desired future condition would consist of decreasing, to the extent practicable, the barriers between this interior forest block and others located nearby.

Forest Plan Goal 6 supports ecosystem processes and functions by including a Forest-wide objective to manage at least 5% of each ecological type for old growth conditions within the MAs that provide for these conditions across the Forest. In the Somerset IRP area, these conditions will occur within the Wilderness MA, and within lands unsuitable for timber management within the Diverse Forest Use, Diverse Backcountry, and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs. By allowing old growth conditions to develop within these MAs, the Somerset IRP will foster areas of more biological and structural complexity and diversity. The optimal condition then for ecosystem processes and function is a landscape that includes large blocks of conserved land within which natural disturbances are allowed to occur, across which species are able to move and migrate, and within which managers restore compositional and structural diversity when natural disturbances do not or cannot occur.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 16 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 2: Comparison of existing habitat type composition on all Somerset IRP NFS lands with lands suitable for vegetation management, potential natural vegetation, Forest Plan composition objectives, and composition objectives resulting from preliminary Somerset IRP habitat analysis. Potential Existing Existing Forest Natural Long-term Area Habitat Type Habitats Habitats Plan Veg. Objectives (all) (suitable)1 Obj. (PNV) acres % acres % % % % acres Northern 10- 32,952 79 24,006 82 16 30-40 4,160-8,320 Hardwood 20 Mixedwood 60- 24,950- 3,796 9 3,207 11 68 45-55 70 29,100 Softwoods 10- 2,267 5 1,613 5 12 15-25 4,160-6,240 15 Spruce-fir 2,247 5 1597 5 0 - - - Softwood plantation 20 <1 16 <1 <1 - - - Aspen/Birch 770 2 339 1 <1 1-5 1-2 415-830 Aspen 0 0 0 0 <1 - - - Birch 770 2 339 1 <1 - - - Open Uplands 192 <1 176 1 <1 1-5 1-2 415-830 Open Wetlands 1,605 4 na na 4 1-2 3-5 1,250-2,080 Water 84 <1 na na <1 <1 <1 50-100 Total 41,581 100 29,350 100 100 - - - 1Represents the proportion of all lands in the Somerset IRP suitable for vegetation management by habitat type; shown for context, as some habitat types (e.g. Aspen/Birch) require management to exist at the levels defined by the Forest Plan and Project objectives.

Tables 2 and 3 provide a comparison between the existing and desired future conditions of the Somerset IRP area for composition and age class for the major habitat types on the Forest, and so provide insights into existing gaps between current and desired conditions. The last column in each table provides project-specific long-term objectives. It is unlikely that many of these objectives will or can be met with any one project or at any one time, but each project helps to move habitats toward these objectives.

Table 3: Comparison of existing age class distribution across all federal lands within the Somerset IRP with lands suitable for timber management using even-aged management, Forest Plan Age Class Objectives and age class objectives resulting from preliminary habitat analysis. Existing Forest Minimum Age Class Existing Condition Habitat Type Plan Needed for (years) Condition (all)1 (suitable Objectives2 Objectives2 EA)2 yrs class ac % ac % % ac Northern Hardwood 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-10% 210 10-59 Young 3,610 11 2,779 14 30-50% 1,240 60-119 Mature 21,269 65 12,579 64 35-50% 1,450 120+ Old 8,073 24 4,422 22 5-30% 210 32,952 100 19,781 100

Mixedwood 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 820 10-39 Young 223 6 223 8 15-40% 2,460 40-99 Mature 2,497 66 2,187 74 35-55% 5,750 100+ Old 1,076 28 550 19 5-40% 820 3,796 100 2,960 100

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 17 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Softwood 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 120 10-39 Young 142 6 142 9 15-40% 350 40-99 Mature 1,597 70 1,283 83 35-55% 820 100+ Old 528 23 120 8 5-40% 120 2,267 100 1,545 100

Aspen 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 10-20% 10 10-39 Young 0 0 0 0 45-55% 45 40-59 Mature 0 0 0 0 25-35% 25 60+ Old 0 0 0 0 3-5% 3 0 0 0 0

Birch 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 20 10-49 Young 0 0 0 0 45-55% 150 50-79 Mature 177 23 174 51 30-40% 100 80+ Old 593 77 165 49 3-5% 10 770 100 106 100

All Types Regen. 0 0 0 0 Young 3,975 10 3,136 13 Mature 25,540 64 16,222 66 Old 10,270 26 5,258 21 1 Condition across all federal lands within the Somerset IRP area; shown for comparison. 2 Applies only to federal lands suitable for timber management using even-aged silvicultural systems; objectives include both composition and age class; e.g. composition objectives for northern hardwoods is much lower than existing, so age class objectives are applied to the target composition.

The Somerset IRP composition and age class tables illustrate the following important gaps between the current and desired future condition for forested habitat composition and age class:

Under-representation of Mixedwood and Softwood Habitat: A significant imbalance in desired composition among northern hardwood, mixedwood, and softwood habitat types with mixedwood and softwood habitat significantly under-represented likely due to historical land uses. Currently, hardwood forest stands dominate the Somerset IRP area (82%), although PNV suggests that mixedwood forests should be dominant (68%). While it is likely that northern hardwoods will always have a presence in the IRP given their abundance now, significant reductions in northern hardwood habitat would need to occur to reach the desired composition objectives for mixedwood and softwood habitat. Shifts in composition predicted as a result of climate change indicate that conversion to mixedwood and softwood stands should focus on sites with abundant and vigorous softwood regeneration, and sites that are cool, moist, or are otherwise topographically protected such as low areas, frost pockets, wetland edges, and deep draws and ravines.

Non-native Softwood Plantations: There are approximately 20 acres of softwood plantations including red pine and Norway spruce in the Somerset IRP. These sites, while planted to stabilize soils, should be converted to native vegetation at this time. All plantation stands are considered mature and so could be regenerated or thinned to allow native regeneration to become established.

Limited Aspen-Birch Habitat: Aspen-birch habitats are short-lived and their continuing presence on the landscape is dependent on vegetation management activities that prevent succession to longer-lived habitats like mixedwood and softwood types. Although aspen and birch are present on the landscape, there is very little aspen and the majority (56%) of paper birch stands occur outside the suitable timber base. These stands will not be harvested, and will eventually decline and succeed to other habitat

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 18 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

types. These habitats may reappear if a large disturbance occurs, but short of that they are likely to represent around one percent or less of the composition of the IRP. Both aspen and birch habitats are early successional forest types, and cannot occur without a large disturbance event to expose mineral soil and provide abundant light. The low abundance of aspen in the IRP in general also suggests a limited capacity in the IRP to regenerate aspen.

Permanent Upland Openings at the Low End of Desired Range: Permanent upland openings maintained for meadow and shrub wildlife habitat are below the minimum composition objective of 1%. These openings have been identified as the most desirable of those across the IRP that had been maintained in the past, and represent the most cost-effective solution to maintaining this habitat in the IRP. Increasing the long-term objective beyond one percent would require innovative and collaborative funding and implementation strategies.

Absence of Regenerating Age Class: There is an absence of the regenerating age class (0-9 years old) across all habitats on NFS lands within the IRP; this is related to an over-abundance of mature and old age classes (90% combined) and to the limited regeneration harvesting in this area over the past 10 years. Because regenerating habitat is transitory by nature only lasting 10-15 years, this age class will always be absent, short of natural disturbances that would create it more frequently than vegetation management. While lack of vegetation management and succession of stands to mature forest provide beneficial habitat conditions for some wildlife species, this is not the case for all species occurring on the GMNF. Many species depend on regenerating and young age classes in a diversity of habitats during one or more life-history stages; some of these species may disappear from the project area as this age class disappears.

The following gaps were identified in relation to ecosystem structure, process and function:

Low Abundance of Uneven-age Conditions: While most of the IRP could be considered mature and old in terms of age class (Table 2), most stands have not reached 150 years of age when early uneven-age conditions develop under natural disturbance regimes. Down woody material is limited in extent, and most older mature and old stands are in the process of developing a young understory of regenerating trees, making them two-storied stands rather than uneven-aged. The Forest Plan objectives include managing at least 20 percent of suitable lands for uneven-age conditions. The IRP currently has less than 16 percent in that condition. Management strategies for the IRP will need to consider managing all suitable stands identified as uneven-age in that condition, or replacing these stands with others being converted to that condition.

Lack of Extended Rotation Management: Stands within the Remote Wildlife Habitat and Diverse Backcountry MAs that are managed for extended rotations have not had management strategies developed for them that would ensure these stands reach their full extended rotation. Often these stands undergo one thinning and then are left alone on the presumption they will still be commercially valuable at rotation age 150. As more stands are approaching 100-120 years old, it is clear that with a single thinning, many if not most, will not reach the extended rotation before declining and losing commercial value. If these stands are intended to be part of the suitable timber base, then management strategies need to be developed to enable mature stands to reach the extended rotation age.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 19 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Gaps in Connectivity: Most of the Somerset IRP area is included in a high-priority interior forest block identified by VANR. Kelly Stand Road and SR 9 represent barriers to wildlife movement between other high-priority interior forest blocks to the north and south, respectively. SR 100 and the non-conserved land associated with the SR 100 corridor represent an east-west barrier to movement. The State of Vermont has identified several connectivity blocks that would link the Somerset IRP area to another identified interior forest block located east of SR 100.

b. Opportunities • Use silvicultural techniques to initiate conversion of hardwood stands on mixedwood sites to mixedwood composition, and hardwood and mixedwood stands on softwood sites to softwood composition. • Convert softwood plantations to native vegetation. • Use regeneration harvesting to create aspen-birch and other early successional habitat. • Restore upland openings targeted for this condition, and develop a maintenance schedule and funding and implementation strategy to ensure their perpetuation. • Use the uneven-age silvicultural system to create and maintain at least 20 percent of the suitable landbase in a multi-age condition. • Develop silvicultural prescriptions in the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs that will ensure that most stands will retain commercial value at the 150- year rotation age. • Work collaboratively with Staying Connected Initiative and other managers and landowners to identify barriers to wildlife movement in the linkage and develop strategies to alleviate them.

c. Initial Possible Activity List • Consider converting the red pine plantations along Forest Road (FR) 71 and Somerset Road to permanent upland openings. • Improve connectivity by constructing wildlife crossing structures along SR 9.

6. REFERENCES Austin, J.M., J. Hilke, J. Kar, and E. Sorenson. 2013. BioFinder: project development report. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 87 p. Map data available at: http://biofinder.vermont.gov/index.htm

Carey, A.B. and R.O. Curtis. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 610-620.

Hardiman, B.S., C.M. Gough, A. Halperin, K.L. Hofmeister, L.E. Nave, G. Bohrer, and P.S. Curtis. 2013. Maintaining high rates of carbon storage in old forests: A mechanism linking canopy structure to forest function. Forest Ecology and Management 298: 111-119.

Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354. (Available at VCGI as theme labelled “LandLandcov_LCLU2011”)

Kaufmann, M.R., R.T. Graham, D.A. Boyce, Jr., W.H. Moir, L. Perry, R.T. Reynolds, R.L. Bassett, P. Mehlhop, C.B. Edminster, W.M. Block, and P.S. Corn. 1994. An ecological

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 20 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

basis for ecosystem management. USDA GTR RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Lorimer, C.G. and A.S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the Northeastern U.S.: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 41-64.

Stratton, S., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, November 23, 2017.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Winthers, E., D. Fallon, J. Haglund, T. DeMeo, G. Nowacki, D. Tart, M. Ferwerda, G. Robertson, A. Gallegos, A. Rorick, D.T. Cleland, and W. Robbie. 2005. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory technical guide. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Washington, DC. 254 pp.

Timber Resources 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description The timber resource in the Somerset IRP consists of the trees present within the project area and the value they represent. These values include wood and other tree components used for a variety of potential products and their combined influence as a forest to affect local climate (wind, air temperature, humidity, precipitation, evaporation), soil (soil temperature, composition, moisture, erosion, surface runoff), watershed management, wildlife, recreation, and scenic and wilderness values. b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives Timber management on the GMNF is intended to be part of a working rural landscape that helps to sustain vibrant local communities and economies. The goal of timber management is to provide forest products that contribute to reaching the desired output levels stated in the Forest Plan EIS Record of Decision which allows up to 16.4 million board feet (MMBF), equivalent to 27,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF), to be sold annually. Forestry activities within the Somerset IRP area are intended to contribute towards that goal, with timber sales made available for purchase for a period of three to four years.

Within the project boundary are three management areas suited to timber management: Diverse Forest Use, Diverse Backcountry, and Remote Wildlife. Forest Plan direction is provided for managing timber resources commensurate with the objectives of each management area allocation. These actions will create a diverse range of vegetation composition and age classes that enhance wildlife and plant community conditions.

Forest-wide goals and objectives The following forest-wide goals and objectives are specific to lands suited to timber management and serve as direction for the identification of the types of silvicultural activities to be used and the quantities of forest products that are expected to be produced or provided from the Somerset IRP planning area.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 21 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Goal 1: Provide for a wide range of uses and activities in an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable way.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

Objectives:  Forest-wide Habitat Composition and Structure Objectives • Maintain northern hardwood forests on sites that ecologically support these habitats. • Support, and where desirable enhance, the natural conversion of northern hardwood forests to mixedwood and softwood forests on sites that ecologically support a higher proportion of softwoods. • Increase acres of oak-dominated and oak-pine forest habitat on sites that ecologically support these habitats. Maintain, and where ecologically feasible, increase the oak component in oak-northern hardwood forests. • Increase acres of aspen-birch forest and regenerating forest in order to support species that prefer these habitats. • Maintain, and where desirable increase, the acres of upland open habitats at slightly higher than ecological tendencies to support species that prefer these habitats. • Increase acres of late-successional and old forest habitats through natural successional processes within lands not suitable for timber management, and through use of extended rotations within lands suitable for timber management. • Maintain acres of forested and non-forested wetlands, predominantly through natural processes.

The following composition objectives (Table 4) represent long-term ecological tendencies of Forest landscapes, with adjustments to manage aspen-birch, oak, and permanent upland openings at, or slightly higher than, current levels. Because changes in forest composition take time, even with management, these composition objectives may take decades or even centuries to achieve.

Table 4: Long-Term Composition Objectives for all GMNF Lands Current Objective Habitat Type (% Forest) (% Forest) Northern 76 30-40 Hardwoods Mixedwood 10 45-55 Softwoods 7 15-25 Aspen-Birch 3 1-5 Oak 1 1-5 Permanent 1-2 1-5 Upland Openings Wetlands 1-2 1-2

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 22 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

 Age Class Objectives for Diverse Forest Use, Diverse Backcountry, and Remote Wildlife Management Areas

Apply the following age-class objectives (Table 5) to suitable lands that will be managed using even-aged silvicultural systems to provide a variety of habitat conditions for wildlife and create a balanced distribution of age classes to meet timber objectives. Because balancing age classes to meet objectives takes time, it may be decades before these age class objectives are attained.

Table 5: Age Class Objectives for Suitable Lands Desired Habitat Type Age Class % Range Regen. 0-9 5-10

Northern Young 10-59 30-50 Hardwoods Mature 60-119 35-50 Old 120+ 5-30 Regen. 0-9 5-15 Mixedwoods Young 10-39 15-40 And Mature 40-99 35-55 Softwoods Old 100+ 5-40 Regen. 0-9 10-20 Young 10-39 45-55 Aspen Mature 40-59 25-35 Old 60+ 3-5 Regen 0-9 5-15 Young 10-49 45-55 Birch Mature 50-79 30-40 Old 80+ 3-5 Regen 0-9 5-15 Young 10-59 45-55 Oaks Mature 60-99 30-40 Old 100+ 5-10 Note: Applies only to suitable lands using even-aged silvicultural systems within the five MAs.

• Maintain a full range of age classes from young to old, including late successional and multi-age conditions, within management areas where age class can be actively manipulated toward goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. • Manage a minimum of 20 percent of lands suitable for timber management using uneven-age silvicultural systems to create multi-age conditions. • Achieve the desired amounts and distribution of various age classes for different forest types using standard and extended rotation ages whereby: o Lands emphasizing quality timber products are managed to Standard Rotation Ages (Table 6)

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 23 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

o Lands emphasizing recreation, enhancement of ecological communities, wildlife habitat, or other resource values may be managed to longer rotations, up to the Extended Rotation Ages (Table 6)

Table 6: Rotation Ages Standard Extended Forest Type Rotation Rotation Age Age (Years) (Years) Northern 100 150-250 Hardwoods Oak 100 150-250 White and Red 100 150-250 Pine Hemlock 100 150-300

Aspen 50 -1

Paper Birch 60 -1 Spruce and 80 150-200 Larch Balsam Fir 60 -1 Jack and Scotch 50 -1 Pine 1 Extended rotation ages not appropriate for these species.

Goal 8: Provide for a sustainable supply of forest products. On the more productive and accessible lands, the goal is to produce high-quality, high-value forest products.

Objectives: • Provide high-quality sawtimber and other wood products for local economies. • Provide sustainable opportunities to harvest special forest products.

Goal 9: Demonstrate innovative, scientifically, and ecologically sound management practices that can be applied to other lands.

Objectives:

• Develop demonstration forestry project areas and areas where state-of-the-art silvicultural practices are applied. • Provide opportunities for public education on Forest Service management practices. • Increase the use of native seed mixes and/or develop native seed mixes for Forest use.

Goal 10: Provide other resource benefits through coordinated timber harvesting.

Objective:

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 24 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Increase the coordination among wildlife and fish biologists, recreation planners, fire planners, silviculturists, and other specialists in order to utilize vegetation management to accomplish objectives of other program areas. The emphasis is using vegetation management as a tool to accomplish the habitat or setting desired by program areas.

Goal 17: Support regional and local economies through resource use, production, and protection.

Objective: • Increase coordination with communities and local businesses to enhance the GMNF’s economic contribution. • Vary the range of project sizes for contracts. • Maintain communications with Forest communities with regard to Payment in Lieu of Taxes, 25 Percent Fund, and/or Secure Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process The project area has not been inventoried for stand conditions for over 15 years and so is in need of being re-examined to assess current conditions. Common stand exams have been completed for a portion of the area but the majority of lands to be managed for timber resources has yet to be examined. The areas identified as a priority are expected to be completed in the summer and fall of 2017 and possibly the summer of 2018 if needed. The remaining area will be analyzed using satellite imagery and LiDAR images, if available.

Digital terrain mapping was used to estimate operable ground for mechanized harvesting, skidding patterns, landing locations, and potential constructed or temporary road locations. For a portion of the project area, field reconnaissance was conducted to ascertain the status of skid roads, landings, and potential road construction locations.

b. Inventory Findings An assessment of ecological diversity, including habitat composition, age class, and structure is available in Ecological Diversity section of this document. Those findings show that the current distribution of age classes within the area is lacking in new forest (regeneration) and stands of young trees make up only 16 percent of the overall composition. The landscape is dominated by a combination of mature hardwood forest and mature mixedwood forest, making up over 90 percent of the area. The imbalance in age classes affects the sequencing of silvicultural entries and the mix of sawtimber size classes needed to produce a sustained supply of forest products.

Tables 7 and 8 provide a comparison between the existing and desired future conditions of the Somerset IRP area for composition and age class for the major habitat types on the Forest, and so provide insights into existing gaps between current and desired conditions. The last column in each table provides project-specific long-term objectives. It is unlikely that many of these objectives will or can be met with any one project or at any one time, but each project helps to move habitats toward these objectives.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 25 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 7: Comparison of existing habitat type composition on all Somerset IRP NFS lands with lands suitable for vegetation management, potential natural vegetation, Forest Plan composition objectives, and composition objectives resulting from preliminary Somerset IRP habitat analysis. Potential Existing Existing Forest Natural Long-term Area Habitat Type Habitats Habitats Plan Veg. Objectives (all) (suitable)1 Obj. (PNV) acres % acres % % % % acres Northern 10- 32,952 79 24,006 82 16 30-40 4,160-8,320 Hardwood 20 Mixedwood 60- 24,950- 3,796 9 3,207 11 68 45-55 70 29,100 Softwoods 10- 2,267 5 1,613 5 12 15-25 4,160-6,240 15 Spruce-fir 2,247 5 1597 5 0 - - - Softwood plantation 20 <1 16 <1 <1 - - - Aspen/Birch 770 2 339 1 <1 1-5 1-2 415-830 Aspen 0 0 0 0 <1 - - - Birch 770 2 339 1 <1 - - - Open Uplands 192 <1 176 1 <1 1-5 1-2 415-830 Open Wetlands 1,605 4 na na 4 1-2 3-5 1,250-2,080 Water 84 <1 na na <1 <1 <1 50-100 Total 41,581 100 29,350 100 100 - - - 1Represents the proportion of all lands in the Somerset IRP suitable for vegetation management by habitat type; shown for context, as some habitat types (e.g. Aspen/Birch) require management to exist at the levels defined by the Forest Plan and Project objectives.

Of note is that based on mapping of potential natural vegetation, the project area is nearly devoid of the 0-9 age class in all habitat types. The Northern Hardwood habitat is the predominant potential vegetation with 82 percent of the area mapped as this habitat type. The conversion of hardwood stands to mixedwood habitat over time will affect the ability to provide a sustained supply of high quality hardwood sawtimber.

Table 8: Comparison of existing age class distribution across all federal lands within the Somerset IRP with lands suitable for timber management using even-aged management, Forest Plan Age Class Objectives and age class objectives resulting from preliminary habitat analysis. Existing Forest Minimum Age Class Existing Condition Habitat Type Plan Needed for (years) Condition (all)1 (suitable Objectives2 Objectives2 EA)2 yrs class ac % ac % % ac Northern 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-10% 210 Hardwood 10-59 Young 3,610 11 2,779 14 30-50% 1,240 60-119 Mature 21,269 65 12,579 64 35-50% 1,450 120+ Old 8,073 24 4,422 22 5-30% 210 32,952 100 19,781 100

Mixedwood 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 820 10-39 Young 223 6 223 8 15-40% 2,460 40-99 Mature 2,497 66 2,187 74 35-55% 5,750 100+ Old 1,076 28 550 19 5-40% 820 3,796 100 2,960 100

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 26 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 8: Comparison of existing age class distribution across all federal lands within the Somerset IRP with lands suitable for timber management using even-aged management, Forest Plan Age Class Objectives and age class objectives resulting from preliminary habitat analysis. Existing Forest Minimum Age Class Existing Condition Habitat Type Plan Needed for (years) Condition (all)1 (suitable Objectives2 Objectives2 EA)2 yrs class ac % ac % % ac

Softwood 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 120 10-39 Young 142 6 142 9 15-40% 350 40-99 Mature 1,597 70 1,283 83 35-55% 820 100+ Old 528 23 120 8 5-40% 120 2,267 100 1,545 100

Aspen 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 10-20% 10 10-39 Young 0 0 0 0 45-55% 45 40-59 Mature 0 0 0 0 25-35% 25 60+ Old 0 0 0 0 3-5% 3 0 0 0 0

Birch 0-9 Regen. 0 0 0 0 5-15% 20 10-49 Young 0 0 0 0 45-55% 150 50-79 Mature 177 23 174 51 30-40% 100 80+ Old 593 77 165 49 3-5% 10 770 100 106 100

All Types Regen. 0 0 0 0 Young 3,975 10 3,136 13 Mature 25,540 64 16,222 66 Old 10,270 26 5,258 21 1 Condition across all federal lands within the Somerset IRP area; shown for comparison. 2 Applies only to federal lands suitable for timber management using even-aged silvicultural systems; objectives include both composition and age class; e.g. composition objectives for northern hardwoods is much lower than existing, so age class objectives are applied to the target composition.

In reviewing old timber sale records and timber compartment maps dating back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, it shows that timber management has been practiced on much of the landscape, especially where the terrain is well-suited to ground-based harvesting. A network of roads once provided access to the more productive stands of timber throughout the project area. Over time, with the decline in the timber sale program, many of these roads were essentially abandoned and subsequently decommissioned.

For an assessment of timber harvest feasibility, a harvest plan will be developed to determine logging access for the entire area within each management allocation suited to timber management. I t will calculate skidding distances to possible landing sites, determine stands that are remote or inaccessible, and characterize ground that is marginally suitable for ground-based logging operations due to rocky, broken terrain, or inoperable due to steep terrain or wetlands.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS The following concerns are specific to timber management and represent a preliminary assessment of the potential difficulties in accomplishing the goals and objectives of providing a sustainable supply of forest products as directed in the Forest Plan.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 27 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Timber sale offerings must have a reasonable profit margin in order for prospective mill owners and timber sale operators to continue purchasing and harvesting sawtimber. A sustainable timber management program can only succeed if financial viability is ensured for current and future timber harvests. The difficulties that may impede this objective are outline below.

 Longer rotations required for Remote Wildlife Habitat and Diverse Backcountry management areas do not lend to a sustained yield timber supply on a forest-wide basis. There is: • Degradation of wood quality due to disease, rot, and damage. • Additional mortality due to wind throw and disease. • Difficulty scheduling harvest entries due to standing timber being unavailable. The viability of timber sales having well distributed volume and value is diminished when there is limited availability of sawtimber. Or, scheduled harvest entries have to be postponed, requiring unscheduled harvest from Diverse Forest Use management areas in order to meet the expected supply of forest products.

 Limitation of 20 acre regeneration harvests in Remote Wildlife Habitat and Diverse Backcountry management areas: • Do not allow for cost-effective management of remote stands. Each timber sale entry has fixed costs associated with harvest operations and when the timber to be cut is more scattered, especially at longer skidding distances, economic viability is diminished. • Spacing requirement for regeneration openings results in a patchwork of stands that may not provide the optimal distribution of age classes for wildlife and may not allow for effective management of disease and insect problems.

 There are low value stands due to past stand histories or age class; i.e. a lack of high quality, and mature timber in stands that were selectively logged (high-graded) or are younger than 80 to 90 years old: • Remote stands may not be economically viable. • There is an inability to pay for reforestation activities. • There is an inability to afford road construction for landing access.

 Consideration for increased use of whole-tree harvesting where risk of potential nutrient losses is acceptable: • Captures additional value of remote or low value timber stands so they are financially viable. • Reduces cost of expensive site preparation for tree planting or natural regeneration. • Develop comprehensive strategy and protocols for retaining critical levels of organic material and contingencies for short-term and long-term recovery if resulting loss of organic material is unacceptable.

 Consideration for increased use of summer logging where risk of potential soil disturbance is acceptable: • Minimizes inefficiencies or inability to conduct all harvesting operations in one short winter season • With predictions for warming climate conditions, winter logging may not be reliable. • Winter logging requires timber haul when road conditions can be dangerous (steep, icy, narrow); hauling in the summer avoids those risks.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 28 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Winter logging is often inadequate for site preparation for natural reforestation or to inhibit beech sprouting. • Develop comprehensive strategy and protocols for managing soil disturbances and contingencies for short-term and long-term recovery if resulting soil disturbance is unacceptable.

 Lack of adequate road access in some portions of project area. • Expense of long skidding distances; additional cost diminishes sawtimber value. • High cost of road construction may not be economically viable in the short term. • Consideration should also be made for the associated forest management activities of timber sale preparation and administration, reforestation, stand improvement thinning, and wildlife habitat maintenance. With limited road access these activities can become prohibitively expensive.

 Poor condition of existing roads, namely Class 4 town roads and some Level 1 NFS roads. • Safety risk of winter haul (steep, icy conditions) may restrict logging access to summer only. • Road maintenance and improvements not well coordinated with towns. • Conflicting objectives for VAST snowmobile trails using roads closed to wheeled vehicles. The roads are kept closed in order to protect the road surface, water bars, and other erosion control measures from being damaged. However, snowmobile trails require annual maintenance that relies on wheeled vehicles or tracked equipment that can damage erosion control devices and the road surface, adding to the cost of road repair and maintenance for timber harvest operations.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION The Forest Plan describes Long-Term Composition Objectives for all GMNF lands (Forest Plan, p. 11). The optimal conditions will be healthy forest stands with minimal insect and disease activity.

Forest Plan Composition Objectives: • 30-40% of the project area in Northern Hardwoods habitat type. • 45-55% of the project area in Mixedwoods habitat type • 1-5% of the project area in Aspen-Birch habitat type • 1-5% of the project area in oak habitat type (more in the escarpment) • 1-5% of the project area in Permanent Upland Openings habitat type • 1-2% of the project area in Wetlands habitat type

Following are the desired future conditions for the timber resource for each Management Area as described in the Forest Plan:

Diverse Forest Use Timber and vegetation management emphasis is placed on production of high quality sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis. • Timber management will include both even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture systems that are designed to create a sustainable supply of sawtimber. This ensures long-term viability of local and regional logging operations, sawmills, and other forest products manufacturers. • Silvicultural practices will be used to meet objectives for wildlife, ecological, visual, and recreation as well as timber.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 29 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Diverse Backcountry Management emphasis is on providing a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment. • Timber management activities should benefit backcountry settings, including longer rotations of 150 years or more. • Timber harvest will occur with fewer intermediate treatments, using primarily even-aged silvicultural systems. • Timber and vegetation management will provide more clearings and early successional habitat that would occur from natural disturbances. • Temporary openings resulting from even-aged management shall be less than 20 acres. • Temporary roads may be permitted but will be rehabilitated after management objectives are complete. • Construction of new permanent roads shall be prohibited unless required for administrative use.

Remote Wildlife Habitat Emphasis is placed on providing a mix of age classes for the primary benefit of wildlife, including reclusive wildlife species. • Timber and vegetation management should be the primary tools for habitat management. • Where even-aged management is appropriate, extended rotation ages should be used. • Temporary openings resulting from even-aged management shall be less than 20 acres but generally larger than 5 acres. • Temporary roads are permitted but shall be closed after management objectives are met. • Construction of new permanent roads are allowed for timber harvest, but shall be closed to motorized access by the public.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description Timber production from the GMNF declined dramatically during the 1990’s due to increasing public pressure and was halted entirely due to protection measures for the Indiana bat in 1998. The timber program was re-initiated in 2001 but timber output was much reduced from the levels prior to the moratorium. As a result, there are many areas of the GMNF where no timber harvesting has occurred for two decades or more. This explains the lack of early successional and young forest and the need to initiate regeneration cuts throughout the areas suited to timber management.

The timber sale program has steadily increased to the current level of 9,000 CCF sold per year and is expected to increase over the next 5 to 10 years until the annual timber sell volume stabilizes at about 12,000 CCF. This level of output is less than half that authorized in the Forest Plan, but represents a realistic timber program in consideration of the expected budget allocations and workforce of the Green Mountain National Forest. With a more stable timber sale program and regularly scheduled harvest entries, it is expected that a balanced mix of age classes can be established to meet the goal of a sustainable timber supply.

b. Opportunities Provide for a sustainable supply of forest products. Opportunities for harvest treatments in the Somerset project area will be determined from a combination of stand condition surveys, field reconnaissance site visits, and interpretations of satellite imagery. Creating the desired habitat composition, structure, and age class

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 30 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

distribution for each management area is the primary objective for each harvest prescription, but the objective of providing a financially viable supply of forest products is a key consideration in developing any harvest proposal. The mix of stand conditions that result from a harvest entry should enable succeeding entries to produce timber sale opportunities that are equally viable, if not more so.

c. Initial Possible Activity List Harvest/Vegetation Treatments:  Clearcut – Even-aged cutting method in which the entire standing crop of trees are removed (although wildlife trees are usually left). • To salvage damaged stands • To improve condition of high risk stands • To regenerate aspen and birch stands • To convert hardwood to softwood • To convert woodland to permanent opening • To convert woodland to vista or parking lot  Seed Tree – Even-aged cutting method in which most of the mature timber from an area is removed in one cut except for a number of desirable trees retained to provide seed or shelter for regeneration.  Shelterwood – Even-aged cutting method in which a stand of trees is removed through a series of cutting designed to establish a new crop with seed and protection provided by a portion of the stand. • To regenerate species somewhat tolerant of shade.  Intermediate Cuts – The removal of trees from a stand sometime between the beginning (or formation) of the stand and the regeneration cut. Types of intermediate cuts include thinning, release, and improvement cuttings. • To release desirable species or individual trees.  Group Selection – Uneven-aged cutting method in which small groups of trees, usually no more than one acre in size, are removed. • To promote species intermediately tolerant of shade. • To facilitate conversion to softwood. • To provide temporary openings. • To facilitate conversion to uneven-aged stands.  Individual Tree Selection – Uneven-aged cutting method in which selected trees from specified size or age classes are removed over the entire stand area to meet a predetermined goal of size or age distribution and species composition in the remaining stand. • To promote species tolerant of shade. • To maintain a continuous forest canopy.  Prescribed Fire – Use of fire to achieve management objectives. • To reduce fuel loadings. • To control vegetation and promote desired species. • To stimulate new growth.  Reforestation – The restocking of an area with forest trees, by either natural or artificial means, such as planting. • To ensure a forest stand is sufficiently regenerated.

6. References USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region,

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 31 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 432 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description Management of wildlife and wildlife habitat on the GMNF endeavors to ensure sustained viability of wildlife populations on NFS lands and in the surrounding region while meeting other resource objectives. These management efforts are based on conservation and enhancement of wildlife habitat. By providing diverse habitat conditions across the landscape, the GMNF can support diverse assemblages of wildlife species.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

Many of the objectives associated with Goal 2 address: • Habitat at a general, landscape level through the desired species composition, age structure, and other characteristics of vegetation in forest communities, as well as the relative availability and distribution of these vegetation communities across the landscape. These vegetation characteristics define the composition and structure of habitat conditions on the GMNF, which in turn affect the wildlife species that occur in those habitats. • More specific objectives address retention of trees and snags that are suitable for dens, nests, and roosts, as well as trees and shrubs that produce apples, nuts, berries, and other foods for wildlife. • Objectives addressing protecting, maintaining, or enhancing habitats important for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as other species of local interest that have unique habitat requirements are outlined in the Threatened and Endangered Species section. • Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife provide specific management direction for realizing Forest Plan Goals and Objectives, for wildlife reserve trees, deer wintering areas, and particular habitat protections for several individual species.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Because the condition of wildlife habitat is determined largely by the species composition, age structure, and distribution of forest communities, assessment of wildlife habitat within the IRP area began with an Ecological Diversity Landscape Assessment. Analysis included GIS-based data on forest type, stand age, ecological land type, topography, and aerial imagery. Existing compartment and stand records provided history of previous forest management actions. Specific features of interest for wildlife included wetlands, upland openings, state-mapped deer wintering areas, and stands that included aspen, oak, apple,

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 32 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

and other mast trees. This initial assessment identified particular stands or areas that merited site visits to examine wildlife features or field inventory to provide updated timber stand data. Site visits began in the summer of 2017 and comprehensive stand examinations are ongoing.

GMNF staff is working with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD) on a long- term, Forest-wide effort to monitor the carnivore community on the National Forest through camera trapping. Of particular interest is the federally-listed Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis; also see Threatened and Endangered Species Landscape Assessment). As part of this effort, five cameras were deployed within the IRP area in November and December 2016. Although camera traps were baited to target Canada lynx and bobcat, a suite of other mammalian species were observed incidentally. This provides a semi-quantitative look into the mammal community within the IRP area.

GMNF staff has also worked with VFWD to monitor a population of the State-listed endangered American marten (Martes Americana) in and around the IRP area. Although the species is not federally-listed and does not appear on the GMNF Regional Forester Sensitive Species list, the GMNF has a vested interest in conserving the species. The partnership between the GMNF and VFWD on American marten conservation can be traced back to the late 1980s when the agencies worked together to reintroduce the once extirpated species back to Vermont.

Vernal pools represent important wetland habitats that are often overlooked on the landscape. A unique suite of amphibians and invertebrates are dependent on these vernal pools during the breeding season but use upland forested habitats during the rest of the year. GMNF staff reviewed a recent modeling effort (Faccio et al. 2013) to determine if there are any known or suspected vernal pools within the IRP area.

b. Inventory Findings The Somerset IRP area includes about 41,581 acres of NFS lands, which are dominated by northern hardwood forest types (79%) and smaller percentages of mixedwood (9%), softwood (5%), and birch (2%). A small portion of the softwood component (less than 1%) consists or red pine plantations. The remaining lands (5%) are in upland openings, wetlands, and/or water. On suitable lands, or those available for commercial timber harvest, hardwoods makes up 82% compared to 11% for mixedwood, 6% for softwoods, and 1% for birch. Forested NFS lands are predominantly in the mature (64%) and old (26%) age classes, with 10% in the young age class. There are no stands in the regenerating (0 to 9 year) age class. Non-forested uplands, which account for about 0.5% of FS lands in the IRP area, consist of shrublands and grass/forb openings with recent maintenance activities in addition to a small amount of power line rights-of-way. The Ecological Diversity section of this document provides greater detail on the existing condition of the forest vegetation.

Apple, hawthorn, aspen, and mast-bearing trees occur within the IRP area, although none appear to be overly abundant. Wetland habitats are abundant within the IRP area and make up 3.86% of NFS lands.

Eight state-mapped deer wintering areas (DWA) are located within the Somerset IRP area totaling about 2,931 acres. Of these only portions of two DWAs covering 676 acres are on National Forest lands. This 676 acres of DWA on can be characterized as average to low quality for cover and food. The thermal cover of the National Forest DWAs is lacking and many parts of these areas have limited or no evidence of deer wintering on these sites. Deer densities in this area of Vermont are believed to be among the lowest in the State.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 33 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Despite this there are few other DWAs in the area, so these may be locally important (Fortin 2017).

At this time data covering between 232 and 305 trap nights from five IRP area camera traps had been collected and analyzed as part of the Canada lynx monitoring effort. The most frequently detected mammals were the fisher, white-tailed deer, red fox, snowshoe hare, coyote, and black bear. Less frequently detected species include porcupine, moose, raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, red squirrel, bobcat, northern flying squirrel, and river otter. One American marten was also detected (see discussion on following paragraph).

Since the American marten was confirmed in southern Vermont in 2010, monitoring efforts have helped determine that the species’ core range is centered in the Glastenbury Wilderness and overlaps with the IRP area. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, a single marten was also detected recently as part of a separate monitoring effort. These monitoring results, in addition to several anecdotal reports, suggest that marten can be readily found along the western side of Somerset reservoir. Preliminary surveys along the northeastern extent of Somerset reservoir did not reveal marten, but surveys along the eastern shore of the reservoir have not been extensive.

According to the vernal pool modeling research (Faccio et al. 2013), there are eight potential vernal pools on GMNF lands within the IRP area. Four of these have been confirmed as vernal pools in the past by volunteers while the other four were visited and confirmed by GMNF staff in 2017. These four, located just west of Somerset Reservoir along Forest Trail (FT) 378, the Glastenbury Crossover Trail, are adjacent to a large wetland complex associated with two separate headwater streams. This may be a very rich area in terms of amphibian diversity and abundance. It should be noted that two additional wetlands that support vernal pool obligate amphibians were discovered incidentally along FT 385, Corridor 7.

Other inventory efforts focusing on threatened, endangered and sensitive species are detailed in the Threatened and Endangered Species section of this document.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Besides the concerns discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species Landscape Assessment, issues related to wildlife and wildlife habitat are associated primarily with species composition and age structure of vegetation communities in forested habitats. Concerns arise over the relative availability and distribution of different forest types and age structures, as well as to the presence, where suitable, of particular desirable species, such as aspen.

The availability of early-successional habitat is of particular concern. Early-successional habitat refers to scrub-shrub lands, young pioneer (old field) habitats, and young, regenerating forests (0-9 year age class). Early-successional habitats are extremely important to many species of wildlife. A variety of vegetation management actions proffer opportunities to increase and enhance the diversity and quality of wildlife habitat conditions within the IRP area.

The Forest Plan emphasizes the importance of permanent upland openings as wildlife habitat. There will be ample opportunities to create permanent openings from timber harvests in the project area. However, there are concerns and potential unintended consequences associated with creating and maintaining permanent upland openings. These include spreading non-native invasive plants and interrupting blocks of connected forested habitat (Sorenson 2017). These issues should be considered when siting, creating, and maintaining permanent upland openings.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 34 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

The project area has a great number and variety of wetlands that, in one way or another, provide valuable habitat for hundreds of species of wildlife. These habitats are inherently fragile and susceptible to disturbances caused by activities such as logging and road building. Therefore, there are concerns that activities occurring in or near wetlands may negatively impact wildlife habitat and/or individual animals. Care should be taken to ensure that wetland habitats are affected as little as possible by project activities.

While the southern Vermont population of the American marten benefits from having the core of its range within the protected Glastenbury Wilderness, it is very likely that the species can be found in areas suitable for timber harvest within the IRP area. Therefore, it is possible that timber harvests can impact individual marten as well as alter the species’ habitat.

Research in Vermont and elsewhere has demonstrated that the 100-foot wetland buffer within which the GMNF restricts most activities may not be protective of the amphibian species that breed in vernal pools, because of their upland habitat requirements (Faccio 2003). Therefore, wider buffers may be required if the goal is to protect the populations of the amphibians that use these wetlands, and not just the wetlands themselves. See map below for known locations of important wildlife habitats.

4. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition The DFC for wildlife habitat on the GMNF is a mix of deciduous and coniferous forest stands that vary in size, shape, age, height, and species composition, including both even-aged and uneven-aged stands. This diversity of forest conditions provides structural diversity, both horizontally (across the ground) and vertically (from the forest floor into the canopy), which, in turn, supports diverse flora and fauna. Permanent upland openings and regenerating forest stands provide early-successional habitat that is critically important to many species of wildlife. Old forest habitats provide suitable habitat for entirely different suites of species and many of these species are also dependent on open and young habitats. The DFC also includes enhancement of naturally-occurring forest communities that include tree species important to wildlife, such as aspen. At a finer, site-specific scale, the DFC includes suitable quality and distribution of specific habitat features, such as state identified deer wintering areas, wetlands, and wildlife trees, trees and snags used for dens, nests, cover and roosts.

b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition Management direction intended to steer wildlife habitat conditions on the GMNF toward the DFC is found under Goal 2 in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, pp.10-13). The foundation for the DFC is contained in general, landscape-level objectives that address relative composition of major forest types (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-1), age-class distribution within each forest type (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-2), and several more-specific important habitat conditions, such as wetlands, early-successional habitats and permanent upland openings, and late-successional or old forest habitats. Objectives, standards, and guidelines for wildlife reserve trees, deer wintering areas, and habitat management for individual species define the DFC at a finer, site-specific scale.

Management, maintenance, creation, or enhancement of wildlife habitats on GMNF lands depends largely on timber and vegetation management activities that alter the existing structure and condition of vegetation communities. The kinds of vegetation management tools available and the authorized degree of habitat manipulation vary for each MA as follows:

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 35 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Diverse Forest Use (DFU) and Remote Wildlife Habitat (RWH) – These provide the greatest latitude for application of timber and vegetation management, including commercial timber harvest, to achieve wildlife habitat objectives.

Diverse Backcountry Forest – This MA provides longer rotations for timber harvesting of 150 years or more. The longer harvesting rotations, temporary and permanent opening size of less than 20 acres, and limits on new permanent road construction within this MA means it will not provide the greatest latitude to achieve wildlife habitat objectives.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail and Long National Recreation Trail - Vegetation management activities in these MAs are authorized only to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, provide for public safety, or maintain existing fields and vistas.

Alpine Ski Areas - Vegetation management should be related to operation of the alpine ski areas. Exceptions are permitted for maintenance of habitat for threatened, endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

Alpine Ski Area Expansion - Lands in this MA shall appear natural, with little evidence of vegetation management. Existing permanent upland openings may continue to be maintained.

Wilderness - Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement projects are prohibited within Congressionally-designated Wilderness areas.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description The existing distribution of major habitat types within the IRP area is substantially divergent from the Forest Plan DFC. The Ecological Diversity Landscape Assessment addresses the gap between DFC and existing condition in detail. Several aspects of this gap are relevant to wildlife resources. Improving the softwood component in the mixedwood habitat type and improving deer wintering habitat moves the IRP area towards a desired direction. On suitable lands, aspen and paper birch occur mostly as scattered inclusions in other stands. Increasing the abundance and distribution of these species would generally benefit certain wildlife species. Age-class distribution of forested lands is skewed heavily to mature age classes at the expense of young and regenerating forest stands. The regeneration age class (0-9 years), in particular, is essentially absent from the IRP area. Considering the lack of both regenerating forest stands and permanent upland openings, the IRP area provides extremely limited availability of early-successional habitat.

b. Opportunities Through application of a variety of vegetation management techniques, including commercial timber harvest, opportunities exist to initiate a shift from domination by northern hardwoods to increasing components of mixedwood and softwood. Vegetation management also will initiate a redistribution of age classes with less mature forest and more young and regeneration age classes. The use of management activities that promote shade intolerant species for regenerating northern hardwoods can aid aspen and birch. Continuing maintenance of permanent upland openings and feral apple orchards, in conjunction with regenerating forest stands, will provide early successional habitat. Each of these actions will contribute to greater diversity and increased quality of wildlife habitat within the IRP area.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 36 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

c. Initial Possible Activity List Commercial timber harvests will be the key tool for reaching age class and species composition objectives. In particular, timber harvests can be used to convert northern hardwood forests to mixedwood, create conditions favored by aspen and birch, and introduce regenerating stands into the IRP area.

Timber harvests can also drive the creation of permanent upland openings. These openings should be created following the standards and guidelines listed in the Forest Plan. For the Somerset IRP, specific Forest Plan guidelines to highlight include the following: • Openings should be clustered where possible. • Openings should be located near streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands (the creation of openings adjacent to those wetlands currently listed as openings would provide a unique opportunity to increase the suite of benefits associated with early successional habitats). • Openings may exceed maximum size (30 acres) to address site-specific needs such as beaver flowages.

Additional specifications to consider when siting and creating permanent opening are as follows: • Create permanent openings adjacent to temporary openings (i.e. regeneration cuts). • Create permanent openings adjacent to stands containing apple trees and blueberries. The early spring flowering of woody plants is an important food source for pollinators and would complement forbs that flower later in the summer. Blueberries have been identified in Compartment 102, Stands 106 and 107. • Remove the red pine plantation along FR 71 and Somerset Road. This will provide the opportunity to expand upon the open areas associated with the maintained feral apple trees intermixed with the red pine. • When practicable expand existing permanent openings to a size of no less than 20 acres. Research has indicated that upland openings smaller than two to four acres provide minimal benefit to early-successional bird species. Early-successional bird species benefit, and the diversity of bird species present increases, directly with increasing size of openings to about 20 acres, at which point the incremental increase in benefit and diversity slows (Rodewald and Vitz 2005, Schlossberg and King 2008, Schlossberg and King 2007). • Increase the size of the Grout Pond opening, which is currently 14 acres in size, to greater than 20 acres in order to include and promote pockets of aspen clones. Mature aspen is found along the perimeter of the opening. • The Grout Pond opening would also benefit from a physical barrier (e.g. boulders) to limit unauthorized vehicle access within the opening. Currently, the access point is heavily rutted and compacted. The development of a designated parking area may be desired and considered. • The creation of early successional habitat adjacent to wetlands, including Red Mill, Castle Brook, and Shep Meadows, would increase the habitat diversity in these areas. In addition, it may provide an available food source (i.e. regenerating hardwoods) to beaver populations. Encouraging beaver activity would assist in perpetuating the wetland habitats they create and maintain. • Treat log landings as pollinator habitat. Although smaller opening size is not generally encouraged, log landings, which are stumped and leveled for timber harvests, can provide the optimum conditions for the planting or seeding of preferred native pollinator plant species. These sites are generally easily accessible and can therefore be maintained with ease. The expansion and enhancement of log landings

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 37 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

for pollinator habitat can be executed through service work proposals in Stewardship sales. • Outside of the scope of openings creation, wood duck and/or bat boxes could be installed in suitable habitats.

6. References Faccio, S.D. 2003. Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and spotted salamanders in Vermont. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 37, No. 3. Pp. 479–489.

Faccio, S.D., M. Lew-Smith, A. Worthley. 2013. “Vermont Vernal Pool Mapping Project 2009-2012: Final Report to the Natural Heritage Information Project of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.” Unpublished report, Vermont Center for Ecostudies. 28 p. plus appendices.

Fortin, N., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, February 28, 2017.

Rodewald, A.D. and A.C. Vitz. 2005. Edge- and area-sensitivity of shrubland birds. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 69, No. 2. pp. 681–688.

Schlossberg, S.R. and D.I. King. 2008. Are shrubland birds edge specialists? Ecological Applications, Vol. 18, No. 6. Pp. 1325-1330.

Schlossberg, S.R. and D.I. King. 2007. “Ecology and management of scrub-shrub birds in New England: A comprehensive review.” Report submitted to Natural Resources Conservation Service, Resource Inventory and Assessment Division, Beltsville, Maryland, USA.

Sorenson, E., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, August 22, 2017.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 38 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

7. Map

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 39 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species – Animals 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description Management of wildlife and wildlife habitat on the GMNF strives to ensure sustained viability of wildlife populations through conservation and enhancement of diverse wildlife habitat conditions (also see Wildlife and Wildlife habitat section of this document). As part of this management, the Forest Service affords special attention to federally-listed threatened and endangered species and to Regional Forester Sensitive Species (collectively TES species) to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts of management actions on habitats that are important for these species.

Threatened and endangered species are identified by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. An endangered species is one in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The ESA also includes provisions for protection of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) are those species for which population viability is a concern, based on significant downward trends in population numbers, density, or availability of suitable habitat that would reduce a species' existing distribution.

The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) are the only federally-listed species known to occur on or near the GMNF at this time (Table 1). Both species are known to hibernate in two caves located on privately-owned land adjacent to the Manchester Ranger District, approximately 8 and 12 miles (13 to 19 km) northwest of the IRP area. A northern long-eared bat hibernaculum has also been documented within the IRP area (but not on GMNF lands), although individuals were not observed during a 2017 survey. Only the northern long-eared bat is likely to forage and roost within the IRP area; elevation and distance from known hibernacula are likely limiting factors for the Indiana bat.

The threatened Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) has recently been documented near GMNF. Research is currently being conducted to determine if the species occurs on NFS lands.

All 21 RFSS could occur on or near the GMNF (Table 9) and several are known to occur or may occur within the IRP area.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives Forest Plan goals and objectives related to TES species, like those for wildlife and wildlife habitat in general, stem from Goal 2, which addresses maintenance and restoration of quality, abundance, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals. Objectives under this goal require that the Forest Service protect key habitat and habitat features for TES species, work toward recovery of federally-listed, threatened or endangered species, implement established recovery or conservation strategies for TES species, and maintain or enhance habitats for RFSS through conservation and habitat management.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 40 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process All available data, including published and gray literature and survey records from a variety of agencies and organizations, was compiled and analyzed.

For several years, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on surveying the bat community within the IRP area and beyond. The VFWD has conducted semi-annual winter surveys at the Dover Iron Mine bat hibernaculum since the advent of White Nose Syndrome (WNS). During the summer of 2017, GMNF staff deployed acoustic detectors that record the sounds made by bats as they fly and forage throughout the night. These detectors were concentrated in areas that are high priority timber targets and were placed adjacent to likely flyways for bats (e.g. trails, roads, open wetlands). Additional work, including mist netting, may be performed in 2018 to better understand how bats are using the landscape.

After Canada lynx were observed near NFS lands in 2016, GMNF staff worked with VFWD to develop and implement a long-term, Forest-wide program to monitor the species through camera trapping. The protocol being used is also employed on the White Mountain National Forest. As part of this effort five cameras were deployed within the IRP area in November and December 2016.

The GMNF plans to conduct surveys for the rusty blackbird in potential breeding sites during spring 2018.

b. Inventory Findings According to data provided by the VFWD, Vermont Center for Ecostudies, and New Hampshire Audubon Society, past survey efforts have documented the following TES species within the IRP area:

• Northern long-eared bat, little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) – All three species were documented in the Dover Iron Mine as recently as 2010. Survey efforts have demonstrated sharply decreasing numbers of northern long-eared, little brown, and tri-colored bats since the advent of WNS. As of 2017 only little brown bats could be found in the mine (Bennett 2017). • Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) – This species was documented in one beaver flowage on GMNF lands towards the northeast corner of the IRP area as part of the Vermont Breeding Bird Atlas surveys in 2005. The species was observed in the same wetland again in 2013 (Foye 2017). New Hampshire Audubon identified several other wetlands along the Fr 71 corridor that may support rusty blackbirds (Foss 2017). • Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli) – Habitat exists and the species has been documented on the western boundary of the IRP area on the ridge surrounding Glastenbury Mountain as well as on Deerfield Ridge between Mount Snow and Haystack Mountain (VNHI 2017, Rimmer et al. 2001). • Common loon (Gavia immer) – Grout Pond and Somerset Reservoir are both large enough bodies of water to support breeding loons. The species has been observed during the breeding season at both sites (VNHI 2017). • Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) – This species has been documented at a few locations within the IRP area (McFarland and Zahendra 2010). The monarch butterfly is widespread in Vermont and can be found in any field, meadow, wetland, or disturbed area that supports wildflowers. Milkweeds (Asclepias sp.) serve as host plants for caterpillars and are therefore of particular importance to monarchs.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 41 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• West Virginia white butterfly (Pieris virginiensis), southern pygmy clubtail (Lanthus vernalis), harpoon clubtail (Gomphus descriptus), and yellow-banded bumble bee (Bombus terricola) – These four RFSS, all insects, have each been documented at one or more discrete locations within the IRP area (McFarland et al. 2014, VNHI 2017).

Based on the analysis of the acoustic bat data collected by GMNF in 2017, two TES bats, the northern long-eared bat and the little brown bat, forage within the IRP area. The northern long-eared bat was definitely present at a site along the East Side Trail adjacent to Somerset Reservoir and was possibly present at another site just 0.75 miles to the southeast. It is therefore possible that a maternity colony is located in this area. The little brown bat was present at numerous survey locations within the IRP. It is possible that some of these calls were made by eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii), another RFSS of the Myotis genus, since the calls of the two species are so similar, although the eastern small- footed bat is much rarer in Vermont than the little brown bat. The final TES bat, the tri- colored bat, was not identified in the IRP area. Other species captured acoustically include the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans).

At this time data covering between 232 and 305 trap nights from the five lynx-specific camera traps within the IRP area had been collected and analyzed. Lynx were not detected within the IRP area, nor were they detected on any of the cameras deployed across the GMNF. From this evidence, it can be concluded that a breeding population of lynx does not exist in southern Vermont (Crumley 2017, Bernier 2017). The confirmed sightings in the past two years likely represent dispersing individuals that may occasionally visit the area. While it doesn’t appear likely that the IRP area can support a breeding lynx population, the monitoring effort will continue for the foreseeable future. See map below for known locations and mapped habitat of TES species in the Somerset IRP.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS The threatened northern long-eared bat and three RFSS bat species (the little brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, and tri-colored bat) all could occur within or near the IRP area. All four of these species are known to be susceptible to WNS. Prior to the advent of WNS, these species wintered in three hibernacula on privately-owned land adjacent to GMNF lands. The Dover Iron Mine, which is located within the IRP area, still harbors the little brown bat.

Darling and Smith (2011) estimated that as a consequence of WNS, little brown bats in Vermont had declined by 75% to 99%, and northern long-eared bats had declined by 93% to 99% state-wide. Indiana bats, eastern small-footed bats, and tri-colored bats have never been abundant or wide-spread in Vermont, however, and documenting declines in abundance for these species is difficult (Darling and Smith 2011). The State of Vermont has listed the eastern small-footed bat as threatened for many years. In response to population declines from WNS, the State has since listed the little brown bat, tri-colored bat, and northern long-eared bat as endangered in August 2011 and listed tri-colored bats as endangered in 2012. Opportunities exist for GMNF staff to collaborate with State and federal agencies, academic researchers, and others who continue aggressive investigations into the causes, containment, and potential management responses to WNS.

Projects that involve tree removal may negatively impact any or all of these bat species. Indirect impacts include the alteration of foraging and roosting habitat. Direct impacts

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 42 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

include mortality and injury if roosting habitat is altered while occupied by bats during the active season (generally April through October).

In addition to the three bats species listed as RFSS, there are specific issues and concerns related to the following RFSS in the IRP area:

• Rusty blackbird – The rusty blackbird breeds in thick, young or stunted stands of spruce-fir within 800 feet, but usually immediately adjacent to, open wetlands. Vegetation management could negatively impact the species by eliminating breeding habitat or impacting individual birds during the breeding season. Alternatively, breeding habitat could be enhanced by regenerating spruce-fir stands near wetlands. • Bicknell’s thrush – The Bicknell’s thrush breeds in high-elevation (generally over 3000 feet above sea level in Vermont) stunted spruce-fir forests. Vegetation management, such as the maintenance or creation of trails, within this habitat type may impact breeding habitat or individuals during the breeding season. • West Virginia white butterfly – This species requires a closed forest canopy and will not cross areas where the canopy is broken (e.g. waterbodies, unshaded roads, powerline corridors). Therefore, any activity that creates gaps in the canopy can restrict the movements of individuals. Forestry practices may also result in direct mortality at all life stages. A far more serious threat is the invasion of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate) into the range of the West Virginia white butterfly. Females often lay their eggs on garlic mustard mistaking it for toothwort (Cardamine sp.), the species’ host plant. Caterpillars cannot feed on garlic mustard and will therefore die. Opportunities exist to conserve the West Virginia white by eradicating garlic mustard and/or protecting patches of toothwort. • Monarch butterfly and yellow-banded bumblebee – Both of these insects require floral resources throughout the growing season. Good habitats generally include open areas with a high diversity of native wildflowers. Although both species are sharply declining, they are wide-ranging and occur within the IRP area. As such, any activities that impact these types of open areas, including mowing, prescribed fire, and timber operations, may have short-term negatives impact on these species. However, these activities may have long-term beneficial impacts for these species because such disturbances create ideal habitat for the forbs that produce the wildflowers required by these pollinators. • Boulder beach tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis), southern pygmy clubtail, and harpoon clubtail – These insects occur in various riparian and wetland habitats. Activities that alter these habitat types could be detrimental to these insect species. Opportunities exist for enhancing conditions in riparian and aquatic habitats, as well as for improving soil stability and minimizing water runoff and erosion, thus providing overall improvement and enhancement to open water, riparian, and wetland habitats.

These species may require mitigation measures beyond those in the Forest Plan to ensure that project activities do not cause undue harm to individuals or their habitats.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition TES species benefit from the conservation and enhancement of specific habitat features, such as wetlands or roost trees, as well as the preservation and restoration of natural processes. The ultimate goal of TES species management is to sufficiently recover the species so that management is no longer needed for the species to remain viable.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 43 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition There is no DFC specific to TES species in the Forest Plan beyond that for wildlife and wildlife habitat in general (see Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Section of this document). However, habitat management techniques that are employed to benefit other wildlife species frequently are not compatible with TES management. Care must be taken to ensure that efforts to meet the general wildlife habitat DFC do not jeopardize TES species.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDTION a. Gap Description As previously mentioned, the Forest Plan does not outline a DFC that is specific to TES species. Moving toward the general wildlife habitat DFC may benefit some TES species at the expense of others, while many will remain largely unaffected. Therefore, TES species management does not fit under the umbrella of the general wildlife and wildlife habitat DFC.

The goal of TES management is to allow the species to recover so that focused management is no longer needed for the species to persist on the landscape; this outcome can be described as the optimal condition. A gap between the existing and optimal conditions will remain as long as species are listed and require management to persist. While recovery of TES species requires a range-wide effort, the GMNF will contribute to protect and, when practicable, enhance or restore the habitats these species depend on.

b. Opportunities The use of timber or vegetation management is specifically authorized for managing habitats on behalf of threatened and endangered species and RFSS in all MAs that occur within the IRP area except the Congressionally-designated Glastenbury Wilderness (Forest Plan, pp.47-80).

GMNF staff will continue to work in collaboration with agencies and other groups conducting research on WNS and bats and will act on recommendations that arise from ongoing research and monitoring.

There may also be opportunities for more proactive management for the rusty blackbird and West Virginia white butterfly. These opportunities are outlined below.

c. Initial Possible Activity List If timber harvests or other vegetation management activities will take place within 800 feet of wetlands that may provide good foraging habitat for rusty blackbirds, the goal should be to regenerate spruce-fir. This will provide or enhance nesting habitat.

The wetland that is known to support breeding rusty blackbirds is bisected by an old road and a failing culvert. Restoring the natural condition of the wetland may improve the quality of rusty blackbird habitat.

If garlic mustard is found within the IRP area, efforts to remove it, especially if it occurs near toothwort, will benefit the West Virginia white butterfly.

Activities that create or maintain already existing meadows, fields, shrublands, or other early successional habitats that provide a diversity of floral resources could serve to benefit pollinators, including the monarch butterfly and yellow-banded bumblebee.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 44 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 9. Federally-listed endangered and threatened species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species for the Green Mountain National Forest. Mammals Status Gray wolf Canis lupus E1 Eastern cougar Puma concolor cougar E Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T1 Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii RFSS2 Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus RFSS Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus RFSS Birds Common loon Gavia immer RFSS American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum RFSS Bicknell's thrush Catharus bicknelli RFSS Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus RFSS Reptiles Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata RFSS Wood turtle Clemmys insculpta RFSS Amphibians Jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum RFSS Blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale RFSS Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum RFSS Insects (non-odonate) Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus RFSS Yellow-banded bumblebee Bombus terricola RFSS Boulder beach tiger beetle Cicindela ancocisconensis RFSS West Virginia white Pieris virginiensis RFSS Odonates Southern pygmy clubtail Lanthus vernalis RFSS Harpoon Clubtail Gomphus descriptus RFSS Molluscs Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa RFSS Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa RFSS 1Listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) under the Endangered Species Act 2Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS)

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 45 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

6. REFERENCES Bennett, A. 2017. “Dover Iron Mine Winter Bat Survey Results.” Unpublished data. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, August 2017, 1 p.

Bernier, C., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, November 7, 2017.

Crumley, K., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, October 18, 2017.

Darling, S. and R. Smith. 2011. “Assessment of Vermont cave bat populations and proposal to list bat species.” Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, February 2011, 19 pp.

Foss, C., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, September 14, 2017.

Foye, R., 2017, conversation with Brett Hillman, July 24, 2017.

McFarland, K.P., Richardson, L. and Zahendra, S. 2014. “Yellow-banded Bumble Bee (Bombus terricola): Species Documentation Report to the Vermont Endangered Species Committee.” Unpublished report, Vermont Center for Ecostudies.

McFarland, K. and S. Zahendra. 2010. “The Vermont Butterfly Survey, 2002 – 2007: A Final Report to the Natural Heritage Information Project of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife”. 298 pp.

Rimmer, C., K. McFarland, and J. Lambert. 2001. “Conservation Assessment for Bicknell’s Thrush (Catharus bicknelli).” Unpublished report, Vermont Institute of Natural Science, November 2011. 37 pp.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory (VNHI). 2017. Unpublished spatial data.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 46 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

7. Map

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 47 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Botanical Resources 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description The botanical resource has two components: 1) rare plants – species for which habitat is protected and enhanced in order to maintain viable reproducing populations; and 2) non- native invasive plants – species for which GMNF staff try to prevent, contain, and eradicate so that other resources are not affected. Goal 2 in the Forest Plan (stated below) explains why managing these resources is important.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

 Objectives Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species; Species of Local Interest; Rare and Exemplary Natural Communities Objectives.

• Protect critical habitat and key habitat features upon which federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed species, and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species depend.

• Coordinate with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to maintain and enhance habitat conditions for the State’s rare species and natural communities.

• Maintain viable reproducing populations for all native plant and animal species. For species where the Forest alone cannot support a viable population, species persistence will be maintained and the Forest will contribute to maintaining or improving viability where possible.

Non-native Invasive Species Objective:

• Minimize adverse effects of non-native invasive species on National Forest resources. Program efforts include introduction prevention, inventory, containment, and abatement.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Initially, the following were prioritized for inventory and monitoring: Any rare plants within the IRP boundary that haven’t been monitored in the past five or more years, plus rare plants (mostly wetland species) that are historically known from the region, were considered high priority. Also, boreale bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum), in particular, was considered likely to be found starting at around 2000’, often next to tiny streams. Significant Ecological Features that might have rare plants that weren’t reported during mapping of the features were considered medium high priority. Also of interest were wetlands, especially on the Stratton Mountain quad (south east from Torrey Meadow, a known rare plant site), on NFS land only, and especially edges of beaver openings, that might provide habitat for rare plants associated with bogs and fens. Other potentially interesting habitats to inventory included:

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 48 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

a. Anything that stood out as a result of combing the area using aerial imagery in ArcMap; b. Low elevation sites along the Deerfield River and large rivers and streams (large enough to have ice-scoured cobble shores) that would have potential for Alnus viride, Vaccinium caespitosum, & Platanthera flava; and c. Ledges, sandy areas, and hydric soils that might have potential rare plant habitat. Roads or trails used to access other sites for inventory were high priority locations to record infestations of non-native invasive plants. Medium high and high priority stands as reported by GMNF staff were prioritized as follows: d. Forest types (= existing vegetation), combined with site indexes, remarks, and topography, helped us to choose the highest priority stands to visit. The higher the site index, the better the growing conditions, although this is not always predictive. Some of the oldest stands were also prioritized with the understanding that year of origin in the database is not always accurate. e. Topographic features considered helpful in prioritizing stands to visit: i. Small rounded hills can be limy and may be good locations for rare plants associated with liminess. ii. Convex slopes, especially south-facing, can concentrate heat and be good potential habitat for rare plants liking a warmer microclimate. iii. Concave slopes concentrate nutrients, which can be good for rare plants that require richer sites. iv. Some rare plants are associated with seeps, which can occur where contour lines get wiggly. v. Some rare plants can be associated with other topographic features –e.g., ravines, which can concentrate nutrients and moisture; whalebacks, which can have narrow ridges with exposed slopes; and saddles, which can have interesting wetlands. f. Any oak stands would be high priority, because of rare plants associated with oaks. In 2017 surveys focused on locating/relocating some documented extant and historical rare plant occurrences by GMNF staff. In 2018 more extensive inventory is planned for timber stands that are likely to be proposed for harvest, and all botany staff will be involved. In general, intuitively controlled survey methods were used: stands that looked/look interesting during pre-field review, based on forest type and topography, were/will be visited; those that still looked ecologically or botanically interesting on the ground (potential habitat for rare plants was evident) were/will be surveyed in depth.

b. Inventory Findings Forty five plant species that are rare or uncommon in Vermont are documented to occur in the Somerset West IRP area; of these 21 are on the RFSS list, and 24 are not, but are tracked by the state of Vermont (see Table 10). These 45 rare plant species are represented by 75 populations, of which 47 populations are on NFS land, and 28 are not. Many of the 45 species are either aquatic or wetland species, although some are not.

Fourteen non-native invasive species, represented by a total of 58 infestations, are documented to occur in the IRP area. The most common is wild chervil, known from 13 infestations. The least common are spotted knapweed, common reed, narrowleaf bittercress, and multiflora rose, each only documented to occur once in the IRP area.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 49 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 10: Somerset West IRP rare plants (both RFSS and not) known to occur within the IRP area, both on and off NFS land. Numbers in parentheses indicate historical populations. Scientific name Common Name RFSS popula popula tions tions on off NFS NFS land land Alopecurus aequalis Short-awn Foxtail N 1 0 Amelanchier canadensis Canada Shadbush N 0 (1) Arceuthobium pusillum Dwarf Mistletoe Y 2 1 Carex folliculata Long Sedge N 1 0 Carex haydenii Hayden's Sedge N 3 0 Carex lenticularis Shore Sedge Y 2 (1) 1 Carex michauxiana Michaux Sedge Y (1) 0 Carex oligosperma Few-seeded Sedge Y 1 (1) 1 Carex wiegandii Wiegand's Sedge Y 1 0 Eleocharis ovata Ovate Spikerush Y 1 1 Epilobium palustre Marsh Willow-herb Y 3 0 Eragrostis frankii Frank's Love-grass N 0 1 Eurybia radula Rough-leaved Aster Y 0 1 Glyceria borealis Northern Mannagrass N 1 0 Hieracium umbellatum Umbellate Hawkweed N 0 1 Hypericum gentianoides Orange-grass St. John's- N 0 1 wort Isoetes tuckermanii Tuckerman's Quillwort N 1 0 Isoetes viridimontana Green Mountain Quillwort Y 0 1 Juncus marginatus Grass Rush N 0 1 Littorella americana American shore grass Y 1 0 Luzula parviflora Small-flowered Rush N 2 (1) 0 Muhlenbergia uniflora Fall Dropseed Muhly N 5 1 Myriophyllum humile Low Water-milfoil Y 1 1 Nabalus racemosus Glaucous Rattlesnake- N 0 1 root Ophioglossum pusillum Northern Adder's-tongue N 1 0 Panicum tuckermanii Tuckerman's Panic-grass N 1 0 Parathelypteris simulata Massachusetts Fern Y 0 1 Paronychia fastigiata var. Hairy Forked Chickweed N 0 1 fastigiata Phegopteris hexagonoptera Broad Beech-fern Y 0 1 Platanthera macrophylla Large Roundleaf Orchid Y 1 1 Polygala sanguinea Field Milkwort N 1 1 Polygala verticillata var. Ambiguous Milkwort Y 0 1 ambigua Potamogeton bicupulatus Snail-seed Pondweed Y 1 0 Potamogeton confervoides Tuckerman's Pondweed Y 5 0 Prenanthes trifoliolatus Three-leaved Rattlesnake N 1 0 Root Rhododendron Pinxter-flower N 0 1 periclymenoides Sanguisorba canadensis Canada Burnet N 0 1

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 50 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 10: Somerset West IRP rare plants (both RFSS and not) known to occur within the IRP area, both on and off NFS land. Numbers in parentheses indicate historical populations. Scientific name Common Name RFSS popula popula tions tions on off NFS NFS land land Schoenoplectus subterminalis Water Bulrush N 1 0

Schoenoplectus torreyi Torrey's Bulrush Y 1 1 Sisyrinchium angustifolium Narrow Blue-eyed-grass Y 0 2 Sisyrinchium atlanticum Eastern Blue-eyed-grass Y 1 0 Sparganium fluctuans Water Bur-reed N 2 0 Utricularia geminiscapa N 1 1 Utricularia resupinata Northeastern Bladderwort Y 1 0 Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf Bilberry N (1) 1 Total 21 48 on 27 off RFSS 24 not

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS At the start of the project it was known from state records that there were a few rare plant occurrences that needed relocating and monitoring to document population trends and conservation needs. This has occurred, and while most documented occurrences have been relocated, some have not. In the process, a few new populations of rare plants (both RFSS and non-RFSS) have been discovered.

Over a thousand acres of potential habitat for rare plants has been inventoried and a few rare plants have been found, but there is still a good deal of potential habitat that needs investigation, primarily where it overlaps sites where vegetation management might be proposed.

While some rare plant populations known to occur are small, and could be vulnerable simply because of their size, at this time none of them appear to have any management needs.

Fourteen different species of non-native invasive plants have been documented to occur in a total of 58 infestations, and some of them overlap each other, although they generally do not co-occur with the rare plant populations. There may be many more infestations than currently mapped, but the remoteness of many parts of the IRP may also be a factor in many locations being relatively uninfested.

There are opportunities to treat non-native invasive plants, primarily along roads and trails.

Some non-native invasive plant infestations cross land ownership boundaries, and there may be opportunities to collaborate with willing adjacent landowners.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 51 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION Optimal Condition The Forest Plan does not list an optimal condition for rare plants and non-native invasive plants, other than what is described in the goals and objectives listed above. The implication of goals and objectives for rare plants is that all rare species (on the RFSS list or rare in the state) that are known to occur on the Forest would have viable and sustainable populations. The implication for non-native invasive plants is that existing infestations would be eradicated, or at least contained, and new infestations would be prevented.

Forest Plan Desired Future Condition The Forest Plan does not list a Desired Future Condition (DFC) for rare plants and non- native invasive plants. The DFC would be the same as the optimal condition.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description There are also some sites that have not yet had inventory but that have potentially suitable habitat for rare plants, and it is possible that these as yet undiscovered populations may also have management needs.

Infestations of NNIP are scattered throughout the IRP area. Although none are currently known to be affecting rare plants, they have the potential to do so in the future, and could also potentially compete with tree regeneration or degenerate wildlife habitat. They may also affect the recreational value of the area; for example, high concentrations of Japanese barberry are documented elsewhere to correlate with increased abundance of deer ticks and Lyme disease. Many forested stands, openings, roads, trails, and river corridors have not had inventory, and it is likely that there are more infestations than are currently documented.

b. Recommendations and Opportunities Recommendations and opportunities to address the gap between the existing condition and the DFC are listed below.

Where NNIP infestations occur, they sometimes overlap each other and sometimes occur across ownership boundaries. To effectively control these infestations, it is highly recommended that all of the species be addressed at the same time, and that entire infestations be treated, rather than stopping at the GMNF boundary. The need for this work provides an ideal opportunity for collaborating with adjacent landowners. This would be a high priority activity.

Another high priority project would be to continue the inventory for NNIP along roads and trails and river corridors (all travel corridors for NNIP dispersal) elsewhere in the IRP, followed by the development of treatment plans.

c. Initial Possible Activity List The following is an initial list of potential projects that could be implemented to move the area toward the DFC:

• Develop a strategic plan for treating NNIP in the IRP area, including collaboration with adjacent landowners. Since treatment of NNIP has already gone through the NEPA process, this will not be proposed as an activity to be analyzed in the Somerset IRP.

• Continue to survey other areas for rare plants, and for NNIP.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 52 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

6. REFERENCES USDA Forest Service). (2017). Unpublished data for are plants and non-native invasive plants. Fish and Water Resources 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description The Somerset IPR Area is drained by portions of six 6th level watersheds; Headwaters Deerfield; East Branch Deerfield; North Branch Deerfield; Wardsboro Brook; Sherman Dam- Deerfield; and Warm Brook (see Table 11).

Table 11. Watershed acres within project area. Watershed Total Watershed Acres Acres in Project Area Headwaters Deerfield 32,278 29,256 East Branch Deerfield 23,260 18,664 North Branch Deerfield 35,784 14,784 Wardsboro Brook 22,538 3,815 Sherman Dam-Deerfield 38,189 3,263 Warm Brook 3,224 914

The East Branch flows through Somerset Reservoir. Lands surrounding the reservoir are largely owned and managed by Great River Hydro. The Headwaters of the Deerfield watershed is predominately NFS lands while the North Branch is mostly private lands with NFS lands limited to upper elevation headwaters and high gradient steam channels.

Fish communities are dominated by native brook trout in headwater streams with occurrences of brown trout at lower elevations. Portions of the primary river systems in each watershed are stocked annually with brook trout and limited amounts of brown and rainbow trout to support a recreational fishery. Non-game species include long-nose dace, blacknose dace, creek chub, common shiner, and brown bullhead.

Two stream segments within the project area are listed as Wild, Scenic and Recreational River eligible. The mainstem of the Deerfield from Searsburg Reservoir to the headwaters is an eligible Scenic River. Wardsboro Brook from the first bridge upstream on SR 100, in Jamaica to headwaters is an eligible Recreational River.

A portion of the Great River Hydro's projects lies within the project area. Somerset and Searsburg Reservoir operations are governed by settlement agreement between Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the previous project owner, New England Power Company. The agreement was signed in 1993 and is in effect until 2033. In addition to agreements for minimum summer and winter flows, the settlement provides for wildlife, water quality, riparian, forestry, recreation and aesthetic resources.

Tributaries entering the Deerfield River above Searsburg include Blind, Deer Lick, Deer Cabin, Castle, Rake and Branch brooks, and the Glastenbury River. The mainstem Deerfield in this section and numerous ponds are listed as impaired for high levels on acid from atmospheric deposition (acid rain). Elevated mercury levels have been found in fish. While fish production in these high elevation waters is naturally limited by chemistry and temperatures, they nonetheless support naturally reproducing populations of wild Brook Trout (see Map below, Aquatic Resource Inventories in Project Area).

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 53 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

 Objective:

• Maintain or enhance fish populations through habitat protection, enhancement, restoration, and stocking programs.

Goal 4: Maintain or restore aquatic, fisheries, riparian, and wetland habitats.

 Objectives:

• Restore and enhance fisheries habitat using principles of stream geomorphology and habitat management to provide: o Less than 50 percent substrate embeddedness in spawning and rearing areas, primarily riffle and run habitats. o Less than 20 percent fine sediment, sand, and silt in spawning areas. o At least 30 percent pool habitat, of which at least one third should be Class 1 and 2 holding and resting pools. o No more than 15 percent of stream bank area eroded on the entire length of stream.

Goal 6: Maintain or restore ecological processes and systems on the GMNF within desired ranges of variability, including a variety of native vegetation and stream channel types, and their patterns and structural components.

 Objective: • Restore and enhance stream ecosystem processes using knowledge of riparian/floodplain functions and large woody debris (LWD) dynamics for the purpose of improving and connecting aquatic habitats, such as those for wild trout and Atlantic salmon, promoting stream stability and sediment and organic matter storage, or to increase stream productivity. Stream habitat should be managed to provide: o LWD quantities between 75 and 130 pieces greater than 12 inches diameter per mile of stream o Approximately 100 pieces between 8 to 12 inches diameter per mile of stream

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Stream temperatures were measured with continuous recording thermographs in several streams for periods from June to December 2017.

Water Quality conditions were assessed by VTDEC using their Ambient Biomonitoring Assessment Protocol (http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/map/monitor/biomonitoring).

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 54 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Stream Habitat conditions were surveyed along representative reaches of several stream in the project area. Table 12 compares existing stream conditions to desired future conditions.

Fish populations were sampled by Forest Service and the VFWD in several streams to describe the trout abundance and reproduction.

b. Inventory Findings  Stream Habitat Stream habitat surveys show that all stream reaches evaluated lack large wood material and pool habitat (Table 12). Large wood is a critical component of stream habitat providing processes and functions important to aquatic organisms, floodplain connectivity, sediment storage, and stream channel stability. The Forest Plan Desired Future Condition for instream large wood is not being met in the project area.

Table 12. Existing Stream Habitat Conditions Compared to Desired Future Condition % High Quality % Pool Habitat LW/MILE Pools Stream (miles surveyed) (DFC 30%) (DFC 175-230) (DFC 33%) Castle Brook (1.1) 6% 15 14% Rake Branch (0.5) 9% 6 40% Vose Brook (0.3) 10% 24 0% Deerfield River Mainstem (0.6) 0 4 0 Glastenbury River (1.3) 9% 8 20% Deer Cabin Brook (0.75) 16% 17 17% Deer Lick Brook (0.4) 8% 10 50% Upper Deerfield River (0.4) 8% 9 60% Blind Brook (0.4 9% 35 22%

 Stream Temperatures Stream temperatures are a critical habitat parameter for Brook trout, the Focal Species for GMNF. Temperatures in the 52-60.8F range are considered optimum for Brook trout growth while temperatures in excess of 72 degrees Fahrenheit cause stress (Butryn et. al., 2013). Research in Vermont’s Dog River shows that although 72 degrees is an important threshold, the duration and magnitude of exceeding that threshold can determine suitable habitat for Brook trout (Butryn et. al., 2013). Stream temperatures in the project area were monitored in 2017 beginning in June or July and ending in November or December. Table 13 shows which streams have the most stress-inducing temperatures and provide the least suitable temperature regimes for Brook trout.

Table 13. Stream Temperature Monitoring in select Somerset area streams. For temperatures recorded from July through August % % Days % of temperature records by temperature threshold Days at least Stream/River <55.00 F 55.00 - 60.8 F >60.8 - 72 F >72 F at 25% least records one >72 F* record >72 F

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 55 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Deer Lick 14.68 67.20 18.11 0.00 0.0 0.0 Brook Deer Cabin 12.23 53.70 34.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 Brook Glastenbury 8.90 56.65 34.44 0.00 0.0 0.0 River Castle Brook 1.04 13.13 80.28 5.54 17.9 14.3 Rake Branch 2.55 14.25 79.23 3.97 19.4 8.1 Deerfield 5.77 30.54 62.91 0.78 7.1 0.0 River (Upper) Deerfield 5.38 25.10 61.97 7.56 37.2 13.9 River (FS Boundary) Deerfield 0.00 15.65 81.88 2.47 18.6 2.3 River (above Harriman Res.) East Branch 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Deerfield River

Castle Brook, Rake Branch, and the Deerfield River are heat stressed as indicated by the frequency (% days) and the duration (>25% records) when temperatures reached or exceeded 72 degrees. Riparian areas along these tributaries are forested and provide shade; however, these watersheds have extensive wetlands and beaver flowages that increase temperatures in a natural process. Table 14 shows the percentage of wetland and waterbodies in select watersheds. Streams with high percent wetland/waterbody have higher stream temperatures.

Table 14: Wetlands and Waterbodies as Percentage of Watershed. Stream Name Percent of Watershed as Waterbody and Wetland Castle Brook 10 Rake Branch 10 Deer Cabin 2.6 Deer Lick 0.9 Glastenbury River 3.7 Deerfield at FS Boundary 7.3

 Trout Populations Trout sampling results reported below are from Vermont Agency of Natural Resource’s 2017 report: Stream Conditions and Management Recommendations East Branch Deerfield and Deerfield River, Somerset, VT (ANR 2017):

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 56 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

“Trout sampling below Somerset Reservoir took place in 1990 and in 2017 at two sites (Table 1). Based on these data, trout populations were low in both years and only 67 trout/mile estimated at the upper reach and 135 trout/mile estimated in the lower reach in 2017. In 1994 Glastenbury River and the upper reach of the Deerfield were sampled (Figure 3). Both had very low numbers of trout, with an estimated 15 trout/mile.

In 2017 the Forest Service also conducted trout sampling within the Deerfield watershed near Somerset (Table 15). Total trout population estimates in these streams ranged from 11 to 530 trout/mile (Table 16). These results indicate that even in undeveloped watersheds, in the absence of a major dam, trout productivity is on the low to mid-range for the region. The Department stocks trout where fishing opportunities exist but cannot be maintained by natural reproduction alone.

Currently, the mainstem of the Deerfield is stocked with yearling 2 brook trout along Somerset Road, and with yearling rainbow trout along Vermont Route 9 (Figure 5-6). Fishing opportunities are also provided at Somerset and Searsburg Reservoirs, both of which are stocked with yearling brook trout. In 2017 angler assessments indicated that fishing pressure is relatively low along the Deerfield reach with less than 200/angler hours per mile during the survey period (mid-May through July).”

Table 15. Comparison of brook trout population estimates 1990 and 2017. East Branch Deerfield2020- Somerset 8/2/1990 East Branch Deerfield2020- Somerset 9/22/2017 Brook Trout EST (N) Pop/mi Brook Trout EST (N) Pop/mi Size Class Size Class YOY 3 91 YOY 1 17 <6 9 272 <6 3 50 6-10 4 121 6-10 0 0 10-12 0 0 10-12 0 0 12+ 0 0 12+ 0 0 Total 16 483 Total 4 67

East Branch Deerfield1775- Somerset 1990 East Branch Deerfield1775- Somerset 9/22/2017 Brook Trout EST (N) Pop/mi Brook Trout EST (N) Pop/mi Size Class Size Class YOY 7 162 YOY 2 54 <6 4 93 <6 3 81 6-10 2 46 6-10 0 0 10-12 0 0 10-12 0 0 12+ 0 0 12+ 0 0 Total 13 301 Total 5 135

Table 16. Trout Population Estimates in select tributaries to the Deerfield. Blind Brook BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 24.0 386.2 2.4 <6 7.0 112.7 1.7 6-10 2.0 32.2 1.1

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 57 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

10-12 0.0 0.0 0.0 12+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 33.0 531.1 5.2

Castle Brook BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 2 32.2 0.1 <6 4 64.4 1.2 6-10 4 64.4 3.8 10-12 0 0.0 0 12+ 0 0.0 0 Total 10.0 161.1 5.0

Deer Cabin Brook BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 6 97 0 <6 3 48 1 6-10 2 32 1 10-12 0 0 0 12+ 0 0 0 Total 11 177 2

Deer Lick Brook BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 8 129 0 <6 12 193 2 6-10 2 32 2 10-12 0 0 0 12+ 0 0 0 Total 22 354 4

Glastenbury River BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 1 18 0 <6 12 211 2 6-10 1 18 1 10-12 0 0 0 12+ 0 0 0 Total 14 246 3

Rake Branch BKT Size Class Est(N) Pop/mi Lbs/acre YOY 0 0 0 <6 0 0 0 6-10 1 11 0 10-12 0 0 0 12+ 0 0 0 Total 1 11 0

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 58 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

 Water Quality Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 2014 Tactical Basin Plan for Deerfield River provides extensive findings for water quality, channel stability, biological condition and fisheries resources. Below are excerpts from the Plan:

“Deerfield River Upper Mainstem – above Searsburg Reservoir Tributaries entering the river above Searsburg including Blind, Deer Lick, Deer Cabin Brooks and the Glastenbury River. The mainstem and numerous ponds are listed as impaired for high levels on acid from atmospheric deposition (acid rain). Elevated mercury levels have been found in fish. While production in these high elevation waters is naturally limited by chemistry and temperatures they nonetheless support naturally reproducing populations of wild Brook Trout. Lack of riparian buffers contributes to summer seasonal water temperatures that degrades coldwater fish habitat.”

Approximately one mile of the mainstem is within the project area below Searsburg Reservoir.

“Lower Mainstem – below Searsburg Reservoir From the Searsburg Reservoir downstream well into Massachusetts, water level manipulation for hydroelectric generation on the Deerfield River causes stress to the river system. The three dams in Vermont create both cold and warm thermal stresses and alter the sediment transport downriver. These conditions are reflected in the varying water quality ratings along its course. Biomonitoring sites in Searsburg above and below the Searsburg Reservoir show Very Good to Good for Aquatic Life Support respectively.”

"East Branch Deerfield The East Branch enters, flows through and drains Somerset Reservoir joining the mainstem just north of Searsburg Reservoir. There are no biomonitoring sites on this reach but, like other area waters, it is impaired for acid and mercury. As above, fish production is inhibited by the cold water discharge from the dam.

North Branch Deerfield The North Branch has had extensive monitoring to support management of ski resort and related development in the watershed. Monitoring also covers Blue, Cheney, Cold, Beaver, Ellis, Haystack, Negus and Rose Brooks among others. Much of the watershed was heavily damaged by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. Aquatic Life Support ratings above the Mt. Snow Resort are Excellent, while ½ mile downstream the rating drops to Fair-Poor. It begins to recover a mile further down and attains Very Good status 4.5 miles later. The causes of these impacts include high levels of sand and sediment, high iron levels and erosion and channelization of stream channels. Stormwater effects from Mount Snow development impair the river below the resort area and water withdrawals for snowmaking leave minimal flow in the stream during winter altering natural flows below and where it is impounded into Snow Lake and Carinthia Pond.

From Basin 12 WQ Assessment Report 2014:

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 59 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Upper Deerfield River “Biological Monitoring of Upper Deerfield in 2009 showed conditions were “Very Good-Good” below Searburg Reservoir and “Very Good” above the confluence with the East Branch (Basin 12-13 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat-Updated Assessment Report, 2012).

Fishery Resource Fisheries throughout the Upper Deerfield River subwatershed are limited by water chemistry and temperatures. The water is tannic and poorly buffered, hence of low productivity. Summer water temperatures in the unshaded mainstem and larger tributaries impairs habitat for coldwater fishes, such as trout. Somerset (East Branch) and Searsburg (mainstem) reservoirs are operated as part of a larger hydroelectric generation complex and these impoundments are subject to significant seasonal water level drawdowns. Additionally, fisheries and aquatic productivity in the standing waters are influenced by the geology, water chemistry and natural and/or regulated hydrology. The flow regime in the reach below Searsburg is greatly influenced by hydroelectric operations being most of the reach is bypassed by a penstock connecting Searsburg Reservoir Dam to the Searsburg Station powerhouse.

The fishery found instream includes: Mainstem from headwaters to Searsburg dam: wild brook trout; stocked brook trout Mainstem from Searsburg dam to Harriman dam: wild brook and brown trout; stocked rainbow trout Glastenbury River: wild brook trout Castle Brook and Rake Branch): wild brook trout Bond Brook: wild brook trout Vose Brook: wild brook trout Heather Brook: wild brook trout

And the fishery found in the lakes, ponds, and reservoirs include: Adams Reservoir: brown bullhead; stocked brook trout. Woodford State Park Red Mill Pond: stocked brook trout. VFWD access area present. Searsburg Reservoir: stocked brook trout. (Basin 12-13 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat-Updated Assessment Report, 2012).

East Branch Deerfield River The East Branch has Somerset Reservoir and its tributaries as its source. Grout Pond, with an area of 84 acres, flows into Somerset Reservoir which has an area of 1568 acres at elevation 2131 (normal spring high water). From the spillway at Somerset Reservoir, the East Branch flows rapidly for a distance of 5.5 miles to the Deerfield River. The East Branch has many tributaries to it but only Black Brook which flows into the northwest corner of Somerset Reservoir, is named.

Assessment Information for Rivers and Streams General The VDFW notes that, as with most waters in the Deerfield River watershed, low fertility is a factor limiting productivity in the East Branch. Since relicensing, minimum flows below Somerset Dam have improved, but as in the Deerfield below Harriman, the discharge produces a very cold environment.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 60 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Fishery Resources The East Branch below Somerset Reservoir Dam has minimum flow requirements prescribed under the FERC license. Because of the deep water release from the reservoir, stream water temperatures are unseasonably cool so much so as to impair overall aquatic productivity and trout growth. The fisheries found in East Branch sub- watershed waters include: East Branch: wild brook and brown trout Grout Pond: smallmouth bass, rock bass, pumpkinseed, chain pickerel, brown bullhead, yellow perch Somerset Reservoir: smallmouth bass, rock bass, pumpkinseed, chain pickerel, brown bullhead, yellow perch; stocked brook trout. There is a TransCanada controlled boat launch and picnic area on this reservoir. (Basin 12-13 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat-Updated Assessment Report, 2012).

Figure 1. 303d list of Impaired waters includes Deerfield Basin #12.

North Branch Deerfield The project area within the North Branch watershed is primarily the headwaters of Cold Brook, Binney Brook and Haystack Brook. While the lower reaches of the North Branch are heavily developed with impacts from ski area development ((Basin 12-13 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat-Updated Assessment Report, 2012)., The above mentioned headwaters are in good condition with wild Brook trout populations. An Example is Cold Brook: “Macroinvertebrate sampling on Cold Brook in Dover occurred at rivermile 0.1 in 1992, 1998, and 2004. The community integrity and health was found to be "good" in 1992 and 1998 and "excellent" in 2004. Cold Brook was sampled at rm 3.3 in 2003 and was "good" at this location. Fish community sampling occurred on Cold Brook also sampled in 2003 and was in "excellent" health at rm 3.3.”

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 61 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Water Quality Concerns: Acidification: While water quality is impacted by long-term effects of acid deposition, the Deerfield and East Branch are in a slow recovery due to the poor buffering capacity of the soil. Through acid deposition has been significantly reduced it will require decades for the soils and water quality to recover.

Stream Temperatures: Issues with stream temperatures vary from too cold too warm. Due to the deep water release on Somerset Reservoir, water temperatures in the East Branch are much colder than natural through the summer. Temperatures in the 40’s (F) slow growth and reduce stream productivity. Because the current FERC permit does not expire until 2037 there is little if any opportunity to mitigate the effects.

Some tributaries in Deerfield headwaters exhibit temperatures that stress cold water fish communities (Brook trout, dace, sculpin). While canopy closure over streams generally meets Forest Plan objectives for headwater streams, the Deerfield Headwaters watershed has a higher percent (7.1%) of ponds, wetlands and beaver flowages than many other GMNF watersheds. Although evaluated in some sections of some tributaries, stream temperatures are suitable for low to moderate levels of natural reproducing populations in all the tributaries sampled.

Instream Habitat Concerns: Instream large wood loading is extremely low in the tributaries, which is typical of GMNF watersheds. Riparian stands are too young to achieve natural recruitment of large trees into stream channels in the range of 175-235 pieces/mile.

Absence of large wood negatively impacts habitat diversity and complexity. It also effects watershed processes and functions such as sediment storage, vertical and lateral channel stability, storing organic material entering the stream, providing wood and leaf litter for invertebrate colonization.

Aquatic Habitat Connectivity: Using the Vermont Fish &Wildlife Aquatic Organism Passage Coarse Screening Tool (Figure 2) to assess barriers, 58% (n=55) of stream crossings surveyed provide full aquatic organism passage while 21% (n=20) are barriers to all but adult trout. Of the 90 crossings surveyed, 14 (15%) are complete barriers to aquatic organisms.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 62 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Figure 2. VT F&W AOP Screening Criteria and Scoring.

(Source: http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/rivers/docs/rv_VTAOPScreeningTool.pdf)

Stream Crossing Inventory in Section 7 below shows stream crossings that have been assessed (white indicates no assessment). Crossings coded red or yellow cause the most significant habitat fragmentation. Somerset Aquatic Resource Inventories also in Section 7 shows additional un-surveyed crossings that do not show on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) Atlas.

Table 17. Stream Crossing AOP Assessments by Watershed. Watershed Green Yellow Gray Red Unsurveyed Deerfield 15 4 0 1 32 East Branch 8 2 0 0 12 Sherman Dam 4 0 0 1 3 North Branch 28 13 0 12 27 Wardsboro 0 1 6 0 5 Warm Brook 0 0 0 0 0 Total 55 20 6 14 79

Habitat fragmentation due to stream crossing barriers has the potential to isolate populations, reduce rates of recolonization following population loss, and block access to cold water refugia and other stressors.

There are 79 unsurveyed crossings. Though many are small intermittent headwater streams or located high up in the watershed where the cost-benefit for replace would be very low, additional field data is needed to prioritize significant barriers.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION Forest plan Desired Future Condition for resource and for resource within each Management Area if it differs from the overall plan Desired Future Condition

Forest-Wide Desired Future Condition • Less than 50 percent substrate embeddedness in spawning and rearing areas, primarily riffle and run habitats

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 63 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Less than 20 percent fine sediment, sand, and silt in spawning areas • At least 30 percent pool habitat, of which at least one third should be Class 1 and 2 holding and resting pools • No more than 15 percent of stream bank area eroded on the entire length of stream • LWD quantities between 75 and 130 pieces greater than 12 inches diameter per mile of stream • Approximately 100 pieces between 8 to 12 inches diameter per mile of stream • Average canopy closure of 70% should be maintained over the length of the stream to maintain adequate stream temperatures. Trees cut or moved in the riparian zone should be used to benefit riparian and aquatic habitats when possible.

Wilderness Guideline-1: Fish stocking may continue in lakes where it has historically been done.

Remote Backcountry Standard-1: Only native fish species shall be stocked into waters within this area. Guideline-1: Changes resulting from stream restoration activities should be kept as naturally-appearing as possible.

Eligible Scenic River Guideline-1: Fish and wildlife habitat improvements may be permitted provided they do not affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river and are consistent with the Desired Future Condition of Eligible Scenic Rivers.

Eligible Recreational Rivers Guideline-1: Fish and wildlife habitat improvements may be permitted provided they do not affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river and are consistent with the Desired Future Condition of Eligible Recreational Rivers.

Ecological Special Areas Standard-1: When stocking waters within this area, only native fish shall be used. Guideline-1: Restoration activities may be permitted when they will not alter long-term ecological integrity or diminish the character or purpose of the Ecological Special Area. Guideline-2: Changes resulting from stream restoration activities should be kept as naturally appearing as possible.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description The primary gap between desired Future Conditions in the Forest Plan and exisiting conditions are large wood loading levels and stream crossings that fragment aquatic habitat.

b. Opportunities There are opportunities to effect watershed health, aquatic habitat and populations by removing barriers to reconnect stream habitats and to place large wood into stream channels.

c. Initial Possible Activity List Habitat connectivity can be improved by replacement of 14 stream crossings that are full barriers to all aquatic organisms. All crossings in North Branch watershed are on non-NFS roads and would require careful collaboration with VTRANS, Towns, and private landowners. Crossing replacements would be prioritized based on owner cooperation, miles and quality of upstream habitat, and cost.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 64 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Twenty crossings are barriers to all but adult trout – these would be the second priority for replacement followed by the Gray crossing in Wardsboro Brook watershed.

Stream function and processes, as well as aquatic organism populations, can be restored or improved with additions of large wood into channels. Deerfield headwaters offer the greatest potential including: Upper Deerfield, Glastenbury, Deer Lick, Blind Brook. Deer Cabin, Castle Brook and Rake Branch. Headwaters of the East Branch that flow into Somerset Reservoir also have potential.

Techniques and methods for placement of large wood would vary depending on access and stream size. Headwater reaches could be implemented with “chop and drop” while stream reaches with bankkfull widths of greater than 30 feet could be done with heavy equipment where access allows.

The Deerfield and Glastenbury rivers provide a unique opportunity to place very large whole unanchored trees with rootwads with little risk of negative consequences downstream due to limited infrastructure and Searburg Reservoir preventing further downstream movement.

6. REFERENCES Ryan, S., D. Parrish, and D. Rizzo. 2013. Summer stream temperature metrics for predicting brook trout (Salvelinun fonfinalis) distribution in streams. Hydrobiologia 703: 47- 57.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

VT ANR, 2009, Vermont Culvert Aquatic Organism Passage Tool. Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. for the Vermont River Management Program, Department of Environmental Conservation, Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, VT.

VT ANR, 2012: Basin 12-13 Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat-Updated Assessment Report, 2012.

VTANR 2014: Basin 12 Water Quality Assessment Report 2014.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 65 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

7. Maps

Somerset Aquatic Resource Inventories.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 66 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Stream Crossing Inventory. Red and Yellow are Potential Projects.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 67 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Soil and Wetlands 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description The Somerset IRP is located in the Green Mountains, primarily in the towns of Somerset, Glastenbury, Stratton, Dover, Wilmington, Searsburg, and Woodford, with very little area in the towns of Sunderland and Wardsboro. The dominant soil series in the project area are Rawsonville, Hogback, Houghtonville, Mundal, and Worden (NRCS Soil Data Mart, Accessed Jan 9, 2018).

Soil provides myriad services to society, including regulating nutrient and water cycles, including the processes of water flow, energy transfer, nutrient uptake and release, carbon transfer, and chemical processing.

As more precipitation infiltrated into soils, less of it can rapidly flow into streams and rivers as damaging flood flows. As the sponges that collect and release precipitation, soils support plant growth, soil biodiversity, and groundwater recharge, cleaning the water at the same time by physically screening out pollutants and other toxins including pathogens and viruses in wastewater, and holding onto pollutants like sulfates from acid precipitation, reducing the amounts that reach streams and rivers. In forests most plant productivity (trunks, branches, and leaves) is returned to the soil surface as it falls. These materials are broken down and recycled by soil so they can be re-used by plants or soil organisms.

Soils play an important role in regulating greenhouse gases, typically having a neutral import and export of gases in undegraded lands. Carbon builds up in the upper soil layers in a stable structure, and when left intact, protects the soil surface by increasing infiltration and lowering runoff, and keeps the soil surface from being washed away. The level of organic matter in a soil can greatly influence the soil’s capacity to produce food, feed, fuel, and fiber. Soils maintained with high organic carbon levels can enhance production in other ways as well: better aggregation, water retention, diverse microbial communities, and micronutrient regulation. Carbon accumulation in the soil helps to protect off-site water quality, reducing runoff, erosion, and nutrient loss in runoff.

Soil provides habitat for countless diverse soil organisms which provide many additional ecosystem services. For example, soil microorganisms transform nitrogen from the atmosphere into a form plants can use, and produce antibiotics humans can use. Soil provides plant nutrients, building materials, and medicines. Additional services include degrading wastes and detoxifying materials and supporting recreational activities. Soil is also important part of our cultural heritage (Comerford et al. 2013).

Wetlands are particularly abundant in the project area compared to the rest of the state. Wetlands are defined by being saturated with water for at least two weeks during the growing season, having hydric soils, which form in saturated conditions, and being dominated by water-loving plant species. Different kinds of wetlands include swamps, which are dominated by woody vegetation, marshes dominated by herbaceous plants, and fens and bogs, which accumulate peat (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Agency of Natural Resources 2015).

Wetlands are beneficial to a variety of native plant and animal species and to public health, welfare, and safety. They provide habitat, flood and erosion protection, pollution filtration, and groundwater recharge. Vermont’s wetlands support diverse and sensitive species, including waterfowl, wading birds, black bears, moose, amphibians, pitcher plants, and

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 68 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

many more. An estimated 50% of Vermont’s historic wetland area has been lost or severely impaired. Fish and wildlife dependent on wetlands tend to be easily disturbed or negatively affected by human activities. It is important to protect and steward remaining wetlands to ensure wetland persistence in the landscape (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Agency of Natural Resources 2015).

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

Objective: • Maintain acres of forested and non-forested wetlands, predominantly through natural processes. The long-term composition objective for wetlands for all GMNF Lands is 1-2% of the Forest, and wetlands are thought to currently make up 1-2% of the Forest.

Goal 3: Maintain or restore the natural, ecological functions of the soil.

Objectives: • Minimize the adverse impacts on soils from management activities. • Restore soil processes and functions on degraded soils.

Goal 4: Maintain or restore aquatic, fisheries, riparian, and wetland habitats.

Objectives: • Minimize the adverse impacts on aquatic, fisheries, riparian, vernal pool, and wetland resources from management activities. • Restore and improve aquatic, riparian, fisheries, and wetland resources.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Soils were inventoried and characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). This information is available online at the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart extension in ArcMap, which accesses the same information used in the Web Soil Survey database, was used for accessing soil maps. To supplement this information, specific areas of interest in the IRP (such as specific stands proposed for timber or wildlife habitat improvement activities) will be visited to determine areas of erosion, or of shallow or poorly drained soils on a smaller scale.

Wetlands were inventoried using the National Wetland Inventory dataset in combination with recent aerial imagery.

b. Inventory Findings • In general, soils on forested lands are productive, with fertile organic and topsoil layers. Soils show little to no evidence of erosion or compaction. The soils store carbon and support a variety of forest ecosystems. • Erosion is occurring on some old logging and skid roads constructed prior to Forest Service ownership. On some roads, use by four-wheel-drive vehicles and ATVs is making the erosion worse.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 69 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• The project area is particularly rich in wetlands relative to the rest of the Green Mountain National Forest System Lands, with approximately 5,670 acres of wetlands identified in the Vermont Significant Wetland Map, covering approximately 8% of the project area. • Forest soils, especially in higher elevations, have been negatively impacted by decades of acidic deposition. • Some forest soils have had their organic horizons reduced by non-native earthworms.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS The effects of atmospheric deposition on soils in the project area: Incoming atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition is acidic—in 2014, the pH of atmospheric deposition in Vermont averaged around 5.0 (NADP 2015). This has likely caused soils in the higher elevations of the IRP to have become more acidic. In addition, important nutrients such as calcium and magnesium are likely being leached from the soils. Over the long-term, this could impair soil and ecosystem productivity. This is a concern to the Forest Service and several public sectors.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)’s Total Deposition Science Committee (TDEP) developed total deposition (wet + dry) maps. The National Trends Network (NTN) provides a long-term record of precipitation chemistry. NADP’s Critical Loads of Atmospheric Deposition Science Committee (CLAD) developed national “Critical loads” maps for nitrogen and sulfur deposition, for surface water acidity, forest ecosystem acidity, and eutrophication and other empirical critical loads (NADP 2015). The critical load for a forest ecosystem is the level of sulfur plus nitrogen deposition, above which significant harmful ecological effects, including to soil fertility, forest health, and forest productivity, is estimated to occur. Total Mercury wet deposition in precipitation was approximately 6.1-7.4 µg/m2 in 2014 in Vermont (NADP 2015). These are relatively high levels.

Nearly all of the Somerset IRP area, and all of the NFS lands within the IRP area, have deposition above the critical load. Empirical Critical Loads were developed for forests from measured observations. For the National Forest Land within the Somerset IRP area, the following exceedances were found:

Table 18. Empirically Determined Critical Loads of Nutrient N Ecosystem component Exceedance Proportion of the Critical Load Mycorrhizal Fungi 3-4 times Herbaceous Plants and 3-4 times Shrubs Forests 3-4 times Nitrate Leaching 3-4 times Lichens 2-3 times

Soils must continue to sequester (store) carbon: Maintaining the ability of soils to retain forest ecosystem carbon is a concern for the Forest Service. Carbon sequestration was also identified by the public as a concern during the 2006 Forest Plan revision, and during previous IRP analyses. Forest soils are a major carbon reservoir in forests. Based on the current scientific literature, over 50% of the

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 70 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

ecosystem carbon is stored in the soils of forests in the Northeastern U.S. (Petrenko 2014). It will be important to maintain or enhance this reservoir over the long-term.

Earthworms: All Earthworms in Vermont are non-native, introduced from Europe and Asia with soil and plant materials, or as fishing bait or for use in gardens and composting. Earthworms consume organic matter in the soil, particularly in the very top organic layer of forest soils- the O horizon or forest floor. They can completely remove this soil organic layer, and alter soil chemistry, physical environment, and microbial environment of soils. Higher elevation forests without crop backgrounds developed without earthworms, putting them at greater risk for drastic changes with invasion. An earthworm study in 2014 found that sites with high earthworm diversity have reduced forest floor depth and higher mineral soil carbon (organic matter transported deeper into the soil).

By consuming the organic layer, earthworms create less favorable conditions for plant regeneration and growth- they create drier, warmer soils that are more susceptible to erosion, and reduce the herbaceous layer of forests, and may reduce salamander populations which thrive in thick forest floor conditions. Earthworms reduce mycorrhizal fungi populations which help plants absorb nutrients and water from soils (Knowles et al. 2016).

Soil restoration needs in the project area should be addressed: There is on-going erosion on some old roads and trails throughout the project area, some of which are being used illegally by ATV riders. The soil is degrading due to loss of additional topsoil and compaction. Impacts are likely to increase in magnitude and extent if restoration actions are not implemented.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition The optimal condition of soil resources is expressed in the Forest Plan Goal and Objectives, previously stated in section 1b: Maintain or restore the natural, ecological functions of the soil. • Minimize the adverse impacts on soils from management activities • Restore soil processes and functions on degraded soils

b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition The DFC of the soil resource is similar to the Goal and Objectives stated previously. However, these goals and objectives cannot be achieved on 100% of the project area acreage, 100% of the time. Existing roads, hiking trails, homes, agricultural practices, and many other land uses all have some detrimental effects on soils and wetlands. Atmospheric deposition has also had broad-scale effects on soils in the project area.

Given our existing soil conditions, the DFC is to minimize the extent and magnitude of detrimental soil effects while maintaining the economic, recreational, plant and animal habitat, and other forest ecosystem benefits of sustainable land management.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description Gaps between the DFC and existing condition exist due to the effects of acid deposition, the presence of invasive earthworms, and erosion of some roads (old and currently used), skid roads, and trails.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 71 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

b. Opportunities • Partner with monitoring efforts to better quantify the effects of atmospheric deposition on soils in the project area — this includes continuing to partner with other agencies on collecting data for the Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring Project. • Complete an inventory and analysis of existing roads and the 68 miles of trails in the IRP area to determine erosion control needs and whether any are any unneeded. Trail assessment is planned for summer of 2018 by recreation staff. Unneeded roads and trails should be closed and rehabilitated. All others should be brought up to an acceptable standard, for example by improving or installing water bars or properly sized culverts where needed, and routinely maintained to minimize erosion, to protect surface water quality. • Maintain or enhance carbon sequestration and counteract the negative effects of invasive earthworms on forest health in the project area over the long-term by increasing the amount of organic matter on the forest floor, for example, by leaving branches on the forest floor after a harvest, and by minimizing soil erosion.

c. Initial Possible Activity List • Collect soils data to validate the effects of atmospheric deposition on soils through the LEMP established on the forest for monitoring purposes. • Protect and enhance soils during project implementation through application of soil conservation measures reflected in Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and Environmental Analysis mitigation measures. • Assess and protect wet soils and wetlands throughout the project area. • Stabilize unauthorized roads and trails. Locations of potential non-system roads and skid trails potentially in need of erosion control work have been inventoried using LiDAR data. • Assess whether to retain trails with severe washouts, head-cutting, or other forms of erosion. Relocate or decommission as needed, and stabilize. • Install or improve erosion control and drainage structures and features high priority trails to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

6. REFERENCES Comerford, N.B.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stromberger, M.E.; Morris, L.; Markewitz, D.; and Moore, R. 2013. Assessment and evaluation of soil ecosystem services. Soil Horizons, Vol. 54, No. 3. pp. 1-14.

Knowles, M.; Ross, D.; Gorres, J.; Wilmot, S.; Danks, C.; and Cogbil, C. 2016. Earthworms in Forests. University of Vermont and Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. 6 p.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 2015. National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2015-01. Illinois State Water Survey, Champlain, IL. 27 p.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 2015. 2015 Summary of critical loads maps. Champlain, IL.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program and its Critical Loads of Atmospheric Deposition Science Committee. 2013. National Critical Load Database.

Petrenko, C.L, and Friedland, A.J. 2015. Mineral soil carbon pool responses to forest clearing in Northeastern hardwood forests. GCB Bioenergy. Vol. 7, Issue 6, pp. 1283-1293.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 72 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [01/13/2016].

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and Agency of Natural Resources. 2015. Conserving Vermont’s Natural Heritage. 2nd Ed. Montpelier, VT. 132 p.

7. Maps

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 73 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Soil Types

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 74 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Relative Wetland Density

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 75 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Sensitive Soils and Wetlands

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 76 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Potential Erosion Control Needs Inventory

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 77 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Fire, Fuels and Air Quality (Smoke) 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description Fire management is an important resource area to consider during integrated resource project planning. There are three main ways in which fire can be considered in the process: • Fuels management—are there hazardous fuels within the project area that may present an issue for wildfire suppression or management? • Fire as a tool - can fire be used to meet the objectives of other resource areas (e.g., recreation vistas, wildlife openings, timber hazardous fuels reduction along road corridors and partner lands, etc.)? • Fire ecology - does fire play a natural role in the ecosystems that are being analyzed, and if so, should that role be maintained?

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals.

 Objective: • Maintain, and where desirable increase, the acres of upland open habitats. This may be accomplished through the use of prescribed fire and/or by managing fire for resource benefit.

Goal 5: Maintain or improve air quality on the GMNF.

Goal 6: Maintain or restore ecological processes and systems on the GMNF within desired ranges of variability.

Goal 7: Protect rare or outstanding biological, ecological, or geological areas on the GMNF.

Goal 9: Demonstrate innovative, scientifically, and ecologically sound management practices that can be applied to other lands.

Goal 13: Manage designated wilderness to preserve an enduring resource that represents ecosystems and natural processes unique to northeastern forests while providing opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation.

Goal 15: Maintain or enhance visual resources such as view sheds, vistas, overlooks, and special features.

Goal 16: Provide protection and stewardship for significant heritage resources on the GMNF.

Goal 18: Maintain and enhance partnerships to achieve Forest goals.

Goal 21: Protect human life, property, and facilities from wildland fire hazards.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 78 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

 The following goals and objectives are outlined in the GMNF Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, pp 3-328:

The GMNF will use fire as a tool to meet management objectives, including but not limited to: • Reducing hazardous fuel loading • Creating, maintaining, or improving wildlife habitat • Preparing sites for restoration of species (e.g., oak, pine, birch and aspen) • Creating, maintaining, or improving plant community composition by influencing the scale and pattern of vegetation across the landscape, including changing successional patterns • Managing insect and disease • Enhancing blueberry and heath production • Creating or maintaining scenic vistas

The Forests will maintain fuels in proportion to the levels of hazards, risks, and values to be protected, and to address resource management objectives both outside and within the Wildland Urban Interface. Prescribed fire may be used in the management areas outlined in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan FEIS, 3-330).

Reduce hazardous fuels through fire use, mechanical treatments, and harvest treatments (Forest Plan, p.18).

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Minimal inventory has been reviewed for this discussion. Field trips have occurred to assess forest stand types and vegetation inventories were reviewed for Compartments using common stand exam, see Timber Resource section of this document.

b. Inventory Findings Existing wildlife openings should be maintained as they have been with prescribed fire. Oak stands exist where prescribed fire could be considered as a tool to maintain and promote this species. Fire history in some of the stands and areas exists.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS In general there is concern with finding new and maintaining the areas that can be considered fire-adapted within National Forest System lands. These areas/ openings are rare and important. Concerns related to risk and fuel management will be identified within the wildland urban interface. Opportunities to use fire as a tool to meet multiple objectives are the most common for this resource.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition Healthy forests with functional natural processes; fire may be able to assist with the following Forest Plan composition objectives: • 1-5% in oak habitat type • 1-5 % in permanent upland openings habitat type • 45-55% in mixed woods habitat type • 1-5% in aspen-birch habitat type

b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 79 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

The Forest Plan outlines DFC for Diverse Forest Use and Diverse Backcountry MAs. Fire may be utilized to meet DFC.

Diverse Forest Use • Vistas of landscapes with a mosaic of vegetative patterns will be provided along roads and trails. Forest communities that would naturally be present, such as northern hardwoods, aspen, and oak, will be retained and enhanced where feasible. • Silvicultural practices will be used to meet timber, wildlife, ecological, visual, and recreation objectives. • Suitable habitat will be provided for a variety of wildlife and plant species. Deer wintering habitat will be emphasized within, or adjacent to, identified deer wintering areas. Habitat at the landscape level will include a sustainable mix of young and mature forests. Permanent upland and temporary openings will occur across the landscape in shapes and sizes that are consistent with visual objectives. • Views, ecological processes, and management practices will be interpreted at some vista sites. Diverse Backcountry • Temporary openings will occur through natural disturbance and timber harvesting. • Timber harvests will occur with constraints such as extended rotations, fewer intermediate treatments, and other modifications to benefit backcountry settings… with a few scattered temporary openings created by wind, ice, old age, or other natural forces. • This management area will provide a wider diversity of wildlife habitats than what would be expected in areas that have no vegetation management. Timber and vegetation management will provide more clearings and early successional habitats in this MA than would occur from natural disturbances. • Permanent upland openings and orchard maintenance for wildlife values will be maintained.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description The gap between existing condition and DFC exists due to difficulty in locating stands and conditions suitable for the use of prescribed fire within the project area.

b. Opportunities There are opportunities to work with wildlife/timber/recreation staff to use fire as a more effective resource management tool within the project area.

c. Initial Possible Activity List A community wildfire protection planning process could be initiated which would help recognize areas of concerns near camps and adjacent private land boundaries.

Prescribed burning can and has been used to meet other resource area objectives— examples include wildlife opening creation and maintenance, silvicultural objectives such as promoting oak-pine ecosystems, creation of scenic vistas, or others.

More work is needed to determine if ecological maintenance in relation to fire ecology objectives is a desirable action in this area.

Design an experiment to involve methods to promote oak regeneration; involve Northern Research Station, Dr. Daniel Dey and include intensive monitoring design. Include prescribed fire as part of the experimentation treatment options.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 80 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

6. REFERENCES USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 432 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Recreation Resources (Trails, Developed Recreation, Recreation Special Uses, Recreation in the General Forest Area and Wild & Scenic Rivers)

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description As noted in Connecting People with America’s Great Outdoors - A Framework for Sustainable Recreation: “National Forests and Grasslands provide the greatest diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities in the world, connecting people with nature in an unmatched variety of settings” (USDA, 6/25/2010). With an estimate of over two million visitors to the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) each year, recreation provides a conduit not just for connecting people to nature – but for enhancing their understanding of their natural and cultural environment and catalyzing their participation in caring for public land. Recreation is the portal for understanding and caring for natural resources and public lands and contributes to the physical, mental, and spiritual health of individuals.

In addition recreation provides economic benefits to communities, regions, and the nation. Recreation and tourism within Vermont are recognized as leading economic industries in the State. This is evident in the large resorts that provide year-round recreation activities as well as the smaller, independent businesses, considered a signature of Vermont, that rely on the tourism trade to generate income from more personalized services. The GMNF plays an important role in acting as an anchor to complement the private tourism sector by providing a backdrop of natural settings as well as nature-based recreation opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2006, p. 3-204).

Recreation resources are comprised of: the natural environment; the physical or ‘built’ environment, such as facilities and trails; and the social environment - including interactions with other users as well as rules and regulations. In combination, these three components make up a recreation experience. The recreation experience provided on the GMNF is reflected in the recreation niche statement for the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests (USDA Forest service 2004). The niche statement highlights the unique regional role that the National Forest plays in providing public recreation opportunities by stating:

• The recreation niche of the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests is to provide the public with the following: o High quality scenery along with opportunities for viewing.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 81 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

o Diverse and high quality trail-based recreation opportunities in undeveloped areas for all seasons. o Large contiguous public land areas for dispersed recreation opportunities. o Low level development water based recreation.

The 2006 GMNF Forest Plan went further to define the recreation niche by noting: “Our recreation niche will focus on the fact that the GMNF’s large, contiguous blocks of land are well suited to trail-based activities in backcountry settings. The remote nature of much of this land makes Wilderness a special role the GMNF will serve to play. Working in partnership with many organizations will continue to be a hallmark of how the Forest Service provides recreation opportunities to the public.”

Recreation assessments and opportunities primarily address how forest visitors interact with the natural resources within and surrounding the GMNF. Natural resources in and of themselves do not guarantee that outdoor recreation will occur – it is the combination of natural resources with management and user inputs that determine the supply of outdoor recreation. Recreation opportunities vary from unconfined, primarily unmanaged recreation in which visitors experience a high degree of freedom over their own actions and decisions, such as exploring a wilderness area, to activities with clear management, such as camping in a developed campground.

For this analysis, recreation resources will be organized using the following outline: 1. National Forest System (NFS)Trails 2. Developed Recreation 3. Recreation Special Uses 4. Recreation in the General Forest Area a. Backcountry Skiing/Boarding b. Unauthorized Trails c. Shooting Sites d. Dispersed Camp Sites e. Caving/Climbing 5. Wild & Scenic Rivers

Recreation resources in the Somerset IRP project area include trails managed for hiking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, bicycling, and horseback riding. Hiking trails include the Appalachian Trail and Long Trail which overlap in the project area and are recognized as a National Scenic Trail and National Recreation Trail respectively. Significant Forest Service developed recreation sites include Grout Pond and Somerset Airfield campgrounds and the Mount Snow Ski Area.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives are outlined in the Forest Plan.

Goal 10: Provide other resource benefits through coordinated timber harvesting.

Objective: Increase the coordination among wildlife and fish biologists, recreation planners, fire planners, silviculturists, and other specialists in order to utilize vegetation management to accomplish objectives of other program areas. The emphasis is using vegetation management as a tool to accomplish the habitat or setting desired by program areas.

Goal 12: Provide a diverse range of high-quality, sustainable recreation opportunities that complement those provided off National Forest System lands.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 82 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Objectives: • Maintain or enhance high-quality opportunities for downhill skiing in partnership with private sector. • Continue to provide diverse, high-quality opportunities for recreation in partnership with private sector by authorizing appropriate activities through special use authorization and by improving administration of special use authorizations. • Complete comprehensive trail planning for 100 percent of the Forest. • Increase the effective use of partnerships in the improvement, maintenance, and operation of the Forest trails system. • Increase the number of miles of trails that are operated and maintained to full standard. • Reduce the total deferred maintenance on the GMNF trail system. • Increase the number of developed recreation sites that are operated and maintained to standard. • Reduce total deferred maintenance on GMNF developed recreation facilities. • Increase the number of inventoried Concentrated Use Areas managed to standard to reduce health, safety, and resource impacts caused by unmanaged recreation use in the general forest area. • Complete a Forest-wide comprehensive interpretive plan for recreation and trails. • Complete comprehensive management plans that address the enhancement of dispersed recreation activities, non-facility related, that occur in the general forest area.

Goal 14: Provide a safe, efficient, and effective Forest transportation system that meets both the needs of the Forest Service and the public.

Objectives: • Use design elements and standards that permit maximum economy while meeting management direction for resource and environmental protection and user safety. • Complete comprehensive transportation system planning for 100 percent of the Forest.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process National Forest System Trails: An inventory of NFS Trails, including those within the Somerset IRP project area, was completed as part of the Green Mountain National Forest Comprehensive Trail Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2015). This analysis incorporated data from TRACS trail surveys (TRACS surveys identify existing trail infrastructure as well as deferred maintenance needs associated with each trail) as well as an assessment of the following criteria for each trail:

• Managed Use • Relative Use Level • Safety, Resource and/or Maintenance Concerns • Purpose • Forest Plan Alignment • Recent Maintenance and/or Financial Investments • Duplicate Trail Opportunities

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 83 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

In addition to utilizing data compiled for the Comprehensive Trail Strategy, field surveys were completed and are ongoing to inventory the latest trail conditions in the project area – including bridge and culvert infrastructure assessments as well as opportunities for trail relocations to address long-term maintenance concerns. Finally, a review of the Trail Management Objectives (TMO) for each trail was completed.

Legal town trails (non-NFS Trails) within the project area were inventoried using VTrans data for the towns of Somerset, Stratton, Sunderland, Wardsboro, Wilmington, Woodford, Glastenbury, Searsburg, and Dover. Field surveys will occur as needed and if prompted with/by towns, partner groups, or the public.

Developed Recreation: Recreation Site Condition Assessments have been completed within the past five years for developed recreation sites within the project area. These assessments were reviewed to identify maintenance concerns in addition to completing field reviews to identify needs and opportunities at each site. Information was compiled from the Recreation Facility Master Plan to identify long-term goals for each site.

An inventory of developed recreation sites off Forest Service land in the project area was completed by consulting state, town and county parks and recreation websites and maps. Field surveys will occur as needed and if prompted by towns, partner groups, or the public.

Recreation Special Uses: Recreation staff reviewed existing requests and authorizations within the project area.

Recreation in the General Forest Area: a. Backcountry Skiing/Boarding: Recreation staff reviewed existing and potential backcountry recreation opportunities. b. Unauthorized Trails: Recreation staff surveyed the project area for unauthorized, user-maintained trails. c. Shooting Sites: Recreation staff surveyed the project area for sites with recurring shooting activity and potential resource impacts. d. Dispersed Camp Sites: Recreation staff surveyed the project area for recurring use and potential resource impacts at dispersed sites. e. Caving/Climbing: Forest Service staff surveyed the project area for recurring climbing and/or caving activity.

Wild & Scenic Rivers: The 2006 GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (Appendix D) determined the eligibility, potential classification (wild, scenic or recreational), and suitability for rivers within the GMNF.

b. Inventory Findings National Forest System Trails:

Table 19. Total Trail Miles in Project Area by Managed Use Managed Use Miles Snowmobile 70.15 Bike 44.73 Hike 54.67 Horse 44.73 X/C Ski 41.80 Snowshoe 0

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 84 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Fat Bike 0 Total for All Trails *109.42 * Total trail mileage is not a sum of all managed use miles as some trails offer multiple uses

Table 20. USFS Trail Data Information for all Trails Within the Project Area

Managed Uses Identification: A=ATV/UTV, B=Bike, F=Hike, H=Horseback Ride, S=Snowmobile, X=X/C Ski; SS=Snowshoe; FAT=FatBike Designed* and Managed Consistent Number Name Miles Uses Notes with ROS Appalachian 1 Trail / Long Trail 16.41 F Yes Top of the 307 Mountain 2.4 S Yes Segments of trail to be treated/relocated for soils concerns. There may be opportunities for viewpoint creation. Segment between Forbush Road and Binney Brook Trail is not 326 Deerfield Ridge 6.34 F maintained. Yes 326A Binney Brook 0.55 F Yes Haystack 326B Mountain 0.31 F Yes Connector to snowmobile trail network on 327 Valley C100 0.28 S private land. Overlays Kelley Stand Road (town, forest highway)- maintained by local towns of Kelley Stand Sunderland and 373 Road 0.43 S Stratton. Yes

374 Fayville 0.23 S Yes 375 Glastenbury 8.45 B, H, S* Yes

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 85 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 20. USFS Trail Data Information for all Trails Within the Project Area

Managed Uses Identification: A=ATV/UTV, B=Bike, F=Hike, H=Horseback Ride, S=Snowmobile, X=X/C Ski; SS=Snowshoe; FAT=FatBike Designed* and Managed Consistent Number Name Miles Uses Notes with ROS Glastenbury 376 Cross-over 1.52 B, H, S* Yes Goes through a wetland. Drainage issues. Some user conflicts with cross-country skiers occur where the trail East Deerfield overlaps Grout 377 Loop 3.52 S Pond Road. Yes Somerset/Dover 378 Connect C7/100 9.04 S*, X/C Yes One 40 to 60 foot bridge was blown out during Tropcial Storm Irene and is in need of replacement. Two additional stringer bridges need replacement and portions of the trail go through wetland, making the trail impassible during poor 379 Deerfield River 3.12 S snow conditions. Yes Cabin was decommissioned in 2009 and deconstructed in 380 Sports Cabin 0.32 S 2015. Yes Primarily maintained as a road (road section) and Woodford SnoBusters for 381 Castle Brook 7.92 B, H, S* snowmobile use. Yes

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 86 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 20. USFS Trail Data Information for all Trails Within the Project Area

Managed Uses Identification: A=ATV/UTV, B=Bike, F=Hike, H=Horseback Ride, S=Snowmobile, X=X/C Ski; SS=Snowshoe; FAT=FatBike Designed* and Managed Consistent Number Name Miles Uses Notes with ROS 382 Pine Valley 2.11 B, H, S* Yes

383 South Mountain 3.92 S Yes Woodford 384 Powerline 2.18 S Yes Adams 384.02 Connector 0.39 S Yes Overlays roads including Castle Brook, FR 71, B, F H, S*, and Kelley 385 Corridor 7 18.64 X/C Stand. Yes Access road (FR 275) is in poor condition and is facilitating illegal ATV access to Glastenbury 386 Little Pond 2.48 B, F, H*, S Wilderness. Yes Woodford Mall 387 Trail 0.64 S Yes Overlays FR 72- 388 Red Mill Access 1.31 B, H, S* Red Mill Road. Yes Shared with Castle Meadow FR376 Castle 389 (Corridor 7) 1.25 B, H, S* Meadow Road. Yes Some drainage and trail maintenance issues. Overlays FR262 Grout Pond Road- maintained by Grout Pond Town of 419 Loop 2.66 F*, X/C Stratton. Yes Has potential for higher accessibility level with Grout Pond minimal grading 420 Camp 0.70 F*, X/C and reroutes. Yes

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 87 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 20. USFS Trail Data Information for all Trails Within the Project Area

Managed Uses Identification: A=ATV/UTV, B=Bike, F=Hike, H=Horseback Ride, S=Snowmobile, X=X/C Ski; SS=Snowshoe; FAT=FatBike Designed* and Managed Consistent Number Name Miles Uses Notes with ROS Grout Pond Hill 421 Top 0.84 F*, X/C Yes Wet segments, Grout Pond especially on 422 East 3.21 X/C northern part. Yes Grout Pond East Trail 422.01 Access 0.02 X/C Yes Grout Pond 422.02 East Connector 0.06 X/C Yes Majority of trail is Grout Pond on Great River 423 West 1.37 X/C Hydro land. Yes

430 East Branch 5.25 F*, X/C Yes

436 West Ridge 0.10 F Yes Needs updated Little Pond (to standard) 449 Access 0.33 F signage. Yes Little Pond Access Spur 453 AT/LT 0.06 F Yes Glastenbury 460 River 1.05 B, H* Yes

508 Winhall River 0.01 X/C Yes

Developed Recreation:

Table 21. Developed Recreation Site Data Site Inventory Findings Glastenbury Lookout Tower Site Capacity notice sign needs replacement.

Goddard Shelter Visitor information signage needs replacement. Erosion along lakeshore at campsites and kayak/canoe launch. Inadequate waste disposal. Problematic vehicular Grout Pond circulation (dead-ends) and inadequate parking. Structurally Campground unsound cabin (closed to the public). Site has a proposed fee (part of REA); currently only donations are collected.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 88 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Significant deferred maintenance: shelter, recycled plastic picnic tables, fire rings. Bear/Human interactions recorded summer of 2017. Deferred maintenance costs with shelter, signage, and picnic table. Kid Gore Shelter Roof needs repair and shelter is leaning. Pit privy is on shallow soils and has to be moved multiple times per season. Parking lot/TH has issues with private land owner adding Little Pond Trailhead signage, rock barriers, etc. Is in need of site sign and (TH) information kiosk. Boulders or guard rail to delineate parking from road may also be helpful. Mount Snow Ski Area Operated under a Special Use Permit. No changes proposed. Pine Valley Winter Trailhead ???? Campground lacks definition in campsite spaces. There is also a safety concern as the road bisects the campground Somerset Airfield without signage or other engineering tactics to reduce speed. Campground No fee for camping. This site is also used as a staging area for snowmobilers. Bear/human interactions recorded in summer of 2017. Story Spring Shelter Deferred maintenance costs with fire ring/grill, signage, and picnic table.

Legal Town Trails Intersecting Project Area:

Table 22. Non-USFS Trail Data Information for Trails Within the Project Area

Managed Uses Identification: A=ATV/UTV, B=Bike, F=Hike, H=Horseback Ride, S=Snowmobile, X=X/C Ski; SS=Snowshoe; FAT=FatBike Designed* and Name Miles Managed Uses Notes Dover Legal Town Trails LT6 Connects to Handle Road (Crosstown south of GMNF Handle Rd Trails) 1 B, F, S, X property access. Valley Trail (FT 327) on NFS land is part of Valley Trail system. Connects Dover to Valley Trail 5 B, F, S Wilmington.

Non-USFS Developed Recreation:

Table 23. Developed Recreation Site Data Site Notes Adams Winter Maintained by the State and located within Woodford State Trailhead Park. 398 acre highly-developed state park. 105 acres are within project area. All development (facilities, trails, etc.) are outside the project area on the south side of Route 9. Woodford State Park Features include 76 tent/RV sites, 20 lean-to sites, 4 cabins

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 89 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

available for rent; flush toilets, showers, dump station, beach and picnic area; row boats, kayaks, and canoe rentals on Adams Reservoir; hiking trails, including 2.7 mile trail around Adams Reservoir; park interpreter staff and programming (night hikes, nature crafts and games, campfire programs, etc.). Owned and operated by Great River Hydro under a FERC license. Reservoir is 5.6 miles long and 1.1 miles across at its widest. There is no overnight camping on the reservoir, but recreation opportunities do include boating, picnicking, and Somerset Reservoir hiking/biking on 9.6 miles of trail.

Recreation Special Uses: Ongoing requests and authorizations for recreation special use permits (SUPs) are completed annually. A request for a winter sports race to take place within the project area was reviewed in the Fall 2017. This proposal was denied due to the fact that the route used unauthorized trails and had fat tire bicycling in areas and on trails that are not designed or managed for this use. Forest Service staff will work with the event organizer to identify a more appropriate route.

A request for an Outfitter & Guide Special Use Permit for groups of youth camping and recreating in areas across the Forest was also reviewed during the Fall 2017. The group proposed use in areas of the Somerset Project Area including the Arlington/West Wardsboro Parking Area to Grout Pond and the Catamount Trail to the eastern side of Somerset Reservoir to the Arlington parking area. A decision of whether to grant a Special Use Permit or approve the use through a Nominal Use Determination has yet to be made.

Several outfitters and guides use the Appalachian Trail/Long Trail (AT/LT) in the project area under existing Special Use Permits. There are also a number of temporary permits for guided trips on the AT/LT. The number of these trips fluctuates from year to year, and this type of use is often approved through a Nominal Use Determination due to the low-impact nature of the use: one small group of ten or less making one trip.

Killington Snowmobile Tours has a long-standing Special Use Permit and makes use of many of the snowmobile trails in the project area.

Mount Snow Ski Area is located within the project area and is operated under a Special Use Permit. No additions or changes will occur as a part of the Somerset IRP.

Recreation in the General Forest Area Backcountry Skiing/Boarding: The Handle Road property up to the Deerfield Ridge Trail is used for backcountry skiing. The popularity of this site is estimated to be fairly low. Unauthorized Trails: The following unauthorized trails were located: • Trails on the Handle Road property near the Bear’s Crossing Condominiums. These trails are mostly loop trails with one connecting to Mount Snow. They appear to be managed for hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. Some mountain biking occurs on these trails as well. There is also a flagged route connecting the Bear’s Crossing trails with the Deerfield Ridge Trail. This area also contains a structurally-questionable deer stand. • Snowmobile/ ATV trail off Willis Cemetery and Pike Hollow roads that connects to C7/100. Abandoned school bus used as a hunting shack is also in this area

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 90 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

(located off Forest Service land). These trails occur in a Remote Wildlife Habitat Management Area. • Snowmobile connector trail off Rake Branch Road that connects to Corridor 7. • Shortcut trail from Little Pond parking lot to the road leading to the trailhead. Shooting Sites: Recurring target practice/shooting is occurring at a gravel pit off FR 83 near Deerfield River. This site is also a frequently-used dispersed campsite. Dispersed Camp Sites: Repetitively used dispersed campsites are found along FR 83. The use at these sites is a cause for concern for water quality due to lack of human waste management and trash disposal. Unauthorized cutting of trees for firewood is also common around dispersed sites along 83. Dispersed camping also occurs along FR 71, but is relatively unproblematic. There is a closure order for dispersed camping on FR 71 for three quarters of a mile up to Somerset Airfield Campground. Caving/Climbing: There is no knowledge or evidence of caving or climbing in the project area.

Wild & Scenic Rivers: There are currently no Congressionally designated wild, scenic or recreational rivers within the GMNF; however, there are many river segments that are eligible to be further considered for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. The 1987 Forest Plan identified the Wardsboro Brook as an eligible recreational river for recreation and scenic outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) and the Deerfield River as an eligible scenic river for hydrologic and wild outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Both rivers were continued to be determined eligible in the 2006 Forest Plan. The Deerfield River flows through the Somerset IRP project area as does a portion of the eligible Wardsboro Brook.

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS National Forest System Trails • Deferred trail maintenance poses potential damage to soil, water, and fisheries resources, increases health and safety risks, and negatively impacts visitors’ experiences. • Limited accessible trails. • Trail bridges need replacement and repair. • 4. Unsafe bridges on unauthorized trails pose a safety hazard.

Developed Recreation • The lack of fees at Grout Pond and Somerset Airfield campgrounds reduces opportunities to generate funds for maintenance needs. • Parking at Grout Pond is insufficient, resulting in cars parked along the road. • Narrow access roads and dead ends in Grout Pond create a health and safety concern for inadequate emergency vehicle access, vehicle collisions, and compliance checks conducted by Forest Service staff. • Lack of defined campsites at Somerset Airfield creates law enforcement challenges. • Road bisecting Somerset Airfield creates a safety concern. • Lack of engineered vehicle barriers to keep vehicle on the road and away from toilet buildings, kiosks, and campsites creates a high risk of vandalism at Somerset Airfield. • Some campsites along lakeshore at Grout Pond are heavily eroded. • Campsite fixtures (tent pads, picnic tables, fire rings) are in need of replacement or repair at Grout Pond. Lack of sufficient toilet facilities and inadequate human waste disposal creates a water quality concern.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 91 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Story Spring and Kid Gore shelters have seen a recent increase in human/bear interactions. The success of adding bear boxes and whether the bear boxes are used as intended vs. as garbage bins will need to be monitored. • Additions of non-standardized signage and rock barriers near Little Pond Trailhead by a private landowner and an unauthorized shortcut trail from the parking lot are causing confusion, • FR375 (administrative trail used for search and rescue into Glastenbury Wilderness and service of AT/LT shelters) needs a culvert replacement. • The end of maintenance of FR83 and Castle Brook Road are blocked with stiles (rather than gates) which causes problems for snowmobile groomers.

Recreation Special Uses • The Forest Service denied the Special Use Permit proposal for the Ridge Race.

Recreation in the General Forest Area • Backcountry Skiing/Boarding: A desire for a formalized backcountry ski area on the eastern slope of Deerfield Ridge has been expressed. • Unauthorized Trails: Resource damage may occur when unauthorized trails are not closed. • Shooting Sites: Shooting debris and trash accumulation at target sites creates health and safety concerns and maintenance issues. There may also be safety concerns regarding dispersed campsites located behind the shooting site on FR 83. • Dispersed Camp Sites: Concerns regarding water quality of the Deerfield River and health and safety due to inadequate human waste and garbage disposal along FR 83. There are also concerns regarding unauthorized cutting of trees for firewood surrounding dispersed sites. • Caving/Climbing: No issues identified.

Wild & Scenic Rivers: In order to show suitability for designation as a Wild & Scenic River, there has to be a show of local initiative to protect rivers as well as a ground-swelling of support from local stakeholders. Seeking Congressional designation is not inherently a government driven process and is more successful when led by non-governmental advocates.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION Diverse Forest Use Major Emphasis: Public use is managed to provide a full range of recreation opportunities, from motorized and non-motorized trails to dispersed campsites and developed campgrounds.

Desired Future Condition: Recreation opportunities will be diverse. Desired ROS class of Roaded Natural. Trail opportunities will be diverse, ranging from hiking and bicycling to snowmobiling and potentially summer ORV riding. Interaction among visitors will be in moderate to high concentrations.

Wilderness Major Emphasis: Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive/unconfined recreation.

Desired Future Condition: Desired ROS class of Primitive. There will be little evidence of human development in Wilderness MAs with several exceptions including trails, trail shelters, trail blazes, and limited trail signing that provides onsite guidance to visitors.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 92 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Facilities and designated campsites may be present when necessary to protect Wilderness values.

Remote Backcountry Forest Major Emphasis: Management actions are limited to those that help restore or maintain natural processes, natural communities, and associated species within their natural ranges of variation in the landscape. Public use is managed at a scale and intensity that either helps keep species or processes within their natural range of variation, or has minimal effect on the area’s integrity. Non-motorized trail recreational opportunities will be available that provide a relative sense of isolation and remoteness in a predominantly natural or natural- appearing landscape.

Desired Future Condition: Desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. Accessible by foot and other non-motorized means of transport, such as skis, snowshoes, horses, and bicycles. Motorized trails will not be present, unless required by law to provide access to private land. Recreational impacts will be managed to protect natural resources such as water quality and rare plants and animals, to minimize visual disturbance, and to preserve a sense of wildness.

Diverse Backcountry Major Emphasis: relatively large landscapes that provide a mix of backcountry recreational experiences from low use foot trails to motorized use trails.

Desired Future Condition: Desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Motorized. Appropriate for a wide variety of recreational uses. Concentration of users will generally be low, but there will often be evidence of other users. Recreation facilities may be present and will complement the desired recreation opportunities. Trail systems will be present and new trails may be developed.

Remote Wildlife Habitat Major Emphasis: Recreation uses are de-emphasized to minimize continuing disturbance to wildlife.

Desired Future Condition: Desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. Recreation- related disturbances to wildlife will be minimal. Forest Service system trails will be managed primarily for access on foot and by other non-motorized means of transport. Existing Forest Service System snowmobile trails will be allowed and may be relocated or closed to enhance the values of the area. Changes or additions in trail use designations may be considered where they do not compromise the values of the area.

Alpine Ski Areas Major Emphasis: The major emphasis of this management area is to provide alpine winter sports opportunities and year-round recreation opportunities at the three alpine ski areas managed by the private sector under Special Use permit authority.

Desired Future Condition: Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Rural. Large numbers of users may be present, sights and sounds of human activity will be readily evident, and the interaction between users will be moderate to high. Facilities should be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained consistent with the ROS class. Year- round recreation use that is appropriate on NFS lands is desirable and encouraged at winter sports sites. The Special Use Permit will describe management of the full range of recreation activities provided by the area, and incorporates resource protection elements.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 93 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Appalachian National Scenic Trail 8.1 Major Emphasis: 1) Manage the AT. 2) Provide for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities of the land through which the AT passes. 3) Provide opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation experiences, including a sense of “wildness”. 4) Recognize and strengthen the level of partnership, cooperation, and volunteer efforts integral to AT management.

Desired Future Condition: This management area will traverse a range of Recreation Opportunities Spectrum (ROS) classes. Recreation management of the LT setting will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. Facilities will include the AT footpath itself, including trail bridges, and limited recreation facilities such as trail shelters, tent platforms, designated campsites, fire towers, privies, trailhead parking areas, and information boards. Recreation management will be designed to provide a variety of opportunities in the most primitive and natural recreation setting possible.

Ecological Special Areas (ESA) Major Emphasis: Protect the geological, botanical, zoological, or ecological values for which the designation is created and opportunities for public use and interpretation. The ESAs found within the Somerset IRP project area include Grout Pond and Somerset Fen. The Grout Pond ESA is valued for its natural shoreline, warm water fisheries habitat, and habitat for rare or uncommon plant and animal species. The Somerset Fen ESA is valued due to its position as a poor fen nested within a wetland complex.

Desired Future Condition: Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. The AT/LT will pass through some ESAs. The trail will provide an opportunity for visitors to experience the ESA’s setting features, while hiking long distance trails.

Alpine Ski Area Expansion Major Emphasis: This management area recognizes the potential need for ski area expansion, and manages the land so as not to preclude future ski area development.

Desired Future Condition: Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Rural. Although adjacent to heavily developed alpine ski areas, these lands will generally appear natural, with little evidence of management. Existing roads and trails may provide access.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Major Emphasis: The emphasis of this management area is to protect and enhance the “outstandingly remarkable values” (ORVs) that led those rivers and streams within this management area to be determined as eligible Wild Scenic, and Recreational Rivers.

Desired Future Condition (Scenic Segments): Management will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-Primitive Motorized. Visitors may see sights and sounds of human activities, but these will not dominate the area. Encounters with others may be higher on the weekends, but few encounters will be expected mid-week, off-season, or away from trails. Desired Future Condition (Recreational Segments): Desired ROS class of Roaded Natural. The sights and sounds of others will be evident, and opportunities to encounter other visitors will be moderate to high. Visitors seeking solitude may find that difficult to achieve, particularly in peak-use seasons. Trails may be highly developed, including hardened trail surfaces.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 94 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description National Forest System Trails • There are limited trails that meet USFS Trail Accessibility Guidelines in the project area. This is likely due to a combination of older trail infrastructure, terrain, and lack of funds to improve accessibility. • There is too much deferred maintenance on existing trails within the project area due to inadequate trail maintenance budgets and increased design specifications for trail bridges. Developed Recreation • Many Grout Pond campsites and amenities have the potential to meet Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Area Guidelines. Since the GMNF has limited accessible sites, efforts should be focused on areas that have the potential to meet standards. • Deferred maintenance levels are high at multiple sites. Limited allocated budgets and incoming fees reduce the ability to make improvements or keep aging infrastructure from becoming more dilapidated. • Multiple trailhead parking lots, including Little Pond Trailhead, need improvements.

Recreation Special Uses • Forest Service staff need to work with the winter sports race proponent to identify a suitable route, race type, and regulations. A decision (Special Use Permit and/or Nominal Use Determination) will need to be made for the proposal of youth recreation and camping trips on various parts of the Forest including the Somerset IRP project area. These decisions will not be included in the Somerset IRP process.

Recreation in the General Forest Area • Backcountry Skiing/Boarding: Additional terrain managed for backcountry skiing and riding is needed to address increasing demands. The increasing demand for this activity combined with relatively recent protocols for managing the use has resulted in limited access. • Unauthorized Trails: Although recreating off of a NFS trail is a permitted activity, developing or maintaining unauthorized trails is considered a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations. To prohibit resource damage, unauthorized trails need to be obliterated and blocked off. • Shooting Sites: Shooting sports are long standing and appropriate uses of NFS lands; however, where frequent target practice occurs in unmanaged areas, shooting debris accumulates- including target trash as well as ammunition shells and casings. There is a need to manage this activity to prevent resource degradation. • Dispersed Campsites: Dispersed camping is an encouraged and appropriate recreational activity. However, when sites are repeatedly used and human waste and garbage are not disposed of properly, dispersed campsites have a negative impact on resources. • Caving/Climbing: No current gap exists between existing and desired conditions.

Wild & Scenic Rivers: Eligible segments are currently managed to protect ORVs. No current gap exists between existing and desired future conditions.

b. Opportunities General opportunities in the project area include improving accessibility at recreation sites and trails that are close to meeting USFS accessibility guidelines. Decommissioning or significantly improving trails and recreation sites that are having negative impacts on resources and are not in alignment with health and safety goals are additional priority

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 95 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

opportunities. Taking action on these trails and sites would support the agency’s sustainable recreation initiative. Developing new recreation areas and trails should only be done when there is support by an existing partner group that is ready to contribute by helping to fund, construct, and maintain. New recreation areas and trails should be in alignment with the GMNF’s recreation niche and adhere to sustainable recreation design principles.

c. Initial Possible Activity List

Table 24. Initial Possible Activity List. Activity Description Options to Accomplish Priority Grout Pond Improve the recreation Submit project as a High Campground experience by developing and Capital Improvements Improvements implementing a comprehensive Project. Collaborate with site plan to address issues of CTA, DHASH, and/or resource impacts, accessibility, Vermont Huts for trail capacity, circulation, site program improvement work. needs, health and safety, and site Implement a fee and put amenities and facilities. campsites on the Recreation Reservation system. Consider funding a host/caretaker. Little Pond Rd Add a gate somewhere along Work with engineering High Travel Management Little Pond Road to keep illegal and consult local private ATV and dirt bike use out of the land owners to come up Glastenbury Wilderness. A gate with an appropriate would also keep passenger solution vehicles from getting stuck due to poor road conditions. Deerfield River Trail Replace trail bridges as Work with VAST and High and Winter Sports necessary and relocate section of clubs to get trail up to Trail – trail that runs through wetland. standards for seasons in Improvements Improve trail enough to allow for which FR71 may be used snowmobile traffic rerouted off FR for haul. 71 if needed for haul route. Consider managing for additional uses: bicycling, horseback riding, and hiking. Bridge and unsafe Remove unauthorized foot Work with DART to clean High structure removals bridges and deer stand from up area of unsafe Handle Road property. structures. New Trail Develop a new trail, trailhead, Work with DART and High and parking lot on NFS land and Town of Dover to secure neighboring private property off of funds for parking lot, Handle Road. Hiking trail would trailhead, trail design, and connect up to Deerfield Ridge construction. Trail and would provide the Town of Dover with a connection to NFS system trails. New Trail Add one or more (currently Work with DART to map High unauthorized) loop trail on the and upgrade trail(s) to Handle Road property intoN FS NFS standards

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 96 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 24. Initial Possible Activity List. Activity Description Options to Accomplish Priority system trails. Trail(s) would need to be brought up to NFS standards. New Trail Construct approximately two Work with Hoot, Toot, and High (Catamount Valley miles of new Class 4 mountain Whistle (VMBA chapter) to Trail Connector) bike trails (also to be managed design, fund, construct, for hiking and cross-country and maintain the new skiing). A portion of the proposed trails. trails would be co-located on a Forest Road (open to mountain bike use) and on the Catamount Ski Trail. The trails would make use of existing trailheads and parking lots and would provide links between existing trails and roads Deerfield Ridge Trail Construct a boardwalk over a Work with DART and High Improvements marshy area between Haystack prioritize areas identified and Mount. Snow. Construct as soils concerns. minor relocations and/or drainage infrastructure (waterbars). Trail Maintenance Reduce deferred maintenance on Increase trail adoption by High trails. partners and volunteers. Trailhead / parking Improve trailhead signage at Little Work with private High lot improvements Pond parking lot (replace site landowner who has added sign and add an information kiosk non-standard signage and with map). Consider adding a rock piles to the parking guard rail or boulders to define lot and trail. parking lot and road edge. Kid Gore Shelter Repair roof and lean in the Consider submitting as High improvements/repair structure. Replace pit privy with a part of a Capital moldering privy more suitable for Improvement Project for the higher elevation soils of the southern VT AT/LT site. shelter/privy/bridge repair projects. 83 Dispersed Place a closure order on Consider keeping specific High Camping dispersed camping along 83 to sites open (model after reduce impacts to resources. Bingo Brook). Close shooting site. Special Use Permit Modify Ridge Race proposal to Work with project Medium decisions an appropriate race route and proponent to alter route type of race. and race type if desired. BC Ski Explore new backcountry Work with DART, DHASH, Medium Opportunities recreation opportunities off of the and/or Catamount to Deerfield Ridge trail. Skiers skin identify appropriate areas, up the proposed connector trail design, fund, construct, from the Handle Road property to and maintain area. the Deerfield Ridge trail or access from either of the alpine ski areas (Mount Snow or Haystack).

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 97 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 24. Initial Possible Activity List. Activity Description Options to Accomplish Priority Glades would be opened for skiers on finger ridges and bowls on the eastern side of the ridge. Somerset Airfield Propose a fee to make site more Consider creating a Medium Campground self-sustaining with maintenance host/caretaker position Improvements costs. Develop a site safety and that would oversee the circulation plan to address issues site for the benefit of a of pedestrian safety and resource free camping site for the damage and vandalism due to season and vehicular access reimbursement if fees are collected. Trail Consider decommissioning the Medium decommissioning section of the Deerfield Ridge Trail that runs from Forbush Road to the Binney Brook Trail. Since the trail has been decommissioned to snowmobile use, this trail does not seem to see much use and is in need of maintenance. Snowmobile trail signage should be removed. Trail Recognition Officially add the Valley Trail to Trail exists and is showing Medium the NFS system and record on as “planned” in Infra. maps. Needs to be officially added to the system. Obliterate Obliterate and block off Medium unauthorized trails unauthorized snowmobile and ATV trails coming off of Willis Cemetery and Pike Hollow Roads area. These trails are in a Remote Wildlife Habitat Management Area. Obliterate Obliterate and block off an Low unauthorized trails unauthorized snowmobile trail from Rake Branch Rd to Corridor 7. Obliterate Obliterate and block off an Low unauthorized trails unauthorized shortcut trail from the Little Pond parking lot to Little Pond Road. Deerfield River Participate in local engagement Collaborate with any local Low Suitability Study activities in support of efforts to partnerships or planning begin the suitability study process commissions that show for designating the Deerfield action and interest in the River as a National Wild and designation process. Scenic River (Scenic classification). Wardsboro Brook Participate in local engagement Collaborate with any local Low Suitability Study activities in support of efforts to partnerships or planning begin the suitability study process commissions that show

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 98 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 24. Initial Possible Activity List. Activity Description Options to Accomplish Priority for designating the Wardsboro action and interest in the Brook as a National Wild and designation process. Scenic River (Recreation classification). Trail signage Remove old snowmobile signage Determine whether the Low on a segment of the Valley Trail trail is even needed for (closed to snowmobiles) that access to the private dead-ends at private property property or if it should be (closed with a gate). decommissioned. Trail Consider decommissioning Work with VAST and Low decommissioning snowmobile trail FT377 (East snowmobile clubs along Deerfield Loop). This trail goes with Stratton Mountain through a wetland, which often snowmobile guide who does not freeze to safe crossing uses trail. conditions especially given the increased frequency of warmer winters. Clean up/ potential Remove old log stringer bridge This is more of a timber Low safety (or reuse as a part of fish habitat clean up or wildlife enhancement) that is located project- isn’t on a trail- but over a section of the Deerfield needs to be recorded. River just east of the Deerfield River trail.

6. REFERENCES USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

USDA FS (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2006. Green Mountain National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 432 pp. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

USDA Forest Service. July, 2015. Green Mountain National Forest Comprehensive Trail Strategy.

USDA Forest Service. June 25, 2010. Connecting People with America’s Great Outdoors: A Framework for Sustainable Recreation.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 99 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

7. Maps Potential Recreation Activities

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 100 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

8. Appendix A: Grout Pond Site Planning Goals and Objectives: The two primary site design goals for the Grout Pond Campground are to improve the camping experience and to improve accessibility to site features. Secondary goals include improving the summer and winter trails experiences. The following list of goals, sub-goals, and objectives will be used to guide the site design and program. 1) Improve accessibility to site features and trails a) Pond Loop Trail or segments thereof b) Camp Loop Trail c) Canoe/Kayak launch…opportunity to partner with adaptive water sports outfitters & guides d) Cabin e) Campsites & furnishings f) Toilets, water pump, kiosks, fee stations, etc. 2) Improve camping experience a) Consider what to do with shelter….remove once it is met its lifespan? Maintain? Add additional shelters? b) Maintain/create views of pond from certain campsites or day use area c) Add campsites to Rec Res system d) Consider adding cabin as a rental…either Rec Res or partner with VT Huts e) Maintain Dark Skies • Improve Health & Safety • Vehicular circulation • Expand parking options • Construct loops or turn-arounds (group camp, parking lot) • Widen Grout Pond road for 2-way traffic. This will be a challenge as it is a Stratton town rd (?) but would be critical for safety. • Provide caretaker / host • Addition of moldering privies along Camp Loop and/or Pond Loop • Consider options for bear/human interaction safety…provide bear bins at some sites? Shelter? • Dumpsters? Visitors may expect them at a pay site. • Increase camping capacity • Add sites along Camp Loop trail • Add sites near group camp • Improve interpretation and wayfinding signage • Cabin, Scout camp history, natural history, mercury levels? • Trails and connections to other trails • Remember not to overdo signage and interp…maintain rustic, simple aesthetic of the site. • Move kiosk and donation/pay station up to entry point of site • Encompass Sustainable Site Design Elements  Partnerships for O&M: VT Huts, Catamount, DHASH, Stratton Mountain Resort  Host or caretaker  Use of sustainable materials….reconsider recycled plastic picnic tables- campers are melting them with camp stoves  Stormwater Management at a site level  Reference Sustainable Site Design Guide draft 3) Improve summer and winter trails experiences a) Cross-country ski trails work b) Pond Loop trail work

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 101 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Grout Pond Site Inventory

Grout Pond Site Analysis

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 102 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Visual Resources 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description Visual resources within the Somerset IRP include views of the project area from SR 9 and SR100, both Vermont Scenic Byways. These travel corridors are used frequently by local and out-of-state visitors to the Forest and surrounding areas. The scenic elements to be viewed from these State Roads include the Deerfield River, Harriman Reservoir, numerous small streams, steep side slopes and ridgelines of the Green Mountains and characteristic Vermont villages. Other travel corridors within the project area include Forest Road 71, Somerset Road, Handle Road and the Kelly Stand Road. Key observation points from these roads include views of Shep Meadow, Haystack Mountain, Mount Snow, Deerfield River and other streams. From Somerset Reservoir there are views of Stratton Mountain, Mount Snow and other slopes and ridgelines of the Green Mountains. Official vista points along the Appalachian Trail/Long Trail provide views of the surrounding mountains and valleys. The Glastenbury Mountain Lookout Tower provides and 360 degree panorama of the surrounding landascape. There are many unofficial and transient vistas throughout the project area.

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives Goal 15: Maintain or enhance visual resources such as viewsheds, vistas, overlooks, and special features.

Objectives: • Maintain or enhance visual quality of special areas that contain scenic features. • Maintain or enhance visual quality on the Forest.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process According to the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives (VQO), on site views (less than one- half mile) from SR 9 and SR 100, the Appalachian Trail/Long Trail, Wilmington and West Dover town centers, Somerset Reservoir, Mount Snow base area, Woodford State Park, and Haystack Golf Club have high viewer sensitivity and should meet the Retention VQO. Timber stands identified as having potential for timber harvest along these areas were inventoried for visibility in the foreground distance zone using Google Earth Pro. A windshield survey was also conducted to identify areas visible from the sites and corridors identified to have high viewer sensitivity, validate the views shown in Google Earth Pro, and validate the existing visual condition of the area.

The Appalachian Trail/Long Trail, FT 385, Corridor 7), and FT 379, Deerfield River Trail were inventoried to determine the existing condition of the vista points contained in the GMNF vista data base and to identify any potential vista points that could be created or enhanced through the Somerset IRP. This was done by hiking the trails, taking waypoints in GPS and taking azimuths for the vistas.

b. Inventory Findings Stands along SR 9, Somerset Reservoir, Mount Snow Ski Area base area, and Haystack Golf Course that were identified for potential timber harvest were located in the visual foreground (up to 0.5 miles) or middleground (over 0.5 miles to 3 to 5 miles) ranging from 0 to 12.5 miles from high viewer sensitivity corridors and sites. The stands currently meet the Retention VQO.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 103 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Eleven existing inventoried trail vista points on the Appalachian Trail/Long Trail were inventoried and still provide views. These vistas need varying degrees of maintenance but are not yet over grown and obstructing the views. There is also a 360 degree view from the Glastenbury Mountain Lookout Tower

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Public comments received on previous projects around visual resources focused on the creation and maintenance of vistas, and the visual effects of timber harvesting on the side slopes and ridgelines that are visible from state highways.

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Forest –wide Management Direction • S-1: Visual quality objectives shall be determined when implementing the 2006 Forest Plan on specific areas. • S-2: Visual quality objectives shall be met for all activities. • S-3: For the viewshed as seen from the Appalachian Trail and the Long Trail, but outside of the AT and LT Management Areas, activities shall meet a visual quality objective (VQO) of at least Partial Retention. • See Table 2.3.2: Visual Condition Guidelines for On-Site and Off-Site Views • See Table 2.3.3: Visual Condition Guidelines Related to Timber Harvesting Activities on the GMNF.

See the Forest Plan Glossary (p. 157) for definitions of Viewer Sensitivity, Visuals Conditions and Visual Quality Objectives.

b. Management Area Direction Diverse Forest Use • Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is Roaded Natural. • Along roads and trail corridors, large diameter trees of diverse species will predominate. Vistas of landscapes with a mosaic of vegetative patterns will be provided along roads and trails. • Forest wide S&G’s apply.

Wilderness • Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is Primitive. • There will be little evidence of human development in Wilderness MAs with several exceptions including trails, trail shelters, trail blazes, and limited trail signing that provides onsite guidance to visitors.

Diverse Backcountry • Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is Semi-primitive Motorized. • When viewed from a distance, human activity will not be evident on some of the upper elevations of the more noticeable peaks and ridges. Some evidence of activity will be noticeable on lower levels, but will blend with the surrounding landscape. While these areas will be predominately natural appearing, evidence of human use may be evident, but will not dominate. • A predominately natural appearing environment of moderate to large size trees will characterize these areas. • Forest Wide S&G’s apply.

Remote Wildlife Habitat

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 104 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is Semi-primitive Non-motorized. • Timber and vegetation management activities, including maintenance of permanent upland openings and deer wintering areas, will occur as needed to achieve habitat goals. • Recreation facilities may be present but will be primitive and complement remote recreation opportunities. Away from roads and trails, evidence of, and interaction with, other users will be low.

Alpine Ski Areas • Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Rural. In some cases, adjacent private land development can be significantly urbanized.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail • Recreation management of the AT setting will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. • This management area will retain a natural, forested, or pastoral appearance shaped by both natural and human processes. Management practices will recognize the nationally significant aesthetic and recreational values of these lands. • Vistas and desirable open areas will be created and preserved through management actions.

Ecological Special Areas • Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Non-motorized. • Some Ecological Special Areas such as Grout Pond will have important recreation values in addition to their biological values for which they are designated. As a result, evidence of human activity will range from substantially unnoticeable to very evident, and road networks will vary from not evident to evident. • Natural disturbances and occasional management activities will shape the landscape-level and site-level vegetation composition. • Management activities will be generally limited to light disturbances such as trail clearing and facility maintenance, as well as habitat maintenance for rare plants and animals or restoration of natural communities.

Alpine Ski Area Expansion • Recreation management will be towards the desired ROS class of Rural. • Although adjacent to heavily developed alpine ski areas, these lands will generally appear natural, with little evidence of management.

Eligible Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Scenic • Management will be towards the desired ROS class of Semi-primitive Motorized. • Visitors may see sights and sounds of human activities, but these will not dominate the area. • The landscape character will be “natural appearing” with predominantly high scenic integrity. Recreational • Management will be towards the desired ROS class of Roaded Natural.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 105 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

• The sights and sounds of others will be evident, and opportunities to encounter other visitors will be moderate to high. • The landscape character may range from natural appearing to transitional-mixed use. There may be substantial evidence of human activity along the shores of these rivers.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description Viewing points in the project area still provide viewing opportunities. These viewing points will need to be managed to continue to provide views of landscape features within the project area. This will meet Goal 15: Maintain or enhance visual resources such as view sheds, vistas, overlooks, and special features.

New vista creation on trails and along state highways has not occurred in the project area so a gap exists in the enhancement of visual resources.

b. Opportunities There is an opportunity to maintain and enhance existing vistas through vegetation management on the Appalachian Trail/Long Trail and along the Deerfield Ridge Trail. This could be coordinated with timber harvesting activities proposed in this IRP.

There is an opportunity to create a vista of the Glastenbury Wilderness at the Pine Valley Trailhead parking on SR 9 through vegetation management.

There is an opportunity to retain the visual quality objectives in areas proposed for timber harvesting along state roads through careful selection and placement of harvest treatments.

c. Initial Possible Activity List Maintain and enhance vistas on the AT/LT.

Enhance the views to Glastenbury Wilderness from Pine Valley Trailhead parking on SR 9 through vegetation management in C110S10.

Table 25. SOMERSET IRP STANDS WITH HIGH VISUAL SENSITIVITY Approx Distance in miles and Compartment Stand MA ROS visual F/M/B Location or Viewpoint 84 7 RWH SPNM .74 M Mount Snow Base Area 84 13 RWH SPNM 1.6-1.75 M Mount Snow Base Area 84 14 RWH SPNM 1.6-1.75 M Mount Snow Base Area 84 15 RWH SPNM 1.6-1.75 M Mount Snow Base Area 84 16 RWH SPNM 1.6-1.75 M Mount Snow Base Area Somerset Reservoir 99 34 DFU RN .25-.5 F south end Somerset Reservoir 99 35 DFU RN .25-.5 F. south end Somerset Reservoir 99 36 DFU RN .25-.5 F south end

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 106 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 25. SOMERSET IRP STANDS WITH HIGH VISUAL SENSITIVITY Approx Distance in miles and Compartment Stand MA ROS visual F/M/B Location or Viewpoint Somerset Reservoir 102 27 DFU RN .25-.5 F south end Somerset Reservoir 102 28 DFU RN .25-.5 F south end Pine Valley Trailhead - surrounds trailhead but could open views to 110 10 DFU RN 0 F Glastenbury Wilderness 111 1 DFU RN .0 F Abuts RT 9 111 3 DFU RN .0 F Abuts RT 9 111 9 DFU RN .4 F RT 9 E of Aiken W 111 12 DFU RN .4 F RT 9 E of Aiken W 111 51 DFU RN .0 F Abuts RT 9 111 82 DFU RN .0 F Abuts RT 9 RT 9 Runaway Truck 113 12 DFU RN .6 M Ramp panorama RT 9 Runaway Truck 113 13 DFU RN 0 F Ramp panorama RT 9 Runaway Truck 113 29 DFU RN .2 F Ramp panorama Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 1 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 2 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 5 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 6 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 7 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 8 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 11 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 13 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 14 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 18 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 107 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 25. SOMERSET IRP STANDS WITH HIGH VISUAL SENSITIVITY Approx Distance in miles and Compartment Stand MA ROS visual F/M/B Location or Viewpoint Haystack Mtn Golf Club 116 126 DFU RN .8 to 1.75 M and Mann RD 118 3 DFU RN 2 M RT 9 & RT 8 intersection 118 6 DFU RN 2-2.5 M RT 9 & RT 8 intersection Haystack MTN visible from RT 9 & RT 8 intersection and Haystack Mtn Golf Club 118 7 DFU RN 1.7 - 2.5 M and Mann RD 118 8 DFU RN 2-2.5 M RT 9 & RT 8 intersection 118 10 DFU RN 2-2.5 M RT 9 & RT 8 intersection 118 11 DFU RN 2-2.5 M RT 9 & RT 8 intersection

Table Abbreviations MA=Management Area F=Visual Foreground ROS=Recreation Opportunity M=Visual Middleground Spectrum B=Visual Background RN=Roaded Natural DFU=Diverse Forest Use SPM=Semi-Primitive Motorized RWH=Remote Wildlife Habitat SPNM=Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized

6. REFERENCES US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2006a. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 p. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Agriculture Handbook 462. Washington DC, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 108 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Transportation System (Roads) 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description Roads provide access for many uses on the GMNF including public and administrative. They provide the infrastructure to facilitate timber harvesting and other mission-critical work (such as recreation, watershed restoration and vegetation management). However, their presence can also have negative effects on the natural and cultural resources of the forest.

The GMNF currently has jurisdiction over 39.02 miles of road in the Somerset IRP project area. The following table summarizes the maintenance level of those roads.

Table 26. Road Maintenance Levels. Maintenance Level Miles of Road 1 – Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 17.70 2 – High Clearance Vehicles 10.26 3 – Suitable For Passenger Vehicles 2.37 4 – Moderate Degree of User Comfort 8.69 5 – High Degree of User Comfort 0.00 Totals 39.02

b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

Goal 14: Provide a safe, efficient, and effective Forest transportation system that meets both the needs of the Forest Service and the public.

Objectives: • Use design elements and standards that permit maximum economy while meeting management direction for resource and environmental protection and user safety. • Design roads constructed or reconstructed for use by the general public in accordance with the latest standards using American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Design of Highways and Streets section on rural roads and special purpose roads. • Complete comprehensive transportation system planning for 100 percent of the Forest.

2. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Roads within the IRP area have been inventoried to verify their existence and current condition. Inventories were completed by passenger car, UTV or foot. Although all roads were verified, a full inspection of each road was not completed. More detailed inspections will be completed as proposed projects are developed.

b. Inventory Findings There are currently 30 roads (39.02 miles) of road within the IRP area under Forest Service jurisdiction. This includes six (6) bridges and one (1) major culvert (cross sectional area greater than 36 square feet). The major culvert is not a barrier to aquatic organism passage. All roads meet the required maintenance for their assigned maintenance level.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 109 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

Table 27. SUMMARY OF ROADS IN PROJECT AREA ID NAME BMP EMP LENGTH 72A RED MILL SPUR 0 0.304 0.30 72C RED MILL SPUR 0 0.263 0.26 84 SOMERSET SOUTH 0 0.37 0.37 268 HEATHER BROOK 0.9 2.11 1.21 272 PINE VALLEY 0 1.23 1.23 324 GLASTENBURY RIVER 0 0.3 0.3 325 CASTLE BROOK 6.8 8.2 1.40 325A CASTLE BROOK SPUR 0 0.1 0.10 325B CASTLE BROOK SPUR 0 0.6 0.60 326 RAKE BRANCH 0 0.68 0.68 328 SHORT STRETCH 0 0.58 0.58 332 BILLINGS POND 0 0.36 0.36 339 RAILROAD GRADE 0 0.7 0.70 340 SHEP MEADOW 0 0.1 0.10 371 DEER CABIN BROOK 0 1.6 1.60 372 DEER LICK BROOK 0 0.8 0.80 373 BLIND BROOK 0 1.9 1.90 373A BLIND BROOK SPUR 0 0.5 0.50 374 NICHOLS CAMP 0 0.4 0.40 375 KID GORE 0 0.7 0.70 376 CASTLE MEADOW 0 1.5 1.50 STRATTON MOUNTAIN 383 CAMP 0 1.5 1.50 384 SOUTH BLACK BROOK 0 0.6 0.60 TOTAL OML 1: 17.70 86 SMITH WOODS 0 0.96 0.96 268 HEATHER BROOK 0 0.9 0.90 275 LITTLE POND 0 1.6 1.60 325 CASTLE BROOK 0 6.8 6.80 TOTAL OML 2: 10.26 72 RED MILL 0 0.83 0.83 83 FLOOD DAM 0 1.3 1.30 290 PINE VALLEY PARKING 0 0.1 0.10 KELLEY STAND EAST 386 PARKING 0 0.14 0.14 TOTAL OML 3: 2.37 71 SOMERSET 6.156 14.85 8.69 TOTAL OML 4: 8.69

TOTAL: 39.02

3. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Recent funding allocations are adequate to perform annual maintenance on many, but not all, roads in the project area. The deferred maintenance costs are considerably higher than the appropriated funding. There is no precise number of miles of road that can be maintained under any given future budget scenario. It appears likely that future allocations will make it difficult to maintain the existing system to an acceptable level.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 110 Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

4. FOREST PLAN DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION The desired future condition for the transportation system in the project area is a minimum road system (MRS). The MRS is the road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of the National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). Roads included in the MRS serve the Forest Service mission and achieve goal 14 of the Forest Plan by providing access for forest management activities, recreational opportunities, and utilization of forest resources. The MRS includes roads designated for public motorized use as well as closed roads that are necessary for forest management.

5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description Recent funding allocations are adequate to perform annual maintenance on many, but not all, roads in the project area. The deferred maintenance costs are considerably higher than the appropriated funding.

b. Opportunities The Forest Service completed a detailed travel analysis of the entire forest in August 2015 including those within the project area. The subsequent report contained a list of roads that are “Not Likely Needed for Future Use”. These roads, and possibly others, will be more closely analyzed for decommissioning or other actions as part of this project. There is also potential for changing the maintenance level of some roads to a level more consistent with their actual maintenance.

c. Initial Possible Activity List • Road Decommissioning: Forest Roads 72A & C, 325 A & B, 372, 373A and 375 • Bridge Replacement: Forest Road 83 • Road Improvements/Construction: Grout Pond, timber haul roads, recreation site and trailhead parking

6. REFERENCES US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2006a. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006 Forest Plan). Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 164 p. plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. August 2015. Green Mountain & Finger Lakes National Forests, Forest-wide Travel Analysis Report. 73 p plus Appendices. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, 231 North Main St., Rutland, VT 05701.

Somerset Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 111