United States Department of Agriculture Province Integrated Resource Forest Service Management Project Township of Chatham June 2013 Carroll County, New Hampshire
30 Day Comment Report
Prepared By Saco Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest
View of Province project area from Kearsarge North
For Information Contact: Desiree Johnston Saco Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 33 Kancamagus Highway Conway, NH 03818 603-447-5448, ext. 128 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=39435
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at 202/720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC, 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Province Project Vicinity
Contents
Chapter 1 — Proposed Action and Purpose and Need
1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Description of the Province Project Area ...... 3 1.3 Need For Action ...... 8 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 19 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 19 1.6 Issues ...... 20 Chapter 2 — Alternatives
2.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.2 Description of Alternatives ...... 21 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 21 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 22 Alternative 3 ...... 26 2.3 Project Design Features ...... 30 2.4 Monitoring ...... 33 2.5 Other Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 33 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 34 Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction ...... 36 3.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 37 3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat ...... 63 3.4 Heritage Resources ...... 75 3.5 Non-native Invasive Plants...... 77 3.6 Recreation...... 84 3.7 Scenery...... 93 3.8 Socio-Economic ...... 101 3.9 Soil Resources...... 109 3.10 Water Resources...... 121 3.11 Wildlife ...... 141 3.12 Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Rare Communities ...... 161 3.13 Vegetation ...... 168
Chapter 4 — Preparers and Consultants ...... 184 References ...... 185 Appendix A — Glossary ...... 208 Appendix B — Silvicultural Treatments ...... 211 Appendix C — Project Design Features ...... 215 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Chapter 1. Proposed Action and Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction
The Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is initiating a 30-day public comment period for an integrated resource management project in the town of Chatham in Carroll County, New Hampshire. The Province Integrated Resource Management Project is designed to promote desired wildlife habitat and vegetation conditions outlined in the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); improve recreational opportunities and watershed conditions; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs. This document provides the details of an environmental analysis of the Proposed Action as well as two other alternatives, including No Action, which were analyzed for this project. This document, based on and tiered to the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), analyzes the effects from implementation of the proposed Province Integrated Resource Management Project to physical, biological, and social resources. Chapters 1 and 2 of this document provide background information, public involvement, issues, and a detailed description of the Proposed Action and other alternatives considered for the project. The effects of alternatives analyzed in detail, including the Proposed Action, on recreation; scenery; soils; water; fisheries; roadless/wilderness; wildlife habitat, including Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)); social/economic resources and heritage resources are described in Chapter 3. Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines provide resource management direction for the White Mountain National Forest (USDA-Forest Service, 2005c, WMNF). Applicable Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards and guidelines were used to design the Province Integrated Resource Management Project. The proposed action for Province Integrated Resource Management Project includes implementation of the following site-specific activities:
• Managing forest vegetation to improve wildlife habitat and forest health conditions on approximately 2,100 acres, with an estimated 8 million board feet (MMBF) of associated timber harvest;
1 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• Site preparation treatments in about 579 acres of timber harvest units;
• Release treatments in about 79 acres of timber harvest units;
• Timber stand improvement in approximately 67 acres of forest stands • Creation of one new and expansion of two existing permanent wildlife openings in about 15 acres of timber harvest units;
• Replacing one undersized culvert on Weeks Brook Road (FR 303) and another on Hardwood Hill Road (FR 317);
• Relocating an estimated 0.8 miles of the Weeks Brook Trail; • Reconstructing and maintaining portions of 8 existing Forest Roads, totaling an estimated 8.6 miles, and
• Decommissioning approximately 0.6 miles of an existing road that is not included within the Forest Transportation System. • Reclassifying 2 short existing roads (FR 5471, FR 5471A) as Maintenance Level 1 (closed), and adding them to the Forest Transportation System.
Most of the proposed project activities would be implemented within the next 3 to 5 years. This project also incorporates a variety of project design features to minimize impacts to air quality and public health from prescribed burning, reduce adverse impacts to scenic quality from timber harvest activities, protect cultural resource areas, minimize impacts to forest visitors recreating in the project area, protect trail integrity and maintain high quality wildlife habitat features. All proposed project activities would be undertaken within the scope of the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. Chapter 2 of this document describes additional details on the Proposed Action and other alternatives analyzed for this project.
The Proposed Action and alternatives for the Province Integrated Resource Management project, as well as the analysis of their effects described in this document, are confined in scope to the area of the White Mountain National Forest within which they are contained. Neither the environmental assessment, nor the eventual decision document will apply to or set precedent for any area outside of this project.
2 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
1.2 Description of the Province Project Area
The Province Integrated Resource Management project area is bounded within the Province Habitat Management Unit (HMU), which includes approximately 7,700 acres of National Forest lands located within the Saco River watershed, in the town of Chatham, New Hampshire (Figure 1.1).
The project area is located primarily north and west of Upper Kimball Pond, extending from near Mount Shaw south and east to the Forest boundaries. Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, small seeps and wetlands occur within the project area. Tributaries of the Saco River located within the project area include Weeks Brook; the other mapped streams that occur within the project area, including Province , Anderson and Middle Brook, drain into Upper and Lower Kimball Ponds. Several small unnamed tributaries, small seeps and wetlands are also located within the project area, including Province Pond and Shingle Pond. The terrain within the project area is variable but ranges from flat to moderately steep. Elevations range from about 400 feet near Upper Kimball Pond to 3220 feet at the summit of Kearsarge North. Forest habitats within this area include a mix of northern hardwoods, oak-pine, mixedwoods, and hemlock/spruce/fir softwood stands. Existing forest types and ages have been largely determined by past management activities that occurred within the project area prior to it becoming National Forest land, such as turn of the century railroad logging, as well as more recent logging since 1940 (truck roads, landings and skid trails). Timber harvesting that has occurred within the project area in the past 20 years included the Anderson Brook, Hurricane Mountain, Mack Hill, Middle Brook and Province Pond timber sales. The project area does not contain any Congressionally-designated wilderness areas. Presidential Range/Dry River and Sandwich Range are the closest designated wilderness areas to the project area, and are located approximately 8.5 and 9 miles away respectively. The Province project area includes approximately 2,150 acres of lands that were identified as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). No activities are proposed in these portions of the project area.
3 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District Figure 1.1 Province Project Vicinity
4 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Recreation opportunities within the Province project area include the Weeks Brook and Province Brook hiking trails, Province Pond shelter and the Corridor 19 snowmobile trail. Several of the management activities proposed in this project are located immediately adjacent to these recreation facilities.
More information on the affected environments for specific resources and recreation uses within the analysis area can be found in Chapter 3 of this document.
Tiering to the Forest Plan The analysis for this project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (ROD) for the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Land and Resource Management Plan. (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, FEIS) Tiering is described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 as a process of summarizing and incorporating by reference from other environmental documents of broader scope to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision. (USDA-Forest Service, 2010, FSH 1909.15, Chapter 42.1) The Forest Plan is a programmatic document which sets management direction for the White Mountain National Forest through the establishment of short term (10–15 years) and long-range goals and objectives. It also prescribes the standards and practices used to achieve these goals and objectives, along with guidelines for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of our actions. The Forest Plan divides the Forest into Management Areas (MA), each with its own goals and objectives. Each MA also has a set of standards and guidelines that sets parameters on activities to ensure protection of the character and resources of the land. The estimated 7,700 acre Province Integrated Resource Management Project Area includes the following Forest Plan Management Area allocations as shown in Figure 1.2: MA 2.1: General Forest Management (6,600 acres) allows for a range of uses and activities, including timber harvest, prescribed fire, roads, motorized recreation such as snowmobiling, and developed areas such as campgrounds. MA 2.1 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-3 through 3-8. MA 6.1: Semi-Primitive Recreation (106 acres) emphasizes non-motorized recreation, but allows motorized trail use in winter. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new Forest roads are not allowed. MA 6.1 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-19 through 3-22.:
5 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District Figure 1.2 – Province Project Management Areas
6 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
MA 6.3: Semi-Primitive Winter Motorized Recreation (291 acres) emphasizes motorized trail recreation opportunities in the winter. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new Forest roads are not allowed. MA 6.3 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-27 through 3-30.
MA 9.3 Candidate Research Natural Area (699 acres) emphasizes natural processes and maintaining eligibility of areas currently recommended for study as Research Natural Areas (RNAs). Recreation use is not encouraged and new development is not allowed. Habitat management is not allowed unless approved by managers to meet the objectives of the area. Timber harvest and new Forest roads are also not allowed. MA 6.3 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-83 through 3-85.
The Province project proposes wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, watershed and transportation system management activities only in portions of the project area allocated to General Forest Management (MA 2.1). Proposed project activities are designed to meet the following Forest Plan goals and objectives for MA 2.1:
• Provide a balanced mix of habitats for all wildlife species. • Provide high quality hardwood sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained yield basis.
• Provide opportunities for a full mix of recreational opportunities and meet Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) objectives for the project area.
• Manage the Forest Transportation System to provide the minimum road system necessary for safe and efficient travel and facilitate use and management of the Forest.
• Manage high-use or highly developed recreation areas to acceptable social and ecological standards; manage to retain some low-use and less developed areas.
• Manage streams at proper functioning condition to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality.
• Maintain and/or improve water quality to protect existing and designated instream water uses such as aquatic life.
Vegetation management is proposed in the Province Integrated Resource Management project to meet the following Forest Plan wildlife habitat management goals and objectives (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, LRMP, p 1-20):
7 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• Manage forest composition for the broad habitat types of northern hardwood, mixed hardwood-softwood, and spruce-fir forest, consistent with Ecological Land Type capability.
• Maintain less common habitat types, such as aspen-birch where ecologically feasible and desirable to provide for native and desired non-native wildlife and plant species.
• Maintain high quality mature forest and old forest habitats on a majority of the forest.
• Provide regeneration age forest and open habitats to sustain biological diversity and support species that prefer those habitats.
Proposed vegetation management and associated timber harvest in the Province Project is confined to MA 2.1 lands that are considered “suitable” for commercial timber harvest. Lands that are considered suitable for timber harvest are typically located in areas below 2,500 feet in elevation. Non-suitable lands include wetlands and riparian areas, steep terrain, and areas that are inaccessible for vegetation management.
1.3 Need For Action
Wildlife Habitat The purpose of managing wildlife habitat conditions in this project is to increase opportunities for wildlife to sustain or increase their populations. Regional literature and experts indicate that maintaining populations of wildlife and plant species native to northern New England means providing a wide variety of habitats across the landscape, including various forest types, age classes, and non-forested openings. The Forest Plan established habitat composition and age-class goals and objectives for maintaining a diversity of habitats across lands allocated to MA 2.1 on the White Mountain National Forest, including various forest types, age classes and non-forested habitats (USDA- Forest Service, 2005a, LRMP, p 1-20 to 1-21). Habitat Management Units (HMUs) are used as a tool to ensure that there is a connection between these Forest landscape-level habitat goals and objectives and project-level ecological conditions during project development. An HMU is an area of land in which habitat composition and age class objectives are established to help ensure that habitats are well distributed across the Forest and provide a framework for analyzing project impacts to wildlife habitat at a local scale
8 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
(USFS 2008a). Habitat management in HMUs involves two major factors: (1) spatial distribution of community or vegetative types (also called habitat types or forest types) over the landscape and (2) relative proportions of successional stages, or age classes, within these vegetative or community types. Desired habitat goals for wildlife are based on current conditions in each individual HMU, and are adjusted based on Ecological Land Types (ELTs) (USFS 2005, pg. 1-20 to 1-21).
The primary wildlife habitat types that occur on the Forest are associated with northern hardwoods, spruce-fir, mixedwood, and aspen-paper birch. Age classes include regeneration (0–9 years of age), young (10 – 59 years), and mature (60 + years). All of these forest habitat types (softwoods, northern hardwood, mixedwoods etc.) and structural characteristics (mature forest, pole stands, brushy openings etc.) provide essential habitat for various wildlife species in New England (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2000). The forest continues to have far more acres of northern hardwood community type than desired, and less of all other community types, such as spruce/fir, aspen/birch, oak- pine and hemlock (USDA FS FEIS 2005). Species composition changes over time as a forest matures. This is referred to as forest succession. Changes in community types occur in response to either forest succession over long periods of time, or disturbances that are initiated by natural events or human actions. Vegetation management activities can be specifically designed to improve habitat conditions for wildlife. Wildlife species that depend on “early-successional” forest for nesting or foraging habitat benefit from forest openings, including those created through habitat management. Species that prefer softwood and mixedwood habitat benefit from partial harvesting that develops or maintains all ages of softwood and mixedwood component. A blend of the many stand types and ages provides for the greatest diversity and populations of wildlife species.
Figure 1.3 - Existing Habitat Types in Province HMU
9
White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
The majority of the Province HMU consists of spruce-fir and mixedwood habitats. Northern hardwoods make up about one quarter of the habitat in the HMU (Figure 1.3). Relatively small components of hemlock (13%), oak/pine (5%) and aspen/birch (4%) habitat occur within the HMU. There are 9 permanent wildlife openings, totaling approximately 36 acres, located within the HMU. Within the Province HMU, there is a lack of early-successional forest habitat (where most trees are 0-9 years old) and an overabundance of mature habitat in all habitat types (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 - Existing Habitat Conditions in Province HMU
% of MA 2.1 Acres in Habitat Acres in all HMU Acres by Age Class MA 6.1, Type MAs Acres Regeneration 6.3 & 9.3 Young Mature (0-9 years) Northern 2029 26% 373 1656 0 100 1556 Hardwood Mixedwood 3277 43% 397 2880 0 29 2851 Spruce-fir 661 9% 325 336 0 0 336 Aspen-birch 300 4% 0 300 0 201 99 Hemlock 997 13% 0 997 0 0 997 Oak/Pine 358 5% 0 358 0 0 358 Opening 36 0% 0 36 Non-forest 15 0% 15 15 TOTAL 7673 100% 1110 6578 0 330 6197 Most acres outside of MA 2.1 are mature forest, regardless of type, though natural disturbance may result in small amounts of regeneration and young age forest. Age classes for habitat types are defined in Appendix D of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). Non-forest = Areas not forested or identified as an opening, such as wetlands, rock, and alpine habitat. Mature includes lands that may be unsuitable for harvest due to slope, too rocky, wet soils, etc.
Approximately 85% of the Province HMU lies within Forest Plan Management Area (MA) 2.1, where vegetative management and other activities are permitted. Figure 1.4 shows the current habitat conditions in the portion of the HMU within MA 2.1.
10 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Figure 1.4 - Existing Habitat Types in MA 2.1 areas within Province HMU
Existing Habitat Types in MA 2.1
NH 44% Mxdwd S/F A/B 5% Hemlock 5% O/P 25% 0% WLO 5% 15% Other 1%
Mixedwood and Softwood
Approximately 65 percent of the Province HMU consists of mixedwood and softwood, e.g. spruce/fir and hemlock, habitat types. Although these habitats are relatively well represented in the Province HMU, they are not across the Forest, due to past intensive timber harvesting practices that resulted in northern hardwood regeneration on sites that were previously dominated by spruce/fir or hemlock. The percentage of spruce/fir in this HMU is low. Mixedwood and softwood stand types are essential habitat components for a wide variety of wildlife species, including golden-crowned kinglet, blackburnian warbler, purple finch, deer mice, snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer, and American marten. Mature softwood and mixedwood habitat offers structural variability and foraging opportunities necessary to provide thermal cover in winter for species such as white-tailed deer (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001). Surveys have found deer wintering in mature softwood and mixedwood habitat within the HMU.
Hemlock
The majority of softwood habitat in the Province HMU consists of mature hemlock Many of these mature hemlock stands have little to no ground vegetation or structure within the stand. Hemlock is the preferred canopy for deer wintering areas. Small, historical deer yards lie within the HMU, however surveys indicate low use. Wildlife species that use softwood for cover, such as deer, prefer to have many layers of softwoods within the stand. Some pockets of understory hemlock and/or spruce/fir does occur within some of the mature hemlock stands in the HMU. There is a need to release
11 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
these saplings and poles from overtopping trees to encourage vertical structure development in these stands.
Based on field reconnaissance by the project interdisciplinary team soil scientist and silviculturist, it appears that many of the sites where hemlock is currently growing may be better suited to growing hardwoods or spruce/fir. It’s possible that on these sites the presence of hemlock is mainly due to past land use. The hemlock woolly adelgid, a non- native invasive insect, is likely to play a role in retaining hemlock on the landscape within the HMU in the future. Although this insect has not yet been found on the Forest, a population has been documented in the town of Wolfeboro, NH, located approximately 50 to 70 miles south of the Project Area. It could take 5- 10 years to kill a hemlock tree once infected, but the long-term presence of this habitat type within the HMU is potentially in jeopardy.
Habitat management objectives for the Province HMU include retaining the current amounts of hemlock habitat for as long as possible. Proposed management in hemlock stands would focus on releasing spruce-fir regeneration through group selection harvest; in part due to concerns regarding the northward spread of hemlock woody adelgid and risk of infestation. Promoting spruce-fir in the understory of hemlock stands is also needed to help ensure that over time softwood cover for deer and other wildlife species would be retained in the HMU, especially when the hemlock woolly adelgid migrates further north. Group selection harvest could also promote development of additional hardwood browse in harvested areas; e.g. groups (Reay).
Northern Hardwoods
Mature northern hardwood habitat is abundant within this HMU and across the Forest. Up to 150 species of wildlife use mature northern hardwoods for all or part of their life cycle (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; DeGraaf et al. 2006). This habitat type within the Province HMU is mostly mature and lacks variety in age-classes. There is a need to diversify age classes of northern hardwood habitat within the HMU in order to benefit wildlife species favoring younger and more open habitats, such as ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, deer, moose, chestnut-sided and mourning warblers.
12 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Aspen-Birch Currently there are 300 acres typed as aspen-birch within the HMU, and these areas lie outside of MA 2.1 lands. Paper birch also occurs as individual trees and small inclusions in other forest types within the HMU. Aspen-birch is an early-successional habitat that is not as long-lived as other forest types, and thus succeeds to late successional habitat without frequent disturbance (DeGraaf et al., 2006). Regeneration age-class aspen-birch provides high quality cover for many wildlife species, including ruffed grouse, while mature aspen-birch is important for other species of wildlife such as broad-winged hawk (DeGraaf et al., 2006). There is a need for additional aspen/birch habitat within the HMU to benefit these species.
Oak-Pine The Province HMU contains an estimated 358 acres of oak-pine natural communities. These communities are important to retain because they are somewhat rare on the Forest and provide a unique habitat component in the ecosystem. Oak acorns and pine seeds are an important food source for a variety of wildlife. Species associated with oak-pine stands such as blueberry, huckleberry, and grasses, also provide food and cover for a wide variety of wildlife. Oak/pine stands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species associated with both softwoods and northern hardwood. The oak component of this habitat, in combination with beech in northern hardwood areas, also provides hard mast that is essential to a variety of wildlife species that rely on a fall food component such as black bear and whitetail deer (DeGraaf et al., 2006).
Wildlife Openings
Regeneration Forest Habitat There is currently a lack of early-successional, or regeneration, forest habitat (where most trees are 0-9 years old) among all forest types found within the Province HMU (Table 1.1). Numerous scientific studies in the Northeast have found that a wide variety of wildlife use regeneration forest habitat structure for all or part of their life (Chandler, 2006, Dettmers, 2003, DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001, DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2003, Fuller and DeStefano, 2003, King et al., 2001, Litvaitis et al., 1999, Schlossberg et al., 2007, Thompson et al., 2001). This habitat condition is ephemeral on the landscape as forests in the Northeast regenerate quickly and within a decade or so the structural characteristics favorable for this suite of species no longer exist. Changes in land use patterns across the Northeast have greatly reduced the availability of this type of habitat, resulting in
13 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
declines in bird populations that require this type of habitat structure for nesting.(Schlossberg et al., 2007).
Forest Plan goals include having a distribution of wildlife habitat types which closely match ecological site potential over most of the Forest. An analysis of the habitat conditions in the Province HMU found differences between the current distribution and abundance of forest types and age classes compared to the ecological potential of the area (Delineation of Habitat Management Unit Boundaries on the White Mountain National Forest and Rationale for Province HMU, project file). Potential acres by habitat type and age class were determined from Ecological Land Types found in the HMU, as well as existing habitat of oak, pine and hemlock (Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5 - Potential Habitat Types on MA 2.1 Lands in Province HMU
NH Mxdwd 15% 8% 1% 12% 2% S/F A/B 12% 27% Hemlock O/P 23% WLO Other
Desired wildlife habitat goals for this HMU include (1) additional regeneration forest habitat for all habitat types, but especially aspen-birch, (2) additional softwood habitat, especially hemlock and spruce-fir, (3) increased structural diversity and regeneration in existing spruce-fir and hemlock stands, and (4) additional oak/pine and hemlock habitat, where feasible.
Forest Vegetation Management The purpose of vegetation management is to accomplish a variety of resource goals and objectives for forest management, wildlife habitat, recreation management, riparian and aquatic habitat and visual quality. Throughout the project area, there are many hardwood and mixedwood stands where past harvesting and damage from ice storms have resulted in dense understories dominated by shade tolerant species such as American beech and striped maple saplings. During field reviews of the project area, resource specialists identified opportunities to manage forest vegetation to promote desired wildlife habitat and forest health
14 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report conditions, while providing a sustainable yield of forest products, such as sawtimber, pulpwood, biomass and firewood, for local markets. These opportunities included forest vegetation treatments such as shelterwood, overstory removal, seed tree, clearcut, patch clearcut, thinning, group selection and single-tree selection. The stands proposed for treatment have site-specific objectives and harvest prescriptions designed to meet desired habitat conditions for wildlife and for the vigor, health and diversity of forest vegetation. Proposed harvest treatments and management objectives are described in greater detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix B.
Figure 1.6 – Ice Storm Damage in Unit 104
One of the habitat goals for the Province HMU is to increase forest regeneration habitat across all forest types. Clearcut, patch clearcut, and shelterwood harvests would create regeneration forest habitat structure, as defined in the Forest Plan glossary (USDA. Forest Service. Glossary, page 23), similar to that created by natural disturbances, such as wind and disease, which commonly occur in the Northeast. These treatments are needed to create openings in the forest canopy to encourage regeneration of a diversity of shade intolerant and intermediate species (ie. paper birch, yellow birch and sugar maple) and to regenerate aspen-birch habitat on certain soil types (Leak et al., 1987).
15 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Other habitat goals for the Province HMU include converting mixedwood habitat to softwood or aspen-birch habitat, initiating hemlock regeneration within existing dense hemlock stands and providing desirable habitat structures used by wildlife for hiding, nesting or cover at various times of the year. Group selection and single tree selection harvests are treatments that remove overtopping and competing hardwoods, which is needed to release existing softwood understory trees and regeneration and improve stand structure in mixedwood and dense softwood stands. Group selection creates gaps in the forest canopy, ranging from about ¼ acre to 2 acre in size, which are needed to encourage regeneration of a greater diversity of shade intolerant, intermediate and tolerant species (ie. paper birch, yellow birch and sugar maple) within the newly created open spaces (Leak et al., 1987). Group selection treatments also perpetuate an aspen- birch component as a small inclusion in northern hardwood or spruce-fir habitat. Smaller gaps (less than ½ acre) are utilized in eastern hemlock and spruce/fir stands where regeneration is desirable or already exists. Smaller groups are appropriate in these forest community types because these species tolerate shade (Lancaster, 1985, Frank et al., 1973). Single tree selection removes a range of tree sizes from a stand, which allows establishment of a new age class and creates desired habitat structures. Another goal in the Province HMU is to maintain, or even increase, the existing component of oak/pine habitat (Figure 1.5). The HMU contains a variety of stands that include red oak, white and red pine, as well as hemlock, spruce-fir, sugar and red maple, yellow and paper birch. Many of these stands lack openings to provide sunlight to the forest floor, resulting in a species change to more shade-tolerant species such as beech, red maple, striped maple and spruce/hemlock in the understory. Both oak and pine regeneration are disturbance oriented, requiring partial to full sunlight to obtain quick growth necessary to compete with these more shade-tolerant species. Maintaining oak and pine in these stands to meet Forest Plan habitat objectives requires release or introduction of younger trees (regeneration) to promote younger age classes. Single-tree and group selection treatments would open up the forest canopy for sunlight to reach the forest floor, encouraging oak and pine regeneration. When implemented during snow free seasons, these treatments would also provide the soil scarification needed to foster germination of oak acorns, and improve survival of oak and pine seedlings. These treatments would also increase hardwood browse and softwood understory (wildlife cover habitat) within important deer wintering areas. Single tree selection treatments are also needed to remove poorly formed, damaged and overcrowded trees to improve and maintain the health of mature forest stands.
16 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Hand thinning, or “release”, treatments are needed to remove undesirable competing vegetation from openings created by timber harvest. Future release treatments would also be needed to enhance regeneration, establishment and survival of desired tree species, such as red oak, white pine, hemlock, red spruce, balsam fir, sugar maple, aspen, paper birch and yellow birch.
Recreation One of the recreation management goals of the Forest Plan is to provide a range of quality recreation opportunities to help meet public demand for motorized, non- motorized, developed and dispersed recreation. This goal is reinforced by those in the conservation and recreation agenda outlined in the report America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations (USDI, February 2011). Recreation resources located within and immediately adjacent to the Province Project Area include the Weeks Brook Trail, Province Pond Trail and Shelter and the Corridor 19 snowmobile trail. Activities to maintain and improve these recreation opportunities within the project area were identified by the project interdisciplinary planning team and have been incorporated into project design. Weeks Brook Trail This trail receives moderate levels of use by hikers. Currently approximately 0.8 miles of the Weeks Brook hiking trail traverses wet areas that are problematic for hikers and trail maintenance. There is a need to relocate this portion of the trail to drier locations in order to reduce resource damage and improve the quality of recreation opportunities on this trail.
Watershed Restoration Healthy riparian areas provide habitat diversity, filter sediments, dissipate energy associated with high flows and protect stream banks from scour. When riparian areas are disturbed, these benefits are diminished and stream banks may become unstable, potentially causing sedimentation. Forest Plan Standard S-5 for Water Resources states: “Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge unimpeded,” (p. 2-31). Two culverts that do not meet the current guidance for properly designed stream crossings were identified during field visits to the project area. These crossings are located at 1) a perennial tributary to Middle Brook on Weeks Brook Road (FR 303) and 2) an intermittent tributary to Weeks Brook on Hardwood Hill Road (FR 317). These two undersized road culverts have caused sediment pools to form at these stream crossings.
17 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
There is a need to replace these culverts with structures of a proper size and alignment. Replacing these culverts would primarily benefit stream channel function, reducing erosion of the bed and banks around the culvert. By allowing high flows and material to pass through these crossings, the integrity of both the stream channel and the road would be protected. Transportation System The Forest Transportation System is designed to provide safe and efficient transportation that facilitates use and management of the Forest. Forest Plan goals include decommissioning roads not needed to meet management objectives, as well as maintaining the roads needed for use and management to meet Forest standards and the requirements of the Highway Transportation Safety Act. It was determined during Forest Plan revision, that the Forest would use project level transportation analysis in conjunction with environmental analysis to determine the final disposition of the remaining miles of roads on the Forest. Decisions whether to add these roads to the Forest transportation system, or permanently close and decommission them need to be made through project-level NEPA. An analysis of the existing transportation system in the Province Project Area was completed to determine transportation system needed to meet resource and other management objectives of the Forest Plan (Province Transportation Analysis, project record). There are a number of existing roads in the project area which are not currently included in the Forest Transportation System. Two of these were identified in the preliminary transportation analysis as needed to provide access for current and long- term forest management activities, and are proposed to be maintained or improved, and included in the Forest Transportation System. A portion of one of the existing roads in the project area was identified in the transportation analysis as not needed, and is proposed to be decommissioned. In addition, 8 Forest roads within the project need to be maintained and/or reconstructed to standard in order to provide safe and efficient long and short-term forest management access, as well as implement proposed project treatments.
18 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
1.4 Decision Framework
The purpose of the Environmental Assessment is to provide the Responsible Official with sufficient information and analysis to make an informed decision about the Province Project. In addition to the information in the EA and project record, the Responsible Official will consider public comments to decide: • If the analysis and project record adequately address the issues and the Forest Plan objectives.
• Which of the alternatives best addresses the relevant issues raised by the public and the interdisciplinary team?
• Which of the alternatives would best move the Province project area toward desired future conditions outlined in the Need for Action? • Would the Proposed Action and its alternatives pose a significant environmental impact that would warrant the need for an environmental impact statement?
1.5 Public Involvement
Scoping for this project was conducted during 2012. An Invitation to Comment was published in both the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Conway Daily Sun on July 3, 2012. A letter inviting public comments on the project was mailed to more than 200 elected officials, federal, state and local government agencies, Native American tribes, permittees, persons and groups who have expressed interest in other WMNF vegetation management and recreation projects and numerous private landowners with properties located adjacent to the project area. A Scoping Report for the project, complete with maps, was posted on the Internet at the WMNF website. Hard copies of the project Scoping Report were distributed to those who requested them. This project has been listed in the WMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since June 2012. About half a dozen responses expressing comments were received in response to project scoping efforts. Most of these responses expressed concerns over the environmental effects of proposed timber harvest and road management activities. All comments received in response to scoping were analyzed and used to identify the issues and environmental effects analyzed in the EA for this project. The original comments are included in the project record.
19 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
1.6 Issues
An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of implementing the proposed action. Issues were identified by the interdisciplinary team from comments received in response to project scoping. Some issues were identified as being outside the scope of the project or were resolved through the incorporation of project design features; others are addressed by management direction provided by law, regulation, or the Forest Plan. The remaining issue was used to develop an alternative to the Proposed Action. Measurement indicators were identified to help track how well each alternative addresses the issue. These measurement indicators are displayed by Alternative in Chapters 2 and 3
Issues Used to Develop Alternatives
• Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected road management activities could adversely impact the roadless character of one of the areas inventoried in the Forest Plan as having roadless characteristics (Kearsarge).
Measurement Indicator: Acres of timber harvest and miles of road reconstruction within areas inventoried in the Forest Plan as having roadless characteristics (Kearsarge).
This issue was developed due to known public concern regarding timber harvest and transportation management proposals in areas identified as having roadless characteristics and inventoried during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. Some individuals and groups have consistently expressed concern that any timber harvest in these areas jeopardizes future consideration for Wilderness designation. Approximately 3,595 acres of the project area are located within an area that was identified during Forest Plan revision as having characteristics that meet roadless criteria (Kearsarge). The project proposes a variety of vegetation, recreation and transportation system management activities within this area. Alternative 3 was developed to address this issue.
Issues addressed by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines The following issue was addressed by project design features and the environmental effects described in Chapter 3 of this document.
• Concern that proposed timber harvest would remove old growth hemlock forest in the vicinity of Province Pond.
20 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Since this issue is limited in context, duration and intensity, and would be resolved through implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines during project design and implementation (CEQ § 1500.4(c)(d)), it was not selected to generate alternatives. This concern is addressed in the effects analysis in Chapter 3.
Chapter 2. Alternatives 2.1 Formulation of Alternatives
This chapter provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Alternative 1, referred to as the “No Action” alternative, proposes no new management activities within the Province project area at this time. Alternatives 2 and 3 are “Action Alternatives”. They each propose vegetative management, recreation and transportation system management and restoration projects within the Province project area. Each action alternative responds to varying degrees to the Need for Action and to public issues for this project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are incorporated into the design of both action alternatives. Most of the proposed project activities in both action alternatives analyzed are expected to be implemented within the next 3 to 5 years. Funding for projects will be dependent upon budgets; therefore, implementation of activities will be scheduled over time as funds become available.
2.2 Description of Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action The term “No Action” means no new management actions at this time. While this alternative would not meet the Need for Action, it does provide a basis for analyzing the effects of conducting no new management activities in the Province project area, and comparing these effects with the action alternatives. This alternative would not harvest trees, construct or improve any roads or trails, or accomplish wildlife habitat, recreation or watershed improvements. Ongoing routine maintenance work on roads, recreation sites, trails and facilities in the project area would continue.
21 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Alternative 2: Proposed Action
The proposed action for the Province Integrated Resource Management Project was designed to promote desired forest vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat conditions outlined in the Forest Plan; improve recreational opportunities; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs.
The Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest proposes to implement the actions described and shown on Figure 2.1, in the Province Integrated Resource Management Project.
Wildlife Habitat and Forest Vegetation Management
The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would implement the following vegetation management treatments shown in Figure 2.1, to accomplish Forest Plan habitat management and other resource objectives on approximately 2,100 acres within the Province project area:
• Clearcut approximately 317 acres and patch clearcut approximately 56 acres to regenerate forest stands and create early successional forest habitat;
• Regenerate approximately 80 acres of forest stands with “shelterwood” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition;
• Regenerate portions of approximately 1,135 acres of forest stands with “group selection” treatments, 320 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 114 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat.
• Site preparation in up to about 580 acres of timber harvest units, where non- commercial sized trees (trees under 5 inches diameter at breast height, or DBH) would be cut or girdled using hand tools, chainsaws or heavy equipment (e.g. feller buncher), in order to create even-aged forest structure and foster establishment of shade-intolerant tree species such as red oak, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen and softwood seedlings. The need to implement site preparation treatments would be determined based upon conditions in each unit following the completion of timber harvest activities. Treatments would be implemented during or within three growing seasons following commercial timber harvest operations. Areas targeted
22 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
for these treatments include all units proposed for clearcuts with reserves and patch cuts, as well as two units (68 and 74) proposed for group selection.
• Release treatments in approximately 79 acres of timber harvest units proposed for shelterwood seed cuts, where non-commercial sized trees (trees under 5 inches diameter at breast height, or DBH) would be cut and/or girdled by a crew of workers using chainsaws, brushsaws and/or handsaws, in order to release oak and pine seedlings and saplings from competition and improve growth and vigor. Trees that would be targeted for release (i.e. retention) include red oak, white pine and red pine seedlings and saplings. Trees targeted for cutting and/or girdling would be those competing with trees targeted for release for sunlight and other site resources, e.g. soil nutrients and moisture. Release treatments would be conducted following the completion of timber harvest operations. The need to implement release treatments would be determined based upon conditions in each unit following the completion of timber harvest activities. A maximum of approximately 300 trees per acre would be released (i.e. retained). No trees would be removed from the site for commercial use. One or more release treatments per unit may be implemented, as necessary, to achieve desired stand conditions.
• Timber stand improvement in approximately 67 acres of forest stands, where non- commercial and commercial sized trees (primarily trees less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height, or DBH) and ice storm damaged trees, would be cut or girdled by a crew of workers using chainsaws, brushsaws and/or handsaws, in order to release trees of various species (e.g. oak, pine, ash, maple and birch) from competition and increase growth, improve species composition and promote the development of high-quality timber. Trees targeted for cutting and/or girdling would be those competing with the crowns of trees targeted for release. Approximately 75 residual trees per acre would remain following treatment. Timber stand improvement would be implemented independently of commercial logging operations. No trees would be removed from treated units for commercial use. Only one treatment per unit would be implemented.
• Expand 2 existing and create one new permanent wildlife opening in approximately 15 acres of patch cuts (units 47, 80 and 83) to provide early successional wildlife habitat. Following completion of logging operations in these units stumps would be excavated and/or prescribed fire would be applied to burn stumps and residual slash (limbs, branches and/or submerchantable trees). In order
23 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
to maintain early successional habitat, wildlife openings would be mowed or burned approximately once every one to five years.
Vegetation management treatments included in the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and shown in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, and would provide an estimated 8 million board feet (MMBF) of forest products from approximately 2,020 acres of proposed timber harvest. A glossary of terms and additional details on proposed wildlife habitat and vegetation management treatments can be found in Appendices A and B.
Table 2.1 - Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Proposed Vegetation Management
Silvicultural Treatment Harvest Method Estimated Acres **
Clearcut w/Reserves (CC) 317 Even-Aged Regeneration Patch clearcut (PC) 56 452 acres Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 79
Group Selection (GS) 1,135 Uneven-Aged Regeneration Single Tree Selection (STS) 319 1,568 acres Single Tree Selection/Group 114 Selection Combined (STS/GS)
Timber Stand Improvement NA 67 67 acres Site Preparation NA 579 579 acres Release NA 79 79 acres Wildlife Openings Patch cut (PC) 15 15 acres
**Includes reserve patches of uncut trees, as well as protective buffers needed around vernal pools, cultural artifacts and nest trees as needed
24 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Figure 2.1 – Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
25 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
In order to access proposed vegetation management treatment areas and conduct timber harvesting operations, this alternative also includes use of 25 existing landings and construction of 11 new landings, approximately 0.5 acres in size or less, and 11 short (each 500 feet or less in length) temporary spur roads, or driveways, needed to access these landings
Watershed Restoration The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would replace undersized culverts on Hardwood Hill (FR 317) and Weeks Brook (FR 303) Roads.
Recreation Management
The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would relocate approximately 0.8 miles of the Weeks Brook hiking trail, in order to avoid wet areas that are causing resource concerns. Existing sections of trail would be decommissioned once they are relocated.
Transportation System Management The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes implementation of the following Forest Transportation System management activities designed to provide access necessary to meet resource management objectives in the project area: • Reconstructing and maintaining portions of 8 existing Forest Roads (FR 301, 303, 306, 316, 317, 317A, 354 & 450), totaling an estimated 8.6 miles; and • Decommissioning approximately 0.6 miles of an existing road (FR 301) which is not currently included within the Forest Transportation System; and • Reclassifying 2 short existing roads (FR 5471, FR 5471A) as Maintenance Level 1, and adding them to the Forest Transportation System.
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed in response to known public concern regarding timber harvest and connected transportation system management proposals in areas identified as having roadless characteristics during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. This alternative was designed to minimize potential adverse impacts from proposed wildlife habitat and vegetation management and connected transportation system management activities on the roadless characteristics of the Kearsarge inventoried roadless area. Alternative 3 would not implement any new road reconstruction or vegetation treatments involving timber harvest within the Kearsarge inventoried roadless area in order to maintain its roadless values.
26 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Wildlife Habitat and Forest Vegetation Management
Alternative 3 would implement the following vegetation management treatments shown in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2, to accomplish Forest Plan habitat management and other resource objectives on approximately 1,650 acres within the Province Project Area: • Clearcut approximately 170 acres and patch clearcut approximately 31 acres to regenerate forest stands and create early successional forest habitat;
• Regenerate approximately 80 acres of forest stands with “shelterwood seed cut” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition;
• Regenerate portions of approximately 900 acres of forest stands with “group selection” treatments, 307 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 100 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and increase softwood habitat, and
• Site preparation in up to about 244 acres of timber harvest units. Areas targeted for these treatments include all units proposed for clearcuts with reserves and patch cuts, as well as unit 74, which is proposed for group selection.
Release, timber stand improvement treatments and wildlife openings proposed under Alternative 3 are the same as those described under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).
Vegetation management treatments included in Alternative 3 and shown in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2 would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, and would provide an estimated 6 million board feet (MMBF) of forest products from approximately 1,580 acres of treatment areas. In order to access proposed vegetation management treatment areas and conduct timber harvesting operations, this alternative also includes use of 20 existing landings and construction of 8 new landings, approximately 0.5 acres in size or less, and 8 short (each 500 feet or less in length) temporary spur roads, or driveways, needed to access these landings.
27 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Figure 2.2 – Alternative 3
28 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Table 2.2 - Alternative 3 Proposed Vegetation Management
Silvicultural Treatment Harvest Method Estimated Acres **
Clearcut w/Reserves (CC) 167 Even-Aged Regeneration Patch clearcut (PC) 31 277 acres Shelterwood Seed Cut (SSC) 79
Group Selection (GS) 897 Uneven-Aged Regeneration Single Tree Selection (STS) 307 1,303 acres Single Tree Selection/Group 99 Selection Combined (STS/GS)
Timber Stand Improvement NA 67 67 acres Site Preparation NA 244 244 acres Release NA 79 79 acres Wildlife Openings Patch cut (PC) 15 15 acres **Includes reserve patches of uncut trees, as well as protective buffers needed around vernal pools, cultural artifacts and nest trees as needed
Watershed Restoration Alternative 3 would implement the same culvert replacements in the same locations as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).
Recreation Management Alternative 3 would implement the same recreation improvements in the same locations as the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).
Transportation System Alternative 3 would implement the following Forest Transportation System management activities shown in Figure 2.2 that are designed to provide access necessary to meet resource management objectives in the project area: • Reconstructing and maintaining portions of 6 existing Forest Roads (FR 301, 303, 317, 317A, 354 & 450), totaling an estimated 6.4 miles;
29 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• Decommissioning approximately 0.6 miles of an existing road (FR 301) which is not currently included within the Forest Transportation System; and • Reclassifying 2 short existing roads (FR 5471, FR 5471A), totaling about 0.4 miles, as Maintenance Level 1, and adding them to the Forest Transportation System.
2.3 Project Design Features and Mitigations
In addition to the activities described above, both of the action alternatives analyzed incorporate a variety of project design features intended to define where and how Forest Plan Standards and guidelines are applied to this project.
The following design features are integrated into both action alternatives, i.e. Alternatives 2 and 3, for this project:
• Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005a Chapters 2 & 3) • State of New Hampshire Best Management Practices (New Hampshire 2004).
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices that are emphasized in this project are listed in Appendix C. The following project specific design features are incorporated into all alternatives analyzed in this project:
Water Resources and Aquatic Habitat
• Table 2.4 –Riparian Management Zones for the Province project area Stream reach Stream Riparian Management Zone order (RMZ) width
Mapped perennial streams: Province Brook, Province Brook 100 ft: 25 foot no cut, plus 75 Trib 1, Anderson Brook, Middle Brook, Upper Kimball Trib 1, 1 or 2 foot uneven age management Weeks Brook, Weeks Trib 1, Weeks Trib 2 Unmapped perennial streams: Kimball Brook Trib 1, 100 ft: 25 foot no cut, plus 75 1 Province Brook Tribs 2 and 3, Middle Brook Trib 1 foot uneven age management 75 ft: uneven-age management Other unmapped perennial streams in project area 1 only. 100 ft uneven-age management only and comply Province Pond N/A with NH basal area law for Great Ponds 100 ft uneven-age Other ponds, lakes, identified natural vernal pools N/A management only
• Landings near units 50, 54, 72 and 100 are located near the 100 foot buffer of perennial streams. The 100 foot buffer will be delineated on the ground to prevent extension of the landing into this zone. If a landing must be located within 100 feet of a stream it
30 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
must be reviewed by a soil or water specialist during implementation to ensure that all necessary soil and water conservation practices have been applied.
• Ground-disturbing activity for hiking trail relocation and decommissioning will be done during appropriate seasons and conditions to prevent excessive erosion and sedimentation. Temporary and permanent erosion control will be used on disturbed areas in accordance with State BMPs until the ground has stabilized.
Wildlife
• Reserve patches of uncut trees would be retained in clearcuts, and protective buffers around vernal pools, cultural artifacts, and nest trees would be maintained where necessary.
• Reserve areas placed in clearcuts would be done according to the following order of importance: 1) TES or Heritage site
2) Permanent stream courses and vernal pools (include in 5% retention).
3) Active raptor nests (no disturbance buffer of at least 66’ around nest site)
4) Bear-clawed beech trees
5) Snags and wildlife trees
6) Softwood inclusions
7) Scenic effects
• Reserve areas will not be required in Patch Cuts less than 10 acres (USDA WMNF 2010).
Recreation/Public Safety
• Warning or closure signs would be placed as necessary along roads and trails, and at trailheads and other locations where logging operation occur to alert visitors to logging operations and ensure public safety.
• Log trucks would be restricted on weekends and holidays from December 15 through March 30 on the following roads: Weeks Brook (FR 303), Hardwood Hill (FR 317), Peaked Hill (FR 450). These roads are closed and used as the Corridor 19 snowmobile trail in winter. During logging operations, only one lane would be plowed on these roads to accomodate logging traffic, while the other (unplowed) lane would continue to provide access for snowmobile traffic. Contractor traffic, other than log trucks, would be permitted to use these roads during the restricted period.
31 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• Traffic speed limits for all motorized winter traffic, including wheeled vehicles and tracked snow machines, on the four roads shared by Corridor 19 (FR 417, FR 303, FR 316 & FR 450), would be limited to 15 mph from December 15 to March 30.
• Weeks Brook Trail would be closed temporarily during periods of time when logging operations conflict with safe trail use or the trail itself becomes unsafe for foot traffic.
• Harvest slash within 50 feet on either side of hiking and snowmobile trails and forest roads would be removed or lopped and scattered to lie within three feet of the ground.
• Individual tree marking within 200 feet of hiking trails and the Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail (units 21, 22, 27, 49, 55, and 56) would be marked with paint facing away from the trail.
• Skid trail crossings of Weeks Brook and Province Pond Hiking Trails would be minimized. Where necessary, skid trails would cross hiking trails at approximate right angles. Scenery
• Visible even-aged harvest units and groups would be laid out utilizing design features that encourage placement upon flatter topography and along slope contours (rather than up or down slope).
• Groups would be laid out utilizing design features that encourage placement upon flatter topography and along slope contours (rather than up or down slope). Group size, location and proximity would also be random to avoid creating recognizable patterns on the landscape
• Reserve areas will be designated in proposed clearcut units 41, 44, 45, 72 and 73 during project implementation. Reserve area would be strategically located to reduce visible opening size where feasible, in accordance with the priorities listed under Wildlife project design features.
Timber/Vegetation
• To minimize damage to residual trees, skid trails would be planned to include trees marked for removal while providing an adequate working space for logging equipment.
Heritage/Cultural Resources
• Known heritage sites located in proposed units would be protected by marked reserve areas. Harvesting and equipment would not be allowed in these known heritage reserve areas.
32 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
• Cultural sites not identified or relocated during project survey may be present in project activity areas. If cultural remains are encountered during project implementation, work will stop and the forest archaeologist will be called to assess the situation and implement appropriate protection measures.
• Road reconstruction and timber harvest in areas near stone walls will take measures to avoid damaging the walls, such as directional tree felling away from walls, and protection of walls during road work
2.4 Monitoring
Water Resources
• The Timber Sale Administrator will visually monitor stream crossing sites, roads, skid trails, landings and Riparian Management Zones to catch and rectify any problems in the early stage. This monitoring shall continue until the area has successfully stabilized. Timber/Vegetation
• During implementation a FS timber sale administrator would ensure that Best Management Practices (UNH 2005), NH State Forestry Laws (UNH 2009), and Forest Standards and Guidelines (LRMP 2005) are followed.
• All proposed regeneration treatments would be monitored approximately three growing seasons following completion of timber harvesting. Monitoring would include an assessment of the abundance and distribution of trees.
Soils
• The Forest Soil Scientist would make periodic checks during and after the project to monitor the effects of the project on soil resources.
2.5 Other Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail
1) Relocate portions of the Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail. Two alternatives were considered that proposed relocating portions of the Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail. The first one proposed relocating a portion of this trail, currently located on privately-owned lands abutting the project area, onto National Forest System and State Forest lands within and adjacent to the project area. This alternative was based
33 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
upon an assumption that the private landowner no longer desired to have the snowmobile trail traverse their property. Following discussions with the abutting private landowner, it was determined that since they have no issues with the current trail location, it was not necessary to develop and analyze this alternative in detail.
The second alternative considered proposed creating a temporary bypass for sections of the Corridor 19 snowmobile located on the Peaked Hill (FR 450), Hardwood Hill (FR 317) and Weeks Brook (FR 303) Roads. This alternative was based upon concern regarding concurrent use of these sections of road in winter by recreation users and log trucks hauling timber. Project design features such as weekend/holiday haul restrictions, lowered speed limits and posted warning signs were added to the Proposed Action to address this concern, therefore it was determined that detailed development and analysis of this alternative was not necessary.
2.6 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Project Activities Alternatives Vegetation & Habitat Management (Acres) 1 2 3 Timber Harvest Clearcut w/Reserves 0 317 167
Patch Cut 0 56 31 Shelterwood Seed Cut 0 79 79 Group Selection 0 1,135 897 Single tree Selection 0 319 307 Single Tree Selection & Group Selection 0 114 99
Total 0 2,020 1,580
Non-commercial Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) 0 67 67 Site Preparation 0 579 244 Release Treatment 0 79 79
Wildlife Opening 0 15 15
34 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Project Activities Alternatives
Watershed Improvement # of culvert replacements 0 2 2 Recreation Management Weeks Brook Trail reconstruction (miles) 0 0.8 0.8 Transportation Management Road reconstruction (miles) 0 8.6 6.4 Road decommissioning (miles) 0 0.6 0.6 Road reclassification (miles) 0 0.4 0.4
Table 2.4 - Comparison of Proposed Activities within Kearsarge Forest Plan Inventoried Area
Project Effects Alternatives Vegetation & Habitat Management (Acres) 1 2 3 Timber Harvest Clearcut w/Reserves 0 150 0 Patch Cut 0 25 0 Shelterwood Seed Cut 0 0 0 Group Selection 0 238 0 Single tree Selection 0 12 0 Single Tree Selection & Group Selection 0 15 0 Total 0 440 0 Non-commercial
Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) 0 67 67
Site Preparation 0 334 0
Release Treatment 0 0 0
Wildlife Opening 0 0 0 Transportation Management Road reconstruction (miles) 0 0.8 0 Road decommissioning (miles) 0 0 0 Road reclassification (miles) 0 0 0
35 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction
This site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) has been designed to comply with the regulations established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA at the project level through an EA uses the environmental analysis process to disclose the environmental effects of the proposed activities and determine if an Environmental Statement (EIS) is warranted. An EA is not intended to be a complete discussion of all potential environmental and human variables, an EA is only required to “briefly” discuss the need for the Proposed Action, the alternatives, if any, and the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives The following resources were considered during project development and at the start of the effects analysis, but have not been carried forward for further analysis in this EA for one or more of the following reasons: the project would not affect them; the project effects would be so negligible that they cannot be measured, and/or there was no comment received from the public that would indicate concern over these resources.
• There are no, designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas or Class I airsheds located within or near the Project Area.
• Proposed prescribed burning for maintenance of proposed wildlife openings would be conducted according to site-specific burn plans and would employ smoke management techniques. These burn plans would include smoke management information, state air quality coordination, and emission estimates.
• Wildlife openings would consist of herbaceous vegetation and woody shrubs; fuel types that typically emit much lower amounts of particulates levels than forest fuels when burned. The extent of prescribed burning proposed in this project is far less than in other similar past projects on the Forest. The proposed burns would be in relatively small areas and be of short duration. Monitoring of the effects to air quality from prescribed burning of wildlife openings in these other past projects has shown that, when implemented under controlled conditions with prescribed smoke management measures, smoke generated by prescribed burning of wildlife openings is generally confined to the immediate burn area and dissipates quickly, making it difficult to quantify.
36 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
3.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas
Background and Summary As part of the revision of the WMNF Land and Resources Management Plan in 2005, the Forest conducted a Forest-wide inventory to identify areas that met specific roadless area criteria. Identifying and evaluating these “inventoried areas” was a planning process that did not result in a formal management area designation. The identification of these inventoried areas assists planners making management recommendations for these areas.
To conduct the inventory and evaluation, the Forest first evaluatedcharacteristics of the land and whether or not areas met specific criteria from the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 70 to be identified as an inventoried area. Once the inventory was complete, the Forest then evaluated additional characteristics of the land in order to make recommendations on whether some or all of the inventoried area should be designated by Congress as wilderness, or managed for other goals and objectives. The starting point was an inventory of lands previously identified through earlier evaluations: In the early 1970s the Forest Service conducted an examination of all National Forests as part of the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE I). This was revised in 1979 (RARE II) and the results were documented in a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for that national process. In the late 1990s, the agency was directed to analyze new management direction for inventoried roadless areas (those identified in RARE II and subsequent inventories, such as our 1986 Forest Plan) as part of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). This rule was finalized in 2001, and it set specific management direction to limit road building and timber harvest on lands included in that inventory, except in special circumstances. The inventory for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) specifically included 241,000 acres on the WMNF. Recognizing that the White Mountain National Forest is a constantly-changing landscape and that in many locations previous human activities including forest management and road reconstruction have become less evident over time, a new inventory was conducted and presented to the public in our 2004 Draft EIS for Forest Plan revision. Through public involvement, further analysis, and extensive field verification, additional adjustments were made to the inventory for the Final EIS (FEIS). This new 2005 inventory resulted in 27 inventoried roadless areas totaling 403,000 acres.
37 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Following Forest Service planning handbook direction, each area was then evaluated for its capability, availability, and need as (potential) wilderness. This evaluation is documented in Appendix C of the FEIS.
Ultimately, the Forest recommended to Congress, in the 2005 Forest Plan, that 34,500 acres be designated as wilderness in the Wild River valley and around the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. Congress followed these recommendations closely with passage of the New England Wilderness Act in December 2006, creating the 24,000-acre Wild River Wilderness and adding 10,800 acres to the Sandwich Range Wilderness, bringing the total Wilderness acreage in the WMNF to 148,800 acres. The remaining “inventoried area” lands were assigned to appropriate management area designations in the Forest Plan and FEIS (USDA 2005a and 2005b), consistent with Forest Service Handbook direction (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70). Most of these lands were allocated to management areas that emphasize semi-primitive conditions and recreation use; other lands were assigned to management areas that emphasize timber harvest and wildlife habitat creation. Allocations were made based on a wide variety of factors, all with the goal of providing a balanced mix of uses across the Forest (USDA 2005a and 2005b). The management of inventoried areas received a great deal of legal scrutiny over the years. The RACR and its associated management direction for IRAs was enjoined in a Federal District Court in 2003 before being replaced by the State Petition Rule by the State Petition Rule, an entirely new regulation put into place in 2005. The State Petition Rule was also challenged, and a 2006 Federal District Court ruling struck it down and re-established the RACR of 2001. In 2008, a Federal District Court again ordered that the RACR be enjoined. All of these court decisions apply only to IRA lands covered under the RACR. For lands that were identified in the “inventory” conducted during Forest Plan revision but were not part of the RACR inventory, management must be consistent with Forest Plan direction for the particular management area into which those lands were allocated. Kearsarge Roadless Area Conservation Rule IRA
The Roadless Conservation Rule Inventoried Roadless Area (USDA Forest Service, 2000a) is referred to here as the Kearsarge RACR IRA. Its 4,554 acres lie within the area identified during Forest Plan revision inventory, referred to as the “Kearsarge inventoried area”. The Province Integrated Resource Management project proposes no harvest or road building on land within the Kearsarge RACR Inventoried Roadless Area.
38 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
This effects analysis will focus on the evaluation criteria for the larger, Kearsarge inventoried area (see map in this section). Discussion of indirect effects to the Kearsarge RACR IRA follows the cumulative effects analysis for the Forest Plan inventoried area, at the end of this section.
Analysis Method
This analysis of effects on the Forest Plan inventoried area is based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 70, the same criteria used in Forest Plan revision.
First, it was considered whether the proposed activities would alter the degree to which these lands would meet the roadless inventory criteria from FSH (1909.12 chapter 70, section 71) during and following implementation. Table 3.1 shows the inventory criteria and the indicators used to measure project-level effects on each criterion.
Table 3.1 – Roadless Area Inventory Criteria and Indicators
Inventory Criteria for lands identified in the Forest Plan Indicators used to Measure Project Inventory Effects
The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled Proposed acres of harvest; 1 appearance Miles of new road construction
Improvements in the area are being affected by the Miles of new road and/or new 2 forces of nature rather than humans and are trail construction disappearing or muted.
The area has existing or attainable National Forest System ownership patterns, both surface and Total acres of National Forest 3 subsurface, that could ensure perpetuation of ownership. identified wilderness values.
The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of wilderness values. Consider the Total acres of harvest; 4 relationship to the area to sources of noise, air, and Total miles of new road water pollution, as well as unsightly conditions that construction would have an effect on the wilderness experience.
The area contains no more than ½ mile of improved Total miles of existing improved 5 road for each 1,000 acres, and the road is under Forest road; Total miles of new road Service jurisdiction. construction
39 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Inventory Criteria for lands identified in the Forest Plan Indicators used to Measure Project Inventory Effects
No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, Total acres of non-native 6 planted vegetation. planted vegetation
Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested Total acres of harvest 7 within the past ten years.
The area contains only a few dwellings on private Total number of private lands and the location of these dwellings and their dwellings. 8 access needs insulate their effects on natural conditions of Federal lands.
After taking a hard look at whether these lands would continue to meet roadless inventory criteria during and after project implementation, we evaluated the degree to which possible wilderness characteristics of these lands would be affected by the proposed project alternatives. As stated earlier, for this part of the analysis we used the wilderness capability evaluation criteria from Appendix C of the FEIS for the Forest Plan.
Table 3.2 - Wilderness Evaluation Criteria (Capability) and Indicators
Criteria Indicators used for Measuring Project Effects
Whether the long-term ecological processes of the area are Natural Integrity intact and operating. Addressed by describing the effects a project may have on natural processes in the area.
The degree of environmental modification that will occur 1 because of a project. Addressed by describing the extent of Natural Appearance modification that will occur in the area (e.g. length of roads built, facilities constructed) and how apparent the impact will be to the visitors of the area in both the short-term and the long-term.
The opportunity to be isolated from the sights, sounds, and Opportunities for evidence of humans, and experience a high degree of Experiences Often Unique challenge and risk while using primitive outdoor skills. to Wilderness: 2 Addressed by describing how project activities might • Solitude affect the size of the area, the number and type of primitive • Challenge recreation opportunities available, the opportunity to • Primitive Recreation experience natural quiet, and the addition or absence of facilities.
40 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Criteria Indicators used for Measuring Project Effects
Addressed by describing the effect proposed activities 3 Special Features would have on other values of ecological, geologic, scenic or historical or cultural significance.
A measure of the ability to manage an area as wilderness, Description/Boundary the resulting configuration of the potential wilderness, and 4 Conditions/Manageability the interaction of the other elements above. Addressed by as Wilderness discussing how proposed activities may affect the boundary location, size, shape, and access to the area.
Considering the effects of the project against these criteria was used to determine whether proposed activities would be of such intensity or duration that implementation would preclude future land use options, including possible wilderness recommendation. It should also be noted that the process in the Forest Service Handbook for evaluating lands within inventoried areas for wilderness availability and need is inherently a part of land allocation planning during Forest Plan revision. Consequently, those criteria are not useful or practical in judging the effect of project-level actions on lands within an inventoried area, and are thus not part of this analysis. None of the alternatives considered in detail in this document would dramatically change the ability of the Kearsarge inventoried area to meet roadless inventory criteria or wilderness capability criteria. Past vegetation management activities did not prevent this area from being included in the Forest Plan revision roadless inventory. Alternative 2’s direct effects and the minor indirect and cumulative effects on the inventory criteria under both action alternatives are limited to such a degree that neither alternative would affect the Kearsarge inventoried area’s ability to meet the Inventory Criteria. Impacts to solitude from Alternative 2, and to a lesser and indirect degree Alternative 3, would temporarily affect wilderness characteristics of the Kearsarge inventoried area by increasing the degree of disturbance. However, these effects would be short-term and would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential Wilderness.
41 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Figure 3.1 – Inventoried Areas
42 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Affected Environment The current Forest GIS database shows the Kearsarge inventoried area as 10,352 acres, which was used for this analysis. In the Record of Decision for the revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005c, pp. 25-26) no lands contained within the Kearsarge inventoried area were recommended for wilderness designation. The Kearsarge inventoried area lies in Carroll County in the towns of Chatham, Jackson and Bartlett. This inventoried area lies in the southeast corner of the White Mountain National Forest. Access is primarily via Town Hall Road, Hurricane Mountain Road, and roads and trails off NH Route 113 in Chatham. A number of forest roads including Burnt Knoll, Gardiner Brook, Peaked Hill, Weeks Brook, Middle Brook, and Langdon Brook roads approach the inventoried area. North, east and west of Kearsarge inventoried area are large areas of managed lands (MA 2.1) and Semi-Primitive Winter Motorized (MA 6.3). The primary dispersed recreation in the inventoried area is day hiking to the observation tower on Mt. Kearsarge, Province Pond, and Mountain Pond. Shingle Pond Candidate Research Natural Area (MA 9.3) lies within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Mountain Pond Candidate Research Natural Area (MA 9.3) is just outside the north boundary of the inventoried area (see map). A narrow section of forested private property abuts the inventoried area, as seen on project maps. Upper and Lower Kimball Ponds are located east of the inventoried area. Wild River Wilderness Area lies over 3 miles north and Caribou Speckled Wilderness Area lies over 5 miles northwest of the Kearsarge inventoried area. Kearsarge inventoried area generally appears as a natural forest environment with diverse vegetation and terrain. Past actions include forest management and road and snowmobile trail development. Dispersed uses such as hiking, biking and hunting are present, but use is low.
Kearsarge inventoried area contains approximately 3.6 miles of the Weeks Brook trail and approximately 1.8 miles of the Kearsarge North Trail. Province Brook Trail (1.5 miles) is located partly within, and mostly on the boundary of the inventoried area, with 0.48 miles within the inventoried area. It also includes the summit and observation tower of Mt. Kearsarge*, three ponds, two shelters* (Mountain Pond and Province Pond), the Province Pond dam* (* non-conforming for wilderness). There are no other inventoried areas near the Project area. The management area distribution within the Kearsarge inventoried area is:
43 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Management Area ...... Acres*
2.1-General Forest Management ...... 7308
6.3- Semi-Primitive Winter Motorized ...... 1873
9.3-Candidate Natural Research Natural Areas ...... 1171
* rounded acreage
Kearsarge inventoried area contains 4.9 miles of road which is a road density of 0.47 miles per 1,000 acres.
Corridor 19 snowmobile trail runs through the project area for 4.8 miles, of which a portion lies on Forest Road 450, Peaked Hill Road. Another portion of Corridor 19 lies on Province Brook Trail, with 0.23 miles of it within the inventoried area. Corridor 19, Slippery Brook, and Switchback snowmobile trails border the inventoried area on the east, west, and north sides, respectively. North of the project area Corridor 19 lies adjacent to the inventoried area along Langdon Brook road. Corridor 19 connects to other trails in NH and Maine. Vegetative growth from past logging activities is reported in the Vegetation Management Section of Chapter 3. The 1998 ice storm adversely affected some stands by breaking limbs and tops of trees with the weight of ice. Most users would perceive the area as natural in appearance, in that past management has resulted in successful regeneration of new stands. FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70 specifically defines reforestation criteria that apply only to National Forests in the eastern U.S.; this is largely in recognition of the history of human use and modification, and the natural ability of these lands to regenerate. Current inventoried roadless areas and wilderness often have a history of past management, yet still qualify as roadless, and in some instances have been recommended for Wilderness and later designated as Wilderness by Congress. A complete description of the Kearsarge inventoried area is available in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005c, pages C-83 to C-91).
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on inventory criteria and potential wilderness characteristics is the 10,352 acre Kearsarge inventoried area. This analysis area was chosen because of its proximity to the project area and because the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are localized. This analysis area designation is
44 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
consistent with criteria used in the 2005 Forest Plan FEIS analysis for inventoried roadless areas and their potential to be studied for Wilderness designation.
The time frame for direct and indirect effects analysis is from the present to 10 years out. This is based on the potential for effects such as scenery modifications that are known to be apparent for up to 10 years post implementation.
During the post implementation period, these effects quickly dissipate as forest regeneration and soil stabilization processes, and a lack of human presence, allows natural processes to return. By ten years post implementation, the scenery reverts to a more natural-appearing forest cover (USDA, 2005X; p. 3-447).
Many of the effects are expected to last for the duration of a typical timber sale; 2 to 4 years depending on the alternative selected and on the timing of sale operations. These direct and indirect effects are of a type that would not be expected to continue once the proposed activities are completed. The exception being that modification to scenery may be noticeable for up to ten years. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative on indicators for inventory criteria and wilderness capability criteria are summarized in Table 3.3. This proposal was developed by local resource specialists after analysis of field information concerning the need for management in this habitat management unit (HMU) and consideration of Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired conditions. The Province proposal is anchored in site-specific work: field analysis, determination of resource conditions, observation of effects, and results of past actions within the project area and on adjacent lands. This proposal would not make similar actions in other inventoried areas on the Forest or elsewhere more or less likely. The Province project is a stand-alone proposal tailored to address site-specific resource needs.
Table 3.3 - Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on the Kearsarge Inventoried Area
Measurement Indicator Kearsarge Inventoried Area
Total Acres 10,352
Acres within 2 miles of Alternative 2 7,181 proposed treatments
Acres within 2 miles of Alternative 3 7,119 proposed treatments
45 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Measurement Indicator Kearsarge Inventoried Area
Timber Harvest
Acres that could be harvested within 2,070 the inventory area and still meet (20% of 10,352 acres) minimum inventory criteria
Acres Harvested since 2004* 99
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Acres of Harvest within the inventory 0 441 0 area by alternative
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Combined Total Acres: Proposed 99 540 99 Harvest (this project) and other harvest since 2004
Improved Roads
Miles of road that could exist and still 5.18 meet roadless inventory criteria. (½ mile per 1,000 acres)
Existing Inventoried Miles within the 4.9 inventory area
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Road Miles Added 0 0 0
Miles Decommissioned 0 0 0
Inventory Road Miles following 4.9 4.9 4.9 Implementation
Trail Relocation
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing miles of hiking trails in the inventory area 7.78
Miles of trail relocation 0 0.8 0.8
Miles of Trails Following Project 7.78 Implementation
* Acres are from Kearsarge II Sale.
46 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternative 1
Alternative 1, proposes “No Action” in the Province project area or the Kearsarge inventoried area, and thus would have no short-term direct or indirect effects on the inventory criteria or on the wilderness capability of the inventoried area.
Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet inventory criteria:
Inventory criterion 1: The Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to regain a natural, untrammeled appearance. The area would continue to be primarily affected by the forces of nature. Dispersed recreation opportunities, trails and associated improvements would remain and be managed in accordance with their appropriate maintenance levels.
Inventory criterion 2: The No Action alternative does not include road construction, road reconstruction, landings, or road maintenance in the Kearsarge inventoried roadless area. The proposed relocation of the Weeks Brook Trail would not occur, therefore resource issues for the existing location would continue.
Inventory criteria 3, 6 and 8: Ownership patterns would not change; no non-native planting would occur; and no dwellings or access would be constructed.
Inventory criterion 4: There would be no change in the relationship of the inventoried area to sources of noise, air or water pollution, or other existing effects on wilderness experience. Baseline on Forest and off-Forest noise, visual characteristics including Highway 113, motorized recreation, over-head flights, and private timber operations would continue. Inventory criterion 5: There would be no increase or decrease in miles of improved road. The Kearsarge inventoried area currently contains 4.9 miles of improved road, which is 0.47 miles per 1,000 acres.
Inventory criterion 7: The No Action alternative would not harvest timber, or take any management actions within the inventoried area. Kearsarge inventoried area would remain with only 99 acres harvested in the past decade. This is well below the inventory criteria of 20 percent of the inventoried area being harvested in the last ten years. If the No Action alternative were selected the lands identified as the Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to meet the criteria for inclusion in a future inventory of roadless areas.
47 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:
Capability criterion 1: This alternative would allow the Kearsarge inventoried area to retain the current degree of natural integrity and natural appearance. There would be no management induced changes to the ecological function within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Capability criterion 2: This alternative would have no effect on existing opportunities within the Kearsarge inventoried area. There would be no changes to the availability of primitive recreation or opportunity to experience natural quiet.
Capability criteria 3 and 4: Alternative 1 would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005c, pages C-146 to C-158). Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary of the inventoried area or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 1 would not preclude future land use options, including possible recommendation of some or all of the inventoried area for future wilderness designation.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would have short-term direct and indirect effects on the Kearsarge inventoried area. The activities proposed in Alternative 2 do not approach an intensity, duration, or permanence such that lands within the inventoried area would fail to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Table 2 shows the roadless inventory criteria and the potential of this alternative to affect the area’s ability to meet those criteria. All previous forest management and road construction that occurred in the inventoried area was prior to 2004, except for a 99 acre thinning. The long-term inventoried area characteristics are not expected to change as a result of the proposed road reconstruction, vegetation management activities, or other proposed actions in Alternative 2. The acres of harvest proposed in Alternative 2 would not affect the size of the Kearsarge inventoried area or its future eligibility as inventoried roadless.
48 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Based on the amount of harvest proposed within the Forest Plan inventoried area, Alternative 2 would have a greater amount of disturbance than Alternatives 3. General effects from associated management activities include harvesting trees, generating noise and exhaust during operations, creating skid trails and landings, road reconstruction improvements, minor and temporary changes to visual character, and log hauling on Forest roads. These activities would occur at intensities directly correlated to the amount of harvest proposed for each alternative.
Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet inventoried area criteria:
Inventory criterion 1: Timber harvest and associated management would affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of approximately 441 acres or 4.3 % of the Kearsarge inventoried area. These effects would be temporary and would be muted within a decade. These effects include the presence of visible stumps, skid roads and openings in the foreground; and modifications to forest composition including texture, pattern, and color when viewed from middleground or background distances. Within the inventoried area, six landing locations would be utilized. Visual effects of these activities would be limited in duration and diminish as grasses, shrubs and trees regenerate following management activities. Effects to soil resources and water quality are disclosed in the Soil and Water resources specialist reports. Based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests, effects to natural appearance are not anticipated to persist.
Inventory criterion 2: There are currently 4.9 miles of improved roads within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Of this, 0.83 miles is proposed for road reconstruction. The total length of classified roads within the inventoried area would remain at 4.9 miles. No new roads are proposed, and none planned for decommission.
Road reconstruction is proposed to improve forest roads and does not affect the miles of roads. Road reconstruction creates temporary effects that cease following project implementation. Reconstructed roads will be gated or closed to public use other than foot travel as in the past, prohibiting motorized use other than for administrative purposes. Change in appearance will be localized along roads and log landings. These will diminish as grasses and other vegetation regenerate following management activities.
49 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Relocation of approximately 0.8 miles of Weeks Brook Trail is proposed. An equivalent distance of the trail where currently located would be closed. The trail miles within the project area and within the inventoried area would remain at 7.78 miles.
Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access.
Inventory criterion 4: Some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activities while active. All of the Alternative 2 proposed activities are within two miles of the eastern boundary of Kearsarge inventoried area. However, noise effects would diminish rapidly for areas west of the ridgeline from Kearsarge North to Mt. Shaw, and continuing along that ridge toward just east of Mountain Pond.
Noise estimates are based on data and analysis gathered by a forestry noise study that measured the decibel levels of various harvesting machinery, and professional experience specific to field observations in New England (Forestry Vibration and Noise Study, University of Washington, page 15). The distance is generally based on the assumptions of average decibels produced by machinery and measured over distance from the specific source. The sound to distance estimate (of up to 2 miles) does not take into account the buffering effects of vegetation, wind, and topography which would further reduce the sound (MPCA Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, page 5). Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, which is very unlikely given local topography (the ridgeline referred to above), it is possible that noise could be audible from harvest activities on up to 69% or 7,181 acres of the Kearsarge inventoried area. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only during times of actual operations for the duration of the project (2–4 years). The percent of the area affected at any one time would vary based upon season of operation and individual sale design. Project design features limit log hauling operations to weekdays in winter. This would reduce the noise related effects in the inventoried area on winter weekends.
A short-term increase in air pollutants could be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, and harvest equipment (See the air quality Report). These are temporary sources of emissions; they would occur in the context of other sources such as vehicle use on roads, nearby agricultural farm equipment or private land uses, smoke from campfires and home heating, and snowmobile uses. In this context, the relatively small- scale increases associated with the project would be of an intensity or duration such that lands within the inventoried area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.
50 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices (BMPs), project design features, and timber sale contract provisions are expected to prevent any negative effects to water quality or quantity as a result of harvest activity or other project activities (see Water Resources report).
Inventory criterion 5: The Kearsarge inventoried area currently contains 0.47 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres; Alternative 2 proposes 0.83 miles of road reconstruction, adding no new miles. Alternative 2 does not propose road decommissioning within Kearsarge inventoried area. Therefore the total road density in the inventoried area would remain as is, slightly below the threshold 0.5 miles per 1000 acres, or in this inventoried area, 5.16 miles total.
Within the roadless area, six landing locations would be utilized. Effects to soil resources and water quality within the Kearsarge inventoried area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources analysis sections. Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 441 acres of harvest within the inventoried area, including 176 acres of even-aged regeneration harvest. Previous harvest that occurred within the inventoried area was completed more than a decade ago, except for 99 acres of thinning. This alternative therefore would remain well below the roadless inventory criterion of no more than 20% of the Kearsarge inventoried area (2,070 acres) being harvested within the last ten years. Therefore, under Alternative 2, the Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.
Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:
Effects to capability criteria would be temporary in nature (approximately 2–4 years depending on harvest operations) and must be viewed in the context of other ongoing sources of noise and air pollution such as from State Route 113, other activities on private land, and the existing multi-use Corridor 19 snowmobile trail.
Capability criterion 1: As described above, this alternative would add to the degree of disturbance in the analysis area. The 176 acres of clearcut and patch-cut regeneration harvest proposed for the inventoried area would alter the natural-appearing forest environment in approximately 1.7% of the inventoried area. Partial harvesting and group selection treatments along Weeks Brook Trail would present some changes in appearance in foreground views that would be noticeable for a decade. Refer to
51 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Capability criterion 2 and the Recreation analysis for detailed effects to trail character and recreation.
The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within the inventoried area (see specific resource analyses reports). Refer to inventory criterion 2 for a discussion of effects from road reconstruction and trail relocation in the inventoried area.
Due to the natural recuperative abilities of the land, implementation of Alternative 2 would not be expected to affect the natural appearance or integrity of the inventoried area to the extent that future land designation, including possible wilderness recommendation, would be precluded. Based on amount of harvest, and specifically even-aged regeneration harvest within the inventoried area, Alternative 2 would have a greater overall disturbance than Alternative 3 or No Action. Capability criterion 2: The wilderness experience available in Kearsarge inventoried area would be temporarily impacted by harvest operations, trail relocation, and road reconstruction activities. However, the availability of remote and disbursed recreation opportunities in the Kearsarge inventoried area would remain largely unchanged after project implementation. Alternative 2 would have short-term effects to the opportunity to experience solitude in most of the Kearsarge inventoried area while operations are ongoing due to noise (refer to Inventory criterion 4), and nearly no effect for lands within the inventoried area that lie west of the ridgeline defining the west boundary of the Project Area. Noise associated with 2,091 acres of harvest operations would occur during summer, fall, and winter. As discussed in Inventory criterion 4, localized noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest (Timerson 1999; Neitzel and Yost 2003). This effect would cease following operations. Noise disturbance in the project area must be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors, including the vehicular traffic on State Route 113, low level flights, and the snowmobile uses on Slippery Brook Road, Corridor 19, and outside National Forest land in Chatham Township. The Recreation section in this chapter discusses the potential effects to recreation associated with each alternative. This alternative does not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within Kearsarge inventoried area except for relocation of 0.6 miles of Weeks Brook Trail. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change due to harvest related activities, though minor temporary effects to
52 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
hiking and snowmobiling would occur and are disclosed in the Recreation section within this Chapter.
Capability criteria 3 and 4: For a variety of reasons the Kearsarge inventoried area was not proposed for Wilderness recommendation in the 2005 Forest Plan. It was found to have issues that may collectively reduce its suitability for Wilderness designation. These issues include the degree of nearby development, a lack of opportunities for solitude, and the limited size and narrow configuration of the area (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 2005c, page C-83 to C-91). The selection of Alternative 2 would not result in modification of the area’s features or the ability to manage the area as Wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS.
Selection of Alternative 2 would not alter the boundary of the inventoried area or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 2 would have limited effect on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area and no effect on its eligibility to be included in a future roadless area inventory. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would have fewer direct effects than Alternative 2 on the inventoried area because of a decrease in the number of harvest units. Indirect effects from treatments outside the Kearsarge inventoried area would be the same. However, long-term characteristics of the inventoried area are not expected to change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 3, so it would still meet criteria for future consideration for Roadless or Wilderness. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet inventory criteria:
Inventory criterion 1: The timber harvest activities would not affect the untrammeled, natural appearance of the inventoried area because no treatments are proposed there. Alternative 3 would not generate new skid trails, stumps, or openings within the inventoried area. There would be no foreground modifications to forest composition in the inventoried area. Indirect effects from harvest activities adjacent to the inventoried area would be temporary and should not be noticeable to the casual observer within a decade (see the
53 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Scenery analysis). This assumption is based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests as evidenced by historical vegetation management activities, including some areas where recently-designated Wilderness now exists.
Inventory criterion 2: No roads would be needed or used within the inventoried area under this alternative. Existing forest roads would remain as they currently are. Weeks Brook Trail relocation (0.63 miles) and an equivalent length of trail decommissioning would occur, so there would be no change in development level in the area.
Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: Alternative 3 would not change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access.
Inventory criterion 4: Some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activity when active. Harvest activities proposed under Alternative 3 are near, or within two miles of the eastern edge of Kearsarge inventoried area. But because fewer overall acres are proposed for treatment, with no harvest within the inventoried area, the effects on this criterion would be well below those in Alternative 2. Indirect effects from the proposed actions would affect the Kearsarge inventoried area for potentially 2–4 years. Noise and air quality effects would be less than under Alternative 2 due to the decreased operation time needed under this alternative. Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, which is unlikely given local topography (specifically the ridgeline mentioned above), it is possible that noise could be audible from harvest activity or road reconstruction activities on up to 69% or 7,119 acres of the Kearsarge inventoried area. The greater reduction in impacts would be from the shorter duration of implementation from this alternative. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only during operations and for the anticipated project duration of from 2 to 4 years. The effect to criteria 4 is therefore less than reported for Alternative 2, and would not preclude this area from future roadless consideration. A short-term increase in air pollutants would be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, and harvest equipment, yet would terminate with completion of the project activities.
Inventory criterion 5: Alternative 3 proposes no changes to and no use of roads within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Within the inventoried area, the net number of road miles would remain at 0.47, which meets the inventory criterion of no more than 0.5 miles of improved road per 1,000 acres within an inventoried area.
Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 0 acres of harvest within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Since 2004, only 99 acres of thinning have occurred in the inventoried
54 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
area. Therefore the area would remain well below the roadless inventory criterion of no more than 20 percent (2,070 acres) being harvested in the last ten years.
Under Alternative 3, this inventoried area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:
Capability criterion 1: This alternative would decrease the degree of disturbance in the inventoried area versus Alternative 2 because of the elimination of harvest and road reconstruction. The natural-appearing forest in the inventoried area would not change.
Due to the limited effects of this alternative on the inventoried area, and the natural recuperative abilities of the land, implementation of Alternative 3 would not affect the natural appearance or integrity of the inventoried area. The Kearsarge inventoried area could be considered for any future land use designation, including possible wilderness recommendation. Based on the elimination of harvest in the inventoried area, Alternative 3 would have a reduced effect on Criteria 1 than Alternative 2.
Capability criterion 2: The wilderness experience available in Kearsarge inventoried area would be temporarily impacted by noise from harvest operations and road reconstruction/maintenance proposed for lands outside the inventoried area. Noise from motorized equipment would also occur when relocating the Weeks Brook Trail. The availability and challenge of recreation opportunities in the Kearsarge inventoried area would remain largely unchanged after project implementation. Noise associated with harvest operations outside the inventoried area would occur in summer, fall and winter. Noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest adjacent to the inventoried area (Timerson 1999; Neitzel and Yost 2003). This effect would cease following operations. Noise disturbance must be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors, including vehicular traffic on State Route 113, intermittent chainsaw or other small engine noises generated on private land, the sound of snowmobiles in winter, including Slippery Brook (west side of the inventoried area) and Corridor 19 on the east side of the inventoried area. Alternative 3 would have less direct effect on Criteria 2 – Wilderness Capability, than Alternative 2 due to the elimination of treatments within the inventoried area. Therefore a reduced intensity and duration of indirect effects are also expected. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change. Following implementation of this
55 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
alternative, the lands within Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to meet this criterion for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.
Capability criteria 3 and 4: The selection of Alternative 3 would not result in modification of the area’s features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness as described in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS.
Selection of Alternative 3 would not alter the boundary of the inventoried area or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 3 would have limited effects on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area and no effect on its eligibility as a roadless area. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential wilderness.
Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on roadless and potential wilderness characteristics is the 10,352 acre Kearsarge inventoried area. This analysis area was chosen because it encompasses the entire inventoried area, and includes the area of direct and indirect effects. No other inventoried area is included because none are near enough to be included in a realistic analysis. In other words, they would not be affected by this project so there would be no cumulative effects to other inventoried areas. This analysis area designation is consistent with criteria used in the Forest Plan FEIS analysis for inventoried roadless areas. Inventoried roadless areas and potential wilderness were evaluated from the Forest, regional, and national perspectives during Forest Plan revision. The timeframe includes the past decade, present, and foreseeable future, meaning from 2004 to 2023. This cumulative effects analysis is consistent with the 2005 Forest Plan roadless inventory criteria regarding management actions in the last ten years and also regarding foreseeable actions through 2023, because measurable actions are not known beyond that. Past, ongoing, and foreseeable future projects are included if they overlap with this project’s direct and indirect effects on the landscape and time. The cumulative effects analysis concerns impacts to roadless inventory and wilderness capability criteria, which are summarized in Table 3.4 below.
56 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Excluded from analysis are minor amounts of private land management such as minor amounts of harvesting that occurred in the last few years north and east of Lower Kimball Pond and adjacent to Highway 113, and undetermined activities that may occur related to house-lot or woodlot management on a small scale over the next decade on private lands adjacent to Highway 113. These activities are not considered to have a cumulative effect on the inventoried area or its capability for future inclusion as wilderness because they are very minor in scale, do not occur within the inventoried area, and would not alter the results of an inventory criteria analysis.
Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet inventory criteria:
Alternative 1
Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project on the Kearsarge inventoried area.
Table 3.4 - Summary of Cumulative Effects on the Kearsarge inventoried area
Roadless Characteristics Kearsarge Inventoried Area
Total Acres 10,352
Timber Harvest
Acres that could be harvested and still meet 2,070 minimum roadless inventory criteria (20% of 10,352)
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Acres of Harvest by alternative 0 441 0
Acres Added by Other Proposals 0
Acres Added by Foreseeable Future Actions 0
Acres Harvested Since 2003* 99
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Cumulative Acres Treated 99 540 99
Improved Roads
Miles of road that could exist within the 5.18 inventoried area and still meet roadless (0.5 mile per 1,000 acres) inventory criteria
57 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Roadless Characteristics Kearsarge Inventoried Area
4.9 Existing Miles (0.47 mile per 1,000 acres)
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Miles Added 0 0 0
Miles Removed 0 0 0
Miles Added by Other Proposals 0 0 0
Miles Added by Foreseeable Future Actions 0 0 0
Improved Roads (cont.)
Cumulative Miles of Road 4.9 4.9 4.9
Cumulative Miles per 1,000 acres 0.47 0.47 0.47
Trail Relocation
Existing miles of hiking trails 7.78
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Miles of trail relocation 0 0.63 0.63
Miles of Trail Added by other projects 0
Miles of Trail Removed by other projects 0
Cumulative miles of Hiking Trails 7.78 * Acres are from Kearsarge II Sale.
Alternative 2
Harvest within the Kearsarge inventoried area would occur only under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 excludes road re-construction and harvest within the Kearsarge inventoried area. Only 99 acres of harvesting has occurred within the inventoried area in the past ten years, and no other harvesting is planned in the inventoried area in the foreseeable future. No foreseeable federal actions are known that would add harvest acres or result in increased road/trail miles than exists currently within the inventoried area. Regarding activities on private land, none of the past actions or known future
58 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report activities would affect the inventoried area because they are too small in scale, and are too far removed from the inventoried area.
Inventory Criteria 1 and 2: Areas where past forest management occurred within Kearsarge inventoried area have reforested and are returning to a more natural condition. Timber harvest within the last ten years (since 2004) includes 99 acres that were thinned. No new miles of road construction are proposed within the inventoried area.
Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access and, no activities are planned or known within the inventoried area that would.
Inventory criterion 4: There are no new acres of harvest cumulatively outside the project proposal, other than minor amounts of residential clearing or wood lot management that may occur on a small scale far removed from the inventoried area. Harvest acres and miles of road maintained on National Forest land within the analysis area cumulatively are those reported for direct effects plus the existing 99 acres thinned in 2004. Some short-term and intermittent increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of management activities while active. All the Alternative 2 proposed activities are within two miles of the eastern boundary of Kearsarge inventoried area. However, the further into the inventoried area one goes, the fewer units are within 2 miles; meaning that sound from them would then not be audible. Another factor to be considered is that much of the inventoried area lies on the west slope of the ridge line north of Mt. Kearsarge. This ridgeline, also the Project Area boundary from Kearsarge North to Mt. Shaw, and then running northerly, creates a barrier to sound.
Noise estimates are based on data and analysis gathered by a forestry noise study (MPCA Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota), described under direct effects (noise) for this same inventory criteria in the preceding pages. There are no other known activities within the inventoried area or on adjacent private land that would be audible at the same time and location as noise generated from this Alternative. Some cumulative noise effects would be present from ongoing background noise such as traffic on Highway 113, intermittent uses near residences along Highway 113, or the occasional woodlot management or road maintenance that might occur at the same time.
59 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, and not considering the sound-muting effects of the central ridge bisecting the inventoried area described above; it is possible that noise could be audible from harvest activity and road reconstruction under Alternative 2 on up to 7,181 acres, (69%) of the Kearsarge inventoried area. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only during times of actual operations for the duration of the project (2–4 years). The percent of the area affected at any one time would vary based upon season of operation and individual sale design. Project design limits log hauling operations to weekdays in winter which would reduce noise related effects on winter weekends.
A discussion of effects from transient air quality can be found in the Air resources report. Localized air pollutants from harvest equipment exhaust can be expected from this project. These are temporary emissions and would occur in the context of other sources such as vehicles on roads, nearby agricultural equipment, smoke from campfires and home heating, and snowmobile use near Kearsarge inventoried area. In this context, the small-scale and temporary effects to air quality associated with this alternative on Criteria 4, “wilderness values”, would be of an intensity and duration (ending with the completion of the project), such that lands within the inventoried area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Additionally, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, BMPs, project design features, and timber sale contract provisions are expected to prevent any adverse cumulative effects to water quality or quantity as a result of harvesting or other project activities near the inventoried area. Consequently, lands within the inventoried area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory.
Inventory Criteria 5 and 7: Alternative 2 includes 441 acres of harvest but no new roads in the inventoried area. Including all roads in the inventoried area, there are 4.9 miles of existing roads. This equals a total road density of 0.47 miles per 1000 acres, which is below the criteria threshold. Past forest management activities within Kearsarge inventoried area have reforested, and are returning to their natural condition. The most recent treatment within the inventoried area dates to 2004, when 99 acres was thinned. This 99 acres treated adds cumulatively to equal 540 acres of treatments.
Known minor management activities and or residential development would be outside the inventoried area, on private land, and would have no cumulative effect on the
60 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
inventoried area. These activities would be on a very small scale compared to the size and character of the inventoried area. Therefore, the cumulative effect on the inventoried area would be nearly the same as the direct and indirect effects; lands within the Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to meet criterion 7 in any future inventory. Thus, the cumulative impacts under Alternative 2 are the 540 acres of treatments, (5.2 percent of the inventoried area) which easily meets Inventory criterion 7. Because the cumulative effect would be essentially the same as the direct and indirect effects; lands within Kearsarge inventoried area would continue to meet criterion 7 in any future inventory.
Alternative 3
For all Inventory Criteria (1 through 7) the effects to the Kearsarge inventoried area under Alternative 3 are less than those of Alternative 2 because 441 acres of harvest treatments and 0.83 miles of forest road reconstruction would not occur in Alternative 3. Given that the cumulative analysis for Alternative 2 found no factor that would prevent the Kearsarge inventoried area from being considered for future roadless, it is expected that no aspect of Alternative 3 would affect the Kearsarge inventoried area’s future availability for roadless designation.
Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria:
Alternative 1
Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project on the wilderness capability characteristics of the Kearsarge inventoried area.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Capability Criterion 1: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, only Alternative 2 would affect the natural appearance of the area due to 441 acres of harvest activity and the cumulative effect of 99 acres of past harvest thinning. As described in
61 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
the direct and indirect effects section, the evidence of these activities would moderate over time, eventually becoming unnoticeable to the average observer. Therefore, cumulatively, future land management designations within the inventoried area would not be precluded, including possible Wilderness recommendation.
This project is not expected to have any effect on long-term ecological processes in the inventoried area (see specific resource analyses in this document).
Capability Criterion 2: There would be temporary effects to the opportunity for solitude in the Kearsarge inventoried area under both action alternatives, within 1–2 miles of harvest activities arising from the combination of baseline sounds and air pollution in conjunction with those from the harvest activities and road reconstruction. These effects would be short- term and would cease following the completion of these projects (2–4 years). Cumulatively the ongoing and potential foreseeable activities, including those ongoing on private land, which could affect criteria 2, would not alter opportunities for challenge, primitive recreation, nor solitude. These effects would be temporary in nature and would not preclude any future land use options, including possible wilderness recommendation, for lands within the Kearsarge inventoried area.
Capability Criterion 3 and 4: Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no direct or indirect effects on Capability criteria 3 and 4, so there would be no cumulative effects on these criteria either.
Effects to Kearsarge Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) IRA The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to the Kearsarge area identified in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventory (RACR IRA) would be less than the effects to the Forest Plan revision inventoried area because neither alternative has any actions that would have direct physical harvest, skidding, trail relocation, or road building within the RACR IRA.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, indirect visual and noise effects on the RACR-IRA could occur where portions of treatment units (21, 23, 43, 44, 46, 60 and 68) would be immediately adjacent the RACR IRA boundary. Indirect effects would occur due to immediate adjacency to the RACR IRA, but these effects would not be directly on the RACR IRA
62 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
lands. Because contract clauses require felling and designated skidding within a units’ boundary and on designated skid trails to a landing, no disturbance to the RACR IRA would occur.
Indirect and cumulative effects would be minor for the RACR IRA, and less than those reported for the Forest Plan inventoried area because most of Alternative 2’s activities would be well removed from the boundary of the RACR IRA (with the exception of portions of seven harvest units).
This alternative would be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Alternative 3
The indirect and cumulative effects on the RACR IRA under Alternative 3 would be correspondingly less than those of Alternative 2. This is because 21 fewer units are proposed for treatment in Alternative 3; and 6 of the omitted units are on the RACR IRA boundary. Only unit 21 remains as a treatment unit partially on the RACR IRA boundary. This alternative would also be consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Background and Summary The relevant factors used in analysis of project effects to riparian and aquatic habitats were stream thermal class, stream connectivity, and in-stream habitat quality and productivity.
Stream Thermal Class
The thermal class of a stream is dependent on the temperature range that a stream naturally encounters throughout the growing season in a forested setting. Stream thermal classes are coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater. Changes in thermal class represent a threshold for when changes in riparian forest structure result in changes in the composition of the aquatic faunal community. Measuring effects to thermal class is a qualitative prediction based on known temperature ranges documented on the White Mountain National Forest and on the responses of stream temperature from various forest canopy treatments reported in the literature.
63 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Table 3.5 - Factors used in Riparian/Aquatic Habitat Effects Analysis Effect Factor Indicators Stream Thermal Class: Loss of coldwater streams Number of Perennial streams Coldwater, coolwater, from canopy removal Changing Thermal Class warmwater * Number of Undersized Culverts on Perennial Streams Improved Barriers to movement of fish, Number of Permanent aquatic life, and in-stream Stream Connectivity Perennial Stream Crossings sediments and wood. Eliminated Number Of Temporary Perennial Stream Crossings Degradation of stream In-stream Habitat Quality and Number of Watersheds where habitat conditions Productivity >20% Basal Area is Removed * Coldwater streams average < 65ºF in July; coolwater average between 65-70ºF.)
Studies in the White Mountains have shown that timber harvesting can increase summertime stream temperatures and widen diurnal1 stream temperatures (Burton and Likens 1973). A more recent study examined the effectiveness of different buffer widths on the effect of timber harvesting on headwater stream temperatures in western Maine (Wilkerson et. al., 2006). This study documented an increase of approximately 3-8°F in average maximum stream temperatures from timber clear-cutting with no stream buffers. The study found that streams with selection harvesting applied to the stream edge (no clearcuts), and also streams where clearcuts were applied with 36 feet or 75 feet partially harvested buffers, did not show significant increases in stream temperatures as compared to non-harvested control streams. The best available science regarding stream buffers would suggest that implementation of Forest Plan guidelines for riparian and aquatic habitats would prevent significant changes in summertime stream temperatures and therefore maintain the integrity of coldwater streams. Stream Connectivity
Stream connectivity refers to the ability of a stream to move water, organisms, stream sediments, and in stream wood freely within the natural capacity of the stream network. The occurrence of both man-made (culverts and dams) and natural barriers (waterfalls, beaver dams, landslides) influence stream connectivity within a watershed. While connectivity generally has recently focused on the passage of aquatic organisms, it also
1 Diurnal: happening during the day or daily
64 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
includes linkages of other biotic and physical processes and materials between upstream and downstream reaches. Physical processes include the movement and distribution of woody debris, sediment, and migration of channel patterns. It is important that woody debris and bed material be allowed to pass unhindered through the stream crossing structure. When debris is trapped at the inlet of a structure, aquatic organism passage barriers are created, and habitat may be degraded both above and below the stream crossing. In addition, when structures constrict stream channels, trapped debris and sediment can reduce the capacity of the structure, and stream flows may overtop the road surface. This could initiate a suite of erosional consequences that include impacts to water quality, stream habitat, and aquatic life (Flanagan, 2005).
The notion that resident stream trout species were generally sedentary has been challenged with new technologies for monitoring fish movements (Gowan et. al., 1994). The dominant vertebrate specie in White Mountain streams is the native eastern brook trout. Gowan and Fausch (1996) documented brook trout summer seasonal movements of over a mile and shorter distances traveled regularly by resident brook trout. In addition to moving during higher flows to access suitable spawning habitat in spring and fall, trout also move during summer low flows and in anticipation of winter low flows. Peterson and Fausch (2003) observed peak movement of brook trout in the summer and fall, with nearly 80 percent of recaptured fish moving upstream and up to two kilometers away within a summer. The motivation for resident fish movement is tied to the life history needs of the species. Brook trout often spawn in areas of groundwater inflow (Witzel and MacCrimmon 1983, Curry and Noakes 1995), and have been observed to overwinter in pools in proximity to groundwater discharges (Cunjak and Power 1986). Groundwater upwellings or flows can protect brook trout eggs from extreme cold temperatures since the species spawns in the autumn and eggs hatch in the early spring. Access to groundwater upwellings and tributary confluences is also important for thermal refuge for trout and other species during summer months (Baird and Kruger 2003). Streams in the White Mountains that can be crossed with culverts are typically coldwater or coolwater habitats. Most of the impacts associated with culverts in the White Mountains will affect coldwater and coolwater fish populations – salmonids (brook trout), cyprinids (minnows and dace), catastomids (suckers), and cottids (sculpin). Aquatic salamanders associated with these habitats may include spring (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), two-lined, and dusky (Desmognathus fuscus) salamanders.
65 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
In-Stream Habitat Quality and Productivity
In-stream habitat quality and productivity is a description of those variables that have the most influence over stream productivity in the White Mountains: risk of aluminum toxicity from episodic acidification, sedimentation from roads and logging activity, and the status of in-stream large woody debris and pool habitat area.
Lachance et.al (2008) found in Ontario brook trout streams that fine sediments accumulated 2-5 times greater in stream sections below new logging road culvert installations than in stream sections above the new crossing and were evident three years post-construction. Hakala (2000) found that fine sediment, of sizes generally documented from logging roads, could negatively affect the abundance of newborn brook trout. This study also found that fine sediment did not reach threshold levels in brook trout spawning sites in steeper gradients or where high stream flows are encountered. While it is clear that fine sediment can affect the egg survival of trout species, it is less clear at what point this threatens the local population or what compensatory mechanisms allow the population to mitigate reductions in spawning success. Marschall and Crowder (1996) modeled the population responses of various anthropogenic2 effects on brook trout populations and determined that, while severe sedimentation could have potentially strong negative effects from an extreme increase in the egg to larva mortality, this effect was not likely to result in local extinction. Martin and Hornbeck (1994) suggest that sedimentation from logging in New England forests need not be of great concern to aquatic resources if Best Management Practices are followed. Research has shown the effects of both acid deposition and clean air regulations on soil and surface water chemistry within the White Mountains (Likens et.al., 1996). Reductions in emissions have resulted in some improvement in the chemistry of New England surface waters (Driscoll et. al., 2001). Full chemical and biological recovery has been delayed from the leaching of soil base cations3. Therefore, episodic acidification still occurs in sensitive areas. Studies have shown that episodic acidification can have detrimental effects to fish species in mountain streams of the northeastern United States (Baker et.al., 1996; Baldigo and Lawrence, 2000; Baldigo and Lawrence, 2007). The interaction of land use and episodic acidification is less researched. Intensive timber harvesting worsened the effects of acid deposition on stream chemistry and brook trout
2 Anthropogenic: caused or produced by humans 3 Cations: any positively charged atom or group of atoms ( opposed to anion)
66 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report survival in the acid sensitive waters of the Catskill Mountains, while more moderate partial harvesting treatments did not (Baldigo et. al., 2005).
Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to have a measurable, negative impact to stream temperatures, in-stream aquatic habitat, or stream connectivity. Under all action alternatives, application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as project specific design features, would ensure only small changes to riparian forest canopy, which would prevent any warming of streams to levels that change fish community composition. Any changes in the thermal class (i.e. coldwater to coolwater) of a perennial stream reach would be a function of summer weather patterns or beaver- induced flooding’s and not from changes in the commercial harvest of riparian forest stream shading There are no concerns of fish passage or stream connectivity on perennial streams from implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3, as all new stream crossings associated with vegetation management would be temporary. In general, stream connectivity in the analysis area is naturally fragmented by the occurrence of ponds but manmade stream connectivity issues on Forest Service land are very minor in nature. Improvements to stream connectivity would be realized from the correction of undersized culverts in both action alternatives, but benefits to aquatic populations would be minor and localized. There would not be any long-lasting negative direct or indirect negative effects to stream habitats from any of the alternatives. None of the alternatives would likely cause short term lethal or chronic changes to stream chemistry as basal area removal in perennial stream drainages does not increase the risk of mobilizing toxic aluminum. Road reconstruction and maintenance, commercial logging operations, and restoration activities would lead to some sedimentation of streams in the project area, but it would be within allowable disturbance limits and not lead to any permanent degradation of water quality, stream habitats, or stream productivity. While there are differences in the amount of treatment and soil disturbance proposed in the two alternatives, any difference in effects to stream habitats would be very localized and difficult to detect within populations of aquatic life due to the application of BMP’s and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
67 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Affected Environment The project area is located in the Charles River and Swans Falls watersheds. The Charles River watershed is approximately 50,031 acres (78.2 sq. mi) and the Swans Falls watershed is approximately 16,759 acres (26.2 sq. mi). Both watersheds ultimately drain into the Saco River, just east of the New Hampshire state border in Maine. Perennial streams in the project area include Anderson Brook, an unnamed tributary to Kimball Brook, Middle Brook, an unnamed tributary to Middle Brook, Province Brook, three unnamed tributaries to Province Brook, an unnamed tributary to Upper Kimball Brook, Weeks Brook, and several unnamed tributaries to Weeks Brook. All streams in the project area are first and second order streams.
Province Brook, Middle Brook, and Weeks Brook are typical productive coldwater streams where wild Eastern brook trout thrive. Visual surveys have identified brook trout throughout these drainages. A combination of good forest canopy cover, steep valley walls, and draining high elevations, keep these streams cool during the hotter summer months. Anderson Brook is a drainage on flatter terrain where a mix of private and Forest Service ownership occurs. Due to more intensive land use and the existence of beaver impoundments, Anderson Brook is probably home to both coldwater and coolwater fish species. Most of the streams in the project area are isolated from each other due to the existence of ponds downstream of the Forest boundary. A combination of bridges and proper road layout within the Forest ownership has minimized the need for culverts on perennial streams that can cause fish barriers and stream connectivity issues. Fragmentation of the stream network does occur but is caused by natural features in the project area. Brook trout populations within these 1st and 2nd order streams are isolated by pond environments which may create thermal barriers during the warmer summer season. On Forest Service roads, only three culverts were found to be potential fish barriers in the project area, but there is either very little upstream perennial stream habitat, or culverts were placed at low gradients that allow fish to move through the pipes. Bridges are the dominant crossing structure on larger reaches of perennial streams on both Forest Service and private land.
Habitat conditions in these brooks are also typical of other 1st and 2nd order streams on the Forest. Riparian forests along these brooks continue to grow older and contribute downed woody debris that contributes to fish habitat. Habitat conditions are considered
68 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
“typical” of White Mountain 1st and 2nd order streams but are continuing to develop complexity as the riparian forest ages.
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects, as well as the cumulative effects, on riparian and aquatic habitats is the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook subwatersheds, totaling approximately 22,090 acres. While the focus of this analysis is streams within the 7,700-acre Project Area, lands outside this boundary were included to analyze complete watersheds. This area was chosen because it includes complete watersheds of the streams draining the project area. The analysis period for both the direct and indirect effects, as well as the cumulative effects, is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future, because changes in riparian canopy cover from vegetation management and temporary disturbance would be expected to subside in this period
Table 3.6 - Summary of Effects to Riparian and Aquatic Habitats. Alternatives Indicators 1 2 3
Number of Perennial Streams Changing Thermal Class 0 0 0
Number of Undersized Culverts on Streams Improved 0 2 2
Number of Permanent Perennial Stream Crossings 0 0 0 Eliminated
Number Of Temporary Perennial Stream Crossings 0 10 8
Number of Watersheds where >20% Basal Area is 0 0 0 Removed
The analysis area chosen for direct and indirect effects, as well as the cumulative effects, analysis on riparian and aquatic habitats was the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook subwatersheds, totaling approximately 22,090 acres. While the focus of this analysis was streams Project Area, lands outside this boundary were included to analyze complete watersheds. This area was chosen because it includes complete watersheds of the streams draining the project area. The analysis period for both the direct and indirect effects, as well as the cumulative effects, is 10 years in the past and 10
69 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
years in the future, because changes in riparian canopy cover from vegetation management and temporary disturbance would be expected to subside in this period.
Alternative 1 (No Action) Stream Thermal Class
Forest canopy along and over streams would remain much as the current situation. Only natural tree falls or hazard tree management would create openings in the canopy that would allow sunlight on surface waters. Based on water temperatures measured within the project area in past years, all streams would most likely remain as coldwater and coolwater habitats with average July water temperatures below 65ºF and 70ºF, respectively. Changes in stream thermal class would be caused predominantly from extreme weather conditions. Stream Connectivity
There would be no new permanent culverts, new temporary crossings, or removal of existing fish barriers in this alternative. Stream connectivity would remain unchanged. In-stream Habitat Quality and Productivity
Stream habitats quality would remain similar to current conditions. Very localized changes may occur due to random bank erosion and tree falls. Aquatic productivity would also remain similar, with localized changes in aquatic life abundance as downed wood recruitment continues to occur.
Alternatives 2 and 3 Stream Thermal Class
Vegetation management will remove some trees within the riparian areas of some perennial stream reaches in the Province Brook, Middle Brook, and Weeks Brook watersheds, but the total amount of forest canopy removed would not be large enough to alter the stream thermal classification of perennial stream reaches. The application of White Mountain National Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guidelines G-1 and G-2 would prevent any substantial removal of riparian forest canopy cover. Clearcuts are planned in upland areas in general and would not occur within 100’ of perennial streams. Other treatments such as single tree selection and group cuts would not occur within 25’ of a perennial stream, and in many cases natural landforms and harvesting
70 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
layout would keep tree harvesting further away from the streams. Some patch cuts may have intermittent channels within their boundaries but in many cases reserve trees will be left along the channels. Given the limited scale of clearcut harvesting and patch cutting on the landscape in these alternatives, and the fact that intermittent channels rarely flow during hot summer days, neither alternative 2 or 3 would result in warming of perennial, or fish bearing streams within the project area.
Some trees could blow down in the riparian area adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments where elevations between riparian and harvested areas are similar, and the probability of blowdown is similar for alternatives 2 and 3. The total area within riparian areas adjacent to harvested stands that could be potentially affected by wind events of any individual stream is not sufficient to cause major warming of a stream to a threshold that would change the fish community composition. The best available science regarding the effects of forest harvesting on stream temperatures demonstrated that the buffers prescribed in Forest Plan guidelines would prevent any measurable change in stream temperatures downstream of harvesting. Since these guidelines, as well as additional design features, are being prescribed on all known perennial stream reaches, no changes in stream thermal class would occur in alternatives 2 and 3. Landings, road construction, and temporary stream crossings associated with vegetation management, as well as trail obliteration, and watershed improvements would not change the thermal class of any stream reach within the project area. Adhering to Forest Plan guidelines, state of New Hampshire BMP’s, and project design features would limit the size and location of openings within the riparian forest canopy. The best available science suggests that the small area of riparian forest altered by these activities would not cause substantial increases in water temperatures; therefore these activities would not alter the stream thermal class of perennial streams in alternatives 2 and 3. Stream Connectivity
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not propose new road construction that would leave permanent land alterations which would alter stream connectivity. Transportation corridors are in place and temporary modifications would occur for use during forest harvesting. Alternative 2 would require 10 temporary crossings and Alternative 3 would require 8 temporary crossings. Temporary crossings would be in place for 1-2 years in general and therefore impacts to connectivity would be small and localized.
71 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Stream connectivity would improve slightly in Alternatives 2 and 3, as compared to the No Action alternative, with the replacement of two permanent culverts. Overall benefits to stream connectivity would still be localized with the replacement of two culverts on small headwater streams. Instream Habitat Quality and Production
The adherence to Forest Plan guidelines, BMP’s, and design features during the implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would minimize any direct or indirect effect to instream habitat structure from operations related to vegetation management. The water resources effects analysis indicates no increased runoff would occur from tree harvesting in any watershed under either Alternative 2 or 3, therefore preventing indirect effects of bank erosion and channel instability that could degrade instream habitats. Riparian stand structure would not be degraded, thereby ensuring future woody debris inputs that would increase stream habitat complexity. There would be some small potential for increased wood inputs to stream habitats where the blow down of riparian trees adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments could occur. Although habitat complexity may be improved by trees blown down into stream channels, these effects would be very infrequent and localized. Proper implementation of BMPs during closeout of skid roads and temporary haul roads over perennial streams would allow soils to stabilize and decrease the risk of sedimentation to stream habitats. Since skid trails and timber haul routes would be used for 1-2 years within any drainage area, sedimentation would not be a chronic issue given the use of BMP’s. Stream reaches below stream crossings may experience increased fine sediments for several years after crossings are constructed or removed. While sedimentation downstream of crossings may degrade invertebrate production and fish spawning sites in the local vicinity of the crossing, these instream effects would eventually disappear after several spring season run-off events. Forest Plan guidelines would protect stream habitats from sedimentation commonly associated with trail obliteration, and culvert replacements. No direct or indirect effect on habitat quality or productivity is expected from these activities. While there would be differences in the amount of soil disturbance between alternatives (Alternative 3 being less than Alternative 2), roads reconstructed, stream crossings needed, and landings used, impacts would be minimized and any difference in the effects to aquatic habitats would be difficult to measure. The best available science indicates that sedimentation of this magnitude and duration may result in localized reductions in fish egg survival and
72 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
invertebrate production, but the free movement of fish and other aquatic life would allow areas to quickly re-colonize.
Removal of forest products from the project area would not be likely to cause increased acidity or the mobilization of aluminum, known to be toxic to fish, as discussed in the (Water Resources Report, project file). Basal area removal in perennial stream drainages would not exceed 20% in any watershed under either Alternative 2 or 3. Based on the best available science, this would be well below levels identified to increase the mobilization of aluminum that could cause fish mortality.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative 1 Stream Thermal Class
No changes in stream thermal classes would be expected in Province Brook, Middle Brook, or Weeks Brook under Alternative 1 as future land management is expected to follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMP’s. Streams in the project area would not be expected to change thermal class, unless extreme weather results in severe drought or catastrophic ice storms were to damage riparian forest canopy. Model projections of air temperature increases due to climate change translate into an increase of 3ºF in average stream temperature in a worst case scenario by the year 2035 (Prout, 2010). Average July water temperatures ranged from 53ºF to 61ºF in similar sized streams draining land managed by the White Mountain National Forest in 2011-12. Given the generally cold water temperatures of all perennial streams in the project area, average July water temperatures are not expected to exceed thresholds for coldwater streams in the next ten years. Thermal class changes in Anderson Brook could occur if private land use alters riparian forest canopy over long reaches of the stream or if beaver activity increases. Stream Connectivity
Under Alternative 1, improvements to stream connectivity could occur if undersized culverts were to wash out and not be replaced. Otherwise, future actions in the project area would not be expected to reduce or increase stream connectivity.
73 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
In-stream Habitat Quality and Productivity
In most streams of the project area habitat conditions would remain similar to today’s conditions. Changes to instream habitat conditions throughout the project area would largely be a function of tree mortality rates and weather related tree falls, which generally occur at a very slow rate. While mature riparian forest stands continue to age, longer lived tree species, such as hemlock, would continue to move toward over-mature stages. Most streams in the project area would continue to accumulate large woody debris as riparian forests continue to age. Extreme weather events such as floods, windstorms, ice storms, or droughts could cause dramatic effects that would alter habitat quality and productivity if they occurred within the cumulative effects analysis area.
Alternatives 2 and 3 Stream Thermal Class
Given that stream thermal classes would not directly or indirectly change from implementation of any of these alternatives, the cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 1. Stream Connectivity
The cumulative effects would be similar to those described in the direct and indirect effects. Overall stream connectivity would be improved by both alternatives and this should continue to be true 10 years into the future. Habitat Quality and Aquatic Productivity
While there could be some localized direct and indirect sedimentation effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on habitat quality and productivity, the cumulative effects of these two alternatives would be similar to Alternative 1. Closure procedures for logging roads and temporary crossings generally prevent sedimentation sites from becoming chronic stream sedimentation issues. The effect of past timber harvest, and harvest from either Alternative 2 or 3 on instream habitats and productivity would not result in any cumulative effect. Short term and localized effects that may occur from any one timber sale would not be evident in a future timber sale generally 10-20 years later.
74 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
3.4 Heritage
Background and Summary The Province project area includes archaeological sites potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, based on their ability to contribute information important to the study of history. In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, measures to identify and protect cultural sites in areas of proposed ground disturbance were undertaken by the White Mountain National Forest Heritage Program. Under all alternatives, all known sites would be avoided by project activities. If a new site is found during project implementation, all activity in the area would stop, and the Forest Archaeologist would be informed so it can be assessed and protected. Therefore, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from project activities are anticipated. A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report with a determination of “No Effect” for the Province project has been reviewed and concurred with by the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office (project record). Affected Environment Native American settlement of the Saco River valley, approximately five miles from the Province project area, has been well established by a number of independent cultural resource surveys. Native American travel through the area has been intensively studied and mapped by Chester B. Price, published by the New Hampshire Archeological Society in 1958. Although there are no known Native American travel routes in the Province project area, a recently recorded prehistoric site suggests the possibility of a previously undocumented one. All artifacts recovered from the site are of quartz, and there are several historic mineral collecting sites are located within ten miles of the project area. (WMNF Archaeological Technician Dan O’Toole)
The town of Chatham was first granted in 1767, and the first permanent European settlement began in 1781. The eastern part of the town is in the Cold River valley, where settlers and current residents focused on agricultural settlement, while the western part of the town is mountainous and rugged, where just a few early settlers established farms. According to town history, John Robbins was settled on Robbins Hill, within the project area, by 1797. (Mitchell, Davis, and Dagget 1907) By 1861, agricultural settlement near the project area was along Green Hill Rd, Robbins Hill Rd, and the end of Middle Brook Rd where it connects with Green Hill. Six farms are shown on the 1861 atlas within the current project area. (Walling 1861) Remains of farm sites are present in
75 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
the project area as house cellar holes, outbuilding foundations, wells, and networks of stone walls that defined historic farm fields and pastures. By the time of the 1892 Hurd Atlas, the overall number of farms in Chatham had decreased, and no farms are shown in the project area. (Hurd 1892)
A hotel had been built on the summit of Mt. Kearsarge North, at the western edge of the project area, by c.1848, with a carriage road to the summit built in the 1860s. The hotel existed in various forms until the early 1900s. The first fire tower was built on the summit in 1909. (Baird & Haartz 2005: 47) By the 1870s, logging operations had moved into the area on the eastern slopes of Mt. Kearsarge North, and old camps and logging roads from this era are mentioned in early 20th century Appalachian Mountain Club White Mountain Guide books. (Appalachian Mountain Club 1922: 85-87) Cultural remnants from this period include a portable saw mill, isolated cast iron wood stoves, an abandoned truck, logging sled parts, and logging camp sites. Of these, two isolated stoves and the abandoned truck are in proposed project activity areas. In the 1920s, a fairly dense hiking trail network existed in the area, maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club. (1922 AMC guide and old USGS maps). In the 1920s and 1930s, the White Mountain National Forest acquired much of the area, constructing the Province Pond hiking shelter on the north side of Province Pond in 1934, and the existing Kearsarge North fire tower in 1951. The shelter and the fire tower are the only standing buildings in the project area, and no activity is proposed at either one as part of the current project. Since Forest Service acquisition, the area has been managed primarily for timber harvest, wildlife, and outdoor recreation.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
The analysis area for cultural resources is the project area. Cultural sites beyond the project boundary would not be affected. The temporal boundaries for cumulative effects are twenty years before and twenty years after 2013. This temporal scope was chosen to account for the last large earth disturbing projects that took place across the project area, and to anticipate future earth disturbing actions.
The most likely direct effect to result from the project would be the loss of information resulting from the physical disturbance of the archaeological deposits. Indirect effects might include increased exposure to vandalism of historic-period cultural sites and artifacts due to increased visibility with the removal of vegetation. This effect would be
76 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
temporary (1-2 years after harvest), as new growth would quickly again obscure the sites. Under all alternatives, known archaeological sites potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places would be avoided by project activities, however there may be other cultural sites that were not identified during the project survey present in project activity areas. Should any new cultural sites be discovered during project implementation, project activities would stop and the Forest Archaeologist would be contacted to who assess and implement necessary protection measures. Therefore, no effect from project activity is anticipated.
Since there would be no direct or indirect effects from the project, there would be no cumulative effects.
3.5 Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIS)
Background and Summary The White Mountain National Forest has been working with The New England Wild Flower Society, and other organizations to determine locations of non-native invasive plant species, resulting in a list of invasive species that exist on or near the National Forest. The majority of locations observed have been on the perimeter of the National Forest, primarily along roads, highways and in developed areas such as towns, and residential and recreation areas. NNIS plants exist in small numbers within the project area in discreet locations along the Weeks Brook Road, Peaked Hill Road, and Corridor 19 snowmobile trail. Additional infestations certainly exist off National Forest land as plantings in residential settings, along roadsides and in private openings. No data exists on the number, composition or size of these infestations in WMNF databases. Anecdotal information in the form of casual observation indicates that the level of infestation in this rural location is extremely low. Documented invasive plants in the project area include three single plant infestations: one of glossy buckthorn and two of Morrow’s honeysuckle. It is difficult to determine exactly how these infestations arrived at these locations, but they were likely transported in contaminated fill material or by mechanical means (perhaps mowers). The control of NNIS infestations within the project area will be carried out under the authorization of the White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment signed in 2007. Treatment of these infestations is not being analyzed in the Province Project.
77 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Forest Service Manual 2080.44.6 outlines the process to determine the risk of NNIS introduction or spread as part of the NEPA process for proposed actions. Documented NNIS infestations locations and other site-specific field reviews were used to evaluate the likelihood of NNIS spreading into the Project Area and the environmental consequences of their potential establishment. Given the implementation of the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines for controlling the introduction or spread of NNIS, and the known NNIS populations in and around the Project Area, the overall risk rating assigned for the Province Project is “low” (USDA-Forest Service 2005e, Project NNIS Risk Assessment 2013). Direct and Indirect Effects The Analysis Area for direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants is the Project Area, because this is where vehicles and equipment associated with the proposed project actions would have access and operate on the ground. These vehicles and equipment, as well as any gravel, seed and mulch brought to the Project Area from off- site are the most likely entry vectors for non-native invasive species (NNIS). Newly created or expanded forest openings, gravel pits, day-use areas, trails, wildlife openings, roads, and log landings are also potential entry sites.
Alternative 1: No Action
Continued recreation use and management of openings, roads, and trails would continue at historic levels. These activities may spread NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. The current areas with infestations of invasive plants would receive treatments to control these species under the authority of the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Until such time that existing infestations are completely eradicated they would continue to persist and potentially spread vegetatively and via seed.
Alternatives 2 & 3
All project activities will implement the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines related to NNIS. This reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS. The 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007) and WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, 2006, pp 30-31) requires de novo monitoring, as well as follow up monitoring at active control locations. Control and monitoring
78 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
activities reduce the likelihood of project activities spreading invasive plants and ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction relating to NNIS (USDA Forest Service. 2005a, LRMP, pp 2-11-12). However, these measures likely would not eliminate all potential for spreading invasive plants within the project area. Under these alternatives, soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities has the potential to spread NNIS. This potential is greatest in the vicinity of existing infestations, but could occur in other areas due to long-distance seed dispersal via vehicles, equipment, wildlife and wind.
Direct effects are most often associated with propagules or plant parts lodged in equipment being transported to the site, or fill and seed mixes that contain NNIS propagules or plant parts be utilized during the project activities (forestry, wildlife and recreation). These direct effects are typically mitigated through the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS (USDA Forest Service. 2005a, LRMP, pp 2-11-12). The most likely locations of these effects include areas of culvert replacements, road reconstruction, watershed restoration, trail relocation, the development of new of log landings, wildlife openings, haul roads, skid trails, and stands prescribed for even-aged – regeneration harvest. These effects are the greatest during and for 1-2 years after the activity takes place, when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites and decrease dramatically in subsequent years. Indirect effects are most often associated with propagules and plant parts being moved by wildlife, wind, or human activity once project activities have ceased. The indirect effects of NNIS are greatest when ground disturbing activity is combined with large areas of substantial canopy removal. This would occur primarily with even aged regeneration harvests (clearcut, patch cut, etc.) and new log landing construction in this project. Foot and traffic visiting the proposed newly relocated trail and reconstructed roadways provide new migration routes for NNIS via tire and footwear treads. These actions may allow for the introduction of new species infestations into previously un- infested locations. The effects of the introduction and spread of NNIS may crowd out of native plant species. This competition can cause reduce species diversity and abundance of native plants. If infestations occur at known or undiscovered threatened, endangered or sensitive species locations, competition from invasive plants could lead to a reduction in vigor or loss of individuals or populations. Additionally, impairment of ecosystem function and reduction of preferred food and cover sources for various wildlife species can occur. Effects to recreational opportunities and enjoyment can occur if invasive
79 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
plants become established along trail corridors. Trails can become overrun and impassable if infestations remain uncontrolled.
The decommissioning of roads 0.6 miles of FR 301 combined with the subsequent re- vegetation of these locations will provide a decreased risk of NNIS introduction. Road maintenance, reconstruction, the relocation of 0.8 miles of the Weeks Brook Trail and culvert replacements may result in direct effects due to the introduction of NNIS propagules in fill, construction material, or via equipment needed to conduct these activities. The application of Forest Plan Standards and Guides related to NNIS should mitigate this risk.
No direct or indirect effects are expected from the change of the reclassification of 0.4 miles of road as the use of these roads will be administrative and intermittent. This activity will not cause a significant change in landscape condition or increase ground disturbance. The potential for direct and indirect effects of NNIS in Alternative 3 are minimally reduced in comparison to those for Alternative 2. The decreased acres of clearcut w/reserves, patch cut, group selection and site preparation proposed somewhat reduces the likelihood of NNIS introduction. The reduction in road reconstruction from 9.6 miles in Alternative 2 to 6.2 in Alternative 3 will proportionally decrease the risk of both direct and indirect NNIS effects due to the decreased disturbance levels in the absence of this activity. Despite the reduction in road reconstruction and even-aged/regeneration harvests, given the low level of NNIS infestation with the project area and on-going control efforts, direct and indirect effects related to NNIS are expected to be similar under all action alternatives Alternative.
Cumulative Effects The Analysis Area for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the lands within the Province HMU, and the adjacent public and private land in the surrounding towns of Chatham and Conway, NH, as well as Fryeburg, ME. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixedwood intermixed with lakes, ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential/commercial development. The temporal scope for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the past and future ten years (2003 to 2023). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (anything over ten years will have re-established a canopy and/or re-vegetated areas of soil disturbance making it unlikely that new
80 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.) This time frame also allows consideration of the forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society (2001 - 2004) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap. 3-154-155). While there are no documented NNIS infestations outside the project area, but within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, it is suspected that such infestations do exist. Given this there is a greater likelihood of introducing and/or spreading NNIS within this area as a result of activities on private lands than on National Forest lands. The forest- wide NNIS inventory (USDA Forest Service 2010) found that two-thirds of the invasive plant occurrences were located on private land outside the National Forest, and almost half of all occurrences were intentionally planted (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-154 and 3-155). There are restrictions on introduction (sale, distribution, propagation, and transportation) of listed non-native invasive species in New Hampshire. This list is maintained and the regulations pertaining to invasive plant species enforced by the NH Department of Agriculture. Climate change may have some affects on the distribution and abundance of NNIS in the longer term. A recent literature review conducted by WMNF Resource Specialists included document potential impacts to botanical resources (Mattrick 2009). This literature summary looked at a small, but wide ranging portion of the available literature on the effect of a changing climate on native plants, natural communities, rare plant species, and invasive plant species. In the study of plants and climate change, NNIS are little studied at present and what information can be gathered must be extrapolated from other studies. Additional information can be gathered from various sources such as the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, which maintains an on-line database of NNIS locations throughout the region (IPANE 2012). Although several invasive plant species appear to be spreading northward, there does not seem to be any correlation to these expansions and climate change. These expansions appear to be due to mechanical transport by human and wildlife activity. At this time, based upon the recent literature review, available data, and project surveys there does not appear to be any effects to NNIS from climate change, especially within the cumulative effects analysis time-frame. Even though there are suspected NNIS populations within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, the low levels of infestation and incorporation of the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect of implementing the Proposed Action or
81 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
one of the action alternatives incurs a minor risk of introducing or exacerbating NNIS in the Analysis Area.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative existing infestations outside the National Forest boundary would continue to persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur creating additional infestations at currently uninfested locations. It is expected that these NNIS infestations would become source populations for additional infestations within the analysis area both on and off the WMNF. The effects to the National Forest lands from this continued growth and spread of invasives is considered to be minimal based on the the lack of ground disturbing activities in the No Action Alternative. Furthermore, montioring and subsequent control of NNIS infestations on National Forest lands would continue under the authority granted by the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project. No NNIS control activities of any size or scope are known to be occurring on infestations on state and private lands within the analysis area. Nationally, the rate of spread has been estimated at 3% per year (National Invasive Species Council 2001) and at 8-12% per year (USDA FS 1999 Stemming the Invasive Tide), but given the climate and landscape condition of the Forest and surrounding landscape, and the comparably low level of current infestation it is anticipated that the rate of spread for the NNIS in the analysis area would be on the lower end of the national scale. At a rate of spread of 3 percent per year, if no control was undertaken on state and private lands, these infestations would increase by roughly 50% in ten years. Even with on going control efforts on the WMNF, it is certain that the number of acres infested would likely grow both on and off the National Forest. Since 2005, no NNIS control has taken place on the WMNF within the analysis area and an unknown on private lands. It is anticipated that control efforts on the National Forest will increase in response to the data collected as part of this Project and strive to eradicate the known infestation on National Forest System lands. There are no known control projects which have or will take place on non-federal lands within the analysis area. It is reasonable to conclude that NNIS would continue to spread from infestations on non-federal lands throughout the analysis area. The uncontrolled spread of NNIS from these sources would allow for an increase in NNIS infestation and a potential decrease in ecological function within the analysis area.
82 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternatives 2 and 3
The greatest potential effect of the Province Project in regards to NNIS is the potential migration and establishment of NNIS in the project area. This effect would add to the effects of past activities that may have caused introduction and spread of invasive plants. These activities include, but are not limited to timber management, wildlife opening management, recreation opportunity developments, and road construction both on and off National Forest and residential development and traditional agriculture on private lands. Information on the NNIS introductions resulting from these past events is not available. However the current distribution of invasive plants both on and off the National Forest strongly supports this assumption.
Any effects of the Province Project would be additive to the effects of any past activities within the cumulative effects boundary. Foreseeable management actions and projects over the next ten years include ongoing wildlife opening, road and hiking and snowmobile trails maintenance, continued use of the area for recreational uses, and on- going NNIS treatment. Roads and skid trail trails associated with the timber management activities may open up new travel routes for mountain bikes, hikers and horseback riding, thereby increasing the potential for NNIS migration. These risks would continue once measures to mitigate any direct and indirect effects of the project cease. The same types of activities that may have caused past invasions on private land will likely continue to spread NNIS. Most project activities (transportation, forestry, recreation, etc) would have negligible effects on NNIS in the analysis area. The application of the 2005 LRMP standards and guidelines related to NNIS dramatically reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS into the analysis area. The cumulative effects of the Province Project would be nearly identical under all action alternatives. Alternative 3 has a slightly reduced contribution to cumulative effects due reduced acres of regeneration harvest (clearcut). Cumulative effects under the action alternatives likely would be measurable, but cannot be accurately quantified due to the percentage of private land holdings within the analysis area.
83 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
3.6 Recreation
Background and Summary Recreation settings are described in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural/Urban (Forest Plan, 2005, p.1-10 and Map 1-11). The project area includes Semi-Primitive Non-motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural; however no harvest activities are proposed in Semi-Primitive Non-motorized.
Semi-Primitive Motorized is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentrated use is generally uncommon, but human use is evident. The area is managed with minimum on-site controls and restrictions. Snowmobile use on designated trails is allowed.
Roaded Natural is characterized by a predominately natural appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Effects to snowmobiling would primarily be related to riding on a plowed road and sharing short segments at reduced speeds to provide for the safety of all users when and where Corridor 19 and logging roads are in use such that the presence of logging vehicles and a snowplowed road represents a changed condition from normal. Adverse direct effects to hiking or snowmobiling under both of the action alternatives are minor when examined in the context of recreation opportunities outside the project area. Some of the effects are positive, for example, and improved Weeks Brook Trail. Affected Environment Recreation resources within and immediately adjacent to the Province Project Area include Province Pond and Weeks Brook Trails, Province Pond shelter, Kearsarge North Fire Tower, and Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail. The primary access to the Project Area is from Green Hill Road, which lies west of State Highway 113. In addition to hiking and snowmobiling, the project area offers dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, dispersed camping, bicycling and walking on Forest Roads and snowmobile trails.
84 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Evidence of past timber management activities is apparent in the project area from skid trails, Forest roads, and in the existing vegetation types and stand ages. Hiking and snowmobile trails within the project area incorporate portions of skid trails and Forest roads. Hiking Trails
Summer and fall are the primary hiking seasons for this area. Use levels are low on the two trails in this planning area compared to other locations on the National Forest. Winter hiking use is very low, however some walking, snowshoeing or Nordic skiing may occur on the main Forest roads and snowmobile trails. Occasional use of Province Pond Shelter may occur. Table 3.7 provides a brief description of these hiking trails including use levels. Proposed harvest units lie near these hiking trails, but no skidding would occur on the trails, except where needed to cross them.
Table 3.7 - Hiking Trail Use and Description Use Length Trail Name Description Level* (miles)
Accessed from Green Hill Road, this trail receives low use during the summer and fall seasons, and no known Weeks Brook Low 5.1 winter use. The trail is a moderate climb to Shingle Pond and to Kearsarge North.
Accessed from the end of Peaked Hill Road, this trail receives low use during the summer and fall season. Province Pond Low 1.5 The trail also serves as a section of the Corridor 19 snowmobile trail. Some overnight use occurs at the shelter at Province Pond.
*Use level is people per day (ppd) during peak use (e.g. school vacation weeks, holiday weekends). Range is: Low = 0–6 ppd; Moderate = 7–25 ppd; High = 26–50 ppd; Very High = 51+ ppd
Designated Snowmobile Trails
Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail is the only designated snowmobile trail in the Province project area. It receives moderate weekday and high to very high weekend use in winter because it is a through route to trails north and south. Within the project area, Corridor 19 connects to and uses parts of three Forest Roads that would be needed for winter log haul. These roads have been used concurrently for snowmobiling and trucking, meaning they are periodically snow-plowed for access and trucking for a sale contract and are
85 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
open for snowmobiling. North of Province Pond, Corridor 19 moves onto Langdon Brook Road. Parking to access Corridor 19 within the project area is located at the base of Hurricane Mountain Road, on private land. Dispersed Recreation
Low use levels of walking on Forest roads or snowmobile trails, hunting, fishing at Province Pond, and mountain biking within the analysis area occur. Swimming or fishing the small brooks or in Province Pond may occur. Hunting opportunities for whitetail deer, black bear and game birds are present.
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on recreation is defined as the Province HMU and also includes a small amount of private land to the east, to Green Hill Road. This area was chosen because it includes all the trails and dispersed recreation that occurs within the project area. The time frame selected is 2–10 years, based upon potential effects, including scenery modifications, that have been shown to persist for up to 10 years, after which they become a more natural-appearing forest (USDA, 2005b, p 3- 447). Direct effects related to harvesting would be expected to be present during harvest activities for approximately a 2 to 3 year time span. This analysis time duration was selected because once a management action ceases the majority of effects to recreation also cease; with the exception of scenery modifications that could persist longer.
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would not alter current recreation opportunities. Existing trail conditions, scenery and access would remain unchanged. Proposed projects listed under the action alternatives would not take place. This alternative would not include relocation of a half mile of Weeks Brook Trail.
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would have the greatest short-term direct and indirect effects on recreation experiences within the analysis area. While timber harvest activities would have minor affects on hiking and dispersed uses, timber harvests have not occurred in the project area for over a decade. Hence, the long-term recreation experience is not expected to change dramatically from current conditions due to the harvest proposal.
86 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
The proposed Weeks Brook Trail relocation would improve the recreation experience.
Timber Harvest
Timber harvesting activities near Weeks Brook Trail would affect the recreation experience in the short term. Part of this trail is located on a former skid road. The trail currently receives low use, and a 0.8 mile section within unit 68 is proposed for relocation due to a wet section, (see Proposed Actions). s of the Weeks Brook Trail lies within treatment units. During harvest of units 66, 67, and 68, an approximately 1.5 mile long section of Weeks Brook Trail would be closed. It would be relocated after proposed treatments in units 64 and 68 were completed. These group and single tree selection harvests may require a year or more to complete before relocation and implementation of the new trail could begin. A segment of Province Brook Trail lies adjacent to units 22 and 21, proposed single tree selection and group selection harvest units. This trail lies on an old logging road, but the trail would be crossed if needed to reach a landing, and would not be used as a skid route. Treatments proposed along existing Forest roads and Corridor 19 snowmobile trail include clearcut, single tree selection, and a few group selection prescriptions. Three clearcuts and a patch-cut, along with a group selection are proposed along Forest Road 317, (Hardwood Hill Road). Views from the two hiking trails following treatments would generally not be of new clearcut treatments due to foreground vegetation that will remain.
Public safety
Traffic control signs would be used to control traffic speeds (see Design Features, Chapter 2) and alert forest users where concurrent use with logging operations occurs. Roads that also serve Corridor 19 would have winter restrictions, prohibiting log hauling during weekends and holidays. Public safety on all forest roads where log transport is occurring would be addressed with logging contract clauses, contract administration and road signs. Most forest roads within the project area are closed to public vehicular use, but allow foot traffic. Concurrent use by snowmobiles in winter, hikers, and logging trucks along sections of these roads is expected. These roads would be posted with traffic control signs and speed limits to insure public and logging operator safety. Roads could be closed to use when tree felling along a road is occurring. Weeks Brook and Province Pond Trails may be subject to intermittent closures during harvest operations.
87 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Foreground Visuals Effects on Hiking Trails
Foreground views from Weeks Brook and Province Pond trails would be affected to some degree for a period up to ten years. Direct visual effects would result from tree removal, logging slash, and soil disturbance in nearby skid trails. Weeks Brook trail is slated for a 0.8 mile relocation to eliminate a wet, entrenched section of trail. The new location will be determined following treatment of units that affect the trail.
Foreground views would change modestly where single tree and group selection prescriptions are implemented nearby. Single tree selection treatments remove a percentage of the trees throughout a stand and group selection treatments create small openings averaging between 1/4th and ½ acre, on approximately 15 - 20 percent of a stand. Evidence of skid trails may be apparent due to temporary soil exposure until leaves and new vegetation covers the soil. In time, created small openings and the thinned areas would reforest with young trees. New regeneration, decomposition of logging slash, and the closing of the forest canopy over time would return the forest to a natural appearing condition. Group placement and size, and the retention of standing timber in partial harvest treatments would mitigate and reduce adverse visual effects. Placement of skid trails away from hiking trails except for infrequent perpendicular crossings, requiring slash removal within 50 feet of trails, and marking trees on the side facing away from a trail would also reduce visual effects.
Noise from Project Activities
Operational noise is generally not normally audible beyond 1 to 2 miles in forested situations (Timerson 1999, Neitzel and Yost 2003). This estimate is based on data and analysis gathered by a forestry noise study that measured the decibel levels of various harvesting machinery, and professional experience specific to field observations in New England (Forestry Vibration and Noise Study-University of Washington, page 15). The distance is generally based on assumptions of average decibels produced by specific machinery, measured over distance. Sound effects are muted where vegetation, wind, and topography are involved; further reducing the effects of logging sounds (MPCA Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota, page 5). Noise from logging, landing activities and log hauling must be viewed in the context of other noise contributing factors such as traffic and human activities near Green Hill road and snowmobile traffic on Corridor 19 in winter. Most of the winter recreation in the
88 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
project area is snowmobiling, where noise is less a concern.
Harvest noises tend to be low pitched, intermittent and are reduced as the source is further from the listener, is muted by topography and foliage, or is covered by other sounds such as wind or background noises. Noise effects are limited to time periods when management activities are occurring. Noise effects could be from logging operations or from other proposed (non-winter) activities including hiking trail re- construction, timber stand improvement (hand) treatments, snowmobiling in winter seasons, and from nearby traffic. Though use levels are low in this area, harvest noise would be intermittently audible from Weeks Brook and Province Pond trails. Hikers on Kearsarge North may hear harvest related sounds at background levels coming from the nearest units over 1 ½ miles away. Some level of logging related noise is expected at residences on Green Hill Road when within a mile or so of their homes. The table below displays expected noise effects that might occur within 2 miles of the identified features. The table shows the number of days that audible noise may occur from activities as experienced from a trail, residence or Kearsarge North, by Alternative.
Table 3.8 - Noise Effects of Treatment Activities and Trail Relocation. Number of operating days where noise effects could Feature occur No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Weeks Brook and Province 0 264 208 Pond trails Kearsarge North 0 42 5 Individual Private 0 264 208 Residents (cumulatively)
Dispersed Recreation
Effects to dispersed recreation within the project area are largely included in discussions about effects to individual trails. Disturbance associated with noise on off-trail travel would be temporary in nature, ceasing at the termination of operations. Disturbances within treated areas may discourage dispersed users temporarily, but also serve as access points and travel routes. Most dispersed use seems to occur during hunting seasons though some mid-winter use may occur. The proposed harvest treatments, skidding, landing operations, and road uses are compatible with dispersed recreation activities occurring in the project area. Minor dislocation or impacts may occur in the immediate vicinity of these activities during operations.
89 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
A low amount of dispersed camping occurs within the analysis area, with the majority of it at Province Pond Shelter in the summer and fall.
Harvested areas provide for improved wildlife habitat specific to hunting opportunities for whitetail deer, black bear and game birds over the current condition (No Action Alternative).
Snowmobile Trail – Corridor 19
“Concurrent use” is described as use of a forest road, including plowing snow in winter, by log trucks for harvest related activities when the road is also open for snowmobiling. In this project concurrent use of Forest Roads would occur as it has in the past. Forest roads known as Peaked Hill, Weeks Brook, Middle Brook and Hardwood Hill would each have some concurrent use. Segments of concurrent use are approximately 1 1/2 miles for Peaked Hill, and approximately 1/2 mile for Weeks Brook Road (FSR 303) and Hardwood Hill Road (FSR317), and 1/10th mile for Middle Brook Road. These are gated roads, closed to motorized traffic except for winter snowmobile use on Corridor 19. Log Truck traffic on these roads would be intermittent; occurring only when operations using a given road are active. Log truck use is intermittent on any given day, occupying a road for normally short periods with fewer than 10 trips per day. A log hauling restriction on weekends and holidays from December 15 to April 1 would limit weekend/holiday activities to snowplowing, harvest within units, and landing activities; but not log hauling. Short term (< hour long) road/trail closures may be needed when tree falling occurs within 200 feet of Corridor 19 and along the hiking trails to insure public safety. Other Recreation Components
The impacts to other recreation uses such as mountain biking and hunting would be similar to those discussed for trails. Traffic control signs would be installed at trail and road access points to alert people and vehicle traffic of nearby logging operations.
Alternative 3
This alternative would have similar but fewer direct and indirect effects as Alternative 2 because there are fewer acres proposed for harvest treatment and eight tenths of a mile less road reconstruction is proposed. The season of harvest in proposed units, most of the roads and landings to be used, and relocation of the Weeks Brook Trail would remain the same as for Alternative 2.
90 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
There are subtle differences between this alternative and Alternative 2. In Alternative 3, all proposed units (or portions of units) within the Forest Plan inventoried area are omitted. The reduced treatment acres would primarily mean that the duration and intensity of effects under Alternative 3 would be less from a recreation perspective, and some physical and biological effects would also be reduced from those in Alternative 2. Outside the inventoried area road reconstruction, logging and log hauling, landing operations, proposed trail relocations, possible temporary closures adjacent to harvest activities, and concurrent uses on forest roads would still occur. Effects on trails and dispersed recreation under this alternative are therefore similar, though reduced from Alternative 2. Noise
The noise effects of the proposed activities would be less than in Alternative 2 due to the reduction of 441 acres of treatments. This reduction in treatments effectively reduces the intensity and duration of the project activities. Harvest proposals near Province Pond Trail and Corridor 19 are similar to Alternative 2, but reduced harvest treatments under this alternative would result in less noise as evidenced in Table 2, above. Hiking Trails
Province Pond Trail has the same proposed harvest treatments adjacent to as alternative 2. Skidding from unit 22 would run parallel to the trail, for a longer distance than the skid trail location under Alternative 2. However, FR 306 and its landing would not be reconstructed or used. So the location from which noise and emissions occur would change. Weeks Brook Trail would not have harvest adjacent to it where unit 64 and 68 are eliminated in this alternative. Minor short term impacts are expected from road reconstruction of FR 317, and FR 317A up to the proposed landing in unit 66. Intermittent temporary trail closures may be needed during operations. It is anticipated that treated areas near hiking trails would be largely naturalized within a decade because partial harvest treatments occur along these trails would encourage rapid vegetation growth. Therefore, change in foreground views from forest management near hiking trails would be slightly less than under Alternative 2.
91 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Dispersed Recreation
The effects to dispersed recreation in this project area would be similar to Alternative 2, except that no harvest actions would occur within the Forest Plan inventoried area. The reduction of 441 acres of treatments would reduce the direct effects on dispersed recreation, but the indirect noise effects from other nearby treatments would remain. The effects from temporary closures on trails during operations would remain, but fewer affects to Weeks Brook Trail would occur. Snowmobile Trail – Corridor 19
Effects to snowmobiling on Corridor 19 would be nearly the same as in Alternative 2 because all of the proposed harvest units adjacent to the trail would still be treated. However, logging related traffic on Forest roads 450, 303, and 317 differs in Alternative 3 because seven units that require winter logging are eliminated. These are 58 acres of treatments for units 60, 62, 64 and 66 on FR 317; 37 acres of treatments in unit 46 on FR 303, and 15 acres of treatments in units 23 and 38 whose haul route would be on FR 450. The need to snowplow these forest roads remains because other winter harvest units use these roads. Short term trail closures of Corridor 19 would likely occur while harvest activities occur immediately adjacent. These periods are not expected to last more than a half hour at a time. Concurrent uses will allow recreation users opportunity to enjoy the area. Therefore minor effects to snowmobiling use on Corridor 19 would remain under Alternative 3, but periods of impacts and concurrent use would likely be less than for Alternative 2.
Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on recreation is the same as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects. This boundary was chosen to include all recreation activities accessed through and within the Province project area. The time frame includes the past and future 10 years. This time frame was chosen because it is a reasonable length of time for measuring past effects and for projecting upcoming projects. This project’s activities are the only known Forest Service recreation projects for the foreseeable future (10 years). In addition, small amounts of harvest on private land in the area have occurred recently, and may continue over the next decade, however none of these activities have affected or would likely affect future recreation opportunities on National Forest land.
92 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on recreation because it would have no direct or indirect effects on recreation opportunities within the analysis area.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Effects of implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would not change the long-term recreation opportunities described in the Forest Plan (2005) even when considered cumulatively with past and ongoing projects occurring in the project area. Under both of these alternatives, some visitors’ could experience inconvenience during temporary closures, winter snowplowed roads that serve Corridor 19, and distant noise in the short term. Inconveniences and minor impacts would be expected under both action alternatives, but they are not compounded cumulatively with activities on private land within the analysis area. Most recreation activities would not be otherwise adversely affected. Most hiking, snowmobiling and dispersed recreation would continue. Under either Alternative 2 or 3, a considerable change to recreation conditions or uses in the short or long term would not be expected.
3.7 Scenery
Background and Summary One viewpoint, the fire tower on the summit of Mount Kearsarge North, was selected for detailed analysis for this project. This viewpoint is both stationary and superior, provides the broadest range of direct views and represents the area of highest visitor use. The selected viewpoint affords close, more intense views as well as more distant views, encompassing the entirety of the project area and beyond. There are sections of the project area that are not visible due to topographical influences.
A multiple step modeling effort was used to evaluate which of the proposed openings created by clearcuts, patch clearcuts, shelterwood and group selection treatments would be visible from the selected analysis viewpoint (see project record for detailed description of the process). The view from the fire tower was modeled to determine how the landscape would appear following proposed treatments in each action alternative. Estimates of acreages visible (seen) would be less than the total acres treated due to natural screening by topographic features, leading edge vegetation, and by reserve areas
93 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
placed within these openings that could provide additional visual screening. The difference between treated and visible acres would vary considerably depending on topography, elevation of the viewpoint, and the slope position and aspect where the visible opening is located.
The intensity of effects on scenery from proposed activities would be affected by weather, season, context, topography, distance from the viewpoint, size and shape of new visible openings, proximity to older visible openings and other features that could attract the viewer’s attention. The valley bottom is historically a place of agricultural practices, so harvest in these areas would be consistent with traditional and cultural uses of the area and would blend in with appearance of the landscape. About 5 years after harvest and regeneration, smaller openings would begin to blend into the mosaic of colors and textures covering the valley floor. The larger visible openings would appear similar to historic agricultural openings and the color and texture of these areas would easily blend into the context of the surrounding landscape. Openings would take 10 or more years to begin to fade from being a distinct feature on the landscape. Areas of inoperability and protected natural features such as streams, wildlife trees, large seed trees or cultural sites such as stone walls and cellar hole would be avoided during timber harvest operations. These reserved areas would leave natural appearing edges and shapes or islands of vegetation within openings. Organic shaped openings also have more perimeter overall and create leading edges of vegetation that cause shadow effects, reducing visible acres from the opening and its effects as perceived by the observer. The visibility of any opening would be greatest for the first five years, as the color and texture begin to return. The shadow lines and lighting differences would be evident depending on the time of day, weather and season for much longer into the future than would the color and texture. Scenic effects of newly created openings under both Alternatives 2 and 3 would initially be very evident, but within 15-20 years’ time, the regeneration would blend with the existing landscape and become nearly unnoticeable to most observers, especially during seasons of the year when leaves are on the hardwoods. Approximately half of the changes that would be visible under both action alternatives would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings indicative of the region. Over time, establishment of forest regeneration combined with careful placement of openings on the landscape would ensure that the scenery would remain intact under both action alternatives analyzed.
94 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
The differences in effects to scenery between the two action alternatives would be directly related to the amount of clearcutting and group selection harvest proposed that would be visible from the viewpoint. Alternative 2 proposes activities that would create 17 new potentially visible openings from even-aged harvest and group selection cuts, totaling about 151 visible acres. Activities proposed in Alternative 3 would create 11 new potentially visible openings, totaling about 75 visible acres.
The majority of the project area is designated as Low and Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective in the Forest Plan. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both potentially exceed Forest Plan visible opening size guidelines for Moderate SIO, which is approximately 10 acres (Forest Plan, MA 2.1 Scenery G-4/5, p. 3-8). Of the 11 units potentially visible under Alternative 3, visible acreage of two units would potentially exceed this visible opening size guideline. By contrast, of the 17 proposed even-aged harvest units potentially visible under Alternative 2, the visible acreage of five would potentially exceed this guideline. Affected Environment The Project Area scenery consists of mountainsides and bottomlands that are a mosaic of color, form and texture. A blanket of softwood trees covers most of the highest elevations, with swaths of softwood trees, hardwood trees, or a mixture of the two draping over the slopes and extending into lower elevations. Other features include occasional granite outcrops interspersed throughout the upper elevations, high elevation ponds, bottomland ponds and other more distant water features, and low meadows and sporadic meadow-like openings created by past and recent agricultural activities including timber harvest. On the whole the viewed area appears blended and continuous, but upon close inspection it contains many outlines, traces and shadows of openings created from past agricultural activities. A mosaic pattern of color and vegetative texture stems from the underlying geology and soils that determine forest types as well as the history of forest agriculture in the project area and vicinity. Older harvests may not be evident to the casual observer. Most of the existing openings from past harvest activities that are visible from the analyzed viewpoint appear organic in shape and blend in within the context of their surroundings, with the exception of the strip cuts located on the valley bottom along the Peaked Hill Road (FSR 450). Their shapes are very distinct and unnatural, and they stand out on the landscape.
95 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects is the portion of the Project Area that is visible from the viewpoint. The timeframe used for the scenic effects analysis was 30 years into the future, which would allow all of the harvested openings to fully restock and blend in with the adjacent surroundings, as seen from a typical viewing distance by the casual observer. Typical viewing distance is dependent upon the viewpoint, topography, season and weather conditions, etc., but generally ranges between 0 – 8 miles. In this project area, visibility of units within 3.5 miles of the analyzed viewpoint were of the greatest concern, due to increased potential for visibility of detail and reference of scale related to actual unit size. Visible openings at a greater distance would fade sooner than those in closer proximity to the viewpoint.
Alternative 1—No Action
Under Alternative 1 there would be no change from the present condition and therefore no visible change to the landscape within the project area, or no effects, would occur. Natural occurring changes and disturbances to the project area would continue to occur. Small-scale naturally occurring disturbances, such as multiple tree-fall gaps associated with microburst wind events, ice storm, or pockets of insect or disease mortality could potentially create additional openings, with visible shadow, color and texture changes to the landscape.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Visible openings created by proposed group selection treatments would be limited in size (see Vegetation section). These uneven-aged treatments would affect scenery after the initial harvest and for several years to follow, but the effects would fade more rapidly than that of the larger even-aged treatments. After approximately 10 years, the visibility of these openings would begin to fade, due to the reduced scale or size (in acres) of the openings that would be created in comparison to even-aged clearcut, patch cut and shelterwood treatments. The increased amount of residual forest vegetation would provide increased visual screening of openings. Groups would be laid out utilizing design features that encourage placement upon flatter topography and along slope contours (rather than up or down slope). Group size, location and proximity would also be random to avoid creating recognizable patterns on the landscape. Due to the inherent smaller scale of the openings, and distance from the analyzed viewpoint
96 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
(far middleground and background), scenic effects of openings created in group selection units would fade within a few years, when only changes in texture, color and shadow would be noticeable on the overall landscape.
Larger visible openings located higher on the hillsides would appear less natural and would be noticeable for perhaps 15 or more years into the future. After approximately 15-20 years, these larger visible openings should be sufficiently revegetated that the changes in texture, shadow and color would be diminished and the openings would appear to blend with the surroundings.
Openings that are 4 plus miles distant from a viewpoint would appear less noticeable for their size due to the distance. Visible proposed openings at this distance would blend into the surrounding landscape more rapidly, reducing the overall extent of visible disturbance within 5 plus years. Several of the openings visible in Alternative 2, such as units 41, 44, 45, 62, 63, 72 and 73, possess irregular edges and are organic in shape, further blending into the context of the area. Only two of these units, 72 and 73, are included in Alternative 3. The differences in effects to scenery between the two action alternatives would be directly related to the amount of clearcutting and group selection harvest proposed that would be visible from the viewpoint. Alternative 2 proposes the largest amount of openings from even-aged harvest (Table 3.9) and group selection cuts. Several larger openings on hillsides would be particularly visible due to their angle of repose, elevation on the slope, and proximity to other proposed openings.
Table 3.9 - New Visible Openings1 by Alternative Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Viewpoint # Acres # Acres Mount Kearsarge North 17 151 11 75 1 Openings include clearcuts and patch cuts
Alternative 3 would reduce the impacts of logging on scenic values as compared to Alternative 2 by eliminating a total of 6 clearcuts and patch clearcuts combined (totaling 119 acres) and also by reducing the amount of group selection harvest potentially visible from Mount Kearsarge North. The observer from the fire tower would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the intensity of effects would be less under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. The reduction in treatments would increase the geographic separation between openings, allowing visual effects
97 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
created by these openings to blend in years sooner than under Alternative 2. This would be noticeable to the greatest extent on upper slopes in the center portion of the viewshed, where a majority of these treatments were eliminated under Alternative 3. The other visible reductions in openings from Alternative 2 to Alternative 3 would occur in lower lying areas, where visible openings would blend more naturally over time, and appear similar to an agriculture area or meadow.
An observer at the viewpoint would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the lasting effects from Alternative 3 would be reduced in comparison to those of Alternatives 2 and would fade and blend with the context of the untreated surroundings more readily due to the decreased harvest intensity between 1.8 and 2.2 miles distant. Alternative 3 would have the least amount of activity visible of either action alternative. The project interdisciplinary team discussed each stand proposed for even-aged regeneration harvest that would be visible from the Mount Kearsarge North viewpoint. For each visible unit the team reached one of three conclusions: less than 10 acres of opening would be visible so the unit would be consistent Forest Plan scenic guidelines, a well-placed reserve area could potentially block enough of the opening from view to allow the proposed harvest to be consistent with these guidelines, or the harvest would not be consistent with these guidelines. Each of the two action alternatives would potentially exceed Forest Plan visible opening size guidelines for Moderate SIO, which is approximately 10 acres (Forest Plan, MA 2.1 Scenery G-4/5, p. 3-8). Of the 11 units visible in Alternative 3, two units (72 and 73) would potentially exceed Forest Plan visible opening size guidelines (Table 3.10). By contrast, of the 17 units visible in Alternative 2, 5 of the units (41, 44, 45, 72 and 73) would potentially exceed this guideline. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose prescribed burning for the maintenance of wildlife openings. Under both of these alternatives visual quality impacts from prescribed burning of wildlife areas should be minimal because the burns are expected to be ground level disturbances. During most of the year, observers at the analyzed viewpoint would not be viewing the charred ground or the bases of trees; they most likely will be seeing canopy, texture and color of brush or snow.
98 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report Table 3.10 - Openings potentially visible from Mount Kearsarge North
SIOa Alt 2 Alt 3 Visible Distance H <~5 from Distance Full Estimated Meet Forest Estimated Meet Forest Stand M <~10 View Pt. Zone Partial Mgmt Treated Visible Plan Visible Mgmt Treated Visible Plan Visible Visible Miles Unlikely Rx Acres Total Treated Acres Rx Acres Total Treated Acres Acres Acres Total Yes/No Acres Total Yes/No
06 4.1 B Barely M/L PCC 7 3 Y PCC 7 3 Y
10 3.6 M Barely M CC 22 2 Y CC 22 2 Y
12 3.3 M Barely M CC 30 5 Y CC 30 5 Y
17 3.3 M F M PCC 9 7 Y PCC 9 7 Y
36 3.5 M P M CC 13 6 Y CC 13 6 Y
41 2.2 M P M CC 30 22 N - - - -
43 1.9 M P M CC 29 9 Y - - - -
44 1.8 M P M/L CC 21 15 N** - - - -
45 1.9 M P L/M CC 18 13 N** - - - -
47 2.6 M P L PCC 5 3 Y PCC 5 3 Y
62 2.0 M P L PCC 10 7 Y - - - -
63 2.2 M F L CC 11 10 Y - - - -
72 2.7 M F M CC 17 13 N** CC 17 13 N**
73 2.5 M F M/L CC 16 12 N** CC 16 12 N**
76 2.9 M P M CC 28 9 Y CC 28 9 Y
80 2.6 M F M/L PCC 9 6 Y PCC 9 6 Y
104 2.4 M P M CC 19 9 Y CC 19 9 Y a SIO: Scenic Integrity Objective Note: Stands are visible utilizing visualization models. Others may possibly be visible after layout as ground work will dictate the exact locations and dimensions. ** Design Features would be implemented during the implementation phase of the project in order to meet Forest Plan Guidelines
99 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
For the first 3-5 years following the burning activity, the burned areas could show visible differences in color, texture and lighting in comparison to unburned surrounding areas, especially during spring and fall when neither leaves nor snow are present. After a few years, regeneration of ground cover would begin to cover the blackened surfaces and the visual impacts would begin to fade. Since only 3 wildlife openings are proposed to be burned and their sizes are minimal (15 acres total), it would limit the overall scenic impacts on the viewshed.
Cumulative Effects No future harvests are currently proposed in the analysis area. No visible past or proposed future burns occur within the analysis area, so no cumulative effects from that activity would be anticipated under any alternative. Visible portions of stands within the analyzed viewshed that were treated with even-aged regeneration treatments within the past 30 years total approximately 523 acres. Combined with the estimated 294 acres of visible openings that would be created by proposed even-aged harvest in Alternative 2, cumulatively up to approximately 896 acres of openings would be visible within the Mount Kearsarge North viewshed. These visible openings from past and proposed harvest and other management activities would total approximately 4% of this viewshed. The only difference in cumulative effects between the action alternatives is related to the intensity of proposed harvest activity. Past harvest plus Alternative 3 would affect less than 4% of the viewshed. Past harvest units readily visible from the analyzed viewpoint could compound the intensity of the visual effects created upon the landscape by either of the two action alternatives. The combination could potentially attract more attention from visitors and further detract from scenic quality due to perceived unnatural appearances of treated areas. This cumulative effect would diminish within approximately 10-15 years (based upon distances) as regeneration makes new openings less obvious and old openings further blend into the landscape.
100 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
3.8 Socio-Economic
Background and Summary The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan details the social environment of the White Mountain National Forest in terms of populations, demographics, partnerships, values, uses of the Forest, and attitudes toward land management (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-472 to 3-486). The Forest Plan recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1- 3). While many of the communities surrounding the national forest share a history of reliance for their livelihood on natural resource management and tourism, social and economic patterns constantly change. Housing markets and their associated need for raw materials, economic markets, and population trends adjust over time and spatially, with marked differences regionally. For example, populations and local economies are growing in the communities surrounding the southern portions of the Forest, while communities in the north are slowing. The current regional and national economic trends may stall further economic growth, especially in the northern portions of the forest, where the economy has a greater dependence on traditional natural resource- based manufacturing industries. The White Mountain National Forest recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies and strives “to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer” (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-3 and 1-17). Continued demand for national forest timber is expected due to the Forest’s high value sawtimber and demand for pulp products. The quality sawtimber products represent a key niche in the region, and its continued availability may have direct impacts on the local economy (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-473 to 3-520; High et al., 2004).
Economic elements analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS included regional employment and labor income as affected by an array of factors including timber harvest and the structure of the forest products industry, road construction and maintenance, recreation management, and state and local government (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-509).
Social impacts in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) were analyzed in the context of what people value about the Forest, and the effects of national forest management on the quality of life and rural character of the Forest Region. Effects were
101 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
based primarily on assessments of trends across the four counties in which the WMNF is located (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p.3-487); however, these elements and others can be measured at the project level as follows:
• Rural character may be measured by changes in human activity due to changes in development levels and access. Proposed activities in the Province project would not constitute changes in development levels or access other than temporary displacement of recreation activities due to harvest activity near trails and the associated temporary trail closures. Displacement would likely be to other trails within the Forest. See the Recreation Section, Chapter 3 for effects on recreation. • Quality of life may be measured by changes in recreational opportunities, long term maintenance of healthy ecosystems and scenic beauty, and the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Each of these subjects is discussed in other sections within Chapter 3 of this report (see Recreation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Scenery and Heritage). • Environmental Justice may be measured (Executive Order 12898) by analyzing the potential for minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.
Analysis of social and economic effects, including low income and minority populations, is required if they are important to a reasoned decision. No comments regarding social and economic effects were raised by the public for this project (project record). Affected Environment Several forest product manufacturers are within viable hauling distance from the project area, and it is reasonable to assume that products from this project would supply some of these businesses. This is reflected in the interest in National Forest timber sale bids. The project area is bordered by National Forest lands to the North and West, and by private lands to the South and East. There are approximately fifty private parcels located along Green Hill, Robbins Hill and Hurricane Mountain Roads that abut the project area. Only a few of these abutting privately owned parcels contain residences or summer camps. Portions of 22 proposed timber harvest units are located adjacent to private lands. The project area provides a number of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities. Weeks Brook Hiking Trail, Kearsarge North Fire Tower, Province Pond Hiking Trail and shelter and Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail are all located within the project area.
102 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on socio-economics incorporates the town of Chatham, New Hampshire where project activities would take place and where tax revenues would be generated.
The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is the duration of project activities because any direct or indirect effects would occur during or soon after operations.
Communities within which National Forest timber is harvested are reimbursed for the value of that timber through two separate funds.
• The New Hampshire Timber Yield tax averages 10% of the value harvested, and would be paid directly by the purchaser to the Towns where timber is harvested.
• The 25 Percent Payment-to-States Fund (25% Fund), under which New Hampshire collects 25% of the annual revenue generated in the White Mountain National Forest from timber harvest and other revenue-producing activities. The State then disperses the funds to New Hampshire towns that have national forest acreage, to be used for the benefit of public schools.
The following relevant, measurable economic elements were used for the project socio- economic analysis:
• Costs and revenues of planning and implementing the proposed activities.
• Timber tax payment to the affected Towns.
• 25% Fund reimbursements to the State of New Hampshire.
It is important to note that the Forest Service is not required to select the alternative with the highest timber volume or revenue. Many of the social and economic effects of project implementation would not be tangible and cannot be quantified, and could be perceived as either beneficial or not, depending on one’s values and perspectives. For example, clearcuts may have adverse visual effects to some, but may be viewed as valuable wildlife habitat by others.
103 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Table 3.11 – Estimated Timber Harvest Costs and Revenues by Alternative Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Environmental Analysis and $187,822 $187,822 $187,822 Project Planning
Timber Sale Preparation & NA $122,522 $112,522 Administration
Total Costs $187,822 $310,344 $300,344
Revenues Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Est. Harvest Volume (MBF) NA 7,913 5,664
Net Stumpage Receipts 0 $525,653 $363,572
10% Timber Yield Tax 0 $52,565 $36,357
Total Revenues 0 $578,218 $399,929
Net Value (revenues – cost) ($187,822) $267,874 $99,585
Net Value/MBF NA $33.85 $17.58
Est. 25% Fund Payment to 0 $131,413 $90,893 NH
Note: Costs for Planning, Preparation, and Administration are based on estimated costs associated with or anticipated for this project. Stumpage values for this project were based on the awarded values for three timber sales that were part of the Kanc7 project (bid in 2009-2010). At the time of this analysis, stumpage was estimated to be $111.28 per thousand board feet for this project. The stumpage receipt estimates deduct anticipated road construction and re-construction costs, as well as sale preparation and administrative costs.
104 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Table 3.12 - Estimated Costs of Non-Timber Activities for the Action Alternatives Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Site Preparation 0 $57,800 $24,414
Timber Stand Improvement 0 $19,987 $19,987
Release Treatments 0 $19,716 $19,716
Wildlife Openings 0 $37,500 $37,500
Trail Relocation (0.8 miles) 0 $25,000 $25,000
Culvert Upgrade (2 sites) 0 $30,000 $30,000
Road Decommissioning (0.6 miles) 0 0 0
Total non-timber costs 0 190,000 $156,617
Alternative 1
No revenue would be generated and no reimbursements would come to the State or Towns. The cost of project planning and environmental analysis is estimated at approximately $188,000, regardless of the alternative selected. There would be no changes in rural character or public safety because no activities would be implemented. The recreational component contributing to quality of life would be slightly affected for some because hunting opportunities that would have been available in newly harvested areas would be foregone. Additionally, the non-timber activities would not be accomplished at this time.
Alternatives 2 and 3
For Alternative 2 the estimated revenue for the 10% timber yield tax to the town of Chatham would be $52,565, while under Alternative 3 the estimated revenue would be reduced to $36,357. For the 25% Fund, the State of New Hampshire determines how funds are distributed. The 25% fund payments would provide amounts listed in the Table 3.11 above. The collection to the State under Alternative 3 would be about 30 percent less than that for Alternative 2.
105 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Direct and indirect effects to quality of life and rural character should be minimal because the project proposals replicate three or more decades of similar past activities in this project area and throughout the Saco River Watershed. These alternatives would continue management of the forest in accordance with the Forest Plan and Best Management Practices. Forest resources including water and soil would be protected, trail and watershed restoration projects are proposed, and road maintenance would help prevent unforeseen erosion problems. Forest vegetation would be managed in accordance with Forest Plan objectives to promote healthy ecosystems, sustainability, and diverse habitats. Tables 3.11 and 3.12 itemize the estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing the alternatives.
Recreation opportunities would be enhanced for forest users that enjoy wildlife observation and hunting. Hiking, snowmobiling and other recreation opportunities would be maintained, although some localized displacement may occur during periods when logging is active near trails. Province Pond and Weeks Brook Hiking Trails, as well as the Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail would be potentially affected by harvest activities. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose timber harvest along these trails. Proposed harvest prescriptions are described in Chapter 2 and in Appendix B. Proposed logging and connected transportation management activities would have short term effects on the quality of recreation experience along hiking and snowmobile trails in the project area. Warning notices would be posted where segments of these trails approach activity areas such as roads, harvest areas, and landings. In addition, segments of the Weeks Brook and Province Pond Hiking Trails would be intermittently closed to public access during periods of time when harvest activities are occurring in nearby units. Concurrent use by snowmobiles, hikers, and logging trucks on roads within the project area is expected. Roads where concurrent use is expected would be posted with traffic control signs and speed limits to insure public and logging operator safety. Roads may also be intermittently closed to public use when tree felling operations are occurring in adjacent units. The recreation section in Chapter 3 discusses direct, indirect or cumulative adverse effects on recreation in greater detail.
Corridor 19 is used primarily by snowmobiles in winter. Effects to users on this trail would be mitigated by weekend and holiday timber hauling restrictions on Corridor 19 roads (Peaked Hill - FR 450, Weeks Brook - FR 303, Middle Brook – FR 316, and Hardwood Hill – FR 317) from December 15 to March 30 annually. Contractor traffic, other than log trucks, would still be allowed to use these roads during the timber haul
106 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
restriction period, however speed limits for all motorized traffic from December 15 to March 30, including both wheeled vehicles and tracked snow machine, would be restricted to 15 mph to provide for safe dual use of Corridor 19.
Human activity would be increased during project operations, but not to a level having a noticeable effect on the rural character of the area. No new roads or trails are proposed so permanent access would not change. The proposed road decommissioning would not change public access because the road segments proposed for decommissioning are not currently open for public vehicle use.
Direct effects to public safety resulting from harvest activities would be avoided through posted warnings on affected trails, trailheads and roads, posted speed limits on roads with concurrent use and intermittent closures of affected trails and roads. Use of the Peaked Hill Road, Green Hill and Robbins Hill Roads and other forest access roads by log trucks is comparable to those activities occurring on other roads within and near the Forest, and along main roads to lumber mills. Logging traffic along the Green Hill and Robbins Hill Roads is not without precedence from traffic associated with past timber harvests in the project area and on private lands elsewhere in Carroll County. In summary, the economic effects of intermittent displacement of recreational hiking and snowmobiles to other trails available within the White Mountain region would not likely have a measurable affect on the local economy because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities would continue. Scenic Quality, Recreation, and Heritage resources are discussed in those sections of this chapter. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative socio-economic effects of this project is the town of Chatham, New Hampshire. All National Forest lands proposed for management in this project are located within this township.
The temporal scope for cumulative effects on socio-economics is the present to ten years into the future (2013-2023). This time frame allows for completion of the project and all potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects would have percolated through the economy within that time frame. This time frame would encompass any residual social effects, as the activities would have long since been completed, and any displacement of public use would be completely recovered.
107 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Alternative 1
There are no other ongoing National Forest timber sales that are located within the cumulative effects analysis area that would be operating during the analysis timeframe. No other known revenue would be generated to the town of Chatham from Timber Yield Taxes from National Forest lands. A small amount of tax revenue may be generated for the town from the sale of private timber during this period. There would be no cumulative changes to the existing rural character, quality of life, or public health and safety.
Alternatives 2 and 3
This project is expected to create an increase in jobs, tax revenues, and presence of logging trucks during the first half of the period. As relates to economic opportunity and/or revenue, no other known timber harvests are planned on National Forest lands within the town of Chatham during the analysis period and an unknown but modest amount of private timber may or may not be harvested within the town. The effects of intermittent displacement of recreational hiking and snowmobiling to other trails which are available within the White Mountain region, would not have a measurable affect on the local economy of Chatham, because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities is expected to occur. By the end of this time frame, while some beneficial effects (for wildlife) may now be diminished, the recovery of foreground views, landings, skid trails and scenery would be well under way and nearly indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Forest visitors may view the current condition of thinned stands and distant openings seen, as part of the landscape of a National Forest. Short term adverse effects on hiking and snowmobiling, and beneficial economic effects for employment and government revenues, would have expired.
No new recreation projects are planned to occur on National Forest lands located in the town of Chatham within the next ten years. Ongoing maintenance work on Forest recreation sites and trails located within the town of Chatham, including the Corridor 19 Snowmobile Trail, Weeks Brook and Province Pond hiking trails and Province Pond Dam and Shelter, would continue over the next ten years. These activities would primarily involve modifications and maintenance to existing recreation sites, so no cumulative effects to the rural character of these townships are anticipated.
108 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices, and design features are integrated into this project to protect soils, water, scenery, and heritage resources. Timber harvest prescriptions are designed to promote healthy ecosystems over the long term and thus provide beneficial cumulative effects in the treated areas. It is impossible to predict what effect private timber harvests within the towns may have on local ecosystems, although New Hampshire Best Management Practices are assumed to be implemented. Overall, there would be no cumulative adverse effects to the existing quality of life. Assuming the action alternatives would provide work for Americans and revenue to local, State and federal governments, these contributions to the economy would improve the quality of life for individuals benefiting from the jobs, and for communities benefitting from the tax revenue. See Tables 3.11 and 3.12 for estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing the alternatives. Of the two action alternatives, Alternative 3 would contribute the least to the economy.
Environmental Justice There are approximately fifty private parcels which abut the project area and are located along Green Hill, Robbins Hill and Hurricane Mountain Roads. Only a few of these parcels contain residences and summer camps. The closest population center is located about two miles north of the Project Area in the town of Chatham, New Hampshire. None of the abutting residences or summer camps are known to be owned or inhabited by minority or low-income populations. No public comments were received indicating the presence of or concerns about minority or low-income groups. There is little potential, given the locations of the harvest and other activities, that any minority or low-income group would be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.
3.9 Soil Resources
Background and Summary The Soil Quality Standards for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service are designed to allow non-detrimental soil disturbance (exposure of mineral soil, compaction and rutting) and provide the context to determine how the potential soil property change may affect ecosystem composition, processes and function. (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2012-1) Alternative 2 proposes the most soil disturbance at approximately 216.4 acres, but by following the recommended best
109 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
management practices and design features related to this project and prior monitoring of like projects no detrimental effects are anticipated with implementation of this project.
Following the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, tiering to the FEIS, and using best available science, no detrimental effects on soil nutrient productivity are anticipated with implementation of this project. The Forest Plan desired conditions include protecting long-term sustainability of the soil resource; emphasizing maintaining appropriate soil nutrients and soil stabilization around management activities. Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Forest Service Soil Quality Standards (SQS) (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9 RO 2509.18-2012-1), and relevant BMPs to all phases of the project would ensure that long-term soil productivity would be maintained in this area. Affected Environment The Province Project area contains soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately-well drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes. The project area is too low on the landscape and gentle in slope to have dry debris slides that would lead to mass movement of shallow gravelly soils. It is low enough on the landscape to have deep soil slumps; however, field review of the units proposed indicates that this potential soil hazard does not exist here (Colter 2013). The project area includes a mix of northern hardwood and softwood Ecological Land Types (ELTs). Ecological Land Typing is used in determining how and when treatments should occur in order to minimize soil disturbance. Land use records in the early 1900s indicate the project area was a mixture of heavily and lightly culled (meaning a portion of trees were removed from the area, some areas more so than were others), including softwoods. Since those early times, there have been conventional, bole-only harvests in this vicinity (the tops and limbs of the trees having been left in the forest), which means that approximately 35 percent of the calcium that could be taken from the forest through harvesting has been left on-site. Field examinations indicate that all stands previously harvested to regenerate new forest have met agency requirements for adequate stocking of forest regeneration at three and five years post-harvest (see project record). This is consistent with forest wide re-stocking surveys, which show all clearcut and selection harvests on a variety of soils, aspects, and topographic positions. Restocking is the first step in the re-accumulation of biomass, a measurement used by the Forest Service to
110 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
assure that long-term soil productivity is maintained. It can also indicate whether forest response to harvest treatment meets Forest Plan silvicultural guidelines.
Direct and Indirect Effects Soil Erosion and Compaction
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction are the stands proposed for treatment as part of the Province Project. The area has been selected because the expected effects are limited to the area within the proposed treatment area. Under Alternative 2 the stand analysis area totals approximately 2747 acres, Alternative 3 approximately 1971 stand acres. Part of analyzing the direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and compaction is to consider how the soils have responded to the effects of similar past actions The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is approximately 22,090 acres (34.5 square miles). This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effect of activities in other parts of the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook watersheds along with the proposed activities. This scale is not so large that it spatially dilutes the cumulative sum of the effects on soil resources, nor is it so small that it fails to identify and consider current and potential use on both National Forest and private lands relative to the proposed project. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is eleven years in the past and ten years beyond the implementation of the project. This period was chosen to incorporate the last timber harvesting operations on National Forest lands within the analysis area (the last sale was in the early 2000s). It takes into consideration present effects on soil resources resulting from any past soil disturbing actions, to allow time for the proposed activities to occur and be completed, and to consider any other foreseeable soil disturbing activities. This timeframe allows consideration of multiple uses, and provides enough time for the expected recovery of soils from erosion and compaction resulting from timber harvesting, as well as the projected recovery time from future activities. Evidence of erosion and compaction beyond the expected timeframe would imply that the soil is not recovering as expected, and effects from this and future activities could be additive and cumulative.
111 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Soil Nutrient Cycling
The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil nutrient cycling is the location of the actual timber harvest activities, since site-specific impacts related to soil or forest productivity are not likely to extend further. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on soil productivity is from early harvesting approximately in the early 1900s to ten years into the future; which is the reasonable planning horizon for a future harvest. Early harvesting is considered because land use may affect soil nutrients, including soil calcium (Hornbeck 1990). Future harvesting and acidic deposition are considered for the same reason. The actually percent of total calcium loss takes into account calcium depletion for the last 63 years, foreseeable calcium depletion for the next 10 years, previous harvests, and current harvest proposed.
Alternative 1 – No Action Soil Erosion and Compaction
No adverse direct or indirect effects to soil erosion or compaction are expected from Alternative 1. In the absence of activities such as timber harvesting, no increase in surface soil erosion or soil compaction is expected with Alternative 1, because there is no reconstruction or re-established use of existing skid trails and landings.
Soil Nutrient Cycling
No adverse direct or indirect effects to soil nutrient cycling are expected from Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would have no direct impact on long-term soil nutrient cycling or forest health. The indirect impact of no timber harvesting includes no possible changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium, base saturation, and possible impacts on forest health, productivity, or species composition that are attributed to forest harvest (as compared to acid deposition). (FEIS 3-18) Given that acidic deposition is the primary mechanism affecting soil acidification, deferring treatment is likely to exert little impact on soil cycling or forest health.
112 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternatives 2 and 3 Soil Erosion and Compaction
Approximately 8.6 miles of existing road are proposed for reconstruction and maintenance in Alternative 2 and approximately 6.4 miles of existing road are proposed for reconstruction and maintenance activities in Alternative 3. Reconstruction and maintenance would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. Although road maintenance may initially cause ground disturbance, improving and maintaining roads to their level of anticipated use could prevent future soil erosion. Research has shown that maintenance, such as resurfacing roads with a layer of gravel, reduces sediment losses (NCASI 2000). Road resurfacing and replacing culverts would help maintain the road and prevent future soil erosion problems (Moll et al. 1997). This is also true for access to log landings. Approximately 0.6 miles of roads are proposed for decommissioning in Alternatives 2 and 3. Decommissioning of roads may consist of an exercise in the database to take it off the system or it may consist of rehabilitation work such as water barring, restoring the contour and seeding. Up to eleven new driveways are proposed in Alternative 2, and eight in Alternative 3, which would be up to approximately 500 feet in length. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed by workers for up to six feet out from the new road on either side. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site verses before the soil disturbing construction activities, decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion control at road sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling road drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. Following use of the driveways, they would be decommissioned following BMP’s, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity.
The majority of the activity area is gently to moderately sloped, and harvesting would occur on slopes suitable for timber management. The lengths of these slopes are short enough to limit potential for notable soil erosion. The combination of moderately-sloped terrain with post-harvesting measures in accordance with Forest standards and guidelines and BMPs, such as soil stabilization and waterbars, should prevent soil
113 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
erosion and promote revegetation (BMP NH 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996).
Some stands would be harvested only in the winter months, while some stands have the option of summer/fall harvesting based on the soils or other resource needs. With frozen soils, proper skid trail location, and careful closeout at the end of operations, minimum surface soil erosion or soil compaction is likely to occur (BMP NH 2004; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford et al. 1996). Frozen operations should produce very little compaction since operations would not have direct contact with mineral soil and any effects from compaction should disappear by the following winter. Harvesting and skidding on stands during summer or fall would most likely expose mineral soil, particularly on the main skid trails, and it is likely there would be site-specific instances of surface soil erosion and compaction from loss of organic cover. Planned layout and management of skid trails, utilizing breaks in terrain and avoiding steep slopes in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Forest Plan, p 2-30), and limiting operations to dry soil conditions (BMPs) would largely minimize or avoid detrimental soil erosion. Some temporary compaction would be expected on main skid trails, but this would be minimized by design features, and the soils should fully recover from any compaction within three years of the end of operations (Donnelly et al. 1991). A watershed project is proposed in both Action Alternatives to improve watershed function and quality by replacing two undersized culverts on perennial streams crossing on Harwood Hill and Weeks Brook Roads. To minimize any new ground disturbance, access to the sites would either be by roads or skid trails. BMPs would be followed to reduce chances of sedimentation to the streams (refer to the water resources report). Little if any soil effects are anticipated with this project. Twenty-five existing log landings are proposed for use during harvesting in the Alternative 2 and twenty existing log landings are proposed in Alternative 3. These log landings are well placed because of their gentle terrain. The combination of careful site selection and management of the log yard during use would limit the extent of erosion and prevent long-term soil erosion impacts even though truck traffic and skidder operation would churn the soil surface and expose mineral soil leading to on-site soil erosion within the boundary of the log yard. Alternative 2 proposes up to 11 new log landings 0.75 acres in size or less, and Alternative 3 proposes 8 new landings. These log landings would be well placed because of their gentle terrain. The combination of careful site selection and management of the log yard during use would limit the extent of erosion and prevent
114 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
long-term soil erosion impacts even though truck traffic and skidder operation would churn the soil surface and expose mineral soil leading to on-site soil erosion within the boundary of the log yard. Little if any soil detrimental effects are anticipated with this project.
Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to reconstruct approximately 0.8 miles of the Weeks Brook Trail because of wet trail conditions. The trail reconstruction would occur during dry soil conditions and would be a width of five feet. As long as the trail exists, soil under the trail is detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed by workers for up to three feet out from the new trail on either side. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site verses before the soil disturbing construction activities, decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion control at road sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling road drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. The current Weeks Brook Trail would be rehabilitated following BMP’s after use. Indirect effects analysis for this project is based on studies of revegetation rate and success on skid trails and log landings in Maine and Vermont. These studies found that soil compaction on log landings and skid trails lasted two to three years after operations ceaseed (Donnelly et al. 1991; Holman et al. 1978). Restocking surveys and field reviews on the White Mountain National Forest indicate that skid trails and log landings are revegetating naturally. Well-distributed rainfall, abundant seed sources, and favorable seedbeds all contribute to this rapid revegetation. Log landings typically revegetate first with raspberries and other herbaceous species and then with forest tree species. Skid trails typically revegetate with forest tree species.
Soil Nutrient Cycling
The direct effect of timber harvesting is the removal of calcium through the removal of forest products (tree boles). In general, harvesting that removes only the bole of a tree, removes only a portion of the calcium in the tree. Tree species vary in the amount and distribution of calcium. Whole-tree harvesting removes calcium that would otherwise be recycled to the forest floor. Whole-tree clearcut harvesting removes the most calcium from a site (FEIS, pp 3-18, 3-19, 3-27).
115 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
The quantity of calcium removed in harvesting varies by area and by harvest method. Proposed harvesting in the Province Project is bole-only tree harvesting. The 25 percent for other harvest methods represents the proportion of an area in the project actually harvested. These estimates of calcium removed in forest products indicate that, in general, clearcuts have a greater potential direct impact on calcium removed, especially if whole-tree harvesting is used, compared to bole-only clearcut harvesting or selective or thinning harvesting. Thinning and selective harvesting have less impact than clearcutting. However, over time, even-aged harvesting removes the same amount of woody material as uneven-age harvesting methods. So, the cumulative impact of calcium removal of even- and uneven-aged harvesting methods is nearly the same.
Bole-only, clearcut harvesting would remove an estimated two percent of the calcium from a site, and a whole-tree clearcut harvest would remove approximately four percent of the total calcium that resides in the soil. The other bole-only harvesting methods would remove up to one percent of the calcium of the total calcium that resides in the soil. (FEIS 3-19). Based on these measurements, harvest activities in Alternative 2 would remove a greater percent of the available soil calcium than would harvest activities in Alternative 3. A watershed project is proposed in both Action Alternatives to improve watershed function and quality by replacing two undersized culverts. The culverts will be replaced on perennial streams crossing on Harwood Hill and Weeks Brook Roads. To minimize any new ground disturbance, access to the sites would either be by roads or skid trails. BMPs would be followed to reduce chances of sedimentation to the streams (refer to the water resources report). Little if any soil nutrient detrimental effects are anticipated with this project. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to reconstruct approximately 0.8 miles of Weeks Brook trail to the because of wet trail conditions. The trail construction would occur along the current Tunnel Brook road alignment. It would be constructed during dry soil conditions and would be a width of five feet. Construction would be approximately 0.8 miles long with a 5-foot wide zone of surface compaction of the soil. As long as the trail exists, soil under the trail is detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed by workers for up to three feet out from the new trail on either side. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site verses before the soil disturbing construction activities, decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion
116 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
control at road sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling road drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. The current Weeks Brook Trail would be rehabilitated following BMP’s after use. Little if any soil nutrient detrimental effects are anticipated with this project. Alternative 2 proposes up to eleven new log landings 0.75 acres in size, and Alternative 3 proposes eight new landings. These log landings would be well placed because of their gentle terrain. The combination of careful site selection and management of the log yard during use would limit the extent of erosion and prevent long-term soil erosion impacts even though truck traffic and skidder operation would churn the soil surface and expose mineral soil leading to on-site soil erosion within the boundary of the log yard. Little if any soil nutrient detrimental effects are anticipated with this project. Up to eleven new driveways are proposed in Alternative2, and eight in Alternative 3, which would be up to approximately 500 feet in length. Soil nutrient cycling would be impacted while the driveway is in use. This impact will consist of the soil not being allowed to collect nutrients by the vegetation not being on the driveway to complete the soil nutrient cycle while in use but after use the driveway will be decommissioned, following BMP’s in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. The indirect effect of timber harvesting includes possible changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium, base saturation, and possible impacts on forest health, such as tree mortality and decay, productivity, or species composition that are attributed to forest harvesting (as compared to acid deposition). (FEIS, p 3-18) No impact is expected on forest health or productivity related to the timber harvesting program across the White Mountain National Forest during the next two decades based on actual on-site measurements at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest — over a period of fifteen years at sixty soil pits — soil exchangeable calcium was not lost due to forest harvest (USDA- Forest Service 2005b FEIS, p 3-20).
All former clearcuts in the project area have regenerated since prior harvest, and new clearcuts would be expected to do the same following the implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3. It has been found that soil organic matter is not lost but rather redistributed in the upper mineral layers during harvest (Johnson et al. 1991; Johnson et al. 1997). Therefore, indirect effects from proposed harvesting are not expected under Alternatives 2 or 3.
117 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Cumulative Effects Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis
Management activities in the next ten years include ongoing maintenance of permanent wildlife openings through prescribed fire or mechanical methods, road maintenance, ongoing invasive plant eradication and ongoing maintenance of trails and backcountry campsites.
Alternative 1 Soil Erosion and Compaction
There would continue to be localized erosion related to ongoing maintenance of Forest Service System roads, recreational trails, private roads, timber harvesting on public and private lands, but there would be no cumulative effects from Alternative 1 on surface soil erosion because there would be no direct or indirect effects.
Soil Nutrient Cycling
Atmospheric deposition may continue to deplete soil calcium irrespective of timber harvesting. Given the cumulative effects time period, it is possible that up to three percent of the total soil calcium may have been removed during that time due to atmospheric deposition, and another less than one percent due to early harvesting methods (Fay 2003). A literature review indicates that soil and streams are recovering from the possible impacts of acid deposition (FEIS 3-26),therefore, an estimated four percent soil calcium may have been lost over 120 years (FEIS 3-24). On-site evidence during timber and other inventories has not revealed any unusual dieback or mortality. Stands previously harvested in this vicinity have adequately regenerated. As previously noted, no change in biomass accumulation has been documented at the nearby Bartlett Experimental Forest. Thus, based on on-site evidence and the previously discussed research on biomass accumulation, it does not appear there are issues with soil nutrient cycling.
118 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternatives 2 and 3 Soil Erosion and Compaction
Soil compaction can accumulate resulting from repeated activities, however shovel testing in some of the harvest units showed little or no evidence of detrimental compaction from previous harvesting activities, implying that soils have effectively recovered. Use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMPs would minimize effects due to soil erosion and compaction (FEIS, p 3-29; Maine Forest Service 2005 and 2006; Stafford, et al. 1996). By utilizing existing skid trails and landings, activities would occur where the soil has already demonstrated the ability to recover quickly from short term effects of harvesting. Implementation of BMPs during timber harvest on private lands adjacent to the National Forest lands within the analysis area is expected, limiting areas of soil disturbance, erosion and compaction. Impacts of residential development would be expected to be less within the analysis area than might be encountered in other areas within and adjacent to the National Forest. Land management activities such as harvesting, road building, and permanent wildlife openings typically result in site-specific soil erosion that is limited to the area of distubance. Since effects of soil erosion are often of greatest concern in streams and rivers, the analysis of cumulative soil erosion and compaction effects considers the cumulative incremental impacts on watersheds. The Province project would result in a short-term increase in the amount of soil disturbance in the analysis area. Table 3.13 shows soil disturbance under Alternative 2 on approximately 216.4 acres, or 7.9 percent of the 2747-acre stand analysis area, and 166.5 acres, or 8.4 percent of the 1971-acre stand analysis area under Alternative 3.
The cumulative effects watershed analyzed is approximately 22,090 acres (34.5 square miles). This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effect of activities in other parts of the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook watersheds along with the proposed activities with privately-owned lands within the watersheds totaling approximately 10,694 acres or 48 percent of the watershed. For adverse impacts to occur, nearly all of this area would have to be detrimentally disturbed. Considering that private landowners within the analysis area would be required to follow best management practices, it’s unlikely that this large of an area would be impacted within the cumulative effects analysis temporal or spatial bounds.
119 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Table 3.13 - Ground Disturbance, by Alternative
Alternatives
Activity 1 2 3
Landings (acres)1 0 27 21
Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 1.0 1.0
Roads Reconstruction (miles/acres)2 0/0 8.6/23.0 6.4/14.9
New Driveways 500 ft (miles/acres)2 0/0 1.0/2.4 0.8/1.9
Road Decommission (miles/acres)2 0/0 0.6/1.44 0.6/1.44
Road Reclassification (miles/acres) 0/0 0.4/1.0 0.4/1.0
Skid Trails (miles/acres)1 0/0 77.3/185.5 59.8/141.6
Hiking trail Construction (miles/ acres)2 0/0 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5
Total Disturbed Acres 0/0 216.4 166.5
7.9% of 8.4% of Total % of Stand Acres Disturbed 0% 2747ac. 1971ac.
a Landing size =0.75 acres 2 1 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance with of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile c Hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles
Soil Nutrient Cycling
The cumulative effects are the result of impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including consideration of early land use (forestry, agriculture), long-term changes in atmospheric deposition (sulfate, nitrate, particulate matter), and future land uses (FEIS, p 3-18). The effects of atmospheric deposition under Alternatives 2 and 3, would be the same as in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 both would add new harvesting impacts through removal of trees and their biomass. Alternative 2 would remove the most calcium, because it proposes 452 acres of clearcut and shelterwood, bole-only tree harvesting and 1568 acres gs/thinning, bole-only tree harvesting. Alternative 3 would remove less calcium, because
120 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
it proposes 277 acres of clearcut and shelterwood, bole-only tree harvesting and 1303gs/ thinning bole-only tree harvesting acres. Modeling of soil exchangeable calcium and base saturation for a northern hardwood forest at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest has shown little long-term effect on these factors as a result of timber harvesting. Changes in exchangeable soil calcium and soil base saturation from 1850 to 2000 were nearly the same with and without forest harvesting (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-23 to 3-25).
3.10 Water Resources
Background and Summary All waters of the National Forest are designated as “Outstanding Resource Waters” and water quality and supported designated uses shall be maintained and protected in surface waters that constitute ORW (NHDES 1999). Some limited point and nonpoint source discharges may be allowed provided they are of limited activity and result in no more than temporary and short-term changes in water quality. Activities may not result in water quality lower than what is necessary to protect the existing and designated uses in the Outstanding Resource Waters. In accordance with the Forest Plan, temporary and short-term degradation shall only be allowed after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are implemented (Forest Plan 2005, p. 2-30). Site specific Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, Soil and Water Conservation Practices, and other mitigations designed to protect and maintain water quantity and quality are integrated into project design (Chapter 2). None of the alternatives analyzed would be expected to have a measurable, negative impact on water quantity or quality. Less than 20 percent of the basal area would be removed from any subwatershed analyzed; therefore no detrimental effects on streamflow or water chemistry are expected. Since basal area removal would be greatest under Alternative 2, localized effects in some watersheds would be greater than in Alternative 3. These may include temporarily wetter conditions and changes in water chemistry in small drainages that would not violate water quality standards. Under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, watershed restoration and trail relocation work would lead to a long-term improvement in channel function and reduced
121 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
sedimentation over the existing condition. Temporary ground disturbance would occur, but would not be expected to have measurable detrimental effects on water resources.
The amount of disturbed area, locations selected, and application of BMPs for work on transportation systems would prevent detrimental changes in water quantity or quality. Riparian area protections would also prevent excessive sedimentation. Some localized, trace sediment may reach streams in association with ground-disturbing work, but this would be within allowable disturbance limits and would not permanently degrade water quality. The risk of water quality impacts would be greatest under Alternative 2, followed by Alternative 3, based on the amount of disturbance in each alternative. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of all alternatives analyzed on water quantity and quality would meet Forest Plan limitations on temporary and short-term degradation and all practical means of minimizing such degradation would be implemented. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to water resources have been incorporated as design features. Streams are expected to remain in Proper Functioning Condition or improve due to restoration projects. The proposed activities would not change water quantity to an extent that would affect instream flows or water supplies. The proposed activities would comply with State of New Hampshire water quality standards for Outstanding Resource Waters in that no more than temporary and short- term changes in water quality would occur. Waters in the analysis area would continue to support designated uses. Where water quality is currently not meeting State standards for pH, the proposed activities are not expected to cause further degradation. These activities are not expected to affect public or private water supplies. Public water supplies do not occur in the project area or cumulative effects analysis area. Mobilization of detrimental amounts of chemicals to groundwater or surface water would be prevented by application of BMPs and locating disturbance away from surface water. The proposed project activities would involve little or no use of toxic chemicals. Log landings, where petroleum products may occur, would be located outside of wellhead protection areas. Servicing of vehicles using petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, etc. would be done in compliance with appropriate state BMPs for spill prevention and waste disposal.
122 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Affected Environment The Province project area is located in the Charles River and Swans Falls watersheds. The Charles River watershed is approximately 50,031 acres (78.2 sq. mi) and the Swans Falls watershed is approximately 16,759 acres (26.2 sq. mi). Both watersheds ultimately drain into the Saco River just east of the New Hampshire state border in Maine. Perennial streams in the project area include Anderson Brook, an unnamed tributary to Kimball Brook, Middle Brook, an unnamed tributary to Middle Brook, Province Brook, three unnamed tributaries to Province Brook, an unnamed tributary to Upper Kimball Brook, Weeks Brook, and several unnamed tributaries to Weeks Brook. Other water bodies in the project area include Province Pond, unnamed wetlands, seeps and vernal pools. Unnamed and in some cases unmapped perennial streams have been named and their subwatersheds were delineated for purpose of this analysis. (Figure 3.2). All streams in the project area are first and second order streams. No streams within the project area are listed as third or fourth order streams in the 2005 Forest Plan FEIS (p. J-3 and J-4). Certain water bodies are subject to additional protection under state law based on their size or stream order. Province Pond is considered a great pond since its surface area is greater than 10 acres. This receives additional protection under NH Basal Area Law and the Comprehensive Shoreland Water Quality Act. Water quantity in streams in the Province Project Area is directly related to the amount of precipitation that occurs throughout the year. At Hubbard Brook, an experimental Forest within the White Mountain National Forest, 62 percent of approximately 130 cm of precipitation becomes streamflow (Likens and Bormann, 1995) and most of the rest is lost to evapotranspiration. The research at Hubbard Brook is in a forested environment similar to the environment found in the Province Project Area. Therefore, the results of this research can be applied to the Proposed Action and the alternatives.Basic water quality data and water samples were collected from streams in or near the Project Area (Table 3.14). Streams were monitored on one to two dates in 2011 through 2012.
The pH values range from acidic (less than the New Hampshire water quality standard of 6.5) to slightly less acidic. The lower pH values, in combination with low alkalinity, indicate these waters are somewhat poorly buffered, particularly in the case of Weeks Brook. Total aluminum values in some waters within the analysis area exceed New Hampshire’s chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life, which is 87 parts per billion (ppb).
123 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Figure 3.2 - Perennial Streams in the Water Resource Direct/Indirect Effects Analysis Area.
124 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Table 3.14 - Selected Water Quality Parameters for Streams in the Project Area
Total Inorganic Specific Alkalinity Turbidity Stream/lake pH Al monomeri conductance (mg/L) (NTU) (ppb) c Al (ppb) (uS/cm) Anderson Brook 6.6 3.9 96 9 0.2 15 Middle Brook 6.6 3.3 96 10 0.0 14 Tributary to Middle 6.7 5.0 110 11 - - Brook Weeks Brook at FR317 6.4 2.6 73 8 0.0 15 Tributary (2) to Weeks 6.5 2.9 140 7 0.1 15 Brook at FR317
The low baseline pH and high aluminum concentrations are typical across the National Forest (Hornbeck et al. 2001), and may be due to naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of these watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids, and human- caused acid deposition effects. As the low turbidity values in Table 1 indicate, streams in the project area are generally free of suspended sediment. Values are slightly higher than the average during high flow periods. Sedimentation is generally limited to a localized area near a disturbance source. Within the project area, the Upper Kimball Lake is listed as impaired on New Hampshire’s 303(d) list due to low pH. Potential causes of low pH are similar to those described above. All freshwaters in New Hampshire have an impaired Fish Consumption Use due to mercury from atmospheric deposition; these waters are listed in Category 4A due to development of a Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load for New England states in 2007 (NHDES 2010a). Otherwise, these waters meet State Water Quality Standards related to the use of aquatic life, such as fish and macroinvertebrates. Human alterations to the watershed include a network of roads and trails, which have associated stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts). A dam exists on Province Pond.
This project is not within a municipal water supply watershed. No known public water supplies exist within the project area (NHDES 2010b). The State of New Hampshire designates the stream reaches within the Project Area as Class B. Class B is the second highest quality with the designated uses including fishing,
125 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
swimming, and other recreational purposes and after adequate treatment, as a water supply.
Direct and Indirect Effects The analysis considered effects of this project on water quantity and quality. Management activities similar to those proposed in this project area are known to affect water resources in the ways described below.
Water Quantity
Research has shown that removal of vegetation through timber harvesting can alter evapotranspiration rates. These altered evapotranspiration rates result in changes in streamflow. The magnitude of this change depends on the extent of change in the vegetation (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Research at Hubbard Brook indicates that when reductions in basal area reach 25 percent of the watershed, a measurable response in annual water yield may be seen (Hornbeck et al. 1993). Most of the increase in water yield occurs during summer low flow periods, and channels with increased discharge adjust by changing their bankfull width and depth (Hornbeck et al. 1997). Removal of less than 25 percent of the basal area in a watershed is a surrogate measure for thresholds of effects of vegetation management on water quantity. Percent basal area removal was calculated for subwatersheds of perennial streams at least 200 acres in size (Figure 3.3) using information from stand exams and silvicultural prescription.Since none of the projects proposed will withdraw water, other changes in water quantity will not be analyzed. A potential indirect effect of project activities is altered channel function. Stream channels adjust their shape based on flow (volume of water over time) and sediment load (including particles from silt to boulders). If stream flow were increased over historic levels, it would tend to carry more sediment and scour the stream bottom and banks. If stream flow were decreased, the stream would tend to deposit sediment. Thus, changes in water quantity would affect the ability of channels to adjust to transport water and sediment without becoming highly unstable. Proposed project activities that could affect water quantity or channel function through direct manipulation of water volume, velocity, or channel shape were evaluated based on potential to change the stream flow-sediment balance.
126 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Water Quality
There are two primary aspects of water quality that could be affected by proposed project activities; water chemistry and sedimentation. Effects on stream water chemistry occur after vegetation is removed or pollutants are introduced. Effects on stream sedimentation are directly related to roads, skid trails and other disturbed surfaces that cause erosion and subsequent transport of sediment into water bodies. The potential for temperature change in project area streams is discussed earlier in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats section of this chapter. Research at Hubbard Brook has indicated that intensive forest harvesting practices, such as whole-tree harvest of an entire watershed, have the potential to lower the pH in water (Lawrence and Driscoll 1988). This is a concern in areas already affected by acid deposition. Acidity has been shown to mobilize chemicals such as nitrate and inorganic aluminum in the soils, which then enter stream water (Lawrence and Driscoll 1988) and become harmful to aquatic life at sufficient concentrations (Baldigo et al. 2005). The pH of the sampled streams in the project area indicates that they are already slightly acidic; therefore any further decreases in pH are a concern. Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al. 1994). The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to area of disturbance. Areas that lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. Project design features that would be implemented in this project include riparian buffers, which are considered the most effective factor for preventing nutrients and sediment from reaching water resource features (Gilliam 1994). Area of disturbance, including number of stream crossings, relative to watershed area, was used as an indicator of potential sediment transport. The analysis area selected for direct and indirect effects on water resources is the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook subwatersheds, totaling approximately 22,090 acres. Although this analysis focused upon effects to streams located within the Project Area, lands outside this boundary were also included to analyze complete watersheds. The analysis period for direct and indirect effects is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future, because water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management and temporary disturbance would be expected to subside in this period (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000).
127 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Alternative 1 – No Action Water Quantity
Direct and indirect effects on water quantity from implementation of Alternative 1 would mainly continue along current trends. Current and on-going management activities would continue, but no new management activities would be initiated as a result of this proposal. Effects on water quantity and channel function in project area streams would be absent as a result of Alternative 1. Water quantity would remain similar to the present state. Stream reaches that are currently unstable due to undersized culverts would remain unstable. Water Quality
Direct and indirect effects on water quality from implementation of Alternative 1 would mainly continue along current trends. Ongoing Forest activities would not change water quality or impact existing uses. Under this alternative, localized erosion and sedimentation around undersized stream crossings would continue, and could affect water quality in short stream reaches. Sedimentation from disturbance along roads and trails would continue at present levels, which have not resulted in water quality impairment. Water quality in project area streams would be unlikely to be affected by Alternative 1 and would remain similar to the present state under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Water Quantity
Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement Timber management or any other vegetation removal can increase water quantity in streams due to reduced uptake of water by living plants. The potential for this direct effect was evaluated using the threshold of 25 percent basal area removal in a watershed, which has been found to be appropriate for this area (Hornbeck et al. 1993). The greatest amount removed in any watershed would be 17 percent under Alternative 2and 16 percent under Alternative 3 (Table 3.15). Based on this analysis and best available science, any localized increase in water tables and headwater stream flow would be virtually undetectable in the mainstem of first order or larger perennial streams. This increase would mainly occur during low flow periods and would dissipate within about 3 to 5 years due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al. 1993). Therefore, no detrimental direct or indirect effect on water quantity or channel function is expected from vegetation management under either alternative.
128 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Figure 3.3 - Subwatersheds Used in Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis in the Project Area.
129 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Watershed restoration and recreation management Alternatives 2 and 3 include replacing two undersized culverts on Weeks Brook and Hardwood Hill roads. This activity would not have a direct effect on water quantity because it would not consume or divert water. Replacing undersized culverts would improve channel function by increasing the capacity of a crossing site to accommodate high flows which would prevent future scouring and changes in channel shape (University of New Hampshire 2009).
Alternatives 2 and 3 propose relocation of 0.8 miles of Weeks Brook hiking trail. There are no major stream crossings located on the proposed trail relocation route. . Water occasionally flows down the existing trail bed in some areas during wet periods. Decommissioning the existing trail bed would improve channel function by allowing water to flow along natural paths rather than down the trail. Table 3.15 - Percentage of basal area removed by subwatershed.
Watershed size % basal area removed Watershed # Watershed Name (acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 2 Weeks Brook Upper 579 0% 1% 0% 3 Weeks Brook Trib 1 236 0% 7% 0% 4 Weeks Brook Mid 520 0% 12% 3% 5 Weeks Brook Trib 2 1069 0% 15% 10% 6 Weeks Brook Lower 3994 0% 0% 0% 7 White Lot Brook-Saco 11133 0% 0% 0% River 21 Weeks Brook Trib 4 232 0% 5% 0% 101 Upper Kimball Trib 1 217 0% 8% 8% 102 Middle Brook Trib 1 341 0% 17% 10% 103 Middle Brook Upper 1224 0% 7% 2% 104 Middle Brook Lower 203 0% 16% 16% 105 Anderson Brook 973 0% 6% 5% 106 Upper Kimball Pond 1273 0% 3% 3% 107 Province Brook Upper 953 0% 2% 2% 108 Province Brook Trib 1 444 0% 6% 6% 109 Province Brook Lower 441 0% 5% 5% 110 Lower Kimball Pond 1568 0% 1% 1% 111 Kimball Brook Trib 1 531 0% 7% 7% 112 Kimball Brook 2251 0% 1% 1% 113 Langdon Brook 4205 0% 0% 0%
130 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Watershed # Watershed Name Watershed size % basal area removed () 114 Little Cold River 5976 0% 0% 0% 115 Cold River 27434 0% 0% 0% 1072 Province Brook Trib 2 215 0% 6% 6% 1073 Province Brook Trib 3 216 0% 14% 14% 1074 Province Brook Middle 404 0% 10% 10%
Transportation The amount of soil-disturbance was estimated for proposed transportation management activities under each alternative analyzed (Table 3.16). Potential mineral soil disturbance would increase from 0 acres under Alternative 1 to 216 acres under Alternative 2 and 167 acres under Alternative 3. This estimated potential disturbance is conservatively high, since road decommissioning would result in little soil disturbance over most of the area covered. Both action alternatives would disturb 1% or less of the 22,090-acre analysis area. No detrimental effect on water quantity or channel function would be expected related to overall level of disturbance under any action alternative.
Table 3.16 - Potential Disturbance of Mineral Soil and Stream Banks by Alternative.
Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
20 Existing and 8 New Landings (acres)1 0 21
25 Existing and 11 New Landings (acres)1 0 27
Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 1.0 1.0
Roads Reconstruction (miles/acres)2 0/0 8.6/23.0 6.4/14.9
New Driveways 500 ft (miles/acres)2 0/0 1.0/2.4 0.8/1.9 (Alternative 2 = 11; Alternative 3 = 8)
Road Decommission (miles/acres)2 0/0 0.6/1.44 0.6/1.44
Road Reclassification (miles/acres) 0/0 0.4/1.0 0.4/1.0
Skid Trails (miles/acres)1 0/0 77.3/185.5 59.8/141.6
Hiking trail Construction (miles/ acres)2 0/0 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5
Perennial stream crossings on haul roads 4 6 6 (number)
Perennial stream crossings on skid trails 0 10 8 (number)
Total Disturbed Acres 0 216.4 166.5
131 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Total % 22,090- acre analysis area disturbed 0% 1.0% 0.8% a Landing size =0.75 acres 2 1 mile of road/skid trail/ski trail at an average disturbance with of 20’ = 2.4 acres of disturbance/mile c Hiking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/miles
This project would include use of 36 landings under Alternative 2 and 28 landings in Alternative 3, each approximately 0.75 acres in size. Eleven new landings would be established under Alternative 2 and eight under Alternative 3. The remaining landings would be in locations used previously. Based on observations of landings used in the past, these areas would revegetate within a few years of close out, promoting normal hydrologic function. Because of the landing locations, reuse of previously disturbed areas, and temporary nature of disturbance, no direct or indirect effects on water quantity would be expected under any alternative. The combination of driveway construction, road reconstruction and skid trail use would be higher under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3, as shown in Table 3.16. Although roads and some skid trails have the potential to affect hydrology, road templates for this project are already in place, therefore little or no hydrologic alteration would be expected from maintenance and reconstruction. Construction of new driveways and skid trails would have the opportunity to change the direction of flow or concentrate flow in some instances, but design features, such as limiting slope of roads and skid trails, constructing cross drainage at specified intervals, dispersing water bar or ditch relief outflow to vegetated areas, and leaving a buffer between roads or skid trails and streams, would minimize effects on hydrology by reducing concentration of flow, formation of gullies and impacts to riparian areas. Based on monitoring of past projects, hydrologic effects from skid trail construction, which accounts for most of the acreage disturbed, would be expected to be minimal and dissipate further within a few years as skid trails revegetate (WMNF 2010).
Under all alternatives, open roads would be maintained. Because maintenance would occur in an existing road footprint and would include maintaining or upgrading drainage features, no negative effect on hydrology would occur. Proposed road decommissioning and reclassification would result in no effect or a slight positive effect on channel function under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Since road reclassification would not require ground disturbance, there would be no effect on hydrology. Therefore, under any action alternative, road and skid trails would not be
132 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
expected to directly or indirectly affect water quantity or channel function to a measurable extent.
Water Quality
Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement As described previously, there is a high level of confidence that no effect on water chemistry would occur if approximately 20 percent or less of the basal area is removed from a watershed. As Table 3.15 shows, all subwatersheds would be below this threshold in all action alternatives, therefore no direct or indirect effects on water chemistry is expected from proposed timber management actions combined with prior effects from acid deposition. Research on timber management effects indicates that riparian buffers are effective in preventing sediment and associated pollutants from reaching streams (Clinton 2011, Chase et al. 1995, Binkley and Brown 1993). Perennial streams in the analysis area have been identified (Figure 3.2) and would be buffered in accordance with Forest Plan guidelines. Though intermittent streams may not have riparian buffers in some areas, they are often located in boulder or bedrock settings with relatively stable stream types. Implementation of Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitats guidelines (Forest Plan, p.2-26), prescribing no harvest of trees that directly stabilize banks, would reduce sedimentation by preventing bank erosion. Because of the well-drained soils in the project area, sediment input related directly to forest harvest would be unlikely (see Soil Resources). The risk of sedimentation caused directly by harvest would also mitigated by the use of season of harvest prescriptions and Best Management Practices that minimize exposure of mineral soil, particularly near water bodies. A review of ten years of water monitoring data did not find sediment or turbidity concerns in managed watersheds (WMNF 2010). The limited extent of basal area removal (Table 3.15) also indicates that much riparian cover would remain in headwater areas where intermittent streams occur.
Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on sediment is expected from timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3. Transportation systems associated with harvest are considered in a separate section. See the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats section for a discussion of stream temperature changes and their influence on aquatic species.
133 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Watershed restoration and recreation management Alternatives 2 and 3 include replacing two undersized and misaligned culverts on roads in the project area. These activities would not have a direct effect on water chemistry because there is little likelihood of chemicals being deposited into the water with implementation of Best Management Practices for construction. Replacing culverts can directly increase sedimentation and turbidity in the short term, due to the need to work in and near the water. Using Best Management Practices when working in streams is required by Forest Service policy and state regulations (USFS 2012, NH DOT 2001). These practices include working at low flows, temporarily diverting flow, using sediment barriers and establishing vegetation. WMNF monitoring has found these measures minimize changes in turbidity and observable sedimentation (WMNF 2012). The long term effect of culvert replacement would be reduction in sedimentation and unnatural erosion of stream banks and beds. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose relocation of 0.8 miles of Weeks Brook hiking trail and decommissioning the existing trail bed. During trail construction, ground would be temporarily disturbed, and equipment such as chainsaws or harvesting machinery may be used. Some soil movement may occur near ephemeral flow areas. Improved trail location, seasonal equipment restrictions, and NH BMPs for trail construction would prevent detrimental direct effects on water quality from this disturbance (NH DRED 2004). Relocating and decommissioning the existing trail (e.g. adding water bars to stop gully erosion) would have a direct beneficial effect on sedimentation.
Transportation Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a small chance of leakage or spills of lubricants or fuel from vehicles for recreation, transportation or construction equipment. The risk to water resources would be minimized by implementation of riparian buffers, locating roads and landings away from riparian areas, and using construction BMPs. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected from transportation activities. Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al. 1994). The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to area of disturbance (Gucinski et al. 2001). Areas which lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. The area of disturbance associated with transportation systems and trails is shown in Table 3. The area of disturbance is greatest
134 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report under Alternative 2. The level of disturbance under either action alternative would not exceed soil erosion and compaction limits under the Forest Plan; therefore no indirect effects on sedimentation is expected under either action alternative (see Soil Resources). The activities listed in Chapter 2 pose varying levels of short- and long-term risk of direct effects on sedimentation based on design and proximity to stream networks. The number of landings is greatest under Alternative 2. Landing locations would be generally over 100 feet from perennial streams in well-drained areas. If any landing (new or existing) were to extend to the area within 100 feet of a stream, measures to minimize sedimentation would be taken in consultation with soil and/or water specialists to avoid sedimentation and meet Forest Plan guidelines (Forest Plan 2005, p. 2-25). These measures may include keeping landings off slopes leading directly to stream banks and erosion control measures such as silt fence, hay bales and slash filters. The 28 to 36 proposed log landing locations are in gently sloping topographic settings unlikely to cause undue erosion and sedimentation. Review of landings used in past sales as well as forestwide monitoring indicated that with careful site selection and application of BMPs, sedimentation was prevented and sites revegetated within a few years (Johnson 2013, WMNF 2011, WMNF 2010). The 15 to 23 acres of proposed road reconstruction would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and could involve cleaning and right sizing culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. While road improvements and increased use may mobilize sediment on a short-term basis, activities such as resurfacing and improving drainage reduce sediment loss (NCASI 2000). Road reclassification would result in no change on the ground. Skid trails account for the greatest amount of potential soil disturbance (see Table 3). New skid roads would not be located within the stream or pond management zone (within 50 feet of the bank, or a greater distance in high slope areas), as defined in Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guideline G-5 (p. 2-25), except in the immediate vicinity of stream crossings. If skid roads are located in the stream management zone, additional sedimentation measures would be implemented. State BMPs such as water bars, ditches with cross drainage, erosion barriers, properly sized stream crossings and slope limitations would be used to prevent water from draining down skid trails and carrying sediment to streams (see Soil Resources report for further description of Best Management Practices). Skid trails would be expected to revegetate within 2 to 3 years and have no more than a temporary impact. Because of application of Forest Plan guidelines and State Best Management Practices, direct and indirect effects on
135 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
sedimentation due to skid trails would be expected to be negligible in all areas except stream crossings under both alternatives. Skid trail monitoring in recent years has not found sediment from skid trails reaching streams, with the exception of stream crossings as discussed below (Johnson 2013).
The transportation system proposed for use involves 6 perennial stream crossings on haul roads and 8 to 10 perennial stream crossings on primary skid trails (Table 3). Four of the haul road crossings are already in place on roads open to motorized vehicles. The number of crossings is higher in Alternative 2 than Alternative 3. Within the proposed transportation system, stream crossings have higher potential than other road segments for effects on sedimentation (MDOC 2009). Several factors contribute to minimizing this effect. Some of the proposed roads and skid trails are on existing footprints with appropriate crossing locations in place. Skid trail systems are laid out to minimize the number of stream crossings. New or replacement crossing structures on perennial streams would be designed to pass bankfull flows, expected flood flows, sediment and wood loads in accordance with Forest Plan Guidelines (p. 2-31). Temporary crossing structures would follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State BMPs for stream crossings (State of New Hampshire 2004). These measures include keeping road and skid trail stream crossings as close to perpendicular to streams as possible and at designated locations. This would keep the stream bed and banks intact and minimize sediment input. Following harvest, temporary crossing structures would be removed, with stream banks restored (graded and seeded) as necessary. The effectiveness of Maine’s Water Quality Best Management Practices for forestry has been monitored and documented, with particular consideration given to transportation systems. Monitoring in 2008 indicated that “of the 615 opportunities to observe soil conditions, 87 percent showed no sediment reached the waterbody” (p. 2), and most cases of sedimentation were “trace” or “minor” (MDOC 2009). The 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines require larger Riparian Management Zones (pp. 2-24 and 2-25) than the Maine Best Management Practice “filter areas” (MDOC 2005). They also impose more stringent requirements for stream crossing size and design (Forest Plan 2005, p. 2- 31). Given the additional design features in place, direct effects on sedimentation from transportation systems would not be expected to exceed a few instances of trace sediment input on a temporary basis. An increase in short-term, localized sediment inputs may occur under any alternative, but in the case of restoration and trail relocation, would decrease long-term sediment inputs. This would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, which allows effects of limited extent and duration that do not
136 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
permanently degrade water quality, if all appropriate measures have been taken to minimize effects.
Cumulative Effects The analysis area selected for the cumulative effects analysis of this project on water resources is the same as the analysis area for direct and indirect effects. This area was chosen to adequately analyze the cumulative effect of activities in other parts of the Weeks Brook, Kimball Brook, and Langdon Brook watersheds along with the proposed activities. The analysis period chosen for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years in the past and 10 years into the future (2003-2023), since water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management would be expected to subside in this period due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2000). Although this project proposes changes to infrastructure that could contribute to cumulative effects of watershed development, any trends should become apparent within the ten-year timeframe. A compilation of research on effects of timber harvesting in the northeastern U.S. on water quality showed no change in downstream water chemistry when as much as 15 to 19% of the basal area within a watershed was removed (Martin et al. 1986; Wang et al. 2006; Baldigo et al. 2005; Lawrence and Driscoll, 1988). Based on the relatively high buffering capacity in the analysis area relative to other portions of the White Mountains, a 20 percent threshold for basal area removal was selected to evaluate cumulative effects of acid deposition and harvest on water chemistry. Research in Maine indicates that watersheds with less than 10 percent disturbed area are unlikely to have water quality impaired by impervious surfaces (Morse and Kahl 2003), so this threshold was used as an indicator of cumulative effects on water quality. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities between 2003 and 2023 within the cumulative effects analysis area were reviewed, Province Pond dam repair, establishment and ongoing maintenance of permanent wildlife openings, road, trail and backcountry campsite maintenance, and ongoing invasive plant eradication.
Alternative 1 Water Quantity
Cumulative effects on water quantity and stream stability were analyzed in relation to climate change. Increasing intensity and frequency of large precipitation events occurred
137 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
in the United States from 1910 to 1995 (Karl and Knight 1998) In the Northeastern U.S., climate models project a five to eight percent increase in annual precipitation and an eight percent increase in the number of heavy precipitation events by mid-century (Huntington et al. 2009, NECIA 2006). More precipitation, particularly in the form of intense rainstorms, would exacerbate the instability of streambanks during high flows. Not correcting undersized crossings and erosion on two unnamed streams could have a cumulative effect of worsening channel function when combined with the effects of high flows due to climate change.
Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quantity are expected under Alternative 1, no other cumulative effects are expected.
Water Quality
A cumulative effect of climate change and taking no action to improve stream crossing size would be increased risk of sudden road washouts. This would have an indirect effect of increased sedimentation linked to storm events and high flows. These locations alone would be unlikely to cause water quality impairment within the next ten years, but would be part of a trend toward increasing sediment mobilization during more frequent, intense storms. Since no other direct or indirect effects on water quality are expected under Alternative 1, no other cumulative effects are expected.
Alternatives 2 and 3 Water Quantity and Water Quality
Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement Timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not have a detrimental cumulative effect on water quantity. Basal area removal from past and ongoing timber harvests in the cumulative effects watersheds since 2003 was analyzed in combination with each of these Alternatives. Any effects on water quantity would be expected to subside within seven to nine years after harvest as vegetation regrows (Hornbeck et al. 1993). Based on timber harvest proposed in this project and reporting of past and future harvest on private land, basal area removal in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (CEA) as a whole would be no more than 11% under Alternative 2 and 10% under Alternative 3, far below the level at which water quantity effects would be expected. These estimates are highly conservative, since they assume 100 percent basal
138 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
area removal for all harvest on private land, which is unlikely. Since harvest in the cumulative effects area typically occurred in different subwatersheds than the proposed project, no individual watershed would be caused to exceed the 25 percent threshold for water quantity effects.
Changes in water chemistry due to timber harvest become greatly reduced three to five years after harvest, and undetectable in subsequent years (Martin et al. 2000), so basal area analysis of projects since 2003 is an inclusive estimator of cumulative effects on water quality. Since no individual subwatershed would be caused to exceed the conservative 20 percent threshold for effects on water chemistry and the overall harvest in the CEA would be 11 percent or less, no cumulative effect on water chemistry is expected. This project would meet Forest Plan Vegetation Management guideline G-1 (p. 2-29) for no more than 15 percent even-age regeneration in any first or second order watershed in a 5 year period. Over 22 to24 percent of non-NFS land in the entire CEA would have to be cleared within a 5 year window to approach the threshold where effects on water resources may appear. (project record) No cumulative effects on sediment would be expected under any action alternative because implementation of State Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and other design features would minimize sedimentation to a negligible amount.
Watershed restoration and recreation management No cumulative effects on water quantity would be expected from watershed improvement activities because no water withdrawal would occur. A beneficial cumulative effect on channel function would be expected as a result of the proposed activities (under any action alternative) when combined with road maintenance and repairs to Province Pond Dam. No negative cumulative effects on water chemistry are expected from these activities because Best Management Practices would eliminate or minimize chemical spills or releases near water. While localized, temporary sediment mobilization may occur during construction, these would not be likely to overlap in space or time due to their limited extent. A long-term reduction in sedimentation in the CEA would be expected due to the intent of these and other watershed projects to decrease erosion and bank failure.
139 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Transportation The road work proposed in both action alternatives would not be expected to directly or indirectly effect water quantity or quality in itself. The contribution of this work to total impervious cover was analyzed for potential cumulative effects. Impervious cover affects water quantity by increasing runoff and peak flows, particularly if the watershed exceeds 10 percent impervious cover (Center for Watershed Protection 2003). Considering the estimated existing impervious surface in conjunction with the action alternatives, total impervious cover in the CEA was estimated at 1.8 percent under Alternative 2 and 1.6 percent under Alternative 3. This is a small increase over the 0.9 percent impervious cover estimated for the no action alternative. Furthermore, these are high estimates, since landings and skid trails are expected to be minimally compacted and return to a vegetated state within a few years (see Soil Resources). Since impervious cover would be far below the 10 percent threshold under any action alternative, no cumulative effects on water quantity or quality are expected. (Project Record.) The potential for cumulative effects on sedimentation and turbidity due to ground disturbance were evaluated, including past, present and foreseeable activities known to cause ground disturbance. Ground-disturbing projects under permit on private land were included in this analysis. Approximately 650 acres (2.9 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternative 2, while approximately 600 acres (2.7 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternative 3. The difference is related to additional landings, road maintenance and skid trail construction in Alternative 2. This would be a small increase in ground disturbance relative to the 430 acres (1.9 percent) under the no action alternative. No cumulative effect on sedimentation would be expected due to design features such as riparian buffers, location of landings and skid trails away from water and appropriate season of operation (see Soil Resources and Direct and Indirect Effects). Additionally, more than half of the acreage disturbed in the action alternatives is due to landings and skid trails, which are expected to revegetate within a few years (WMNF 2010). Because new skid trail and haul road stream crossings would be temporary and follow applicable BMPs, no cumulative effect on water quantity or quality is expected from these crossings. Climate Change and Large-Scale Disturbance
As described in the cumulative effects analysis for the No Action Alternative, climate change could affect hydrology within the analysis period. Changes within the next decade would likely be small and would be subject to short-term climate patterns which produce year-to-year variability. It is reasonable to expect a continuation of trends that
140 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
have been observed over the last century. These trends include more frequent, intense storms, a greater proportion of precipitation falling as rain, and a slight overall increase in annual precipitation. Changes in water quality are quite uncertain. Higher peak flows may result in increased sediment loads due to runoff and stream channel scour, but it is uncertain whether any measurable change would occur over the analysis period.
The activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be expected to have a cumulative effect on water quantity when considered in light of climate change because they are not expected to measurably increase streamflow or runoff. While short-term, localized sediment inputs could increase due to disturbance, it would not be sufficiently large to have a detrimental effect in combination with climate change. The long term decrease in erosion due to recreation and watershed work is more relevant when considering climate trends. Therefore, no cumulative effect on water quality would occur.
3.11 Wildlife
Background and Summary The No Action Alternative would allow existing mature forests to succeed to climax forest types, but barring natural disturbances, forest type or age class habitat diversity in the project area would not increase over the next 10 years. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both contribute towards attaining overall habitat objectives for the Province HMU, as well as the overall wildlife goals described in the Forest Plan, by increasing forest type and age class habitat diversity (USDA FS 2012; USDA FS 2005 1-20 to 1-22). Alternative 2 would result in greater habitat diversity than Alternative 3 (Table 3.17, Figures 3.4, 3.5). Both alternatives would increase the amount of aspen/birch habitat within the HMU through clearcutting. Aspen/birch habitat has been declining across the Forest as the forest ages, due primarily to a reduction in clearcutting over the past decade (USDA FS 2009 WMNF Monitoring Report). Alternative 2 would result in more habitat diversity; creating almost twice as much regeneration age aspen/birch habitat (358 acres) as Alternative 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both convert about the same amount of mixedwood habitat to softwood habitat through group selection and individual tree selection harvest. Both alternatives would also have similar effects to oak/pine and hemlock habitats.
141 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
While populations of species could change within the project area, the Province HMU is not large enough to cause changes of population trends within the WMNF or the New England area. Actions implemented under either action alternative; e.g. Alternatives 2 or 3, would contribute to the overall diversity of habitat on the WMNF and in New England.
Affected Environment Forest Type and Age Class
The project area is located within the Province HMU. The manageable area of the Province HMU consists of approximately 6,500 acres within MA 2.1. The HMU contains a diversity of forest types, but is composed primarily of northern hardwoods and mixedwood forest types. Spruce/fir, oak, pine, hemlock and aspen/birch are also present in smaller amounts. The Ecological Land Types (ELT), or capability of the land, indicate that the manageable area of the HMU should be comprised of more softwood and fewer mixedwood stands (HMU rationale, project file). The mature age class dominates all forest types within the HMU. Approximately 6200 acres, or 95%, of the manageable land within this HMU is comprised of mature forest. Approximately 500 acres within the HMU were considered inoperable and were combined with mature habitat in the analysis. None of the mature habitat in the Province HMU is old growth forest as defined in USDA FS 2005, Glossary, page 21. There is currently no early-successional habitat, defined as 0-9 years of age class, located within the HMU. Approximately 300 acres within the HMU is categorized as young age- class habitat. Nine permanent wildlife openings, totaling approximately 36 acres, are located within the HMU including Robbins Ridge, Peaked Hill, Kimball Pond, Hardwood Hill and several others located along FR 303. These permanent wildlife openings contribute to the diversity of their surrounding habitat. Species such as deer, moose, bear, fox, coyote, turkey, snakes, and numerous other species utilize permanent wildlife openings in the forest. These sites, depending on their size, can provide habitat for native grasses and wildflowers to exist and thereby supply habitat for native pollinator species such as bees, butterflies, moths, dragonflies, etc. (Chandler, D.B. etal. 2007). Province Pond, a 9-acre pond located within the HMU, provides wetland habitat as well as a recreational fishery.
142 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Wildlife species found in the project area include moose, black bear, white-tailed deer, fox, coyote, fisher, beaver, weasels, other mammals and numerous species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species. Management Indicator Species
The White Mountain National Forest utilizes Management Indicator Species (MIS) to track five major habitats Forest-wide. These species, their corresponding habitats, Forest- wide monitoring and population trends are discussed in detail in the Forest Plan. The following Forest MIS species have potential to and/or have documented occurrence within suitable habitat found in the Province HMU project area
• Chestnut-sided warbler; • Scarlet Tanager; • Magnolia Warbler; • Blackburnian Warbler, and • Ruffed Grouse Although MIS trends and changes to MIS habitats are noted in this analysis, conclusions regarding timber harvest effects on wildlife habitat are based on Forest-level monitoring of management indicator species (USDA early successional habitat bird surveys, 2011; bird plot). Outstanding Natural Communities
The WMNF FEIS (pp. 3-293 to 3-298) identified outstanding natural communities (ONC) that would receive additional protection (old growth enriched upland forest; montane circumneutral cliffs and talus; northern white cedar communities; and pitch pine-scrub oak woodland). Based on the NH Natural Heritage Bureau (2012) database, and Forest multi-year, multi-seasonal and site-specific plant and wildlife surveys and forest inventories, there are no stands specifically identified as old growth forest or other Forest Plan ONC within the Project Area, therefore, implementation of this project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on ONC. Ecological Indicators
Ecological indicators (USFS FEIS 2005 3-186) are used to gauge effects of Forest Plan implementation on biological resources, particularly related to recreation use. High Elevation Spruce-Fir is the only Ecological Indicator present within the Province HMU. No project activities are proposed above 1500 feet, where this Ecological Indicator is
143 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
found, therefore, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur to high elevation spruce-fir habitat from implementation of this project. Province Pond and other Wetlands
Province Pond originated as a glacial seep, and has been augmented in size by an earthen dam. The pond is approximately 9 acres in size, and is relatively shallow, with a maximum depth of about 13 feet. The total wetland area, including the pond, is approximately 18 acres. This habitat provides open water and riparian habitat for a variety of insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, waterfowl and songbirds. Woodland bats and birds forage on insects flying above the open water. The pond provides a natural fishery, however New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game (NHFG) has historically stocked the pond with brook trout for recreational fishing. Beaver exist in the area and continually block the outflow in the dam. Surveys of wet areas in the HMU determined several vernal pools. White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas
The availability of quality deer wintering areas (dense spruce-fir and/or hemlock stands) can be a limiting factor in their survival during severe winter conditions. Numerous field reviews and deer wintering area surveys indicate that portions of the project area are used by deer in winter. A management goal for wintering areas, regardless of species composition, is to intersperse mature softwoods with small openings to perpetuate critical softwood cover, maintain deer mobility and access throughout the wintering area during harsh winter months, and maintain high quality preferred accessible browse (Reay et.al.1990). Softwood canopy exists however there is little softwood or browse at the ground level under much of the existing softwood or mixedwood. Maintaining softwood cover interspersed with regeneration-age habitat and hard mast producing species would maintain areas for wintering deer. The NH Fish and Game (NHFG) manage white-tailed deer as a game species that is harvested annually. Their population is viable in the state and on the WMNF. NHFG (2009) goals are to increase the population in the NHFG Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) E that covers the Province HMU Project Area. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees
The Project Area contains American beech and red oak which produce beechnuts and acorns, providing a hard mast food sources for black bears and other species of wildlife. Clawed beech trees, indicating use by black bear, have been observed in the Project Area.
144 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Black bear populations are viable in the state and on the WMNF and NHFG (NHFG. 2010; NHFG 2006). NHFG manages black bear as a game species that is harvested annually. Project design features include retaining clusters of bear-clawed beech trees within treatment units. Fragmentation
Fragmentation occurs when large blocks of habitat are broken or separated by different habitat causing species associated with one habitat to be negatively impacted. An example would be a woodlot of forested land surrounded by agricultural lands. The White Mountain National Forest and most surrounding private land are well-forested. American Marten is used to assess effects on landscape-scale fragmentation of habitat connectivity (USDA FS 2005). An American marten was observed in the Province project area during field assessments (Maguire, 2012, personal communication), as well as red squirrel (marten prey base) and their tracks.
Figure 3. 4 – American Marten Observed in the Project Area
145 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Direct and Indirect Effects The relevant indicators that were used to analyze effects of proposed project activities on wildlife and habitat are: • HMU objectives – effects measured by changes in habitat types and age classes; • MIS – effects measured by changes in habitat types and age classes maintained or created; and • Fragmentation – measured by effects to American marten.
All proposed project activities requiring use of heavy equipment during implementation such as timber harvest, road reconstruction and use, landing construction and use and prescribed fire, could have a measurable effect on wildlife. The analysis area used for analysis of direct effects of proposed project activities on wildlife and habitat is comprised of the project area, since implementation of proposed activities would likely have immediate effects on wildlife species and habitat conditions. The time-span for direct effects analyzed ranges from the start through the end of project implementation, since direct effects would only occur during project implementation. The analysis area for indirect effects of proposed project activities on wildlife and habitat is comprised of approximately 6,600 acres of managed lands (MA 2.1) within the Province HMU, because all proposed project actions would occur within this area. The time-span for indirect effects analyzed ranges from 10 years in the past to ten years in the future. This time-span is selected since it incorporates both the 0-9 year regeneration age class and the estimated amount of time until the next management entry into the HMU.
Alternative 1
None of the forest management activities proposed in this project would occur. There would be no direct effects that would cause potential mortality, injury, displacement or disturbance to wildlife species occurring within the project area. Under this alternative, no indirect effects to wildlife species or habitat occurring in the project area would occur. Maintenance of existing wildlife openings (including the use of prescribed fire), trails, roads, and facilities, such as Province Pond dam, in the Project Area would continue. There would be no change to roads or public access to the project area, and thus no effects on wildlife species and/or habitats in the project area. Without replacement of two undersized culverts, the risk of blockage and consequent resource
146 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
damage would continue, along with an associated risk of mortality and displacement to individuals of small wildlife species, such as rodents or amphibians Forest Type and Age Class
Only natural processes would influence changes in existing habitat conditions. Forest openings would result from mortality of individual trees or disturbance from other natural events (e.g. fire, hurricane, ice storm, drought, insect or disease infestation). The project area would continue to provide a mix of mature northern hardwood, mixedwood, and spruce-fir habitat with a small presence of oak-pine and hemlock. The No Action alternative would perpetuate the mature to old forested habitat conditions within this HMU. Forest interior species and species preferring mature closed-canopy and climax forest conditions would benefit from the perpetuation of this age class. Species requiring other habitat types or age classes for all or part of their life would not find habitat in this HMU desirable. Alternative 1 would not move the HMU towards desired habitat conditions or contribute towards a diversity of habitat across the Forest as identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005, pg. 1-20 to 1-21). Alternative 1 would result in an adverse indirect effect of declining habitat diversity, which would not meet the stated Purpose and Need for this project, i.e. increasing habitat diversity within the project area/HMU. Management Indicator Species
Overall, wildlife habitat and species biodiversity within the Province Project Area would continue to decline (NHFG 1996 pp 14-19). The overabundance of mature habitat conditions within this HMU would persist; favoring wildlife species associated with mature northern hardwoods, mixedwoods and spruce-fir forest, such as scarlet tanagers and blackburnian warblers. Populations of these species occurring in the project area would be maintained at current numbers, or could potentially increase over time. The lack of early-successional forest habitat would be perpetuated by Alternative 1. Suitable habitat for MIS species that rely on aspen-birch and regeneration habitat, such as chestnut-sided warbler, magnolia warbler and ruffed grouse, and populations within the project area would continue to decline.
147 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Fragmentation No harvesting would occur under Alternative 1, and therefore no habitat fragmentation would occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to American marten because no habitat changes would occur eliminating any potential of fragmentation.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Proposed timber harvest operations and connected actions, such as road reconstruction, would increase short-term human access to the Project Area. During active harvest operations, effects could include displacement of wildlife, including nesting birds, alteration of travel corridors and mobility of some species, including amphibians, small and large mammals. Beneficial effects of harvesting could include increased mobility for some species on snow compacted by skidder traffic, and additional browse for wildlife from residual treetops scattered on the ground (Campbell et. al. 2004). All proposed timber harvest methods would increase the amount of limbs and tops on the ground; providing a localized, temporary source of natural browse for white-tailed deer and other species. In addition, stump sprouting would increase the amount of browse available for several years after harvest. Harvest operations may cause temporary disruption of large mammals’ mobility patterns. Large mammals with large home ranges, such as moose and white-tailed deer, could adjust relatively quickly to displacement from harvesting activity (St.-Louis et. al. 2000; Campbell, et.al 2004); however timber harvesting would also impact individuals of ground-dwelling species. Noise from logging equipment would cause displacement of some wildlife species during the day, some of which could return at night to forage (Campbell et.al. 2004). Removal of trees for harvest could cause injury or death to wildlife dwelling within them. Site conditions in harvest units with openings (clearcuts, patch cut, shelterwood, group selection) would be hotter and drier for about 1 to 5 years after cutting (Fay et al. 1994; Carlson and Groot 1997). Leaving reserve groups of trees in large openings would partially mitigate these temperature increases. Soil temperature has little impact on most species of wildlife; however increased temperatures could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as red-backed salamander (DeMaynadier and Hunter 1998; Veysey. etal. 2009). Salamanders in larger openings could expire, emigrate to the adjoining forest, or bury under debris or into the soil. Amphibians and small mammals
148 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
in large un-shaded openings could be more vulnerable to predation; however reserve patches of trees retained in openings 10 or more acres in size would mitigate this effect. Larger species, such as snakes, would be able to move in and out of these openings easily, and could find temperature increase desirable. No species would be impacted by an increase of soil temperature in harvest units to a point that their viability would become a concern.
Increased browse and soft mast (berries) in clearcuts would attract species within a few years after harvest. There would likely be an increase in insects, small mammals, and certain species of birds, and mammals such as fox, white-tailed deer, black bear, and moose would inhabit these areas for all or part of the year (Costello et al. 2000; Fuller and DeStefano 2003; King et al. 2001; Thompson III et al. 2001). Other timber harvest methods, such as single-tree selection and group selection, would have similar direct effects to wildlife, such as displacement, mortality and increased forage, but at a lower intensity due to the fact trees are left within the harvest units. Wildlife species preferring mature-aged stands would continue to find these areas favorable. Forest Type and Age Class Alteration of habitat would be the primary indirect effect to wildlife from proposed timber harvest in both Alternative 2 and 3. Table 3.17 and Figures 3.5 and 3.6 display the effects of the Province project on habitat types and their age classes. Some species would benefit and others would be adversely affected. Some effects would occur relatively soon (shrub habitat) while others may take decades to achieve (increased softwood habitat).
Figure 3.5 – Alternative 2 Effects on Habitat Types & Age Classes in the Province HMU Result of Alternative 2 Habitat and Age Class in Acres Regen Asp/Birch 99 Young Oak/Pine 338 Hemlock 990 Mature Softwood 579 Mixedwood 2586 NH 1251 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
149 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Figure 3.6 – Alternative 3 Effects on Habitat Types & Age Classes in the Province HMU
Result of Alternative 3 Habitat and Age Class in Acres Regen Asp/Birch 99 Young Oak/Pine 338 Hemlock 990 Mature Softwood 579 Mixedwood 2605 NH 1407 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Table 3.17 - Effects on Habitat Types & Age Classes in MA 2.1 lands within Province HMU Forest TOTAL MA 2.1 Regeneration (0-9 yrs) Young Mature Type Acres Acres Acres Acres
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 NH 1656 1332 1488 0 0 0 100 81 81 1556 1251 1407
Mxd 2880 2615 2634 0 0 0 0 29 29 2851 2586 2605
S/F 336 579 579 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 579 579
Asp/Bir 300 658 483 0 358 183 201 201 201 99 99 99
O/P 358 338 338 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 338 338
Hemlock 997 990 990 0 0 0 0 0 997 990 990
Sub ttl 6527 6512 6512 0 358 183 301 311 311 6197 5843 6018
WLO 36 50 50 NH = Northern Hardwood Mxd = Mixedwood S/F = Spruce/Fir Asp/Bir = Aspen and/or birch Other 15 15 15 O/P = Oak/Pine WLO = Wildlife Opening
TOTAL 6578 6577 6577
General indirect effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 include alterations to forage types and amounts, nesting, roosting, denning habitat, and increased disturbance or predation from other wildlife species and/or humans.
150 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Timber Harvest
Even-Age Management Habitat diversity would increase under both Alternative 2 and 3 due to proposed even- aged regeneration harvest, i.e. clearcutting and patch cutting, which would increase the horizontal patchiness of the forest. Clearcutting would create openings 11 to 30 acres in size, while patch cutting would create openings 2 to 10 acres in size (WMNF 2005). Both would create early successional (shrub-scrub) habitat that would persist for approximately 2-10 years
Clearcutting and patch cutting is proposed primarily in mature northern hardwoods habitat, which is abundant within the project area and across the Forest. Under Alternative 2, mature northern hardwoods habitat would decrease from proposed clearcutting of 318 acres and patch cutting of 56 acres (Table 3.17). Similarly, under Alternative 3, mature northern hardwoods habitat would decrease would increase from proposed clearcutting of 167 acres and patch cutting of 31 acres within the HMU. Based on review of past harvests in this HMU and what has regenerated, there is high expectation that proposed clearcuts and patch cuts would regenerate with enough yellow birch to be classed within the aspen/birch forest type. At most, all of the regeneration units may convert to aspen/birch, which could potentially double the amount of this habitat present in the HMU. This would greatly diversify the habitat within this HMU. Species such as ruffed grouse (MIS) would benefit along with deer, moose, snowshoe hare, and many others with this habitat type.
Creation of regeneration habitat would benefit wildlife species favoring open habitats and displace species favoring mature habitats. Research has shown that the size of openings can affect wildlife use, and that larger openings, such as those that would be created by proposed clearcutting, benefit a higher number of species (King. 1998; Chandler R. B. 2006). Within a few years after a clearcut harvest, many species would be attracted to the area due to the increased amount of browse and other vegetative growth such as soft mast. Monitoring conducted in past harvests (USDA FS 2008) indicates chestnut-sided warblers (MIS) and other species preferring shrub-scrub habitat would increase in numbers within this HMU while suitable habitat was available (Schlossberg and King. 2007; Chandler, R.B. 2006, Litvaitis J. L. 2003). The increased regeneration-age habitat would also benefit other species that utilize regeneration-age habitat such as ruffed grouse (MIS), snowshoe hare, deer, moose and mourning warblers (MIS) (Trani et.al 2001; Conner and Adkinsson 1975; Dale et.al. 1995; DeGraaf 1992; Thompson et.al
151 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
1992). Creation of regeneration habitat in northern hardwood stands near softwood habitat would also benefit generalist species, such as white-tailed deer, that utilize a diversity of habitats within their home range. Deer utilize softwood habitat during winter for cover, but would also benefit from increased browse that would be available in nearby clearcuts. Other species such as snowshoe hare, as well as predators, would also benefit from increased habitat diversity.
Oak/pine stands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species associated with both softwoods and northern hardwood. The oak component along with American beech in northern hardwood areas provides hard mast that is essential to a variety of wildlife species as a fall food source. White-tailed deer often rely on oak mast to sustain them through the winter months. Mature oak/pine habitat type is used by approximately 150 species of wildlife (DeGraaf et al. 2006). Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose a shelterwood seed cut to promote red oak in Units 3 and 7. This treatment is designed to retain most oak stems to maintain mast/seed production, while releasing younger oak and promoting oak regeneration. Proposed treatments in these units would result in a basal area of approximately 50 square feet/acre; sufficient canopy for mature age classification.
Uneven-age Management Under Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 1,135 acres of group selection is proposed; about 238 acres, or roughly 20 percent, more than under Alternative 3. Group selection harvest would create small openings by removing groups of trees up to 2 acres in size, but overall canopied, interior forest conditions would be retained. Tree species targeted for release and/or regeneration would determine the size of these openings. Over the long term uneven-aged stands, containing all sizes and ages of trees, would develop and wildlife species that prefer mature habitat would continue to find the treated areas suitable. Wildlife species that require ground and mid-story cover along with browse would also find these areas suitable.
Group selection treatments within hardwood stands would result in regeneration age class within the harvested areas. These small openings would not necessarily create suitable habitat for species that require shrub-scrub habitat however, since research has shown that small patches of regeneration habitat do not provide quality habitat for this group of species (King and DeGraaf 2004, Scholssberg and King 2008; Costello 2000; King et al 2001; Schlossberg and King 2008). Although these small openings would not
152 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
add to the desired regeneration-age condition of the HMU, they may provide minor benefits to individuals of a species.
Groups of about ¼ acre in size are proposed to regenerate softwoods. Patches of over- topping hardwoods and some softwoods would be removed (harvested), releasing suppressed seedling/sapling size softwoods in the understory and allowing regeneration to become established. Over time, released and newly established seedlings and saplings would advance in the understory, creating an uneven-age, multi-layered forest structure in stands that currently have little to no understory and/or groundcover. Softwood regeneration would become established in the openings where soil scarification occurs. Some hardwood species, such as pin cherry, paper birch, or red maple, could become established in openings where adequate sunlight is available. Species that prefer forage, nesting or hiding cover in softwoods would benefit and continue to utilize stands following harvest. Over the long term, there would be a slow conversion from no ground cover or mid-story to multi-structured forest stands. Single-tree-selection is proposed for 319 acres in Alternative 2 and 307 acres in Alternative 3 of existing mixedwood or softwood stands. Single-tree selection harvest would remove individual trees across the harvest unit, creating uneven-age stands with all sizes and age classes of trees, and initiating a conversion from mixedwood to softwood habitat. This conversion would require several entries to complete, and could take many decades or even a century. There would be little indirect change immediately after timber harvest. A mature stand would remain; however there could be a reduction in hardwoods and perhaps a decrease in wildlife species that prefer mixedwoods habitat. These stands would provide softwood habitat desired by white-tailed deer for winter cover, as well as providing uneven-aged softwood habitat preferred by magnolia and blackburnian warblers (MIS) along with many other species such as red squirrel and American marten.
The 90 acres of proposed group selection combined with individual tree selection harvest in Alternative 2, and 99 acres in Alternative 3, would also initiate conversion to softwood habitat and create uneven-age stands with all sizes and age classes of trees, while maintaining the existing mature character of the stands. These treatments would also benefit wildlife species requiring softwood habitat and cover.
153 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Season of Harvest Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed harvests would occur during various operating seasons (Appendix B). The season in which a unit is harvested may directly affect wildlife, especially during critical times in the life cycle of a species. Breeding, young rearing, feeding, and winter survival are all potentially critical times for wildlife. Individuals could be potentially displaced or die during any season of operation. Summer harvest (June-August) could affect species that use trees for nesting, roosting, cover, and foraging such as breeding birds, bats, and ground dwelling animals (mammals, amphibians, and reptiles). Fall harvest (August-October) would affect fewer nesting species but could potentially affect autumn breeding species, including some amphibians, species that feed on fall mast (acorns and beechnuts) such as black bear, roosting bats although many leave their summer roosts and start to swarm near winter hibernacula, and small ground-dwelling mammals. Certain species, such as owls that breed in winter, could be affected by winter harvest (December-March). White-tailed deer gather, or “yard”, in areas of lowland conifers in the winter, where cover and warmer temperatures provide protection from the elements or south facing slopes where the sun can raise temperatures several degrees. Deer are vulnerable to disturbance during this time of year. Species that use cavities in winter, such as chickadees and nuthatches; or species that den, such as squirrels and raccoons, could be affected if roost or cavity trees were harvested. Raptors start to breed in February and March, with young fledging in June and July (Foss 1994), so they could be affected by both winter and summer harvest.
Table 3.18 – Proposed Timber Harvest by Operating Season
Alternative 2 (Acres) Alternative 3 (Acres) Season Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Summer 398 891 317 623 Fall 0 545 0 296 Winter 1005 1254 913 1143
Table 3.18 shows the number of acres of proposed timber harvest that would occur by operating season. Alternative 2 would have the potential for the highest effect on wildlife for which summer is a critical time. Between 398 and 891 acres (5% to 12% of the HMU) of harvest could occur in the summer. Alternative 3 would have between 317
154 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
and 623 acres (4% to 8% of the HMU) harvested during the summer. For wildlife that may be affected by winter harvest, Alternative 2 could impact up to 1254 acres during this season or 17% of the HMU, and Alternative 3 could impact up to 1143 acres (15%). It is expected implementation of the project would occur over a span of at least 4 years. Therefore these effects would likely occur only on a small portion of the Project Area during any given season. Timber Stand Improvement Timber stand improvement is proposed for three young northern hardwood stands (Units 101, 102, 103) totaling 41 acres. This would be accomplished with chainsaws and/or brushsaws, rather than heavy equipment. Removing small diameter trees could impact several wildlife species; however habitat in the young age class supports the fewest number of breeding bird populations. The increased slash on the forest floor following improvement treatments would temporarily provide additional cover for rodents, amphibians, and some nesting birds and browse for species such as deer, moose and hare. No conversion would occur to forest type or age class and therefore no change would occur in the HMU. If chainsaws are utilized, implementation would occur during fall or winter. Girdling could occur at any time of year, as damage to residual trees would not occur. Impacts to wildlife would be from disturbance by human presence while implementation is occurring and disturbance by felling of trees should chainsaws be used. Wildlife use of young-aged stands is not as high as regeneration-age or mature- aged stands. Birds however may nest in the canopy, rodents and amphibians may be present and other wildlife may pass through. Individuals may be temporarily displaced or impacted if the tree they are in is felled. Felled trees would be left on the ground. This would provide a temporary increase in shrub nesting or hiding cover and increased browse as forage. Large amounts of downed limbs may make travel through the stand difficult for some larger species of wildlife. There may be increase sprouting of woody stems or an increase of herbs and forbs due to increased light to the forest floor. Girdling of trees would have no immediate direct impacts to wildlife. Over time however the trees would become snags, potentially hosting a variety of other wildlife species particularly if the trees were large enough to have cavities. More light would reach the forest floor incresing the growth of ground vegetation. These changes would be minor and would have minimal impact on any wildlife species.
155 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Wildlife Openings Alternatives 2 and 3 propose expanding the Robbins Ridge wildlife opening by approximately 1 acre, which would entail removing most of the large pine between the opening and the road. An existing opening near Unit 47 on FR 303 is also proposed to be enlarged to 5 acres via harvest under both of these alternatives. A new 9-acre wildlife opening (Unit 80) is proposed under both Alternatives 2 and 3 to replace an existing one (Hardwood Hill) that has had maintenance issues due to wet ground.
Expansion of existing and creation/relocation of wildlife openings have similar impacts to wildlife as clearcutting: existing trees are removed, compaction from large machinery may occur, noise and disturbance exist while implementation is conducted. Additional impacts could result from stumping and de-rocking of the opening, which could displace or fatally harm individuals such as rodents, reptiles, amphibians and other species residing in the ground during implementation. No species is expected to be impacted to a degree that would cause a concern for viability of that species. These openings would be maintained by mowing, brush-hogging, or prescribed fire on an approximate 1-5 year schedule depending on the site (USDA FS 2009). Mowing and/or brush-hogging requires access with a tractor and terrain that is relatively level and free of rocks and stumps. Most wildlife species would be expected to flee the opening upon arrival of a tractor. Small species such as ground-nesting birds, rodents, snakes, etc. may take cover in the vegetation. Individuals could be harmed or perish if they remain on site during operations. The potential for adverse effects to individuals from tractor operations would depend on the season when mowing is conducted. Fall mowing may impact wildlife to a lesser degree. Prescribed burning would be conducted within the specific parameters described in a burn plan established for each opening. Fire would have little direct mortality on amphibians or reptiles (Renken, 2006, Lyon, 1978). Most species of wildlife such as deer, moose, bear, fox, birds, etc. would be capable of leaving the area where fire is present (Anderson 1994). Individuals with poor mobility (nestlings, bat pups, etc.) dwelling in snags could be mortally affected, should the snag burn. Smoke could also cause mortality to these individuals, however prescribed fire rarely lasts more than a few hours in an area with smoke dispersing quickly. No species is expected to be impacted to the point viability of the species becomes a concern.
156 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Transportation Management Wildlife use roads for travel-ways, foraging on the vegetation and soft mast such as raspberries that grow along the sides, snakes sun themselves, etc. Deer, moose, bear, coyote, fox all utilize roads and trails to access parts of their territories. Most bats utilize roads and trails as travel corridors through the forest. Northern goshawks often nest adjacent to roads, trails, openings, etc.
No new road construction is proposed in the Province Project, however new log landings and short driveways would be constructed under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Trees, stumps, and rocks would be removed, soil compacted, which could directly affect species dwelling in the proposed road corridor (Buckley et. al. 2002). Log landings are typically small in size (approximately ¼ to ½ acre). Species such as rodents and salamanders have relatively small home ranges. While large species would vacate the area temporarily, small species may burrow or hide and could be directly impacted during construction. There is currently abundant habitat for small mammals, salamanders and amphibians on the Forest. No species would be effected to the point its viability becomes a concern though individuals of a species may perish. Following harvest operations, log landings can support herbaceous plants that augment the surrounding habitat. Wildlife will often utilize former log landings for foraging, nesting, sunning, etc. These areas tend to be too small to support any species on its characteristics alone, but many species will utilize these areas for a variety of reasons. Pre-haul road maintenance has minimal impacts to most wildlife species. Small species such as rodents and reptiles are the likely species temporarily displaced or harmed when ditches are reformed, culverts are re-installed and vegetation mowed along roadsides. Larger species typically vacate the area temporarily while implementation occurs. Road reconstruction may involve removal of saplings that have regrown in the roadbed since the last entry, reshaping the roadbed, re-installing culverts and bridge abutments if necessary. Wildlife in the immediate area would be temporarily disturbed during implementation. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would minimize impacts to habitat. Removal of saplings and ground disturbance may impact individuals, but not to a degree the viability of a species becomes a concern. Alternative 3 would reconstruct 2.2 miles less road than Alternative 2, possibly resulting in a corresponding decrease in wildlife benefits listed above.
157 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Approximately 0.6 mile of the eastern portion of FR 301 would be decommissioned. Little to no ground activity would be required to implement this so there would be no direct impacts to wildlife from this action.
Management Indicator Species
Forest Plan MIS would be affected differently by these two alternatives. Table 3.19 summarizes project effects on Forest MIS, ecological indicator and migratory bird species. Alternative 2 would create the most diversity of habitat types and age classes. Alternative 3 would also increase habitat diversity, but to a lesser extent than Alternative 2. The aspen birch habitat type would be greatly increased under Alternative 2 and to a lesser extent under Alternative 3. Oak and hemlock habitat would be maintained under both alternatives. Habitat would be maintained in all alternatives for scarlet tanagers as there would be 3,837 acres of mature northern hardwood and mixedwood forest in MA 2.1 following implementation of Alternative 2. Habitat for chestnut sided warblers would be created under all alternatives, with Alternative 2 creating the most shrub-scrub habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both increase the aspen/birch community which would benefit ruffed grouse, with Alternative 2 more than doubling the existing aspen/birch acres. Over time, successive age classes of aspen/birch would develop which would benefit many species of wildlife. Magnolia and Blackburnian warblers would benefit equally under Alternative 2 and 3, as softwood habitat would be increased equally between these two alternatives.
Fragmentation
The Forest and most surrounding private land are well-forested. Research has found no evidence of the negative aspects of forest fragmentation exhibited in isolated forest environments in large forested areas where active timber harvesting occurs and creates temporary unforested habitat (Askins et al. 1990, Askins 1993, DeGraaf and Healy 1988, Welsh and Healy 1993; Villard et. al. 2007). Both Alternative 2 and 3 propose removing mature timber through clear cutting, patch cutting and group selection. Alternative 2 proposes a larger amount of clear-cut, patch cut, and group selection harvest acres than Alternative 3, however large blocks of mature timber would remain on the HMU landscape under all alternatives. The Forest Plan selected American marten as an indicator species to evaluate effects on landscape-
158 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
scale fragmentation (USDA FS 2005). Marten are increasing in numbers on the WMNF (Kelly 2006; NHFG 2006) which indicates fragmentation is not occurring. A marten was photographed in this HMU by the Silviculturalist during one of his field visits. Surveys for brown-headed cowbirds have shown this species is not dispersing to the interior portions of the forest (Yamasaki et.al. 2000) and none have been observed during project effectiveness monitoring of previous timber harvests (USDA FS 2010). The Province HMU Project would maintain suitable habitat for forest interior wildlife species, such as the scarlet tanager (MIS), blackburnian warbler (MIS) wood thrush and ovenbird.
Table 3.19 - Project Effects on WMNF MIS, Ecological Indicator & Migratory Bird Species
Effects Determinations Species Rationale Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3 No Action Aspen/birch regen provides Chestnut-sided maintains current increased acres of habitat shrub/scrub structure of 0-9 habitat greatest amount in Alt 2 Warbler year regeneration. benefits scarlet tanagers & Mature habitat would continue Scarlet tanager mature habitat available blackburnian to cover the highest % of acres warblers. Magnolia warblers would find a slight increase of dense Magnolia warbler Over long term, MIS Increased softwood habitat. species that prefer softwood from removal of overstory shrub-scrub habitat Blackburnian would not find Mature habitat would continue Increased softwood habitat warbler suitable habitat to cover the highest % of acres within HMU, Diversity increases with barring catastrophic creation of aspen/birch, Ruffed Grouse Increased aspen birch habitat disturbance maintenance of hemlock & oak/pine would not fragment habitat Mature habitat remains the No fragmentation to a degree that marten American Marten dominant age class under all would occur would be alternatives impacted
159 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Cumulative Effects The Analysis Area used to analyze cumulative effects on wildlife habitat is the entire HMU as well as the private lands abutting the Project Area to the east and south (see map). This area was selected because the HMU can be used as a tracking tool for habitat changes and incorporates other Management Areas where stand-altering management does not occur. This HMU is on the boundary of the National Forest land so cumulative effects from activities on private lands could occur. The time frame for cumulative effects is 10 years in the past and 10 years into the future (2004 to 2024) based on harvest starting in 2014. This time frame was selected because it incorporates the 0-9 year regeneration age class.
Since no regeneration age (0-9 year old) stands exist within this HMU, no timber harvest has occurred within the past 10 years. There are no additional timber management proposals planned within the Province HMU in the next 10 years. The cumulative effects analysis also considered past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur on non-federal lands south and east of the Project Area. Chatham town records and aerial maps of the area from 2003 to 2012 show that timber harvest has occurred on non-federal lands located within the cumulative effects analysis area. The harvest method used was most likely single tree selection, as opposed to clear-cutting, since no regeneration-age habitat was visible in these areas. To date, two Notice of Intent to Cut requests have been filed with the town of Chatham for future timber harvest on non-federal lands located within the wildlife cumulative effects analysis area. (project file). These two parcels are located close to or abutting four proposed timber harvest units under both Alternative 2 and 3 for this project. One parcel is approximately 66 acres in size, and the other is 20 acres. They are both located near the southeast corner of the project area, nearby or abutting four single tree and/or group selection harvest units (56, 57, 67 and 77) proposed in this project. The specific type of harvest method proposed for the two privately owned parcels was not reported.
Alternative 1
Since there would be no measurable direct or indirect effects on wildlife species and/or habitat under Alternative 1, no cumulative effects would result from implementation of this alternative.
160 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Alternatives 2 and 3
The direct and indirect effects of single tree and/or group selection harvest in proposed harvest units 56, 57, 67 and 77 on habitat in the two nearby and/or abutting privately owned parcels would be the same as those described above. The specific type of harvest method proposed for these two privately owned parcels was not identified; therefore it is difficult to assess the specific effects these reasonably foreseeable future actions would have on habitat in the four nearby and/or abutting project harvest units (56, 57, 67 and 77). Nevertheless, because habitat in these four units is not expected to be dramatically modified by proposed project treatments under Alternative 2 or 3 (see direct/indirect effects above), the cumulative effects from timber harvest on the two abutting privately owned parcels on habitat would likely be indistinguishable from those described above under direct and indirect effects.
3.12 Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Rare Communities
Background and Summary A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TEP), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) has been completed for all Alternatives proposed for the Province project (BE, Project Planning Record). The process used and the sources examined to determine potential occurrence of TEP or RFSS presence are listed in the BE. During Forest Plan Revision, best available science was used to evaluate TEPS/RFSS species and species viability. Information gathered during the species viability analysis was used in updating the WMNF RFSS list (USDA Forest Service 2006). The BE for this project incorporates by reference information on species viability (USDA Forest Service 2005, Appendix F, USDA Forest Service 2005) and TEPS/RFSS species used during Forest Plan revision including the Biological Evaluation of the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Appendix G). Based on a review of all available information, it was the District Biologist’s and the Forest Botanist’s determination that potential habitat may occur within the Project Area for one Federally Threatened Species (Canada lynx) and nine Regional Forester Sensitive
161 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Species (eastern small-footed bat, northern bat, little brown bat, tri-colored bat, northern bog lemming, wood turtle, autumn coralroot, northern adder’s tongue and nodding pogonia).
Effects Determination and Rationale The analysis area chosen for analysis of direct and indirect effects to TEPS/RFSS, except Canada Lynx, is the Project Area, including stands proposed for treatment and the connected actions that facilitate treatment (roads, landings, etc.) along with the proposals for trail relocation, road reconstruction, and watershed improvement. The Analysis Area for cumulative effects to TEPS/RFSS is the WMNF and the lands within the Province HMU and private lands in or abutting the project area. The temporal scale used for this analysis is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future (2002 -2022) as this is the time period that encompasses active harvest operations, connected actions and other project implementation and when TEP/RFSS species would most likely be affected by the proposed activities, it captures the 0-9 year old age class to assess early successional habitat and it is the approximate duration of the Forest Plan, and therefore the time that many actions are foreseeable. The analysis area chosen for analysis of project effects on Canada lynx is the Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 3 (USDA 2000) which includes federal lands in the Cold River (flows east) watershed and Wild River Watershed (map in project file). This area was selected because alterations regarding lynx habitat is calculated based on LAUs or an ecological approach (USDA 2002).
Federally Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEP)
Canada Lynx
Determination: There would be no direct effect to Canada lynx under any of the Alternatives. All of the action alternatives would improve lynx habitat and would therefore have an indirect beneficial effect.
Rationale:
• Canada lynx kittens have been reported from northern New Hampshire, outside the WMNF.
• A track recently observed and thought to be from a lynx was observed on the WMNF west of Hwy 93. To date there is no evidence of lynx reproducing on the WMNF.
162 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
• No evidence of lynx has been documented from the Project Area. Therefore no direct effects would be anticipated under any alternative.
• Softwood habitat is maintained in Alternative 1 and enhanced under both Action Alternatives.
• Snowshoe hare foraging habitat would remain at its low level in Alternative 1 and increased under both Action Alternatives
• In the short term suitable lynx habitat would be maintained or slightly increased and denning habitat would be maintained or enhanced under Alternatives 2 & 3. In the long term, softwood habitat would increase. These treatments would adhere to lynx habitat standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan (USFS 2005, Chapter 2, page 14)
• Communication between WMNF and USFWS is current and ongoing.
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) Woodland Bats Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Northern Myotis, Little Brown Myotis, Tri- colored Bat
White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) has been detected in bats in hibernacula in many eastern states including New Hampshire (Veilleux and Reynolds 2010). Most bats affected to date are little brown bats, but the fungus has also been found on other cave-hibernating bats, raising concerns. Other affected bat species include the eastern pipistrelle, eastern small-footed bat, and the northern long-eared bat. To date no correlation has been made between timber management and WNS. WNS is a new disease and its long-term effects on bat populations are still unknown. The Forest continues to keep abreast of the best scientific information available with regard to White-nose Syndrome (WNS) and woodland bat populations and continues to monitor bat populations on the Forest and review new scientific information as it becomes available (USDA FS 2012 RONI).
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the four woodland bat species. For Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no impact if implementation occurs when the bats would not be present (September 15 to May). For harvest that occurs during summer, the highest risk to bats is when young are in maternity roosts (typically early June to mid July). Harvest outside this window greatly
163 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
reduces this risk. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individual woodland bats but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Rationale:
• Small-footed myotis, little brown bats, northern long-eared bats and tri-colored bats have been documented on the WMNF; Within the Project Area roost habitat is present for 3 species and foraging habitat for all of the species.
• The probability of any of these bats being present in a roost tree at the time it is being cut is extremely remote because the current populations are very low, there is an abundance of roost trees in the Project Area and Forest-wide, and the highest risk period is approximately 6 weeks between early June and mid-July.
• There is an abundance of large trees with cavities and loose bark however much of the forest has a canopy closure of over 80% limiting the amount of solar gain a roost tree can attain.
• Winter harvest activity would have no impact as these bats would be in their hibernacula of which none exist within the Project area.
• The amount of tree removal proposed in this project and cumulatively across the forest would not alter suitable habitat enough to cause a noticeable change in bat populations.
• The time period of highest risk is when young are unable to fly (between 23 and 30 days depending on the species
• White Nose Syndrome is the greatest threat to these species. No correlation between this disease and forest management activities exists.
• Prescribed fire for maintenance of wildlife openings that would occur when bats might be present could cause some temporary disturbance to roosting bats.
• Tri-colored bats prefer habitat that includes non-forested habitat or openings. This may be why they have not been common of the WMNF
• Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USFS 2005, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24-26 and 33 to 36) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest, reserve large wildlife trees, retain standing dead trees where possible, and maintain riparian habitats in areas
164 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
managed for vegetation should ensure that high quality summer habitat is maintained for eastern small-footed myotis to find adequate food, cover, roost sites, water, and other needs to survive and successfully reproduce on the Forest.
• Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines regarding reserve areas and wildlife trees were based on similar direction and approved by the USFWS as suitable mitigation for the Indiana bat, a federally listed tree roosting bat. (USDA 2005).
Northern Bog Lemming
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact and Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individual northern bog lemmings, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Rationale:
• Northern bog lemmings are extremely rare in New England. The likelihood of an individual occurring in the project area or cumulative effects analysis area is considered low however suitable habitat is present and no surveys were conducted because a positive identification requires destruction of the animal.
• Identifiable riparian habitat or wet areas are usually excluded from harvest units minimizing the risk of disturbing an individual animal or associated habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005b, Chapter 2, pages 24 - 26, 30-32).
• Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24 to 26 and 33 to 34) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for northern bog lemming.
• State guidelines provide sustainable management recommendations to private landowners managing their lands for timber (SPNHF 1997). These guidelines should provide protection for wetlands on private lands for habitat that might be used by northern bog lemming.
Wood Turtle
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact and Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individual wood turtles, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
165 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Rationale:
• There are no documented occurrences of wood turtle within the Project Area. Surveys were conducted in suitable habitat at an appropriate time of year.
• The most suitable habitat lies outside of the National Forest boundary on private land.
• Harvest within two of the suitable habitat units (57 and 58) would occur during winter when wood turtles would not be present.
• Units 11 and 14 are further from the most suitable habitat, but there is a probability a wood turtle could be present. If observed, harvest would cease until mitigations were determined to eliminate or reduce risk.
• A District biologist would be notified of any request to alter season of harvest prior to approval in Units 11, 14, 57, or 58.
• Harvest in these units may improve summer foraging habitat.
• Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005, Chapter 1, pages 20 and 21, Chapter 2, pages 24 to 26 and 33 to 34) to maintain a diversity of habitat conditions well distributed across the Forest and maintain riparian habitats in areas managed for vegetation in areas managed for vegetation should ensure that adequate habitat is maintained for northern bog lemming.
• State guidelines provide sustainable management recommendations to private landowners managing their lands for timber (SPNHF 1997). These guidelines should provide protection for wetlands on private lands for habitat that might be used by wood turtles.
Autumn Coral-Root
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact and either Action Alternative may impact individual plants of autumn coral-root, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Rationale:
• Autumn coralroot was not observed during botanical surveys of the project area however suitable habitat is present.
166 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
• The WMNF is on the northern edge of the range for autumn coralroot and was not observed during surveys of the Province Project Area.
• The orchid may be naturally rare being suitable habitat appears plentiful.
• Autumn coralroot does not erupt every year so surveying and monitoring for it pre and post project may not be the result of project activities.
• Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines maintain a diversity of habitats and protect wet areas (USDA Forest Service 2005).
Northern Adder’s Tongue
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact and Alternatives 2 and 3 may benefit Northern Adder’s Tongue by creating suitable habitat and would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Rationale:
• This species was observed in this HMU in 2004 but has not been seen since 2009.
• Suitable habitat does exist in multiple locations in the Project Area, primarily along overgrown skid trails, log landings, and portions of the margins of Forest Roads. Plant surveys in the Project Area did not discover any new populations (USDA Forest Service 2005, USDA Forest Service 2009, MNAP 2007).
• Roadside ditches, log landings, and open areas would continue to provide suitable habitat for this species.
• Alternatives 2 and 3 may create the disturbance this plant requires.
Nodding Pogonia
Determination: The No Action Alternative would have no impact and either Alternative 2 or 3 may impact individual plants of nodding pogonia, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.
Rationale:
• Habitat for nodding pogonia is plentiful on the Saco District and new populations are still being discovered. Suitable habitat for nodding pogonia would still exist after project implementation.
167 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• Nodding pogonia is thriving elsewhere on the Forest where harvesting occurred.
• Harvest prescriptions where this plant is known to exist is single-tree selection and previous harvest using this method has shown no detrimental effect.
• Nodding pogonia is relatively easily detectible when it is known what to look for. Otherwise this plant is very plain and easily overlooked. Populations are still being discovered on the WMNF.
Climate Change
The WMNF has used sustainable ecosystem management practices to provide a diversity of habitats across the Forest landscape for the array of wildlife species that occur on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, however current scientific information (summarized in L. Prout 2010) indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Province HMU project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2004-2024) for wildlife. Thus, climate change is not expected to affect endangered, threatened or sensitive species under this project analysis.
3.13 Vegetation
Background and Summary Vegetation management proposed in this project to meet silvicultural and/or wildlife objectives would be implemented using both commercial and non-commercial treatments. Commercial treatments would involve harvesting timber. Non-commercial treatments would involve cutting and/or girdling, but not harvesting, of submerchantable trees. The amount of proposed commercial and non-commercial treatments differs by alternative. A maximum amount of 2,022 acres of land is proposed for commercial treatments, e.g. timber harvest. Proposed non-commercial treatments would include a maximum of 79 acres of release treatments and 580 acres of site preparation treatments in harvest units following logging operations, as well as a 67 acres of timber-stand improvement in areas outside proposed harvest units. Implementation of one of the action alternatives would promote continued vegetation management within the project area, which is consistent with both the purpose and need for the project and Forest Plan direction. The degree of enhancement to species diversity,
168 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
age structure, tree quality, tree growth, and tree resiliency to insects and disease would be relative to the number of acres treated and the type of treatments proposed under each alternative analyzed.
Affected Environment During the late 19th and early 20th centuries intensive timber harvesting occurred throughout the WMNF. Relatively large fires also occurred in the early 20th century due in part to large fuel accumulations, drought and man-made ignition sources (e.g. wood and coal burning locomotives). Since then, vegetation on the WMNF has been actively managed (USDA FS 2005b, pp 2-6). Additionally, natural disturbances (e.g. wind storms, ice storms, fire, insects and disease) continuously influence vegetative communities across this landscape. Current vegetative communities within the project area reflect these legacy practices and natural disturbances. For more information on historical context see the WMNF FEIS (2005b), Province Archaeological Report (see project record). Today, the project area contains a mosaic of stands comprising a diversity of tree species. The current forest cover types consist of a mosaic of spruce-fir, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), northern hardwoods, aspen/birch, oak/pine and mixedwood forest type groups. A small portion of the project area contains non-forested openings dominated by grass and/or shrubs, ponds, wetlands, or rock outcrops. Most stands are in a stage of development that exhibit closed or partially closed canopies. With the exception of permanent wildlife openings, there are no regeneration-age (0-9 years old) stands in the project area. The lack of open forest conditions tends to foster the development of shade-tolerant species such as American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Due to these conditions species that require abundant sunlight, such as birch and aspen, are not abundant throughout the project area. Enhancing tree species diversity, in the absence of stand replacing disturbances, is limited by these current light regimes. Sustaining forest types such as birch/aspen and oak/pine is thus limited in the project area.
Many stands throughout the project area also contain trees exhibiting wind and ice damage to crowns, insect and disease, and tree injury from past management activities and natural disturbances. Analysis of recent forest inventory data (USDA FS 2007 - 2008) suggests many stands are in a stage of development that could support commercial vegetation management treatments. It is thus appropriate to treat many stands at this time. Please see Chapter 1 and the Wildlife section of this chapter for more details
169 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
pertaining to current species composition and age structure.
Direct and Indirect Effects Effects to vegetation were analyzed qualitatively by the degree of change to forest conditions expected to occur from natural disturbances and/or implementation of proposed silvicultural treatments in this project. Direct effects to vegetation potentially include residual tree damage, change in light regime, change in age structure, and scarification of the forest floor. Indirect effects to vegetation potentially include change in species composition, change in tree quality, change in tree growth and mortality, and change in a unit’s susceptibility to insects and disease. Effects to vegetation were also measured quantitatively by comparing the estimated number of acres (measurement indicator) proposed to be managed with silvicultural treatments. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to vegetation is MA 2.1 in the project area and non FS land near the project area. This analysis area was chosen because the proposed activities are confined to MA 2.1 and any noticeable direct and indirect effect to vegetation would likely occur within or near units proposed for treatment. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is five years post treatment. This analysis period was chosen because the direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities are primarily expected to occur during this time frame. Of particular importance are the effects to vegetation from regeneration treatments. Vegetation management comprises the majority of the proposed activities of the Province Project and most of the proposed vegetation management activities are regeneration treatments. According to a study on four sites in New England (Pierce et al. 1993), stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings begins in the first growing season after harvesting. This study found young, dense stands were established on all four sites within five years after cutting. This observation is consistent with other relevant findings (Leak et al. 1987; Leak and Smith, 1997; Leak 2007).
Alternative 1 This alternative would result in the continued growth and development of all stands in the project area. However, in the absence of large scale natural disturbances, the opportunity to increase tree species diversity would be limited. Some trees would die from natural causes related to competition for resources such as light. Natural disturbances such as wind and ice events would influence successional pathways by temporarily creating small forest openings that would encourage the establishment of
170 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
shade-tolerant species. Stands containing important components of birch species, aspen species, pine species, red oak, and white ash (Fraxinus americana) would gradually shift to stands dominated by beech, maple species, hemlock, red spruce (Picea rubens) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea). Dominant and co-dominant red oak and white pine would continue to serve as important stand components; however, without periodic disturbances or silvicultural treatments many oak and pine seedlings would fail to become established, stagnate in the understory and/or die. The indirect effect of no action would be a continuing conversion of oak and pine stands to stands dominated by shade-tolerant species such as beech, hemlock and/or balsam fir.
Untreated stands containing an abundance of beech would exhibit a high degree of shade at the forest floor. Dense beech would limit the ability of other plant (tree, shrubs and forbs) species to regenerate. Over time there would be a loss of species diversity within these stands. Many pole-size beech trees would incur early mortality due to beech bark disease and self-thinning. Those that survive and develop into larger size classes would not likely produce high-quality sawtimber.
A direct effect of this alternative would be the lack of regeneration-age stands. Consequently, diversity of age structure would be limited and an important HMU objective would not be met. An indirect effect of this alternative is that stands would continue to age. Some trees would die from senescence. As shorter-lived species (aspen species, paper birch and balsam fir) grow older they would become more susceptible to ice damage, windthrow, insects, and disease. Over time, these agents would contribute to tree mortality within stands and this condition would likely occur throughout the analysis area. Overall, stand vigor and tree quality would also decline because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone. The vegetation management goal of providing high quality sawtimber and non- sawtimber products on a sustained yield basis would not be met. No forest products would be available to local markets and no income would be generated. Please see the Socio-Economic Report for more details. The lack of road reconstruction and use of landings would result in revegetation of some areas and continued growth of trees in others.
Alternative 2 As noted in Chapter 2, commercial vegetation management activities proposed in this project are characterized by even- and uneven-aged silvicultural systems and, more specifically, cutting methods. Also as noted in Chapter 2, proposed non-commercial
171 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
vegetation management activities would differ by treatment and objective. The extent to which vegetation management activities directly or indirectly affect vegetation is influenced by these treatments. Additionally, operating season or the time of year when vegetation management activities occur would also influence direct and indirect effects to vegetation.
Commercial Treatments
Even-Aged Management - Clearcuts with Reserves
This type of treatment would directly affect vegetation by creating large openings (>10 acres) in the forest canopy, allowing a high level of sunlight to reach the forest floor. Clearcutting would also directly affect the age structure of a unit, resulting in an immediate change from mature to regeneration age structure, with the exception of unit 104. The age structure in unit 104 would change from a young to a regeneration age class.
Another potential direct effect to vegetation that could result from felling and/or skidding operations is damage to residual trees. Residual tree damage influences tree quality, tree vigor and a stand’s susceptibility to insects and disease. The amount of residual tree damage within clearcuts with reserves would be expected to be very low to none, simply because there would be very few residual trees. Furthermore, residual trees in these units would be clearly identified and monitored by a timber sale administrator during logging operations. Nevertheless, some residual tree damage would likely occur outside of clearcuts due to the skidding of trees from units to landings. The harvesting of all merchantable trees would also likely reduce the unit’s susceptibility to insects and disease because those that are in poor health would be removed from the unit. One indirect effect of clearcutting would be an increase in species diversity within units and across the project area. Compared to other silvicultural treatments clearcutting would produce the greatest amount of early-successional habitat. Clearcutting would stimulate the germination of woody or herbaceous vegetation that have seeds with a relatively long period of dormancy. These include raspberries, blackberries, pin cherry, and various forbs and grasses. In response to clearcutting, the seeds of these plants would germinate due to the abundance of light and corresponding warming of the forest floor. Herbaceous cover would remain an important component of the new stand until the tree canopy of the new trees begins to close. Clearcutting would likely result in the germination and establishment of fast-growing shade-intolerant tree species such as pin cherry, paper birch, trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and/or bigtooth aspen
172 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
(Populus grandidentata). Clearcutting would also promote asexual regeneration via root suckers and stump sprouts of hardwood species such as beech, bigtooth aspen, trembling aspen, and red maple (Acer rubrum).
The perimeter of stands adjacent to proposed clearcuts would be subjected to changes in micro-climate conditions. Likely changes include increased sunlight, increased exposure to wind, decreased humidity, and increased evapo-transpiration. Indirectly, the increase in sunlight would likely result in increased growth rates of trees bordering clearcuts. However, the increase in sunlight could also potentially result in degradation of tree quality due to increased potential for epicormic branch development and sun scald. The increase in exposure to wind could indirectly increase the potential for wind damage or windthrow along perimeters of adjacent stands. These effects would likely vary by site, landform, topography, slope, aspect, elevation, size of unit and shape of unit. Trees in stands near the perimeter of large forest openings are generally more likely to experience windthrow compared to other treatments due to greater exposure. The probability of residual tree damage and/or mortality from wind is thus increased as a result of this treatment. However, based on field reconnaissance of old clearcuts within the project area and throughout the Saco Ranger District tree mortality resulting from wind damage adjacent to clearcuts would likely be negligible (Maguire personal observations 2006-2013).
Even-Aged Management – Patch Cuts
The light environment in a patch cut, compared to a clearcut, would differ primarily with respect to opening size. With the exception of unit 83, all patch cuts would be between five and ten acres in size. Though unit 83 is only one acre, it would be converted to, and expanded upon, an existing wildlife opening. Openings between five and ten acres would be large enough to facilitate the regeneration and establishment of the same diversity of tree species observed in a clearcut. The reduced size of openings created by patch cuts could result in some minor differences in direct and indirect effects to vegetation. The lack of reserve areas in patch cuts would influence the light environment through decreased shading of the treated area. Also, due to the lack of reserve areas the age structure in a patch cut would be more simplified than a clearcut. Differences in species diversity would thus be negligible compared to the regeneration response in a clearcut.
Due to the inherently smaller opening sizes, the effects on neighboring stands from changes in micro-climate conditions would likely be reduced (assuming similar site, landform, topography, slope, aspect, elevation and shape of unit) compared to those
173 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
adjacent to a clearcut. Though growth rates of perimeter trees could increase as much as those adjacent to a clearcut, fewer trees would likely be affected due to the smaller size of the units. Similarly, fewer boundary trees would likely experience degradation in tree quality due to epicormic branching or sun scald. Because the probability of windthrow tends to increase as opening size increases, fewer trees would likely be affected by windthrow compared to those along a perimeter of a clearcut. The risk of tree damage and/or mortality from wind would thus be less than a clearcut.
Similar to clearcuts, the amount of residual tree damage within patch cuts would be very low to none because there would be very few residual trees. However, some residual tree damage would likely occur outside of patch cuts due to the skidding of trees from units to landings. The harvesting of all trees would also likely reduce the unit’s susceptibility to insects and disease because those that are in poor health would be removed from the unit.
Even-Aged Management – Shelterwood Seed Cut Shelterwood seed cuts would involve the removal of about half to two thirds the midstory/overstory of a stand. Following implementation, residual stands would contain basal areas (BA) of approximately 40 to 60 square feet per acre (Leak 2003 Proceedings from WP Workshop). This treatment would create a moderately open forest canopy that would allow a moderate amount of light to reach the forest floor. Shelterwood seed cuts would result in the release of oak and pine advance reproduction while stimulating new seedlings and/or stump sprouts. This treatment would thus foster a two age structure until the overstory is removed or trees die from natural causes.
The felling and skidding of trees within units proposed for shelterwood treatments would likely result in a very limited amount of residual tree damage. The disturbance of leaf litter and exposure of mineral soil (incidental scarification) associated with logging operations would also provide favorable conditions for the establishment of oak and pine seedlings. The focus of trees targeted for retention would be mature white pine and red oak exhibiting good quality and health. Conversely, the trees targeted for removal would primarily be suppressed and/or poor quality trees. Due to the emphasis of trees targeted for retention and removal this treatment would result in an overall increase in tree quality. Additionally, the growth of residual trees would likely increase due to the increase in available light which would stimulate crown development. The increase in tree growth and tree quality would also generally result in a greater resilience to insects
174 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
and disease. Tree mortality resulting from natural causes would thus likely decrease in the near future.
Uneven-Aged Management – Group Selection
Group selection would create or foster the development of an uneven-aged structure. The degree to which this treatment would facilitate regeneration of shade-intolerant, intermediate-, or tolerant-tree species would depend, in part, on group size. Large groups would result in a comparatively greater amount of light than smaller groups. Accordingly, large groups would result in higher temperatures, greater amounts of evapotranspiration and reduced amounts of humidity at the forest floor than smaller groups. These conditions would facilitate the regeneration of a broad diversity of tree species particularly northern hardwoods characterized as intermediate or intolerant of shade such as white ash, yellow birch and paper birch. Small groups would promote the regeneration of tree species characterized as intermediate and tolerant of shade such as maple species, hemlock, spruce and fir. Some variation in regeneration responses would also be expected due to variation in seed periodicity, seed dispersal and other silvical characteristics. Advance reproduction in areas designated for group selection would comprise a proportion of small trees within each group immediately following treatment. Where advance reproduction is lacking, regeneration-age trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space within a few years following the treatment. Trees around the perimeter of groups would expand their crowns and also begin to occupy a portion of the groups within this five-year period. Over time, this treatment would lead to a complex vertical and horizontal vegetative structure. Though only about 20% of each unit would be treated, the targeted removal of poor- quality and low-vigor trees would likely result in an increase in tree quality and tree growth of residual trees while reducing the amount of mortality expected to occur in the absence of a treatment. Consequently, this treatment would also likely decrease each unit’s susceptibility to insects and disease. Residual tree damage would likely vary, in part, by group size assuming all other factors are equal. Large groups would likely result in less residual tree damage from felling and skidding than small groups because there would be more room for logging equipment to maneuver. However, damage from wind post treatment would likely be greater in areas treated with large-size groups due to the greater exposure that is characteristic of large openings. Regardless of group size, some residual tree damage
175 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
would likely occur outside of patch cuts due to the skidding of trees from units to landings.
Uneven-Aged Management – Single-Tree Selection
Single-tree selection would create or foster the development of an uneven-aged structure by releasing advance reproduction and/or regenerating a diversity of northern hardwood and/or softwood trees. Approximately 1/3 of the trees would be cut and harvested from all merchantable size classes. Trees targeted for removal would include those exhibiting poor quality and low vigor. Residual stands would contain trees of variable sizes (heights and diameters). Over time, this treatment would lead to an increase in complexity of vertical vegetative structure. Trees and other plants would begin to occupy growing space created by the individual harvest of trees within five years following the treatment. The presence of shade intolerant tree species (e.g. paper birch, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen) would decline in importance within each unit proposed for treatment. Though small gaps would be created, trees within residual stands would restrict and filter sunlight thereby favoring shade-tolerant plants such as spruce, hemlock, fir, beech and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Vigorous trees of all size classes exhibiting good quality would be retained. Unlike group selection, single-tree selection would involve treatment throughout the entirety of each unit. This treatment would result in improving tree quality and growth of most residual trees while reducing the amount of mortality expected to occur in the absence of treatment. However, due to the greater density of residual trees, there would be less room for logging equipment to maneuver. Residual tree damage resulting from felling and skidding of trees would thus likely be greater in units proposed for single-tree selection than any other commercial vegetation management treatment previously discussed. However, residual tree damage that could occur indirectly from wind following implementation would likely be low as a result of the small gaps created from this treatment. Similar to other treatments, there would likely be some incidental damage to trees outside of units proposed for single-tree selection due to skidding of trees from units to landings. Ultimately, this treatment would likely decrease each unit’s susceptibility to insects and disease because the potential adverse effect of residual tree damage would be minor compared to the increase in growth and quality of residual trees. Residual stand damage is also influenced by operating season as discussed in a subsequent section of this report (see Influence of Operating Season).
176 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Uneven-Aged Management – Group- and Single-Tree Selection
Direct and indirect effects pertaining to this treatment were analyzed in accordance with those outlined in the two preceding subsections titled Group Selection and Single Tree Selection. Influence of Operating Season
The amount and severity of residual tree damage is partially influenced by the operating season. Among the operating seasons considered for this project, summer is the season when tree bark is most vulnerable to damage from felling and skidding operations. In contrast, tree bark is least vulnerable to damage from these activities during the winter operating season. Accordingly, vegetation management activities conducted in the fall/winter would likely result in less residual-tree damage than if the same activities conducted in the summer/fall. The operating season’s direct influence on residual tree damage indirectly influences tree quality, tree susceptibility to insects and disease, and tree growth and mortality. Damage to residual trees from vegetation management activities would also vary by the cutting method. These effects are discussed in previous sections of this report. The operating season also directly influences the amount of scarification of the forest floor. Vegetation management activities conducted in the summer and summer/fall would likely result in the greatest amount of scarification. Activities conducted in the fall/winter would likely result in less scarification than if the same activities were conducted in the summer or summer/fall. In contrast, scarification would likely be least in units proposed for winter operations. The amount of scarification in the winter would vary by snow depth and soil temperature. Scarification is generally reduced as soil temperature decreases and snow depth increases. For more information, please see the Province Soil Report. Indirectly, the operating season influences the regeneration response (species diversity) because the degree of scarification affects which tree species are favored following a treatment. Plant species whose seeds benefit from direct contact with mineral soil (e.g. paper birch and white pine) are more likely to regenerate in a unit following a logging operation conducted in the summer or fall. In contrast, species (e.g. beech and red maple) that regenerate from asexual means are less sensitive to seedbed requirements. However, the amount of scarification would also vary by cutting method. Treatments that would create relatively large openings (i.e. clearcuts with reserves) would facilitate more extensive but less intensive soil scarification because harvesting equipment would
177 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
not be limited to travel on skid trails. In contrast, treatments that would create small openings (e.g. group selection) would facilitate less extensive but more intensive soil scarification. The influence of cutting methods on regeneration response is discussed in previous sections.
Non-Commercial Treatments
Site Preparation
Direct effects resulting from site preparation treatments include increased light at the forest floor and a reduction in the amount of competing vegetation. Incidental scarification would also occur if heavy equipment is used on non-frozen ground without snow cover. Compared to no treatment, these effects would indirectly increase the likelihood of regenerating a diversity of tree species while also meeting wildlife objectives pertaining to early successional habitat.
Release Treatments
Release treatments would have the direct effect of increasing the amount of light made available to crowns of trees targeted for release. The increase in light would indirectly lead to increased growth rates of residual trees. Release treatments would also directly affect species composition. Species targeted for release would increase in relative abundance while those targeted for cutting and/or girdling would decrease in relative abundance. Due to beech’s ability to reproduce prolifically through root suckering and stump sprouting the effect of cutting or girdling beech would be temporary. Within five years beech would likely redevelop and become well established in the understories proposed for release treatments. However, during this time trees targeted for release would likely respond to the treatment and occupy a greater height and vigor in the treated stands’ understories or midstories. Compared to no treatment, these effects would likely increase the likelihood of maintaining oak and pine species in the units proposed for shelterwood seed cuts.
Timber Stand Improvement
Timber-stand improvement treatments would have the direct effect of increasing the amount of light and space made available to crowns of trees targeted for release. The increase in light would indirectly lead to increased growth rates of residual trees. These treatments would also directly affect species composition. Species targeted for release would increase in relative abundance while those targeted for cutting and/or girdling
178 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
would decrease in relative abundance. Compared to no treatment, these effects would increase the likelihood of maintaining tree species, such as red oak, that currently represent minor components of these units. This treatment would also promote the development of high-quality sawtimber in these units because those trees exhibiting good form and vigor would be retained.
Connected Actions and Other Proposed Activities
Road Reconstruction
Road reconstruction would likely result in the removal or trimming of vegetation to accommodate equipment and improve the road bed. Road reconstruction would include the trimming of some lower, overhanging tree limbs but higher limbs would continue to occupy space above some of the road surface. Though the anticipated width of a road is expected to be approximately 20 feet, additional disturbance of approximately 6 feet on each side may be necessary to provide adequate drainage and clearance. The total amount of area affected by road reconstruction would be up to approximately 33 acres. The removal of trees would be limited to areas adjacent to roads; therefore, the effect on trees in stands and units adjacent to these roads would be negligible.
Trail Relocation
Based on the anticipated width of approximately 4 feet, the proposed relocation of Weeks Brook Trail would require removing (cutting and/or pruning) trees and vegetation on approximately 0.4 acres. The decommissioned portion of this trail would begin to revert to forest vegetation within a few years of trail abandonment. No detrimental effects to vegetation would be expected from either activity.
Wildlife Openings
Creation of wildlife openings would likely result in a different regeneration response than a patch cut because most tree stumps would be excavated within a few years of the regeneration treatment. The excavated stumps, residual slash and submerchantable trees would be buried, piled and/or burned following completion of the logging operation. Consequently, an indirect effect is that tree regeneration from stump sprouts and root suckers would likely be less common. Wildlife openings would thus likely regenerate to greater amounts of forbs, shrubs and tree seedlings. Due to the anticipated maintenance involving the periodic mowing or burning of wildlife openings, the natural succession from fast growing, short-lived, shade-intolerant trees to slower growing, longer-lived,
179 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
shade-tolerant trees would not occur over time. Consequently, plants favored by abundant light such as blackberries, raspberries, pin cherry, birch species and aspen species would likely dominate the openings for the foreseeable future.
Other Activities
Additional activities proposed in this alternative would result in incidental effects to vegetation. Incidental effects include those that affect less than one acre of disturbance at a particular location. The following are examples of proposed activities that would result in incidental effects: pre-haul maintenance of forest roads, temporary access roads to landings; construction and maintenance of landings; utilization of primary skid trails, installation and maintenance of culverts and bridges; removal of hazard trees; and stream bank stabilization.
Alternative 3
The direct and indirect effects pertaining to proposed treatments affecting vegetation in Alternative 3 are described in the preceding section under Alternative 2. These alternatives differ in terms of the amount of area proposed for treatment. A summary of these differences is provided in Chapter 2, and is summarized below. The total amount of forest area proposed for commercial harvesting would be reduced by approximately 441 acres, as compared to Alternative 2. Specifically, there would be 152 less acres of clearcutting, 24 less acres of patch cuts, 238 less acres of group selection, 12 less acres of single-tree selection and 15 less acres of single-tree/group selection. Site preparation would be reduced by approximately 336 acres, as compared to Alternative 2.
Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to vegetation encompasses all land within the project area, as well as other privately owned and state administered lands near the project area. The temporal scope for the cumulative effects analysis on vegetation is fifteen years in the past and fifteen years into the future (1997 – 2027). Based on stocking surveys (2009 – 2012) conducted in other areas of the Saco Ranger District, all recently treated stands have successfully regenerated to a diversity of tree species within five years of regeneration treatments. Natural regeneration of forest vegetation is a dynamic process. As stands age their development patterns change.
180 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Though the results of previous treatments can be observed for many decades, the effects of these activities diminish over time. For example, Walters and Nyland (1989) observed that northern hardwood stands form closed canopies within 10 – 13 years following clearcutting. Closed canopies inhibit the regeneration of shade intolerant plant species. Therefore, in the absence of substantial disturbance, it would be unlikely that fifteen year old stands would continue to experience regeneration of shade-intolerant plant species. Ten years following an even-aged regeneration treatment also represents a transition period when a stand, classified as regeneration age, shifts toward a young age class as defined by HMU classification.
Within the next fifteen years, there are no additional vegetation management treatments proposed within the cumulative effects analysis area on the WMNF. However, there are two parcels on private land that are close to or abut units proposed for vegetation management activities in both alternatives where vegetation management activities are expected to occur. These include parcels 17 (66 acres) and 19 (20 acres) of Map One (Town of Chatham Tax Map 2012). The information regarding proposed vegetation management activities on both parcels is based on Notice of Intent to Cut Timber applications filed with the town office in 2012. Parcel 17 is close to or abuts proposed harvest units 56, 67 and unit 77. Parcel 19 is close to or abuts unit 57. The specific type of treatment(s) proposed on these parcels is unknown.
Alternative 1
The cumulative effects of no action would include the effects described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section above. Differences between direct/indirect effects and cumulative effects relate to the additional ten-year period associated with future inactivity within the analysis area. Under the No Action Alternative and in the absence of natural stand- replacing disturbances there would be a slight increase in the probability that stands would begin to resemble their respective climax vegetation types. There would also be a greater likelihood that a species shift would occur from stands containing birch species, aspen species, pine species, red oak, and white ash to stands dominated by beech, maple species, hemlock and red spruce. Additionally, with the exception of existing wildlife openings, within 15 years no stands within the project area (HMU) would be classified as regeneration age.
181 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Alternatives 2 and 3
Collectively, vegetation management activities that have occurred in the cumulative effects analysis area within the past fifteen years account for approximately 295 acres (less than one percent) of disturbance. Based on intensive and extensive field reconnaissance by the Province IDT, no known adverse effects to vegetation have resulted from these past management activities. Vegetation management treatments proposed for units 56, 57, 67 and 77 are uneven- aged selection treatments. The effects from these proposed treatments to vegetation in privately owned parcels 17 and/or 19 would be the same as those addressed in Direct and Indirect Effects under Group Selection and Single-Tree Selection. Because the vegetation management activities expected to occur on privately owned parcels 17 and 19 are unknown, it is difficult to assess the effects of such treatments to vegetation in units 56, 57, 67 and 77. Nevertheless, because the condition (age structure, species composition, etc.) of these four units is not expected to be dramatically altered, the effects would likely be the same as those addressed in Direct and Indirect Effects under Group Selection and Single-Tree Selection. Considering the proposed vegetation management treatments and respective operating seasons, no adverse effects to vegetation would be expected as a result of implementing either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Additionally, with the exception of wildlife opening maintenance and the projected vegetation management activities on two parcels on neighboring private land, no additional vegetation management is anticipated on National Forest System lands within the cumulative effects analysis area in the next fifteen years. Accordingly, the cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 of this project would be the same as the direct and indirect effects described above for these alternatives. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.
Climate Change
Climate change will have an influence on vegetation, water, disturbance frequencies, and forest pests. These changes will each influence one another, making it difficult to predict what changes will occur and when. Within the 30-year period of this cumulative effects analysis, climate change should have little if any measurable effect on our local forests. The exceptions might be isolated pest infestations, if those are actually related to climate change, and slight changes in the location of some forest species at higher elevations. Maintaining optimal forest and tree health is widely supported as a means to
182 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report buffer climate changes (Millen 2009a). Monitoring of regeneration, as required by NFMA at the project and Forest Plan level, would lead to reconsideration of silvicultural treatments if climate-related influences were detected.
It is important to improve forest resiliency to better withstand stressors such as climate change. The diversity of species composition, age, and structure are several factors that affect resiliency. For example, forests that are less likely to have insect outbreaks and contain greater species diversity may have greater resiliency in the face of climate change (USDA Forest Service 2008d). Management actions such as thinning, prescribed fire, or altering species composition through final harvesting and planting could create these characteristics that increase resiliency in the face of climate change (Millen 2009a). Some literature indicates there are already small elevational shifts in tree species and changes in seedling abundance occurring in some northern tree species. The rate of noticeable changes in tree species composition is uncertain. Best estimates are that it will be very slow unless insect or disease outbreaks cause disturbances that precipitate faster rates of change (USDA Forest Service 2009b). Two climate change studies particularly relevant to the analysis of the Province Integrated Resource Management Project include “A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont”(Beckage et al. 2008) and “Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications” (Leak 2009). Both studies utilize long-term vegetative plots to study responses of vegetation to climate change. The Leak study shows it is possible that the conditions and changes, revealed locally by this research, are related to natural succession and soil conditions. The Leak study and time-tested silvicultural prescriptions used in the Province Integrated Resource Management Project validate the effects analysis and the predicted changes over the next 15 years. Monitoring on the WMNF has demonstrated that silvicultural treatments are effective means to manage a diversity of vegetation that is consistent with meeting wildlife objectives (USDA FS 2005b, pp 2-6). The FS expects to be successful in regenerating the stands proposed for regeneration treatments. The time scale for regeneration (0-5 years) is shorter than the time scale over which species distributions may change in response to climate (90-years) according to some tree distribution models (Shugart et al. 2003). Stocking surveys conducted on the Saco Ranger District three years after regeneration treatments indicate that similar treatments result in the successful establishment of a diversity of tree species (USDA FS 2009 -2012). These treatments help to create stand
183 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
conditions relatively resilient to longer-term trends, especially if stands are maintained and insect and disease outbreaks are treated.
Chapter 4 — Preparers and Consultants
Rick Alimi Forester White Mountain National Forest Ken Allen Landscape Architect White Mountain National Forest Jack Blanchette Engineering Technician White Mountain National Forest Erica Cate Ecologist White Mountain National Forest Robert Coulter Soil Scientist White Mountain National Forest Sheela Johnson Hydrologist White Mountain National Forest Anna Johnston GIS Specialist White Mountain National Forest Desiree Johnston IDT Leader White Mountain National Forest Sarah Jordan Archaeologist White Mountain National Forest Stacy Lemieux Forest Planner White Mountain National Forest Michael Maguire Forester/Silviculturist White Mountain National Forest Chris Mattrick Botanist White Mountain National Forest Jacob Ormes Transportation Engineer White Mountain National Forest Mark Prout Fisheries Biologist White Mountain National Forest Kathy Starke Wildlife Biologist White Mountain National Forest Rod Wilson Recreation Planner White Mountain National Forest Greg Sturgis Watershed Intern White Mountain National Forest Alice Schori Biological Technician White Mountain National Forest
184 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
References (Literature Cited)
Abrams, M. 2005. Prescribing Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Is Time Running Out? Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 22(3): 190-196 Albany Bicentennial Committee. 1966. “Albany New Hampshire Bicentennial Observance”. Anderson, L. 1994. Terrestrial wildlife and habitat in fire effects guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. PMS 481. NFES 2394. Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 7:1-57. Askins, R.A., 1993, Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11:1-34. Bailey, S. W., D. C. Buso, and G. E. Likens. 2003. Implications Of Sodium Mass Balance For Interpreting The Calcium Cycle Of A Forested Ecosystem. Ecology 84, No. 2:471-484. Bailey, S. W., S. B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2005. Thirty Years of Change in Forest Soils of the Allegheny Plateau, Pennsylvania. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Reproduced pgs 1-10. Baird, O.E., and C.C. Krueger. 2003. Behavioral thermoregulation of brook and rainbow trout: comparison of summer habitat use in an Adirondack River, New York. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 132: 1194-1206. Baker, J.P., J. Van Sickle, C.J. Gagen, D.R. DeWalle, W.E. Sharpe, R.F. Carline, B.P. Baldigo, P.S. Murdoch, D.W. Bath, W.A. Krester, H.A. Simonin, P.J. Wigington, Jr., 1996. Episodic Acidification of Small Streams in the Northeastern United States: Effects on Fish Populations. Baker, M.B. 1998. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. Effects of Fire In Management of Southwestern Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ, November 14-17, 1988, pp.31-42. Baldigo B. P., and G. B. Lawrence. 2000. Composition of fish communities in relation to stream acidification and habitat in the Neversink River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129:60–76. Baldigo B. P., P.S. Murdoch, D.A. Burns. 2005. Stream acidification and mortality of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in response to timber harvest in Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 1168-1183.
185 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Baldigo, B.P., and G.B. Lawrence. 2007. Persistent Mortality of Brook Trout in Episodically Acidified Streams of the Southwestern Adirondack Mountains, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136:121-134. Beals, C. Jr. 1916. Passaconaway in the White Mountains. Boston: Richard. G. Badger. Beals, R. V. 1976. “Passaconaway”, in Albany’s Recollections, United States Bicentennial. Pp 33-37 Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218:37-59. Beckage, B. Osborne, B. Gavin, D.G., Pucko, C. Siccama, T and Perkins, T. 2008. A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 105, No. 11, pp 4197-4202. Bennett, K.P. ed. 2010. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire (second edition). University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, N.H. http://extension.unh.edu/goodforestry/index.htm Bent, G.C. 2001. Effects of forest-management activities on runoff components and ground-water recharge to Quabbin Reservoir, central Massachusetts. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 115-129. Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. Brose, P.H., T.M. Schuler, and J.S.Ward. 2006. Responses of oak and other hardwood regeneration to prescribed fire: what we know as of 2005. In: Dickinson, M.B. (Ed.), Fire in Eastern Oak Forests. Delivering Science to Land Managers. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-P-1, pp. 123-127. Brown, T.C. and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North American Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-248, 27 pp. Buckley, D.S., T.R. Crow, E.S. Nauertz, and K.E. Shulz. 2002. Influence of skid trails and haul roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in Upper Michingan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 5969:1- 12.
186 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Burbank, D. 2010. Climate Change and Potential Impacts to Vegetation and Forested Ecosystems on the Green Mountain National Forest – A Literature Review. USDA Forest Service, unpublished literature review. Butchkoski, C. 2011. Bat White Nose Syndrome (WNS) Occurrence by County/District. Map dated 02/14/2011. PA Game Commission. Burton, T.M., and G.E. Likens, 1973. The Effect of Strip-Cutting on Stream Temperatures in the The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. BioScience, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 433-435. Campbell T.A., B. R. Lasetera, W. M. Ford, K.V. Miller. 2004. Movements of female white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in relation to timber harvests in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 371–378 Cathcart, J., and M. Delany. 2006. Carbon Accounting: Determining Carbon Offsets from Projects. Pp 157-174 in Forests, Carbon and Climate Change: a synthesis of science findings, Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, OR. http://www.oregonforests.org/media/pdf/CarbonRptFinal.pdf Center for Watershed Protection, 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. 142 pp. CEQ. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Chandler, C.C. 2007. Habitat use and survival of neotropical migrant songbirds during the post-fledging period in the White Mountain National Forest. Masters Thesis for Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 105pp. Chandler. D. 2008, Personal communication with K. Starke regarding two mayflies and existence within the NE Swift River project area. Project File. Chandler, D. 2009. Aquatic insect survey in White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. Campton, NH. Chandler, D. 2010. Final Report: Aquatic Insect survey in White Mountain National Forest, 2006-2010. Unpublished report. Chandler, R.B. 2006. Early-successional bird abundance and nest success in managed shrublands on the White Mountain National Forest. Masters Thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 137pp. Chase, V.P., L.S. Deming, and F. Latawiec. 1995. Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Audubon Society of New Hampshire.
187 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Chenger, J. 2002. Summer survey of New Hampshire woodland bats – June 27 – July 19, 2002. Bat Conservation and Management, Carlisle, PA 49pp. Chenger, J. 2004. 2004 woodland bat survey in the White Mountain National Forest – August 8 – 18, 2004. Bat Conservation and Management, Inc. Carlisle, PA 38pp. City-data.com. 2011. Albany, New Hampshire. Accessed at: http://www.city- data.com/city/Albany-New-Hampshire.html Clark, B. 1992. An Historical Perspective of Oak Regeneration. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-84 Oak Regeneration: Serious Problems, Practical Recommendations. p. 3-11. Colter, R. A. 2010. North East Swift Integrated Vegetative Management Project Soil Assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. Campton, NH. Colter, R. A. 2009. Soils and Climate Change (draft). Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Conner, R.N. and C.S. Adkisson. 1975. Effects of clearcutting on the diversity of breeding birds. Journ. of For. 73:781-785 Costello, C.A., M. Yamasaki, P.J. Pekins, W.B. Leak, and C.D. Neefus. 2000. Songbird response to group selection harvests and clearcutsin a New Hampshire northern hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 127. 41-54. Curry, R.A., and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Population-level responses to sediment during early life in brook trout. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 23(1): 140-150. Curry, R.A. and D.L.G. Noakes. 1995. Groundwater and the selection of spawning sites by brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 1733-1740. Cunjak, R.A., and G. Power. 1986. Winter habitat utilization by stream resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 1970-1981. Dale, M. E., H. Smith, and J.N. Pearcy. 1995. Size of clearcut opening affects species composition, growth rate, and stand characteristics. Res.Pap. NE-698. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, NE Forest Exp. Station. DeGraaf, R. M. and W. F. Healy, compilers. 1988. Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the Northeast? Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-140. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 32pp. DeGraaf, R.M. 1991. Breeding Bird Assemblages in Managed Northern Hardwood Forests in New England. Chapter 8 in, J.E. Rodiek and E.G. Bolen (editors.) Wildlife and Habitats in Managed Landscapes. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
188 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
DeGraaf, R.M. 1992. Effects of Even-aged Management of Forest Birds at Northern Hardwood Stand Interfaces. Forest Ecology and Management, 46 (1992) 95-110. DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press, Hanover, NH. 482pp. DeGraaf, R.M., M. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and A.M. Lester. 2006. Technical Guide to Forest Wildlife Habitat Management in New England. University of Vermont Press, Burlington, VT. DeMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology: 340- 352. Desmarais, K. 1998. Northern Red Oak Regeneration: Biology and Silviculture. University or New Hampshire, NH Division of Forests and Lands, and New Hampshire Natural Resources Network. Dey, C.D., G.W. Miller, and J.M. Kabrick. 2007. Sustaining northern red oak forests: managing oak from regeneration to canopy dominance in mature stands. Published in Deal, R.L., ed. 2007. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multi-resource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 p. Dey, C.D. and Z. Fan. 2008. A review of fire and oak regeneration and overstory recruitment. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR- NRS-P-46, pp2-20. Dierkes, C. and W.F. Geiger. 1999. Pollution retention capabilities of roadside soils. Water Science and Technology, 39(2):201-108. Donnelly, J.R., J. B. Shane and H.W. Yawney. 1991. Harvesting Causes Only Minor Changes in Physical Properties of an Upland Vermont Soil. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. Vol. 8, No. 1. pp.33-35. Dorrance, M.J., P.J. Savage, and D.E. Huff. 1975. Effects of Snowmobiles on White- Tailed Deer. J. of Wildlife Management 39(3):563-569 Driscoll C. T., G. B. Lawrence, A. J. Bulger, T. J. Butler, C. S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K. F. Lambert, G. E. Likens, J. L. Stoddard, and K. C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic deposition in the Northeastern U.S.: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. BioScience. 51:3. Dyer, J. 2006. Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. BioScience Vol. 56(4): 341-352.
189 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial Effects of Prescribed Fire on Quality of Soil Solution and Streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29(1): 5-15. EPA. 2009. AQI: Air Quality Index, A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed at: www.epa.gov/airnow/aqi_brochure_08-09.pdf EPA. 2010. NAAQS Comparison - National and NH source. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 2011. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency. Erdle, S. Y. and C. S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report #00-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 17pp. plus Appendices. Evans, A.M., and R. Perschel. 2009. A review of forestry mitigation and adaptation strategies in the Northeast U.S. Climatic Change 96:167–183. FACT. 2008. Mercury (Hg) Emissions from Wildland Fire. Fire Air Coordination Team. Fay S., W. B. Leak, M. Yamasaki, J. W. Hornbeck, and R. S. Smith. 1994. The Deadwood Report. Unpublished Report. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia. Fay, S. 2003. Re-Calculations of Calcium Depletion. Unpublished data in the Forest Plan Revision Administrative Record. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. Federer, C.A., J.W. Hornbeck, L. M. Tritton., C.W. Martin, and R.S. Pierce. 1989. Long- term Depletion of Calcium and Other Nutrients in Eastern US Forests. Environmental Management, 13(5): 593-601. Fernandez, I.A., L.E. Rustard, S.A. Norton, J.S. Kahl, and B.J. Cosby. 2003. “Experimental Acidification Causes Soil Base Cation Depletion at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67:1909-1919. Flanagan, S.A. 2005. Woody debris transport at road-stream crossings. Stream Notes. October, 2005. Stream Systems Technology Center. Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Forman, R. T. and R. D. Deblinger. 2000. The Ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14(1):36-46. Foss, C. 1994. Breeding Bird Atlas of NH. Audubon Society of NH. Concord, NH. Pp 60- 61.
190 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Frank, R.M., and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1973. A silvicultural guide for spruce-fir in the northeast. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-6. Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Fuller, T. and S. DeStefano 2003. Relative importance of early-successional forests and shrubland habitats to mammals in the northeastern U.S. Forest Ecology and Management, 185(2003):75–79 Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(5):896-900. Goerlich, D. and R. Nyland. 1999. Proceedings Symposium on Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in Eastern North America GTR-NE-26 Gowan, C., and K.D. Fausch. 1996. Mobile brook trout in two high-elevation Colorado streams: re-evaluating the concept of restricted movement. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1370-1381. Gowan, C., M.K. Young, K.D. Fausch, and S.C. Riley. 1994. Restricted movement in resident stream salmonids: a paradigm lost? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 2626- 2637. Groot, A., R. Man and J. Wood. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of Populus tremuloides. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 85. No. 4 Gysel, L. W. 1956. Measurement of acorn crops. Forest Science. 2:305-313. Hakala, J.P., 2000. Factors Influencing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Abundance in Forested Headwater Streams with Emphasis on Fine Sediment. Masters’ Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 166 pp. High, C., K. Hathaway, J. Hinckley, and B. Risk. 2004. A Socio-Economic Assessment to Provide a Context for the WMNF Plan Revision. Report prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc for: White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. Holman, G. T., F. B. Knight, and R. A. Struchtemeyer. 1978. The Effects Of Mechanized Harvesting On Soil Conditions In The Spruce-Fir Region Of North-Central Maine. Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, ME. Bulletin 751. Holmes, S.B. and D.G. Pitt. 2007. Response of bird communities to selection harvesting in a northern tolerant hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 280–292
191 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Hornbeck, J.W., C.T. Smith, C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, and R.S. Pierce. 1990. Effects of Intensive Harvest on Nutrient Capitals of Three Forest Types in New England. Forest Ecology and Management 30: 55-64. Hornbeck, J.W. and W.B. Leak. 1992. Ecology & Management of Northern Hardwood Forests in New England. USDA-Forest Service, NE Forest Experiment Station, Gen Tech Rep NE-159. Hornbeck, J.W., M.B. Adams, E.S. Corbett, E.S. Verry, and J.A. Lynch. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology 150(1993):323-344. Hornbeck, J.W, C.W. Martin and C. Eager. 1997. Summary of water yield experiments at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Can. J. For. Res., 27, p. 2043-2052. Hornbeck, J.W., M.M. Alexander, C. Eager, J.Y. Carlson, and R.B. Smith. 2001. Database for Chemical Contents of Streams on the White Mountain National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE-282. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/3757. Huntington, T.G., A.D. Richardson, K.J. McGuire and K. Hayhoe, 2009. Climate and hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent trends and implications for forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39:199-212. IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A.M., Matthews, S.N., and M. Peters. 2008. Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 390-406. Johnson, C.E., A. H. Johnson, T. G. Huntington, and T. G. Siccama. 1991. Whole-tree Clear-Cutting Effects on Soil Horizons and Organic-Matter Pools. Soil Science of America Journal 55: 497-502. Johnson, C.E., R. B. Romanowicz, and T. G. Siccama. 1997. Conservation of Exchangeable Cations after Clear-cutting of a Northern Hardwood Forest. Can. Jor. For. Res. 27: 859-868. Johnson, S. 2010. Northeast Swift Project field notes. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH
192 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Johnston, B. 2010. Personal Communication regarding rock climbing sites. Conway, NH. Kabrick, J.M., E.K. Zenner, D.C. Dey, D. Gwaze and R. Jensen. 2008. Using ecological land types to examine landscape- scale oak regeneration dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management 255 3051-3062. Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight. 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79(2): 231-241. Kelly, J. 2005. Recent Distribution and Population Characteristics of American Marten in New Hampshire and Potential Factors Affecting Their Occurrence. Master’s Thesis for the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, MA. 142 pgs. King, D.I., R.M. DeGraaf, and C.R. Griffin. 1998. Edge related nest predation in clearcut and groupcut stands. Conservation Biology. Vol 12. No.6. King, D.I., R.M. DeGraaf, and C.R. Griffin. 2001. Productivity of early successional shrubland birds in clearcuts and groupcuts in an eastern deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2): 345-350. King, D.I. and R.M. DeGraaf. 2004. Effects of group selection opening size on the distribution and reproductive success of an early-successional shrubland bird. Forest Ecology and Management 190 179–185 Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. Chapter 4 in: R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller. ed. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC. Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631. LaChance, S., M. Dube, R. Dostie, and P. Berube. 2008. Temporal and spatial Quantification of fine-sediment accumulation downstream of culverts in brook trout habitat. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 137: 1826-1838. Lancaster, K. F. 1985. Managing Eastern Hemlock: A Preliminary Guide. Res. Pap. NA- FR-30. USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Area. pg 5. Landsburg, J.D., and A.R. Tiedemann. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature: Chapter 12 – Fire Management. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-39. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr_srs039/index.htm LANDFIRE. 2005. Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model. www.landfire.gov
193 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Lawrence, G.B. and C.T. Driscoll. 1988. Aluminum Chemistry Downstream of a Whole- Tree-Harvested Watershed. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 22. Pg 1293-1299. Lawrence, G.B., M.B. David, S.W. Bailey, and W.C. Shortle. 1997. Assessment of Calcium Status in Soils of Red Spruce Forests in the Northeastern United States. Biochemistry 00:1-21. Leak, W. B., D.S. Solomon, and P.S. DeBald. 1987. Silviculture Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-603. Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Experimental Station, 36pp. Leak, W.B. 1999. Species composition and structure of a northern hardwood stand after 61 years of groups/patch selection..N orth. J. Appl. For: 16(3):151-153 Leak, W. B. 2009. 75 Years of Understory Development By Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications, Field Note. North J of App For. 26(4). Likens, G.E. and F.H. Bormann. 1995. Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. Likens, G. E., C. T. Driscoll, and D. C. Buso. 1996. Long term effects of acid rain: response and recovery of a forest ecosystem. Science 272:244–246. Likens, G.E., C.T. Driscoll, D.C. Buso, T.G. Siccama, C.E. Johnson, G.M. Lovett, T.J. Fahey, W.A. Reiners, D.F. Ryan, C.Wayne. Martin, and S.W. Bailey. 1998. The Biogeochemistry of calcium at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 41: 89-173. Lipsett, M., B. Materna, S.L. Stone, S. Therriault, R. Blaisdell, and J. Cook. 2008. Wildfire Smoke: A Guide for Public Health Officials. Litvaitis, J.A., D.L. Wagner, J. L.Confer, M.D. Tarr, and E.J. Snyder. 1999. Early successional forests and shrub-dominated habitats: land-use artifact or critical community in the northeastern United States. Northeast Wildlife. 54:101-118. Litvaitis, J.A. 2003. Shrublands and early-successional forests: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 185, Issues 1-2. 4pp. Lonsdale, W. and A. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in a Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69:277-283. Lull, H. W. 1959. Soil Compaction on Forest and Range Lands. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station.
194 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Lyon, L.J., H.S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R.L. Fredriksen, R.F. Harlow, L.J. Metz, and H.A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report WO-6. MacFaden, S. W. and D. E. Capen. 2000. White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Program: Analyses of bird surveys on permanent plots, 1992-1999. Submitted to WMNF from School of Natural Resources, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington, VT. MDOC. 2005a. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting Maine’s Water Quality. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division. MDOC. 2005b. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2001- 2003. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division.12pp. MDOC. 2006. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001 – 2005. Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division. MDOC. 2009. Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2008. Forest Policy and Management Division, August 2009. 30 pp. MANE-VU. 2006. Technical Support Document on Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management in the MANE-VU Region. Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. Marschall, E.A., and L.B. Crowder, 1999. Assessing Population Responses to Multiple Anthropogenic Effects: A Case Study with Brook Trout. Ecological Applications, 6(1): 152-167. Martin, C. 2010. Peregrine populations in N.H. Audubon Society of NH. Concord, NH. Martin, C.W. and J.W. Hornbeck. 1994. Logging in New England need not cause sedimentation of streams. North. J. Appl. For. 11(l):17-23. Martin, C.W., J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, and D.C. Buso, 2000. Impacts of intensive harvesting on hydrology and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 19–29. Martin, C.W., R.S. Pierce, G.E. Likens, and F.H. Bormann. 1986. Clearcutting Affects Stream Chemistry in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Research Paper NE-579. Martin, W. C. 1988. Soil Disturbance by Logging in New England-Review and Management Recommendations. Northern J. of Applied Forestry. Vol. 5, No. 1: 30-34. Mattrick, C. and A. Schori. 2008. WMNF botanist project review and field survey of the NE Swift Project Area. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.
195 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Mattrick, C. 2009. Climate Change and Botanical Resources on the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. McCormick, S.D., A. Keyes, K.H. Nislow and M.Y. Monette. 2009. Impacts of episodic acidification on in-stream survival and physiological impairment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 66:394-403. McHale, M.R. P. S. Murdoch, D. A. Burns, and B. P. Baldigo. 2008. Effects of Forest Harvesting on Ecosystem Health in the Headwaters of the New York City Water Supply, Catskill Mountains, New York. Scientific Investigations Report 2008– 5057. U.S. Geological Survey. Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S. A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2010. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. URL: http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/ Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8):2145–2151. Millen, W. 2009. Estimated Climate Change Effects on New England Forests Literature Review and Summary. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Miller, S. G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applicationss 8(1) pp 162-169. Moll, J.E., R.L. Copstead, and D.K. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. 9777 1808P. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series: Volume Issue . San Dimas, CA: USDA, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 12 p. Morse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. Accessed November 30, 2009 at: http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/outreach/pdfs/Stream%20Digest.pdf. Musselman, R.C. and J.L. Korfmacher. 2007. Air quality at a snowmobile staging area and snow chemistry on and off trail in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest, Snowy Range, Wyoming. Environ. Monit. Assess. 133:321-334. National Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils. 2007. Guide to Smoke Management.
196 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations. Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Management plan: meeting the invasive species challenge. Available: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/mpfinal/pdf Neitzel, R. and M. Yost. 2003. Forestry Vibration and Noise Exposure Project. University of Washington, Department of Environmental Health, Seattle, Washington. New England Regional Assessment Group (NERAG). 2001. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. New England Regional Overview. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 96 pp., University of New Hampshire. New Hampshire (NH), 2007. NH Code of Administrative Rules, Part Env-Dw 301. Small Production Wells for Small Community Water Systems. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES). 1999. State of New Hampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations. Chapter 1700. http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env- wq1700.pdf Accessed January 25, 2010. NH DES. 2009. New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision. NH DES, Air Resources Division, Concord, NH. NH DES. 2010a. 2010 List of Impaired Waters that Require a TMDL. Accessed July 12, 2010 at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/swqa/2010/documents/2010 _final_sub_303d.pdf. NH DES. 2010b. OneStop Data Retrieval Site. Public water supply sources. Access restricted. NH DES. Date unknown. NH Drought Historical Events. Drought Management Program. Accessed at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dam/drought/documents/historic al.pdf NHFG. 2006a. Wildlife Action Plan. Chapters 2 and 3. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. www.wildlife.state.nh.us
197 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
NHFG .2006b. Wildlines: New Hampshire Fish and Game’s quarterly newsletter of the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Concord, NH. Winter 2006. pgs 1- 2. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Nongame/Wildlines_issues/Wildlines_0 6_Winter.pdf NHFG. 2006c. Press release: Fresh Tracks Indicate Rare Canada Lynx "Just Passing Through" Jefferson, N.H. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. http://wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2006/News_2006_Q1/Lynx_tracks_f ound_020106.htm NHFG. 2006d. Big Game Mgmt. Concord. NH. NHFG. 2010a. Comment letter from Kristine Rines, 5/19/2010. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, New Hampton, NH. NHFG. 2010b. Black Bear Harvest summary. Concord, NH. NH DRED. 2004a. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control During Trail Maintenance and Construction. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. 27 pp. NH DRED. 2004b. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. 63pp. NH DRED. 2004c. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. A Pocket Field Guide. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. NH DRED. 2011. The Economic Importance of New Hampshire’s Forest-Based Economy. State of New Hampshire, DRED, Division of Forests and Lands. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NH DOT). 2001. Practices for Routine Roadway Maintenance Activities in New Hampshire. Prepared by K.T. Nyhan, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, NH Bureau of Environment. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2010a. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program.http://www.dred.state.nh.us/divisions/forestandlands/bureaus/naturalh eritage.pdf New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 2010b. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program.http://www.dred.state.nh.us/divisions/forestandlands/bureaus/naturalh eritage/factsheets/documents/FS-Pickering'sBluejoint.pdf
198 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Nowacki, G. and Abrams, M. 2008. The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience Vol. 58(2): 123-138 Palmer, S.M., B.I. Wellington, C.E. Johnson and C.T. Driscoll, 2005. Landscape influences on aluminum and dissolved organic carbon in streams draining the Hubbard Brook valley, New Hampshire, USA. Hydrol. Process. 19: 1751-1769. Parendes, L. and J. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andres Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14(1):64-75. Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry, 74(10). Payer, D.C. and D.J. Harrison. 1999. Influences of Timber Harvesting and Trapping on Habitat Selection and Demographic Characteristics of Marten. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Augusta, ME. Perala, D. A. 1990. Populus tremuloides Michx. Quaking Aspen. In: Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 p. Accessed at: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/populus/tremuloid es.htm. Perala, D. and A. Alm. 1990. Regeneration Silviculture of Birch: a review. Forest Ecology and Management. No. 32 pp 39-77. Peterson, D. P, and K.D. Fausch. 2003. Dispersal of brook trout promotes invasion success and replacement of native cutthroat trout. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1502–1516. Pierce, R. S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, L.M. Tritton, C.T. Smith, C.A. Federer, and H.W. Yawney. 1993. Whole Tree Clearcutting in New England: Manager’s Guide to Impacts on Soils, Streams, And Regeneration, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NE-172, 23 pp. Planty-Tabacchi, E. Tabacchi, R. Naiman, C. Deferrari, and H. Décamps. 1996. Conservation Biology 10(2):598-607. Preschel, R.T., A.M. Evans, and M.J. Summers. 2007. Climate Change, Carbon, and Forests of the Northeast. Forest Guild, Santa Fe, NM. www.forestguild.org/publications/2007/ForestGuild_climate_carbon_forests.pdf Primack, R. 2000. A primer of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. xiii + 319 pp.
199 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Prout, L. 2010. Climate Change and Wildlife – summary of available literature. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. Prout, M.W. 2010. Climate Change and Aquatic Habitats. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. 4p. Reay, R.S., D.W. Blodgett, B.S. Burns, S.J. Weber, & T. Frey. 1990. Management Guide for Deer Wintering Areas in Vermont. (Joint publication) Vermont Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation, and Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife. Montpelier, VT. 35 pages. Renken, R. 2006. Does fire affect amphibians and reptiles in eastern U.S. oak forests? In /fire in Eastern Oak Forests. Symposium. GTR-NRS-P-1. Pp 158-166. Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Science, 215:661-663. Safford, L.O. 1983. Silvicultural Guide for Paper Birch in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-535, Broomall, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 29p. Safford, L.O. and R.D. Jacobs, 1983. Paper birch. In: R.M. Burns, Editor, Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Agric. Handb. No. 445 (1983), pp. 145–147 (revised). Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54pp. and Appendices. Saunders, D., R. Hobbs, and C. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32. Schlossberg, S. and D. King. 2007. Ecology and Management of Scrub-shrub Birds in New England: A Comprehensive Review. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 122pp. Schlossberg, S. and D. King. 2008. Are shrubland birds edge specialists? Ecological Applications, 18(6), 2008, pp. 1325–1330. Schori, A. 2001. Paronychia argyrocoma (Michx.) Nutt. (Silverling) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. Shugart, H, R. Sedjo and B. Sohngen. 2003. Forests and Global Climate Change, Potential Impacts on U.S. Forest Resources. PEW Center on Global Climate Change. 64 p. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/forestry
200 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Smallidge, P. J. and R. D. Nyland. 2009. Cornell Woodland Guidelines for the Control and Management of American Beech. Cornell University Cooperative Extension Forest Connect Fact Sheet. P. Smallidge, ed. 6pp. Sperduto, D.D. and William F. Nichols. 2004. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Concord, NH. and UNH Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH. Pg 65-86 Sperduto, D. Personal communication with J. Neely. 11-06-2008 Spradlin, B. and C. Spradlin. 2006. White Mountain National Forest FIREMON 2006 Data Collection Data Summary Tables. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest. 8pp. St. Louis, A., J.P. Ouellet, M. Crete, J. Maltais, and J. Huot. 2000. Effects of partial cutting in winter on white-tailed deer. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. Vol. 30. pp 655-661. Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, Misc Report, 399. Starke, K. and C. Mattrick. 2011. Biological Evaluation for the NE Swift River Project. K. Starke. Project File. Conway, NH. Stohlgren, T. J., K. Bull, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, and M. Lee. 1998. Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecology 138:113-125. Stohlgren, T. J, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, M. Lee, and J. Belnap. 2001. Patterns of plant invasions: a case example in native species hotspots and rare habitats. Biological Invasions 3:37-50. Stone, E.L., W.T. Swank, and J.W. Hornbeck. 1978. Impacts of Timber Harvest and Regeneration Systems on Stream Flow and Soils in the Eastern Deciduous Region. Forest Soil and Land Use, Proc. 5th North American Forestry Soils Conference, Colorado State University, August 1978. Stottlemeyer, A.D., G.G. Wang, P.H. Brose, and T.A. Waldrop. 2010. Energy content in dried leaf littler of some oaks and mixed mesophytic species that replace oaks. In: Stanturf, John A., ed. 2010. Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–121. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 295-296.
201 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Thompson III, F.R., W.D. Dijak, T.G. Kulowiec, and D.A. Hamilton. 1992. Breeding bird populations in Missouri Ozark forests with and without clearcutting. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:23-30. Thompson III, F.R., R.M. DeGraaf, and M. K. Trani. 2001. Conservation of Woody, Early successional Habitats and Wildlife in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(2):407-494. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43, 67 pages. Timerson, B.J. 1999. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota – Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis, Regulation. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Saint Paul, Minnesota. Trani, M. K., R.T. Brooks, T. L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis & G. Gabbard. 2001. Patterns and trends of early successional forest in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 413-424. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Available at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org. University of New Hampshire. 2009. New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines. Accessed November 1, 2010 at: http://www.unh.edu/erg/stream_restoration/nh_stream_crossing_guidelines_un h_web_rev_2.pdf. 48pp. University of New Hampshire (UNH) Cooperative Extension. 2005. Best Management Practices for Forestry: Protecting New Hampshire’s Water Quality. 93pp. USC. 2006. Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org. 35pp. USDA Forest Service. 1986. FSH 2509.22 – R9 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. Effective date: December 1986. USDA Forest Service. 1991. FSH 2509.18 - Soil Management Handbook. Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: September 3, 1991.
202 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
USDA Forest Service. 1995. FSM 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, Chapter 2080 – Noxious Weed Management. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: November 29, 1995. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Stemming the invasive tide: Forest Service strategy for noxious and nonnative invasive plant management. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation. Final Rule and Record of Decision. 36 CFR Part 294. Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 9, Friday, January 12, 2001. USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Species Data Collection Form. Boulder Beach Tiger Beetle. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Breeding Bird survey data for MIS. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Species Data Collection Form. Carex cumulata. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Species Data Collection Form. Dryopteris goldiana. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Species Data Collection Form. Carex baileyi. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2005c. WMNF. Red Eagle deer yard monitoring. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2005d. WMNF Species of Viability Concern. Evaluation of Status, Habitat Needs, and Limiting Factors. Draft. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. 126 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2005e. Record of Decision. Final Environmental Impact Statement to accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service. 2005f. Species Data Collection Form. Corallorhiza odontorhiza. Unpublished document. White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests.
203 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
USDA Forest Service. 2005g. FSH 2509.18– Soil Management Handbook, Chapter 2 – Soil Quality Monitoring, Supplement R9RO 2509.18-2005-1. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. Effective date: February 23, 2005. USDA Forest Service. 2006. FSH 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 80 – Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: January 31, 2006. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. FSH 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook; Chapter 70 – Wilderness Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: January 31, 2007. USDA Forest Service 2007c. Terrestrial habitat reference document. Unpublished document. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Delineation of Habitat Management Unit Boundaries on the White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, NH. 2pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007e. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2006. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2007f. Interim Update of the 2000 Renewable Resource Planning Act Assessment. Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change. Version 1.0. October 2008. USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Project NNIS Risk Assessment. Unpublished document in project record. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Draft WMNF Strategy for Addressing Climate Change in NEPA. April 2009. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. 42pp. USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Early successional habitat monitoring. Unpublished data. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Red Eagle Deer Wintering Area. Unpublished Data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2009e. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2008. White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH.
204 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
USDA Forest Service. 2010a. WMNF. Review of New Information regarding WNS. Unpublished. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010b. WMNF Acoustic bat surveys. Unpublished data. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010c. WMNF Bird monitoring transect survey data. Unpublished. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Grouse monitoring data from Pine Bend/Bear Notch transect. Unpublished Data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010e. WMNF NE Swift deer yards. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010f. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010g. Rationale for Northeast Swift River HMU Potential and Desired Future Condition. Unpublished data. Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010h. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2009. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 54 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2010i. Monitoring and Evaluation Guide. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010j. Triphora Summary. Dirty Gut Timber Sale. Unpublished data. White Mountain National Forest, Conway, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2010k. Climate Overview. USDA Forest Service, unpublished literature review. USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Eastern regional forester’s sensitive species list and eastern region proposed threatened, or endangered taxa. USDA Forest Service Endangered Species Program, Region 9. Milwaukee, WI. USDA Forest Service. 2011b. FSH 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook; Chapter – Zero Code. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: September 14, 2011. USDA Forest Service. 2011c. FSH 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook; Chapter 10 – Environmental Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Effective date: April 1, 2011. USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2010. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.
205 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
USDI. 2011. America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations. USDI, USDA, CEQ, and EPA, Washignton, DC. americasgreatoutdoors.gov. Veilleux, J.P. 2005. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 28pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2006. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 17pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2007. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 24pp. Veilleux, J.P. 2010. Hibernacula Survey Data Summary. VHB Pioneer. 2010. Snowpack Chemistry Study – Final Report. Prepared for Vermont Association of Snow Travelers. 184 pp. Villard, M., F.K.A. Schmiegelow, and M.K. Trzcinski. 2007. Short-term response of forest birds to experimental clearcut edges. Auk. Vol. 124, no. 3: p. 828-840. Vitz, A.C. and A.D. Rodewald. 2006. Can regenerating clearcuts benefit mature-forest songbirds? An examination of post-breeding ecology. Biological Conservation 127. Pgs 477-486. Wang, X., D.A. Burns, R.D. Yanai, R.D. Briggs, and R.H. Germain. 2006. Changes in stream chemistry and nutrient export following a partial harvest in the Catskill Mountains, New York, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 223:103-112. Warren, D.R., G.E. Likens, D.B. Buso, and C.E. Kraft. 2008. Status and distribution of fish in an acid-impacted watershed of the Northeastern United States (Hubbard Brook, NH). Northeastern Naturalist. 15(3):375-390. Watkins, R.Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K.D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411-419. Welsh C. and W.M. Healy. 1993. Effect of even-aged timber management on bird species diversity and composition in northern hardwoods of New Hampshire. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:143-154.
206 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington, D.C. 109 pp. Wilkerson E., J.M. Hagan, D. Siegel, A.A. Whitman. 2006. The Effectiveness of Different Buffer Widths for Protecting Headwater Stream Temperature in Maine. Forest Science 52(3), pp. 221-231. Witzel, L.D., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1983. Redd-site selection by brook trout and brown trout in Southwestern Ontario streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:760- 771. Yamasaki, M., T.M. McLellan, R.M. DeGraaf, and C.A. Costello. 2000a. Effects of Land- Use and Management Practices on the Presence of Brown-Headed Cowbirds in the White Mountains of New Hampshire and Maine. In: Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts. Univ. of Texas Press. Yamasaki, M., R.M. DeGraaf and J.W. Lanier. 2000b. Wildlife habitat associations in eastern hemlock- birds, smaller mammals, and forest carnivores. Proceedings: Symposium on Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems In Eastern North America. GTR-NE-267 pp. 135-141. Yamasaki, M. and C.A. Costello. 2005. Species Profile, Northern Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis. Pg. 442-447 in: NHFG. 2005. NH Wildlife Action Plan. New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. Concord, NH.
207 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Appendix A - Glossary
Basal Area (BA) - The area of the cross section of a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground, generally expressed as total basal area per acre.
Desired Future Condition (DFC). A goal, as stated in the Forest Plan, as to what a specific area should look like in the future. Ecological Land Type (ELT): An area of land 100’s to 1000’s of acres in size with a well known succession of forest species on unique soil materials. Ecological Land Type classification is based on geomorphic history, the nature of soil substrata, and potential natural vegetation.
Even-aged Management: A timber management system that results in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. An even aged stand is a single age class in which the range of tree ages is usually plus or minus 20 percent of the rotation. Harvest methods in this project producing or enhancing an even-aged stand condition include:
• Clearcut: a removes essentially all trees not designated to be “reserved”, in one operation and results in a single aged stand.
• Thinning - A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. Thinnings are not regeneration treatments. Thinning interval is the preiod of time between successive thinning entries. Thinning intensity is the combined effect of thinning severity and thinning frequency, usually expressed as the volume removed divided by the number of years between successive thinnings.
• Overstory Removal – the cutting of trees constituting an upper canopy layer to release trees or other vegetation in an existing understory.
Uneven-aged (selection) management: Uneven-aged management is a planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and regenerate a stand with three or more age classes. Uneven-aged stands are either intimately mixed age classes throughout, or in small distinct groups. Examples of uneven-aged treatments include:
• Group Selection – An uneven-aged harvest method that describes the silvicultural system in which trees are removed periodically in small groups, resulting in openings that do not exceed an acre or two in size. This leads to the formation of an uneven- aged stand, in the form of a mosaic of age-class groups in the same forest stand. It may be applied in combination with Single-tree selection.
• Single-Tree Selection – An uneven-aged harvest method where individual trees are selected and removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand, to promote growth of the remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration.
208 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Forest Product - Sawtimber, pulpwood, and chipwood are the raw products utilized from a tree in a minimum piece length of 8 feet. Forest Type – A category of forest usually defined by its vegetation, particularly its dominant vegetation, based on percentage cover of the dominant trees. Type is also referred to as stand type. Habitat Management Unit (HMU) - A block of Forest land in which habitat composition and age class objectives will be established to help ensure that habitats are well- distributed across the forest and provide a framework for analyzing project impacts to wildlife habitat at a local scale. Blocks vary in size from about 6,000 acres to 49,000 acres, and contain a variety of habitat types and land in a mix of Management Areas.
Habitat Type - A small unit of land from a few to over 100 acres lying within a given climatic mineralogical zone and supporting a distinct successional sequence of vegetation growing on a unique type of soil material.
Hardwood – Trees having vessels and rays, and belonging to the botanical group Angiospermae. Interdisciplinary (IDT) Team: A group of individuals with skills and knowledge to manage different resources. An interdisciplinary team is assembled because no single scientific discipline is sufficient to adequately identify and resolve all issues and problems. Team member interaction provides necessary insight to all stages of the process. Management Area. A specific geographic location on the WMNF where specific management direction will be applied, as defined in the Forest Plan.
Management Indicator Species (MIS). Species whose presence in certain locations indicates a given environmental condition. Their population changes are believed to indicate effects of management activities on a number of other species.
Mitigation Measure. Includes avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Mixedwood. – A stand composed of both hardwood and softwood species. Monitoring. The collection and evaluation of site specific information gathered over time by measuring or observing change in a resource to determine the effects of resource management treatments.
209 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Openings:
Permanent openings. An upland area withdrawn from timber production and managed for wildlife habitat. Trees and shrubs may or may not be present. If trees are present, they could occur in clumps and/or scattered through the area. Temporary openings. Openings that result from timber harvest activities in an area where nearly all trees are removed. Many wildlife species that utilize openland habitat, utilize these areas until tree regeneration dominates the stand. Temporary openings can provide habitat for openland wildlife species for 5-10 years. These areas are considered temporary openings until the regeneration exceeds 10 feet in height. Regeneration: the reproduction of trees via seedlings and saplings in a stand, and occurring promptly after the previous stand or forest is removed.
Road or Trail construction – building new road or building road to a significantly higher standard than its current condition. Road Decommission – Removal, obliteration or disposal of a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded road, eliminating the need to further (deferred) maintenance. Portions of roads can be decommissioned, retaining those portions that remain needed. Pre-haul (Road) Maintenance – The preservation of a road including its surface, shoulders, roadsides and ditches as necessary for efficient and safe use. Examples include temporary placement of culverts or other drainage features to allow for traffic, clearing vegetation that obstructs visibility, and smoothing and grading road surfaces including placement of incidental amounts of road surface gravel.
Road and Trail reconstruction – to construct again, or rebuild a road or trail to a higher standard than was originally constructed. An example would be replacing temporary drainage structures with permanent structures, or widening the clearing limits and surface width, or straightening road sections, increasing a turn radius, or adding more than incidental amounts of road surface materials.
Road and Trail Restoration – To bring a road or trail back to its original state. This may include maintenance items listed above but describes a situation when more work and/or new surface materials are needed to bring a road into safe condition for use.
Scoping. Identifying and focusing attention on public issues and opportunities related to a proposed action, during the analysis phase. Public involvement through public scoping results in informed decisions, cost-effective analysis, and increased credibility.
Silviculture - A combination of actions whereby forest stands are tended, including harvest of trees, modify forest types, and convert stands to even age, uneven aged and/or early successional ages.
Softwood - Trees belonging to the botanical group gymnospermae.
210 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Stand (Forest) - A community of naturally or artificially established trees of any age sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities, thereby forming a silvicultural or management entity. A Hardwood Stand is defined as a stand which at least 75 percent of the overstory and understory are hardwood trees. A Softwood Stand is defined as a stand which at least 65 percent of the overstory and understory is softwood (conifer) trees. A Mixed wood Stand is defined as a stand with hardwoods trees mixed with softwoods trees. The 25 to 65 percent of this stand consists of red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock.
Stream - Intermittent and perennial are stream types that the quantity of water can be measured. Intermittent Stream - Streams with a defined channel that the quantity of flowing water can be measured except during the dry summer months, or that are dry in sections during dry periods. Perennial Stream - Streams with a defined channel that the quantity of flowing water can be measured year round.
Volume - The measure of quantity forest products (sawtimber, pulpwood, and chipwood). The cubic equivalent of a piece of lumber 12 inches wide, 12 inches long, and 1 inch thick is known as a board foot. A MBF is the measure for 1000 board feet.
211 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Appendix B – Proposed Silvicultural Treatments
Unit Forest Type Commercial Operatin Non Acre Acres Treatment g Season Commercial s Alt 3 Treatments Alt 2 1 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 29 29 2 mixed upland clearcut W (S) site preparation 22 22 hardwoods w/reserves 3 northern hardwoods/ shelterwood W release 4 4 hemlock seed cut 4 northern hardwoods/ group selection W N/A 26 26 hemlock 6 eastern white pine patch cut S/F site preparation 7 7 7 Oak/eastern white shelterwood S/F release 16 16 pine seed cut 8 eastern white pine/ single-tree/ F/W (F) N/A 20 20 hemlock group selection 9 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 17 17 10 American beech clearcut S site preparation 22 22 w/reserves 11 eastern hemlock group selection W (S) N/A 51 51 12 sugar maple/beech/ clearcut S site preparation 30 30 yellow birch w/reserves 13 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 26 26 14 northern hardwoods/ group selection S N/A 112 112 hemlock 16 northern hardwoods/ single-tree/ W N/A 5 5 hemlock group selection 17 sugar maple/beech/ patch cut S site preparation 9 9 yellow birch 18 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 9 9 19 eastern hemlock single-tree/ W N/A 5 5 group selection 21 eastern hemlock group selection W (S) N/A 29 29 22 northern hardwoods/ single-tree/ W N/A 32 32 hemlock group selection 23 northern hardwoods/ single-tree/ W N/A 7 0 hemlock group selection 24 sugar maple/beech / clearcut S site preparation 11 0 yellow birch w/reserves 26 sugar maple patch cut S site preparation 6 0 27 northern hardwoods/ single-tree W N/A 20 20 hemlock selection 28 northern hardwoods group selection W N/A 40 40
212 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Unit Forest Type Commercial Operatin Non Acre Acres Treatment g Season Commercial s Alt 3 Treatments Alt 2 / hemlock 30 eastern hemlock group selection S/F N/A 53 53 31 eastern hemlock single-tree W N/A 45 45 selection 33 white pine-red oak/ single-tree/ W N/A 15 15 white ash group selection 34 eastern hemlock group selection S/F N/A 47 47 35 eastern white pine/ shelterwood S/F release 10 10 hemlock seed cut 36 Oak/hardwoods clearcut S/F site preparation 13 13 w/reserves 37 northern hardwoods/ group selection S/F N/A 10 10 hemlock 38 spruce single-tree/ W N/A 8 0 group selection 41 sugar maple/beech/ clearcut S (S/F) site preparation 30 0 yellow birch w/reserves 43 mixed upland clearcut S (S/F) site preparation 29 0 hardwoods w/reserves 44 sugar maple/beech/ clearcut S site preparation 21 0 yellow birch w/reserves 45 sugar maple/beech/ clearcut S site preparation 18 0 yellow birch w/reserves 46 northern hardwoods/ group selection W N/A 100 55 hemlock 47 sugar maple/beech/ patch cut S/F site preparation 5 5 yellow birch 48 northern hardwoods/ single-tree W N/A 15 15 hemlock selection 49 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 34 34 50 northern hardwoods/ single-tree W N/A 82 82 hemlock selection 52 northern hardwoods/ single-tree W N/A 44 44 hemlock selection 53 eastern white pine shelterwood W release 48 48 seed cut 54 northern hardwoods/ group selection W N/A 76 76 hemlock 55 northern hardwoods/ group selection W N/A 119 119 hemlock 56 eastern hemlock single-tree/ W (F) N/A 24 24 group selection
213 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
Unit Forest Type Commercial Operatin Non Acre Acres Treatment g Season Commercial s Alt 3 Treatments Alt 2 57 northern hardwoods/ single-tree W N/A 94 94 hemlock selection 58 northern hardwoods/ group selection W N/A 23 23 hemlock 60 northern hardwoods/ patch cut W (S) site preparation 9 0 hemlock 61 eastern hemlock group selection S N/A 48 34 62 northern hardwoods/ patch cut W (S) site preparation 10 0 hemlock 63 mixed upland clearcut S site preparation 11 0 hardwoods w/reserves 64 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 20 0 66 eastern hemlock single-tree W N/A 19 7 selection 67 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 20 20 68 northern hardwoods/ group selection S (S/F) site preparation 160 0 hemlock 69 mixed upland clearcut S (S/F) site preparation 30 0 hardwoods w/reserves 72 sugar maple/beech/ clearcut S site preparation 17 17 yellow birch w/reserves 73 mixed upland clearcut S/F site preparation 16 16 hardwoods w/reserves 74 mixed upland group selection S site preparation 46 46 hardwoods 76 mixed upland clearcut S site preparation 28 28 hardwoods w/reserves 77 northern hardwoods/ group selection W (S) N/A 18 18 hemlock 78 eastern hemlock group selection W N/A 22 22 80 northern hardwoods/ patch cut S/F site preparation 9 9 hemlock 83 eastern white pine/ patch cut W site preparation 1 1 hemlock 100 northern hardwoods/ N/A F/W timber stand 25 25 hemlock improvement 101 mixed upland N/A F/W timber stand 15 15 hardwoods improvement 102 mixed upland N/A F/W timber stand 9 9 hardwoods improvement 103 mixed upland N/A F/W timber stand 17 17 hardwoods improvement
214 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
Unit Forest Type Commercial Operatin Non Acre Acres Treatment g Season Commercial s Alt 3 Treatments Alt 2 104 mixed upland clearcut S site preparation 19 19 hardwoods w/reserves Note: vegetation management activities would occur in accordance with the operating seasons listed where W = winter; S = summer; F = fall; F/W = fall and/or winter; S/F = summer and/or fall. Exceptions, noted in parentheses, would be implemented if site conditions are adequately dry.
Appendix C – Project Design Features
All action alternatives analyzed incorporate a variety of project design features intended to define where and how Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are applied to this project. The following design features are integrated into all action alternatives for this project: • Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a), and • State of New Hampshire Best Management Practices (BMP) (State of New Hampshire, 2004).
Water Resources and Aquatic Habitat The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) for water resources and aquatic habitat are emphasized for this project: • Effective, proven methods (e.g., silt fencing) to reduce concentrated runoff and erosion from construction activities must be used (Forest Plan, Water Resources S-3, p. 2-30).
• Where used, sediment traps must be maintained until disturbed sites and/or cut and fill slopes are stabilized (Forest Plan, Water Resources S-4, p. 2-30).
• New or reconstructed features (e.g., ditches and water bars) intended to capture runoff water should be designed to drain into areas suitable for trapping sediment and not directly into streams, wetlands or vernal pools. (Forest Plan, Water Resources G-1, p.2-31)
• Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge unimpeded (Forest Plan, Water Resources S-5, p. 2-31).
• Temporary stream crossings on perennial streams should be designed to withstand at least a 25-year flood and pass bankfull flows (Forest Plan, Water Resources G-5, p. 2-31).
215 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
• All appropriate state and federal permits must be acquired prior to implementing management activities within wetlands, floodplains, streams, or ponds (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats S-1, p. 2-24).
• Tree cutting and harvest should not occur within 25 feet of the bank of mapped perennial streams, the high water mark of a pond, or a identified natural vernal pool, unless prescribed to benefit hydrological or ecological function of the associated stream, pond, or riparian area. Exceptions to this include tree removals needed to clear a designated stream crossing, maintaining an existing road or previously cleared skid road that cannot be relocated, or protecting human safety or infrastructure. Trees (greater than 4 inch DBH) cut or moved in this zone should be placed in a fashion that benefits riparian functions or aquatic habitats when possible. (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-1, p. 2-25, pp. 2-24). Mapped perennial streams include those identified as perennial on USGS topographic maps.
• Uneven-aged silvicultural practices should be used within the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) along all perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and vernal pools. Cuts should be designed to maintain continuous forest canopy for the protection and maintenance of water quality, dead wood recruitment, hydrologic function, wildlife habitat, and scenic values. Regeneration group cuts should be limited to less than one acre in size…In the absence of on-the-ground riparian mapping, width of RMZs should be defined as in Table 2-01 (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-2, p. 2-25, pp. 2-24 and 2-25). This zone is 75 feet wide for 1st and 2nd order streams as well as lakes, ponds and vernal pools. It is 275 feet wide for third order streams and 575 feet wide for fourth order and larger streams. See Chapter 2 for the site-specific design features which delineate RMZs for unmapped perennial streams.
• New skid roads, classified roads, trails, and walk-in campsites should not be located within the stream or pond management zone, which is a minimum of 50 feet in width. The width of the zone increases 20 feet in width with each increase of 10 percent in side slope. If any of the above need to be located within the zone, additional measures to minimize sedimentation should be taken (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-5, p. 2-25).
216 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
• New timber log landings, developed campsites, and permanent facilities should not be located within 100 feet of a perennial stream or the high water mark of a pond. If they need to be located within 100 feet, additional measures to prevent direct runoff into surface waters and to minimize sedimentation should be taken (Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitats, G-6, p. 2-25).
• Locate roads, landings and skid trails to minimize the number of stream crossings needed and maximize the harvest area accessed by each crossing. (UNH Cooperative Extension 2005, p. 38).
• Minimize disturbance to the stream banks, channel and streambed during installation, use and removal of stream crossings (UNH Cooperative Extension 2005, p. 42).
• Stabilize stream crossing approaches with brush or similar materials, before and during operations. Maintain approaches in a stable condition through close out (UNH Cooperative Extension 2005, p. 42).
• Trail grades approaching stream crossings shall be broken and surface water dispersed so it will not reach the water course. Silt fencing, haybale erosion checks or water diversions shall be used to prevent soil from skid trails from entering streams and other surface waters (State of NH 2004, p. 19).
• When closing out a stream crossing, remove temporary structures from the stream, leave brush in place on approaches and banks, and stabilize exposed soil in approaches to the riparian area using brush, hay or seeding and mulching (UNH Cooperative Extension 2005, p.51).
Soil Resources The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices for soil resources are emphasized for this project: • Where exposure of mineral soil is expected, skid trails should generally be located on grades of less than 20 percent, with only short steeper pitches (G-5), (Oregon State University Ext 1983)(BMP NH, 2004). Limiting locations for skid trails (pitch) insures that the potential for erosion is reduced.
• To limit the area subject to soil compaction, log landings would be the minimum size necessary to meet the requirements of the equipment, the quantity and type of forest products, and safety ((Oregon State University Ext 1983)(Martin,
217 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
1988)(BMP NH, 2004). This limitation of the size of the landing minimizes the area on which soil disturbance and compaction would occur.
• Upon completion of operations at a landing, the area of disturbance would be bladed and stabilized as needed to prevent erosion before the site can revegetate and to accelerate recovery from temporary soil compaction (BMP NH, 2004). Even though these surfaces are nearly flat, this action insures that runoff from the landing would not erode soils.
• The operating period of timber sale activities are limited to specific season of harvest and/or ground conditions specified in the timber sale contract to minimize adverse soil and water environmental effects. This would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator (Martin, 1988). This insures that erosion and compaction would be minimized, and would be contained within the immediate area, and no long term soil productivity effects would occur.
• Skidding patterns are designed to fit the terrain to control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water in a manner that would minimize erosion and sedimentation. This preventative practice would be achieved by minimizing the length of skid trails, locating the skid trails in advance, adding drainage features such as waterbars, and designing skid trails to cross streams at right angles. This would be implemented by the Timber Sale Administrator (Oregon State University Ext 1983, Woodland Workbook on Designated Skid Trails to Minimize Soil Compaction)(Martin, 1988)(BMP NH, 2004). These measures work because they control the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion and sedimentation.
• Harvested trees may be skidded whole to landings; some tops and limbs would be scattered on landings and skid trails (where needed) to reduce compaction and erosion during and after operations, during snow-free season and otherwise as needed; and remaining tops and limbs would be returned and scattered on all harvested stands to retain soil nutrients (LRMP, Forest-wide, Vegetation Management, exceeds G-5, p 2-30 and Water Resources, exceeds S-1, p 2-30). This design feature works because placing logging slash in the skid trails reduces compaction (Martin, 1988). Slash collected on the skid trail would cushion the effects of compaction (Oregon State University Extension Service, 1983). To minimize compaction, operate on a cushion of slash, or over snow. A surface
218 Province Project - 30-Day Comment Report
layer of two inches or greater would provide protection from compaction (Poff, 1996).
• Upon completion of harvesting operations, skid trails would be closed and bare ground seeded as needed in areas where soil erosion potential occur. The Timber Sale Administrator would designate the areas of disturbed soils that must be treated and monitor effectiveness of the treatment (BMP NH, 2004). Water- barring and seeding needed sections of skid trails has proven to work on the White Mountain National Forest, and in other places implementing Maine and NH BMPs (see NCASI 2000 Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations).
Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to prevent introduction and spread of non-native invasive species are emphasized in this project:
• Forest projects or approvals must consider weed prevention measures to minimize the chances of new infestations occurring because of project activities. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-2, p. 2-11).
• In revegetation or rehabilitation efforts, native or non-persistent (annual, biannual, or sterile) species must be used. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-3, p. 2-11).
• Gravel and fill must come from weed-free sources. The Forest Service will be available to work with owners of local gravel sources to identify weed-free borrow material in their pits. The entire pit or fill area need not be identified as weed-free; material may be used that is not likely to contain invasive plants or seeds. If gravel or fill cannot be identified as weed-free, project monitoring must be conducted for three years following implementation to assure no new infestations occur. If infestations are found, eradication must occur within a suitable timeframe to prevent further spread. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-4, pp. 2-11, 2- 12).
• When sources of certified weed-free mulch and seed are available locally at reasonable cost, they must be used on erosion control projects requiring mulch and seed. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-5, p. 2-12).
• Heavy equipment must be visibly free of seeds or plant material prior to entering the Forest for project work. In order to minimize the spread of existing invasive
219 White Mountain National Forest – Saco Ranger District
plants, heavy equipment must be cleaned to be visibly free of seeds or plant material when moving between project units if invasive plants exist in areas being vacated, or if units have not been surveyed for invasive plants. The Forest Service will work to educate heavy equipment operators regarding these standards prior to project implementation. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-6, p. 2-12).
• Non-native invasive plants or their parts removed during eradication efforts must be disposed of in a manner that prevents new infestations elsewhere. (Forest Plan, NNIS S-7, p. 2-12).
• Roadside clearing widths should be minimized (without compromising safety standards) to retain shade for invasive plant suppression. (Forest Plan, NNIS Transportation System G-1, p. 2-12).
• If non-native invasive plants are present, roadside maintenance operations should be scheduled to minimize spread into new areas (e.g., prior to seed set). (Forest Plan, NNIS Transportation System G-2, p. 2-12).
220