United States Department of PEABODY VEGETATION Agriculture MANAGEMENT PROJECT Forest Towns of Gorham, Shelburne, and Martin’s Location Service Coos County, New Hampshire December 2003 Environmental Assessment Prepared By Androscoggin Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest For Information Contact: Pat Nasta Androscoggin Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 300 Glen Road Gorham, NH 03581 603-466-2713 www.fs.fed.us/r9/white This document is available in large print. Contact the White Mountain National Forest Supervisor’s Office 1-603-528-8721 TTY 1-603-528-8722 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication or program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at 202/720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write the USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, 20250-9410 or call 202/720-5964 (voice or TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on Recycled Paper Peabody Vegetation Management Project EA - Summary The Androscoggin Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest is proposing the following management activities for the Peabody Project (Alternative 3): • Timber harvest of 4.6 million board feet on 1,248 acres of National Forest land within Habitat Management Units (HMU) 213 and 214, utilizing both even-aged and uneven- aged management techniques; • Perform restoration maintenance on 4.8 miles of existing Forest Service roads (Forest Roads 72, 207, 224, 263, 615 and 615A), and re-establish 17 log landings. Maintenance on Forest Road 72 includes replacing 18 timber stream crossings with metal culverts, and replacing the existing timber bridge across Culhane Brook with a steel bridge; • Construct 150 feet of temporary road leading into stand 40/102 in HMU 214 and place a temporary bridge across Imp Brook for the duration of the project and; • Assign a Management Area (MA) 2.1 designation to approximately 295 acres of land within HMU 214 that had not previously had an MA designation. The management activities summarized above are actually a modification of the original Proposed Action, which had been presented to the public for comment in February, 2003. The changes from the original that are proposed in this “Modified Proposed Action” are in response to comments received during the scoping process, as well as new information from updated field inventories and internal review. The Analysis Area for the Peabody Project is HMUs 213 and 214 and encompasses 28,080 acres of National Forest land. Of this, approximately 10,154 acres are within Management Area designation 2.1 and 3.1 which prescribes vegetation management to achieve the goals and objectives of the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1986). The Project Area is the portion of the Analysis Area that includes stands proposed for vegetative management, as well as the area associated with connected actions (roads and landings). For the Modified Proposed Action it is 1,248 acres of National Forest lands proposed for harvest located in the towns of Gorham, Martins Location, Beans Purchase, Thompson and Meserves Purchase, Greens Grant and Shelburne, Coos County, New Hampshire, on the Androscoggin Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest. An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of Forest Service resource specialists chose the initial treatment areas as a result of an analysis of the existing habitat conditions within HMU 213 and 214 (Purpose for the action). Comparing the existing conditions to the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, the IDT identified a need to increase age class and habitat diversity, enhance softwood production on appropriate sites, improve stand conditions for optimum tree growth, and provide quality wood products (Need for the action). The Modified Proposed Action is likely to result in the following effects: • Even-aged timber harvest using clearcuts and seed tree cuts would regenerate even- aged stands of northern hardwoods, paper birch and aspen; contributing to diversity of community types and age within the Analysis Area, and providing early-successional habitat, a key component of a landscape that supports a variety of wildlife. - i - • Logging and road restoration activities may result in local, short-term, direct and indirect effects to natural resources within the Analysis Area, including soil compaction and erosion, soil calcium loss, sedimentation where roads and skid trails cross streams, and potential for increased water yield from harvested areas. Mitigation measures will be used to lessen or eliminate these effects, and diminish their contribution to any long- term cumulative effects of similar activities in the Analysis Area. • Noise and traffic generated during logging and road restoration operations may affect wildlife behavior in the Project Area; as well as the recreation experience in nearby Barnes Field campground, Hayes Copp ski trail, Daniel Webster hiking trail, Pinkham B and Shelburne snowmobile trails, and Pinkham B and Bear Springs roads. • Temporary openings in the forest landscape, resulting from even-aged timber harvest, would be visible from the Presidential Range, Crescent Mountain, Pine Mountain, the Appalachian Trail, and adjacent roads and trails; • There is a potential gross return of $752,675 to the US Treasury, from which $75,000 would be reimbursed to Coos County and the Towns of Gorham and Shelburne through the New Hampshire 10% Timber Yield Tax, and $188,169 would be reimbursed to Coos County through the National Forest 25% Fund. In addition to the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 3) described above, the IDT considered alternative proposals for addressing the Purpose and Need for this project. Three of these alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail, including Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative; Alternative 2, the Original Proposed Action; and Alternative 4, an alternative that proposes fewer acres of even-aged harvest. The proposed activities for each of these alternatives are summarized in Table A; and a more detailed description and analysis of effects for each alternative is included in Chapters 2 and 3 of this EA. Table A. Activities Proposed for Peabody Project, By Alternative Proposed Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Timber Harvest (Acres) Clearcut & Patchcut 0 115 89 49 • Regeneration Objective (0) (105) (80) (40) • Permanent Wildlife Opening Objective (0) (10) (9) (9) Seed Tree Cut 0 34 27 14 Individual Tree and Group Selection Cut 0 905 888 941 Commercial Improvement Cut and 0 317 244 244 Commercial Thinning Transportation System (Miles) Miles of Road Restoration 0 5.3 4.8 4.8 Miles of Temporary Road Construction 0 0 0.03 0.06 The Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 3) is the preferred alternative of the Forest Service. It would meet the Purpose and Need for this project while adequately addressing concerns about possible soil erosion and visual effects. - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ........................................................ 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 White Mountain Land and Resource Management Plan – Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, as Amended................ 3 1.2 PURPOSE FOR THE ACTION ...................................................................................... 4 1.3 NEED FOR THE ACTION ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.1 Need for Change ............................................................................................... 5 Table 1A. Acres by Community Type in MAs 2.1 and 3.1 for HMU 213......... 6 Table 1B. Acres by Community Type in MAs 2.1 and 3.1 for HMU 214 ......... 6 1.4 MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION................................................................................. 7 1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 8 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................. 9 1.7 ISSUES USED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 9 1.7.1 Vegetative Issues ............................................................................................. 10 1.8 OTHER ISSUES BROUGHT FORWARD DURING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................ 10 1.8.1 Soils.................................................................................................................. 10 1.8.2 Recreation........................................................................................................ 10 1.8.3 Visual Quality.................................................................................................. 10 1.9 APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS & REQUIRED COORDINATION....... 11 CHAPTER TWO – ALTERNATIVES............................13 2.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................