Pemi Northwest Project

Towns of Benton, Easton, Landaff and Woodstock United States Department Grafton County, NH of Agriculture 30-Day Comment Report

Forest Prepared by the Service Pemigewasset Ranger District

October 2012

For Information Contact: Kori Marchowsky White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223

Phone: 603 536-6108 Fax: 603 536-3685 www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain

White Mountain National Forest 30-Day Comment Report

This document is available in large print. Contact the Pemigewasset Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 603-536-6100 TTY 603-536-3665 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Cover photo: Winter view across the project area from Black Mountain, with Mt. Moosilauke in the distance (WMNF photo).

2

Pemi Northwest Project

Table of Contents

Chapter 1—Project Background ...... 5 What is the Forest Service proposing? ...... 5 About the Pemi Northwest Project Area ...... 6 Purpose of and Need for this Project ...... 10 Public Involvement ...... 18 Chapter 2—Proposed Action, Issues and Alternatives ...... 19 Alternatives considered in detail ...... 21 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 37 Chapter 3—Environmental Analysis ...... 40 Issue 1: Tunnel Brook Road Restoration/Reconstruction ...... 40 Issue 2: 2005 Forest Plan Inventoried Areas ...... 47 Air ...... 64 Fire-Dependent Natural Communities ...... 70 Recreation ...... 74 Water Resources ...... 82 Soils...... 99 Federally Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (TEPS) ...... 107 Wildlife ...... 112 Vegetation ...... 130 Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) ...... 143 Socio-Economics and Environmental Justice ...... 148 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 155 Scenery ...... 161 Heritage Resources ...... 169 Riparian and Aquatic Habitats ...... 172 Appendix A—Design Features ...... 183 Appendix B—Silvicultural Prescriptions ...... 188 Appendix C—Preparers and Consultants ...... 191 Works Cited ...... 192

3

30-Day Comment Report

4

Pemi Northwest Project

Chapter 1—Project Background What is the Forest Service proposing?

The Pemigewasset Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is initiating a 30-day public comment period for a resource management project in the towns of Benton, Easton, Woodstock and Landaff in Grafton County, New Hampshire. The Pemi Northwest Project is designed to promote desired wildlife habitat and vegetation conditions outlined in the 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan); provide a wide range of recreational opportunities; provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products; and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs. This document provides information on the environmental analysis of the Proposed Action as well as four 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 Pemi Northwest Project to physical, biological, and social resources. Chapters 1 and 2 of this document provide background information, public involvement, issues, and a detailed description of the Proposed Action and other alternatives considered for the project. The effects of alternatives analyzed in detail, including the Proposed Action, on recreation; scenery; soils; water; fisheries; roadless/wilderness; wildlife habitat, including Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)); social/economic resources; air quality and heritage resources are described in Chapter 3. Summary of the Proposed Action

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 Pemi Northwest Project. The proposed action for the Pemi Northwest Project is described in detail in Chapter 2. In summary, it includes implementation of the following site-specific activities: This project proposes timber harvest using many different treatment methods on about 3642 acres, with the possibility of adding prescribed fire on 156 of these acres. Up to 270 acres on Black Mountain would be burned to restore natural vegetative communities, and specific wildlife

5

30-Day Comment Report

habitats would be improved through small-scale proposals. The proposed action includes stream channel restoration in two locations, replacement of undersized and deteriorating culverts, and relocation/reconstruction of a section of the Tunnel Brook Road. Hazard trees would be removed within 100 feet of Long Pond and Long Pond Spur roads. Boulders would be places in several locations to protect resources and block unauthorized motorized use in the project area, and several changes to the transportation system are proposed. These changes range from simple data updates to on-the-ground decommissioning of 2.7 miles of road and reconstruction of 0.8 miles of road. Most of the proposed project activities would be implemented within the next 3 to 5 years, with the exception of prescribed burning and vegetative release treatments which would likely be extended to the next 5 to 10 years. This project also incorporates a variety of project design features to minimize impacts to air quality and public health from prescribed burning, reduce adverse impacts to scenic quality from timber harvest activities, protect cultural resource areas, minimize impacts to forest visitors recreating in the project area, protect trail integrity and maintain high quality wildlife habitat features. All proposed project activities would be undertaken within the scope of the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. The Proposed Action and alternatives for the Pemi Northwest 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 analysis, nor the eventual decision document, will apply to or set precedent for any area outside of this project. About the Pemi Northwest Project Area

The Pemi Northwest Project Area is located on the west-central edge of the White Mountain National Forest in the Wild Ammonoosuc South Habitat Management Unit (HMU). It includes approximately 12,000 acres of National Forest lands located within the Wild Ammonoosuc River watershed. A forest inventory was recently completed for the Pemi Northwest Project Area. Results of the inventory indicate that this area consists of primarily mature northern hardwoods and mixed woods, though a variety of forest types are present. Soil types and current regeneration indicate good opportunities for spruce/fir regeneration, particularly near the northern end of the Black Mountain Trail and in patches throughout the project

6

Pemi Northwest Project

area. Long Pond, a 124-acre pond supporting Eastern brook trout and a pair of nesting common loons, is in the middle of the project area. A wetland complex in the vicinity of Long Pond provides excellent habitat for beaver, wetland birds, and many other wildlife species. There is considerable evidence of moose browse on the slopes above the Long Pond basin. The project area encompasses the lower northern and western slopes of Mount Moosilauke, the Long Pond basin, and the Witcher and Tunnel Brook drainages. The Wild Ammonoosuc River makes up much of its northern boundary. The southern boundary of the project area generally follows the ridgeline over Sugarloaf Mountain, Blueberry Mountain and Mt. Clough, and crosses mid-slope of Mt. Moosilauke north of the summit. The project area also extends southward to include the entire length of the North South Road and 100 feet on either side of the road. While this area is quieter than many parts of the WMNF in terms of recreation visitation, it does contain ample and varied recreation opportunities. Long Pond is a popular destination for fishermen, picnickers, and boaters. Hunters in search of a variety of game species frequent the project area. The summit of Black Mountain is a popular hiking destination for families and others seeking a moderate hike to open ledges and expansive views. The Benton Trail, within the project area, is one of several hiking trails leading to the open, rocky summit of Mt. Moosilauke with 360° views of the White and Green Mountains and beyond. The project area contains a number of snowmobile Looking south across Long Pond from the boat launch (WMNF photo). trails, scenic forest roads, cold water streams, several permanent wildlife openings, and some unique heritage resources. The Pemi Northwest Project Area contains some of the oldest lands purchased as part of the White Mountain National Forest—some purchased as far back as 1914. The area is steeped in logging history. Many local residents still have strong family connections to this history.

7

30-Day Comment Report

The project area does not contain any Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas. The Pemigewasset Wilderness, approximately nine miles to the northeast, is the closest designated wilderness area to the project area. There are no lands within the project area that were part of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Approximately 3,200 acres of the project area fall within an area identified as having roadless characteristics during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. The project area does not contain any Congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. It does contain three of the 36 rivers on the WMNF that were determined to be eligible during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process—Tunnel Brook, Little Tunnel Brook and the Wild Ammonoosuc River. 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. 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 Land and Resource Management Plan (also called the “Forest Plan”) is the “principal tool for preserving, protecting, and managing the resources that comprise the White Mountain National Forest, while at the same time making those resources available to the public for a variety of uses” (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, FEIS). 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 Pemi Northwest Project Area includes the following Forest Plan MA allocations: MA 2.1: General Forest Management (11,220 acres) allows for a range of uses and activities, including wildlife habitat management, timber 8

Pemi Northwest Project

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 (320 acres) emphasizes non- motorized recreation, but allows motorized trail use in winter.

Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and new Forest Roads are not allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to maintain viability of fire-adapted communities such as pine, oak, and oak-pine. MA 6.1 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-19 through 3-22.

9

30-Day Comment Report

MA 6.3: Semi-Primitive Winter Motorized Recreation (480 acres) emphasizes motorized trail recreation on designated trail corridors in the winter, and recognizes the Forest’s role in the statewide snowmobile system. Development levels are kept low and scheduled commercial timber harvest and Forest Roads are not allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to maintain viability of fire-adapted communities such as pine, oak, and oak-pine. MA 6.3 is described in the Forest Plan on pages 3-27 through 3-30. Management area 2.1 is the primary area within which management activities are proposed for this project. Approximately 200 acres of prescribed fire are proposed on Black Mountain within MA 6.3, while no activities are proposed in MA 6.1. Purpose of and Need for this Project

The purpose of this project is to work toward vegetation, wildlife habitat, watershed, transportation, and recreation goals and objectives for lands located in the project area (Forest Plan, 3-4 through 3-8). The need for the project is identified by comparing the existing conditions on the ground with the desired conditions as established in the Forest Plan. Management activities are designed to either maintain existing desirable conditions or help move the land closer to those desired conditions. This project would promote a sustainable, healthy forest using relevant, current scientific knowledge and address known concerns associated with other resource areas. This project looks at ecosystem management within a 12,000-acre project area, and also within the broader context of the WMNF and the northeastern United States. Detailed descriptions of “purpose and need” for each resource area are described below. Vegetation Management and Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Management of vegetation within the project area and across suitable lands on the WMNF is intended to “use an ecological approach to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products” (Forest Plan, 1-17). The Forest is also guided to “use sustainable ecosystem management practices to provide a diversity of habitats across the Forest, including various habitat types, age classes, and non- forested habitats” (Forest Plan, 1-20). Activities proposed in the Pemi Northwest Project reflect our efforts to achieve these goals on this landscape. Vegetation Composition and Structure

The Pemi Northwest Project Area is composed of a diversity of tree species and varying stand conditions. A majority of the project area

10

Pemi Northwest Project

consists of northern hardwood and mixed hardwood forest with varying amounts of sugar maple, yellow birch, American beech, red maple, paper birch, white ash, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen. The project area also has some mixedwood and spruce-fir stands that contain a much larger component of balsam fir, red spruce, red pine, eastern white pine, and eastern hemlock. Most stands in all of these habitat types are mature; there is a lack of regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old) in all forest types across the project area. Some of the stands in the project area are mature and well-stocked and either contain trees of low timber quality or have some damaged component within the stand. Silvicultural guides and past experience in these forest types indicate that harvesting trees and controlling stocking in these stands would improve the quality and vigor of remaining trees. Thinning, improvement cutting, single tree selection, shelterwood, and group selection treatments are proposed in these stands to create better growing conditions, resulting in improved forest health and higher quality wood products in the future. Many of the stands in the project area have seen past management intended to improve stand quality and vigor. As a result, average tree diameter and the sawlog component in these stands have increased. Past management such as thinning and improvement cutting has helped to generate high quality sawlogs that are ready for harvest; sustainable timber harvesting would provide a high value product for the local economy and meet the Forest Plan objective of “providing high-quality sawtimber and other timber products on a sustained-yield basis” (Forest Plan, 3-3) while establishing and releasing forest regeneration and perpetuating future high quality forest stands. Group and single tree selection, seed tree, overstory removal, clearcut, and patch clearcut treatments are proposed in these stands to meet these objectives. Overstory removal is prescribed in stands where advanced forest regeneration is already established and will be released to grow if the overstory is removed. Sometimes the existing understory is so dense with berries and less desirable trees, such as pin cherry, that non-commercial “timber stand improvement” (TSI) is needed in conjunction with an overstory removal. TSI is a silvicultural treatment where existing understory vegetation that is competing with a desirable tree seedling or sapling is cut just above ground-level and left to decompose where it falls (providing it does not interfere with the seedling or sapling that is being favored). As a result, the remaining tree seedlings and saplings would have access to more nutrients, growing space, and sunlight, allowing them to grow with less immediate competition for resources. White pine and aspen-birch forest types are dependent on disturbance in

11

30-Day Comment Report

order to regenerate. Unit 74, on the northern, lower slope of Mt. Moosilauke, contains mature white pine that is proposed for harvest. Regeneration of white pine is generally more successful when the organic layer on the ground is scarified or reduced and pine seed can more easily reach mineral soil. If timber harvest alone does not adequately regenerate white pine, prescribed fire may be used to help reduce competing vegetation and stimulate pine regeneration in this stand. The purpose of the proposed vegetation management in the Pemi Northwest Project is to address the site-specific conditions determined by resource specialists as described in this document, to achieve forest health objectives, and to “manage for commercial products using well-integrated prescriptions that protect biotic and abiotic resources and are compatible with the high level of recreation use on the Forest” (Forest Plan, 1-17). Based on the current and desired conditions in the project area and Forest goals and objectives, there is a need to implement appropriate forestry management practices on this landscape. Harvest treatments in the project area will improve future stand quality, promote growth on high value timber, ensure future healthy forest conditions, increase habitat diversity, establish and release forest regeneration, develop uneven-age stand structure and provide wood products for the economy (see Appendix B for harvest prescriptions). Wildlife Habitat and Age Class Diversity

One of the most important wildlife issues today in New England is the decline of early- successional habitats and the species associated with them (DeGraaf et al. 2006). The desired condition for wildlife habitat calls for a mix of habitats across the Forest, including various forest types and age classes, and non–forested habitats (Forest Plan, pp 1-20 to 21 and 2- 33-36). The Proposed Action would help meet Forest Plan wildlife habitat management goals and objectives (p. 1-20-22). The wildlife habitat needs in the Project Area were identified by examining specific stands and considering land capability, existing age, composition, and condition. The mature age class dominates all the wildlife habitat types in the project area and the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU in which the project area is located. One habitat objective in the Forest Plan is to “provide regeneration age forest and open habitats to sustain biological diversity and support species that prefer those habitats” (Forest Plan, 1-20). There is a lack of regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old) in the northern hardwood, oak-pine, and hemlock habitat types and only minor amounts of regeneration age class occur in the mixedwood and spruce-fir types in MA 2.1 lands in the project area. Field visits by WMNF staff also identified a need to promote aspen-birch

12

Pemi Northwest Project

regeneration in stands and soil conditions that support this forest type. One objective in the Forest Plan is to “maintain less common habitat types, such as aspen-birch and oak-pine, where ecologically feasible and desirable” (Forest Plan, 1-20). Harvest prescriptions have been designed to promote aspen-birch regeneration in appropriate stands. If timber harvest does not result in successful regeneration of aspen-birch in these stands, prescribed fire may be used to encourage this desired regeneration (see map for locations where prescribed fire may be used). There is an opportunity to release old apple trees along the Long Pond Road from competing vegetation in order to maintain this important fall food source (soft mast) on the landscape for wildlife such as grouse, turkey, deer, and black bear. Also, there is an opportunity to improve an area used by moose in the winter. The moose wintering area is heavily browsed, and removing competing vegetation (mature aspen) would improve browse conditions in an area for moose when they need it most in the winter to survive. Regenerating both the decadent alder patch and the overmature aspen near an existing beaver pond would improve habitat for grouse, woodcock, snowshoe hare, and beaver which rely on these habitat features for food, cover, and water. These activities would help to maintain habitat diversity in the Project Area. Natural Community Maintenance and Restoration

Two portions of the project area contain ‘red pine rocky ridge’ natural communities as identified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB). These communities are fire adapted and fire prone and are ranked as “S2—imperiled” in New Hampshire due to their restricted range, steep declines and other factors. In order to “conserve outstanding natural communities,” Forest Service staff identified a need to reintroduce fire to one of these communities (Black Mountain) where fires once occurred regularly but have been suppressed in the more recent past (Forest Plan, 1-9). This suppression has begun to change the community composition from pine-oak to red spruce and balsam fir. Field visits by NHNHB and WMNF staff have identified a need to manage this area with fire in order to perpetuate red pine communities. The State of New Hampshire is interested in burning similar habitat on the adjacent Black Mountain State Forest in a cooperative effort with the WMNF. Watershed, Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Restoration

The WMNF aims to “manage streams at proper functioning condition to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water

13

30-Day Comment Report

quality” (p. 1-18). Surface waters on the White Mountain National Forest are considered “outstanding resource waters,” and water quality is maintained or improved to protect existing and designated instream water uses such as aquatic life (p. 1-17). An associated Forest Plan objective is to improve watershed and soil condition on at least 25 acres per year (p. 1-18). The following proposals to restore channel shape and function, replace undersized culverts, and relocate or de-commission roads would help meet these goals and objectives. Restoring channel shape and function

Fill has been placed within the bankfull width of Davis Brook at a former bridge crossing site on Forest Road (FR) 146. This causes the stream reach to be artificially narrow and make a sharp bend around the fill. Current Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines dictate that stream crossings should accommodate bankfull and flood flows. There is a need to remove approximately 500 cubic feet of fill from the site, which will improve the stream’s ability to accommodate high flows with or without a crossing structure in place. An intermittent tributary to Waterman Brook appears to have been redirected into an eroding channel with an unstable bed in the vicinity of an old skid trail. While the amount of erosion is unlikely to impact water quality at present, effects may worsen if the stream is not returned to its original channel. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for close-out of skid trails recommend that flow be dispersed from the trail over vegetated ground or allowed to pass unimpeded where channels already exist. There is a need to redirect flow into its original, stable stream channel by recontouring less than 0.1 acre of previously disturbed area. Natural materials such as large woody debris, rootwads or boulders would be used to redirect flow and prevent further erosion. Replacing undersized culverts

Three culverts crossing Long Pond Road and Bunga Jar Road in the project area do not meet the current guidance for properly designed stream crossings. Additionally, several culverts on Tunnel Brook Road are either undersized or misaligned (see next section). Forest Plan Standard S-5 for Water Resources states: “Permanent stream crossings must be designed to pass the bankfull discharge unimpeded,” (p. 2-31). Guideline G-4 under Stream Crossings (p. 2-31) also states, “Culverts and bridges should be designed to pass bedload and woody material.” There is a need to replace these culverts with structures of a proper size and alignment. Minor changes in road elevation or alignment near the crossings may also be necessary. Replacing these culverts will primarily benefit stream channel function, with a small increase in aquatic habitat

14

Pemi Northwest Project

connectivity. By allowing high flows and material to pass through these crossings, the integrity of both the stream channel and the road will be protected. By extension, recreational and administrative uses that rely on this access will also be preserved. Tunnel Brook Road Relocation/Reconstruction

A portion of Tunnel Brook Road lies in the floodplain of Tunnel Brook. In this location, the road disconnected the stream from a portion of its floodplain, reducing its ability to handle high flows. Washouts on this road have been a concern since the 1990s, requiring occasional repairs. In August 2011,

One section of damage to Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700) heavy rains during Tropical Storm Irene during Tropical Storm Irene, WMNF photo taken October washed out over 800 linear feet of road, 2011. carving a channel up to six feet deep in some parts of the road. Because of the low elevation of the road and movement of the stream channel toward the road bed, it is likely to wash out again if rebuilt in the same place. For the same reasons, bank stabilization measures such as riprap are unlikely to be effective. A road wash out would curtail access for recreation and timber harvest, as well as impact water quality. Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Guideline G-7 (p. 2-25) states: “Existing roads, facilities, campsites or trails within 100 feet of perennial streams or ponds should be considered for relocation as part of normal project planning.” This guideline and field investigations support the need to relocate portions of Tunnel Brook Road out of the floodplain to protect stream function, water quality and access. Recreation Improvements, Public Access and the Transportation System

Installation of barriers to prevent unauthorized motorized use and protect resources near the Black Mountain Trail, at the south end of the Tunnel Brook Trail and along the Wild Ammonoosuc River

Black Mountain Trail area: The Forest Plan prohibits summer motorized trail use on the WMNF (Plan, p. 2-19). There is some evidence of such use near the north end of the Black Mountain Trailhead, due to the presence of several old woods roads leading on and off WMNF lands. These roads

15

30-Day Comment Report

are not part of the snowmobile trail network. There is a need to protect resource damage from unauthorized motorized access. This project proposes to install barrier rocks at three locations on NFS lands where unauthorized woods roads currently provide access for motorized vehicles. Tunnel Brook Trail area: The Forest Service recently removed an old, dilapidated camp near the southern end of the Tunnel Brook Trail. In warmer months, this area is occasionally used for camping; in the winter it is part of an infrequently used, ungroomed snowmobile trail. Currently, vehicles can drive up along the brook to this site. Due to the condition of this access and its proximity to the brook, there are water quality concerns with summer motorized vehicle traffic along this access. This project proposes to install barrier rocks to prevent vehicles from driving all the way in to this site. The campsite itself will not be closed and the rocks will not prevent campers from parking at the entrance to the road. Wild Ammonoosuc River area: An abandoned section of old highway provides vehicle access to a sandbar along the river. Motorized use of this access is damaging the old roadbed and increasing the risk of negative impacts to the riparian area and water quality. This project proposes to block vehicles from driving up to the river. Parking and public access will still be available along the old road grade for the short walk to the water. Hazard Tree Removal along Long Pond and Long Pond Spur Roads

It is the Forest Service’s goal to maintain its road network to meet the requirements of the Highway Transportation Safety Act. Blowdowns across Long Pond Road are more frequent than along most Forest roads, and staff must regularly clear the road for safe passage by the public. In an effort to more efficiently and effectively address this safety hazard, this project proposes the removal of potentially hazardous trees along Long Pond and Long Pond Spur Roads. Forest Service guidelines for the identification of hazard trees will be used to evaluate trees for defect and risk to travelers along the roadway. Road decommissioning and maintenance

During project planning, field reconnaissance provides additional information regarding Forest roads status and needs. Forest managers are guided to maintain and update the Forest road inventory and index during this process (Forest Plan, 1-17). The Forest Roads program should “provide a safe, seamless and efficient transportation and parking network that allows for current, continued, and projected management, use and enjoyment of the Forest with a variety of challenge levels” (p. 1-

16

Pemi Northwest Project

17). An interdisciplinary team has reviewed all of the roads in the project area to evaluate which roads are necessary for current and future management, and public use and enjoyment. Based on this evaluation, this project proposes to decommission approximately 3.4 miles of road. Decommissioning unneeded roads allows soil to return to productivity, reduces impervious cover, and reduces erosion risk. It is also consistent with Forest Plan Guideline ‘G-6’ for Road Management (p. 2-29). There is a need to close these roads to further use, allow natural regeneration, and

perform restoration activities where necessary. Many of the roads are stable and naturally revegetating, but up to 2.9 miles may require additional work on the ground to mitigate watershed impacts, including FR 6218.1 (N), 6222, 6228, 6229, 6230 and a small segment of FR 6223. Several of these roads are less than 500 feet long and are considered to be “driveways” and should not be part of the Forest road inventory (FR 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124 and 6227). Techniques such as in-stalling drainage dips or water bars, ripping and seeding road surfaces, and recontouring road surfaces would be used to accelerate restoration.

17

30-Day Comment Report

This project also proposes to perform maintenance on approximately 8.7 miles of existing road that will be used in this project and the interdisciplinary team determined necessary for long-term forest management. Roads that were “unauthorized” in the Forest Service database but determined to be necessary for current and future management will be classified as forest system roads. Those deemed not necessary will be decommissioned (see above). The lower section (0.35 miles) of the Benton Trail is currently a part of the road system but no longer needed as a road. It will be formally classified as a trail and will no longer be a part of the road system. Public Involvement

This project was listed in the WMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning on January 1, 2011. A scoping report for this project was published in May, 2011. Notification of the availability of this report (either via email or postcard) was sent to approximately 100 individuals, including abutters, local town officials, local snowmobile clubs and everyone who responded to this project from the SOPA. Comments from eight individuals were received in response to scoping. All comments received in response to scoping were analyzed and used to refine the proposed action, identify the issues and develop alternatives for this project. Original comments are included in the project record. Input during the 30-day comment period will be used to further refine the analysis and to inform the responsible official’s decision.

18

Pemi Northwest Project

Chapter 2—Proposed Action, Issues and Alternatives

This section of the environmental analysis: • Describes the issues identified for this project, which arose through the interdisciplinary and public scoping process • Shows how the Forest Service used these issues to develop alternatives to the proposed action, along with measurement indicators to evaluate how well each alternative addresses the issues • Provides detailed descriptions of the alternatives analyzed in Chapter 3 and information on alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail

Chapter 3 summarizes individual resource specialists’ analysis of the effects of each alternative on social, physical and biological resources. More detailed specialist reports for each resource are in the project record. Development of Issues and Alternatives

Public scoping brought forth many ideas, suggestions, and important information used in developing this project. Some commentors were concerned with timber harvest units adjacent to hiking trails or in areas of personal importance. One commentor with an intimate knowledge of the cultural resources in the area expressed concern regarding the protection of these areas during project implementation. One commentor had questions regarding the need for hazard tree removal along the North- South Road. All public scoping comments were considered during project refinement and development of alternatives to the proposed action. 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 conjectural, outside the scope of the project or already decided by law or regulation. Mitigation measures either already exist (in Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines or other established protocols) or have been developed to respond to other concerns. The remaining issues were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action. For these issues, “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.

19

30-Day Comment Report

Issues used to develop alternatives

Two issues were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action. Issue 1

Reconstruction or relocation of Tunnel Brook Road will be expensive, the road may still be at risk of future flooding, and negative resource impacts could still occur. During public scoping, one commentor stated that the proposed relocation of Tunnel Brook Road was “overkill,” unnecessary and too expensive. At that time, the interdisciplinary team discussed an alternative that would essentially raise the roadbed but not relocate the 2000’ section of road as described in the proposed action. Since then, Tropical Storm Irene caused extensive damage to the road. Either raising the roadbed or the relocation proposed in scoping for this project may have reduced damage to the road, but neither would have prevented all of the substantial damage that occurred during the flooding event on August 28, 2011. The interdisciplinary team spent considerable time in the field searching for possible alternative routes for Tunnel Brook Road. Many considerations went into evaluating which routes should be analyzed in detail—including costs (not only initial construction costs, but maintenance costs and long-term “costs” of having or not having motorized access up the valley). This issue incorporates not only the initial concern regarding expense of road construction, but the tradeoffs of floodplain function and effects on other resources including wildlife habitat, vegetation management and recreational access. Each alternative incorporates a different means of addressing the issues associated with Tunnel Brook Road. Measurement Indicators: 1. How well are floodplain function and wetland habitat along Tunnel Brook restored (scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the greatest ability for floodplain to function)? 2. What is the risk of the road suffering damage from future flood events based on past events and best available science (scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being highest risk of damage from future flood events)? 3. What is the approximate cost for reconstruction and/or restoration work on Tunnel Brook Road?

Issue 2

Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected activities would

20

Pemi Northwest Project

adversely impact the roadless character of one of the areas inventoried in the Forest Plan as having roadless characteristics (Jobildunk) and jeopardize future consideration of this area for Wilderness designation. This issue was developed due to known public concern regarding timber harvest proposals in areas identified as having roadless characteristics during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. Some groups have consistently expressed concern that any timber harvest in these areas jeopardizes future consideration for Wilderness designation. Alternative 4 was developed to address this issue. Measurement Indicators: 1. Does the alternative exceed the threshold for any roadless/wilderness characteristics/criteria? If so, which one(s) and by how much? 2. Do any activities proposed in the alternative jeopardize future consideration of this area for Wilderness designation? Alternatives Considered in Detail

The following five alternatives were analyzed in detail by the interdisciplinary team. Table 2.1 at the end of Chapter 2 provides a summary of the various actions proposed in each alternative. Alternative 1—No Action

This alternative proposes no new activities in the project area at this time. While this alternative would not meet the “need for action” in this area, it does provide a baseline for analyzing the effects of conducting no new management activities in the Pemi Northwest project area and comparing these effects with those of the action alternatives. This alternative proposes no harvesting of trees, reconstruction or decommissioning of roads or trails, or wildlife habitat or recreation improvements. Ongoing routine maintenance of roads, trails and other sites and facilities in the project area would continue. Emergency stabilization efforts along Tunnel Brook and Tunnel Brook Road following Tropical Storm Irene are separate from the Pemi Northwest Project. These activities involved some clearing of log jams (in fall of 2011) in the river in order to protect the downstream road and bridge maintained by the town of Benton, as well as other activities aimed at minimizing erosion and sedimentation by directing water flow back into the main stem of the river rather than down the damaged roadbed during high flows. These activities would still be implemented; many of them have already taken place.

21

30-Day Comment Report

Alternative 2—Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is very similar to the proposal described in the initial public scoping document, with additional details and some small changes due to project refinement (explained below). The proposed action was designed to promote desired forest vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, provide a wide range of recreational opportunities, provide a sustained yield of high quality sawtimber and other forest products, and manage the transportation system to meet administrative and public needs. The following activities are included in the proposed action:

Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement:

• Clearcut approximately 475 acres and patch cut portions of 64 acres to create regeneration age class (0 to 9 years old) forest habitat (particularly northern hardwood and aspen-birch); • Thin approximately 92 acres to improve forest stand growth and vigor, timber quality and species composition; • Utilize patch cuts in combination with thinning in 83 acres; • Remove overstory trees from approximately 297 acres of softwood and mixed wood stands to release existing softwood regeneration; • Develop uneven-aged structure in 172 acres of even or two-storied stands using improvement cutting; • Regenerate approximately 23 acres with “shelterwood” treatments to enhance regenerating species composition; • Regenerate portions of approximately 810 acres with “group selection” treatments, 1,253 acres with “single tree selection” treatments and 373 acres with a combination of both “single tree” and “group selection” treatments to enhance species composition and/or increase softwood habitat; • Consider the use of prescribed fire in conjunction with timber harvest on up to 156 acres. Fire would be considered to promote regeneration of aspen-birch, eastern white pine or a mixed-wood forest if post- harvest monitoring indicates that it would promote desired species composition; • Improve grouse, woodcock, and snowshoe hare habitat by creating several 2-acre (or smaller) openings to promote aspen regeneration adjacent to an existing beaver pond and regenerate a decadent alder patch by brushing near unit 74 and FR 170; • Improve a moose overwintering area by girdling or felling non- merchantable mature aspen to release existing spruce-fir regeneration and increase browse on ten acres near unit 45, upslope and east of

22

Pemi Northwest Project

Long Pond; • Release apple trees along the Long Pond Road from competing vegetation to provide additional forage for wildlife; • Restore natural, fire-dependent oak/pine communities on up to 270 acres on the upper slopes of Black Mountain using prescribed fire;

Vegetation management activities would be implemented primarily through timber harvest, except where noted above, and would provide an estimated 11 million board feet (MMBF) of sawtimber and pulpwood from approximately 3,642 acres of treatment area. In order to conduct timber harvest operations, this alternative includes the use of 37 existing landings and construction of six new landings, each 1/2 acre or less, and short (500 feet or less) temporary access roads to these landings. Watershed, aquatic habitat and riparian restoration:

Tunnel Brook Road: The Pemi Northwest scoping document described a proposal to relocate a 2,000- foot section of Tunnel Brook Road out of the floodplain in order to minimize risk from future flooding events. Due to several debris jams, a small landslide and exceptionally high flows, this segment and adjacent sections of road washed out in August 2011 during Tropical Storm Irene. The proposed action now Tunnel Brook eroding the bank adjacent to Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700), includes amended actions in WMNF photo. order to address the larger section of damaged road. The modified proposal is to relocate and/or reconstruct much of the 0.8 mile section of Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700) between the existing northern gate and FR 147 (Finnegan Spur). New road design and location would be approximately as follows: 1. The gate at the beginning of FR700 would remain in the same location. 2. Just upstream of the gate, the road would immediately climb upslope to the west onto a low terrace and follow this terrace

23

30-Day Comment Report

approximately 2,000 feet. This would require construction of one bridge and installation of several culverts. 3. The road would then rejoin the existing alignment for a small segment. 4. As feasible, the road would be realigned slightly to the west to allow for more floodplain function without overly restricting downslope flow from the hillside. 5. The road would rejoin and remain along its old alignment once it begins to leave the floodplain area and climb the hill approaching Finnegan Spur Road (FR 147).

This design would require the following actions:

• Re-grading and realigning approximately 2,000 feet of road onto an adjacent terrace upslope of the existing roadbed; • Clearing and grubbing vegetation, excavating and constructing a compacted surface for a single lane road to a standard 14’ width, with turnouts allowing vehicles to pass; • Installing a permanent approximately 50’ bridge across a perennial drainage; • Constructing a partial bench by excavating, filling, armoring and stabilizing as determined by engineering requirements; • Installing culverts designed for proper aquatic organism passage and water flows; • Obliterating the old roadbed and restoring the floodplain as much as is possible. Excavated materials from old roadbed will be used for reconstructing the road. • Removing fill from the old road bed to restore the original floodplain elevation, if it does not put the new road alignment at risk. This fill may be used on site or moved to a location outside of wetlands and floodplains. • Removing additional standing or down wood and placing it on the floodplain and banks adjacent to areas where the road was repaired or relocated. • Protecting the river side embankment slope with riprap where the road is closest to Tunnel Brook or its major side channels. Energy dissipating devices such as rock vanes would be placed in the stream along steep embankments to direct flow away from the road. Such devices would use natural channel design methods. • Removing any remaining culverts from tributaries in the washed out road sections that are not being reconstructed. Road fill and deposited material would be removed where necessary to reconnect these stream channels to Tunnel Brook and establish appropriate

24

Pemi Northwest Project

channel dimensions. • Where culverts were acting as grade controls, large material would be anchored in stream beds to prevent excessive erosion. Culverts would be reused or moved off site. • Replace three undersized culverts and four deteriorating culverts along the section of Tunnel Brook Road south of FR 147.

The reconstructed road would be single lane with turnouts and seasonally open to public vehicular traffic as it was prior to damage from Tropical Storm Irene. The Benton and Tunnel Brook Trailheads would remain in their current locations. Small, isolated sections of Tunnel Brook Road upstream from FR 147 received some damage during Tropical Storm Irene. These areas would be repaired along the current alignment and previously identified undersized or misaligned culverts would be replaced. Additional watershed-related actions:

• Replace three undersized and misaligned culverts on perennial streams crossing Long Pond Road and Bunga Jar Road; • Prevent resource damage along Slide Brook by installing barrier rocks at the southern entrance to the Tunnel Brook Trail; • Improve watershed function and quality by removing fill material within Davis Brook at a former bridge crossing site on FR 146 to restore the channel to its natural width and redirecting intermittent flow from an unstable gully to its original streambed in the headwaters of Waterman Brook

Recreation access and the transportation system:

• Protect natural resources by restricting unauthorized vehicular access on to WMNF lands west and north of the Black Mountain Trail, at the southern end of the Tunnel Brook Trail and along the Wild Ammonoosuc River by installing barrier rocks across old forest roads; • Remove hazard trees within a 100 foot buffer along the entire lengths of Long Pond (aka North-South) and Long Pond Spur Roads to increase public safety and reduce annual road maintenance on a through road that has a high frequency of blowdown o Trees would be either hand felled or mechanically removed using equipment working on the existing roadbed • Decommission approximately 3.2 miles of road o Forest roads 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124 and 6222 will be “decommissioned” electronically meaning no ground work is necessary and they will be removed from the Forest road

25

30-Day Comment Report

database o Decommissioning of forest roads 6228, 6229, 6230 and a portion of 6223 requires some ground stabilization and drainage work • Classify and manage FR 6226 as a trail, not a road (old forest road that is now part of the Benton Trail and not needed as a road) • Perform various levels of maintenance on approximately 26.2 miles of Forest System roads. • Classify nine existing roads, totaling approximately 3.3 miles, and add them to the Forest Transportation System as intermittent service roads (FR 6218.1, 6218.2, 6220, 6227, 6233, 6234, 6235, 6223, and 6256)

Changes to the proposed action since scoping:

Some minor changes were made to the proposed action following public scoping. They are as follows: • The nature of the Tunnel Brook Road relocation was modified to address the changed condition of the road following damage from Tropical Storm Irene. The new proposal is broader in order to encompass the entire length of damaged segment of road. It addresses the purpose and need in the same fashion as the original proposal. Road standards and access remain the same as in the scoping document. • The proposal to relocate the Black Mountain Trailhead was dropped as part of this project, pending further research and coordination with landowners and the Town of Benton regarding ownership and rights- of-way. The Forest Service will continue to pursue this proposed relocation separate from this project. • The proposal to use prescribed fire to restore habitat on the upper slopes of Sugarloaf Mountain was dropped. Additional field investigation showed that while there is some fire-dependent oak- pine habitat in this area, most of the ridge is now dominated by spruce and there is minimal evidence of historic fire. The proposal to use fire on Black Mountain is still included in Alternative 2 but acres were adjusted to reflect more accurate mapping of the oak-pine community. • Prescribed fire proposals in some harvest units were modified to better meet resource objectives. • The proposal to plant native species following removal of non-native Scotch pine was determined to be unnecessary and was dropped. Scotch pine will still be removed, but natural regeneration of native species is expected to occur. The area will be monitored to ensure regeneration of native species. • FR 6218.1 and FR 6218.2, Forest Roads existing on the ground but not

26

Pemi Northwest Project

currently classified in our database, were originally proposed for decommissioning. Further ground-truthing indicates that these roads are necessary for timber and wildlife management and the proposed action now includes reclassifying 0.8 miles of these existing roads and adding them to the Forest Transportation System. Alternative 3

This alternative was initially considered due to public comment regarding the expense of relocating Tunnel Brook Road out of the floodplain. Prior to Tropical Storm Irene, this alternative likely would not have been analyzed in detail because the interdisciplinary team developed other alternatives that met this public concern but still provided some motorized access up the Tunnel Brook valley. Due to resource effects from the storm on Tunnel Brook and its floodplain, the team revisited this idea and concluded that it warranted more detailed analysis. This alternative also addresses public comments regarding the need to reconstruct this road at all. Some commentors stated they would more enjoy the hunting and recreation experience of this area if there was not motorized access up Tunnel Brook. Some felt that there was no good reason to put the road back at all. The Roads Analysis indicates a long-term need for Tunnel Brook Road in order to provide access for management of approximately 1,850 acres of land designated as MA 2.1 (General Forest Management). Alternative 3 defers reconstruction of FR 700 at this time and provides a means for evaluating the tradeoffs of reconstructing the road. The road would not be removed from the Forest database, but would not be reconstructed as a part of the Pemi Northwest Project. Damaged portions of the road would be rehabilitated and floodplain function would be restored.

27

30-Day Comment Report

28

Pemi Northwest Project

Alternative 3 differs from the “no action” alternative in that Alternative 1 does not propose substantial rehabilitation to the floodplain, so only ongoing emergency stabilization efforts that are not a part of the Pemi Northwest decision would occur. In this alternative, all activities included in the proposed action (Alternative 2) that require the use of FR 700 are eliminated. Specifically: • Timber harvest units 49-63 and 67 would be dropped. • No motorized public or administrative access up FR 700 would be permitted once culverts were pulled and restoration efforts implemented. • The Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailheads would be moved northward to a location near the existing gate at the beginning of FR 700. A new 5-car trailhead would be constructed at this location, and a new 0.8 mile hiking trail would be constructed to connect the new trailhead with FR 700 and the existing Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails. This would add approximately 1.6 and 2.3 miles to these two trails, respectively. • Because FR 700 would be rehabilitated, the northern portion of the Tunnel Brook Snowmobile Trail (the part currently on FR 700) would be closed.

Other actions associated with this alternative include: • Rehabilitation of the first 0.8 mile section of Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700). Fill may be removed from the old road bed where appropriate to restore the original floodplain elevation and connectivity. Additional standing or down wood would be removed and placed in washed out sections, creating a web of standing and down trees to encourage sediment deposition and vegetation regrowth. New wood additions may be installed in Tunnel Brook to create fish habitat and reconnect the brook to its restored floodplain. Work would be performed with excavators, which would operate during low flow periods to minimize work in the water. • All culverts and a bridge would be removed from tributaries in both the washed out and intact road sections. Road fill and deposited material would be removed where necessary to reconnect these stream channels to Tunnel Brook and establish appropriate channel dimensions. Where culverts were acting as grade controls, large material would be anchored in stream beds to prevent excessive erosion. Culverts would be reused or moved off site. Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed in response to concerns expressed during

29

30-Day Comment Report

development of past projects in the Pemi Northwest project area that proposed similar timber harvest activities would possibly impact roadless values of areas identified as part of the roadless area inventory for the 2005 Forest Plan revision. Concerns included the possibility that these activities would preclude the consideration of these areas for Wilderness designation in the future. This alternative was designed to minimize impacts from wildlife habitat and vegetation management and connected transportation system management activities on the roadless characteristics of the 2005 Jobildunk Forest Plan inventory area. Additionally, Alternative 4 proposes a lower standard (and lower cost) alternative for reconstruction of Tunnel Brook Road. This provides an additional option for addressing the public concern regarding expense of reconstructing the damaged portion of road and the nature of public access up the Tunnel Brook valley.

Jobildunk Forest Plan inventory area

In this alternative, all activities proposed in the Jobildunk area identified as having roadless characteristics during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process would be dropped. Specifically: • All timber harvest proposals in this area would be dropped • All wildlife habitat improvement or road maintenance activities would be dropped • No focused hazard tree removal would occur along the North-South Road

Tunnel Brook Road, Benton Trailhead and Tunnel Brook Trailhead In Alternative 4, Tunnel Brook Road would be reconstructed in the same alignment as in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), but would be constructed for winter use only. Timber harvest operations would only occur on this road during frozen ground conditions and it would not be open for summer public motorized use. The Benton and Tunnel Brook Trailheads would be relocated to the gate (the same location as in Alternative 3), and the trails would follow the winter road and rejoin the existing trails. Since the FR 700 would be a winter road and bridges and culverts would be temporary, the northern portion of the Tunnel Brook Snowmobile Trail (the portion currently on FR 700) would be closed. All other activities proposed outside of the 2005 Forest Plan inventoried area are the same as described in Alternative 2. Alternative 5

This alternative was identified during the interdisciplinary team’s effort

30

Pemi Northwest Project

to consider all possible solutions for responding to the need to provide access up the Tunnel Brook valley for long-term management, while considering the ever-changing nature of Tunnel Brook and risks associated with reconstructing the road in the floodplain. The team considered a very broad spectrum of options in its search for possible solutions. The “alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail” section of Chapter 2 describes numerous possibilities that were not brought forward in alternatives for various reasons. The team and the deciding officer believe that this alternative is one feasible way to provide a level of long-term access up the valley for resource management without reconstructing the road in the floodplain. Alternative 5 proposes a “winter-only” road connecting FR 170 (Little Tunnel Brook Road) to FR 700A (see map). This road would run along the east side of Tunnel Brook, well upslope of the floodplain and along a fairly consistent contour. It would require approximately 0.8 miles of new road construction, largely following what appears to be an old travel way. This road would not be open for public motorized use. It would require construction of one temporary bridge with temporary abutments across Little Tunnel Brook. It would also require installation of culverts as necessary along the roadway. The bridge and all culverts would be removed following harvest activity, but the road would remain on the Forest transportation system for future use. Under this alternative, all timber harvested up the Tunnel Brook valley would be hauled down to the public road system via this main route. All hauling would occur in winter months over frozen ground. The 0.8 section of Tunnel Brook Road between the gate and Finnegan Spur would be decommissioned, removed from the transportation system and rehabilitated. Activities associated with the rehabilitation of Tunnel Brook Road would be the same as described in Alternative 3. Access to the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails would be the same as in Alternative 3. Because two bridges along this road would be temporary and culverts would be removed when the road was not in use, the northern portion of the Tunnel Brook Snowmobile Trail would be closed. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study

Options for relocation of Tunnel Brook Road

The interdisciplinary team brainstormed many options for the relocation of Tunnel Brook Road. Specialists flagged and walked possible routes in search of those that were technically feasible and ecologically responsible. The following are several routes that were evaluated for consideration

31

30-Day Comment Report

but eliminated from further study. 1. Construct the road in the Alternative 5 location but open it to public motorized use

This route was dropped from further study due to the environmental impact and expense of constructing a permanent bridge across Little Tunnel Brook. The topography of the brook and its banks does not provide for a good permanent crossing location. The team felt that constructing a bridge of this nature in this location was inappropriate. 2. Construct road from Glencliff to upper Tunnel Brook Road (through Mud Ponds area)

The upper Tunnel Brook valley could conceivably be accessed from Glencliff, with a new road constructed through the Mud Ponds area. This road would need to traverse MA 6.1 lands and thereby violate a Forest Plan standard that no new permanent roads be constructed in this management area (Plan, p. 3-21). It was therefore dropped from consideration. Even without the Plan standard, environmental concerns would likely preclude construction of a road through this area. 3. Access area from Long Pond Road, over Ramsey Basin Road (FR 146) connecting with Finnegan Spur (FR 147)

The team considered accessing this area from the Long Pond Road, connecting FR 146 with FR 147. Forest staff determined that it was not feasible or reasonable to construct a road through this area due to steep, ledgy terrain. 4. Reconstruct Tunnel Brook Road along its current alignment (open to public or winter only)

It would be possible to reconstruct Tunnel Brook Road in its former location. The original proposal for the Pemi Northwest Project, developed prior to Tropical Storm Irene, involved moving this section of road out of the floodplain. Since the storm and washout, the team also considered an alternative that would minimally move segments of the road, raise a portion of the road, and armor the banks. Both reconstructing it in its original location and minimally moving it (particularly the section just upstream of the gate) would not sufficiently address the previously identified floodplain concerns and would likely result in future washouts and environmental damage. These options would not meet the purpose and need for the project and therefore were not considered in detail. 5. Private land right-of-way access

The Forest Service pursued right-of-way options with an abutting

32

Pemi Northwest Project

landowner in order to obtain access to the upper Tunnel Brook valley off of Tunnel Stream Road and out of the Tunnel Brook floodplain. This option was deemed not feasible because an agreement was not reached with the landowner. 6. Decommission Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700) and associated spurs, remove from transportation system

Tunnel Brook Road was identified in the Forest-wide transportation analysis as needed for long-term management. Alternative 3 addresses the consequences of not rebuilding the road at this time, but until a more comprehensive transportation analysis is completed for high-standard Forest roads (Maintenance level 3 and above), FR 700 will remain on the system for potential future use even if it is not reconstructed at this time. 7. Use current alignment of Tunnel Brook Road for one-time entry, then rehabilitate

The cost associated with even a low-standard road for a one-time entry is likely considerably more than could be covered by the value of a single timber harvest in this area. Therefore it was determined that it was not economically feasible to construct an access route along the current alignment in the floodplain for a single entry and subsequent rehabilitation of the roadway.

33

30-Day Comment Report

34

Pemi Northwest Project

35

30-Day Comment Report

36

Pemi Northwest Project

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2.1—Comparison of Alternative Components Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Proposed Activity (all acres are approximate) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 No Action Proposed Action

Vegetation Management and Wildlife Habitat

Improvement (acres treated) Clearcut 0 475 411 223 475 Group and STS 0 373 193 232 373 Group 0 810 686 748 810 Improvement Cut 0 172 172 96 172 Overstory Removal 0 297 257 239 297 Patch Clearcut 0 64 64 64 64 Patch Clearcut and Thinning 0 83 83 83 83 Shelterwood 0 23 23 20 23 STS 0 1253 858 718 1253 Thinning 0 92 92 84 92 Total Area Included in Harvest Proposal (acres) 0 3642 2841 2507 3642 Estimated Harvest Volume (MMBF) 0 11 MMBF 8.5 MMBF 7 MMBF 11 MMBF

Consider Prescribed Fire in Harvest Units (acres) 0 156 113 97 156

Oak-Pine Community Restoration and Maintenance None Up to 270 acres on Black Mountain with Prescribed Fire Other wildlife habitat improvement--alder and aspen 1 proposal along Long regeneration, apple tree release and moose wintering None 3 proposals 3 proposals Pond Road area improvements Watershed, Aquatic, Riparian Restoration

Restoration of stream channel shape/function None Two channel sections, one on Davis Brook and one on Waterman Brook

37

30-Day Comment Report

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Proposed Activity (all acres are approximate) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 No Action Proposed Action

Replace 10 culverts on Replace 3 culverts Replace 3 culverts on Replace 3 culverts on Tunnel Brook, Long Replace undersized and deteriorating culverts None on Long Pond and Long Pond and Bunga Long Pond and Bunga Pond and Bunga Jar Bunga Jar Roads Jar Roads Jar Roads Roads

Reconstruct/relocate Relocate section of Reconstruct/relocate Restoration only-no ~0.8 miles of road as Tunnel Brook Road to Tunnel Brook Road Emergency ~0.8 miles of road— reconstruction at winter only road — east side of Tunnel Relocation/Reconstruction/Restoration work only open to summer public this time closed to all public Brook (winter road motorized use motorized use only) Recreation, Public Access and the Transportation

System Relocate Tunnel Bk Relocate Tunnel Bk and Relocate Tunnel Bk and Benton Benton Trailheads to and Benton Tunnel Bk and Benton Trailheads to beginning of FR 700, Trailheads to Trailhead/access None Trailheads remain the beginning of FR700, winter road will beginning of FR700, same construct new trail connect trailhead to construct new trail to to connect trailhead existing trails connect trailhead Install barrier rocks to prevent unauthorized motorized 3 locations along Black Mountain Trail, one on south end of Tunnel Brook Trail, one along Wild No use Ammonoosuc River Hazard tree removal along Long Pond and Long Pond Along 100’ buffer on None Along 100' buffer on 7.5 miles of road None Spur Roads 7.5 miles of road Close northern portion of trail (currently section along FR 700) due to Tunnel Brook Snowmobile Trail No change No change changes to Tunnel Brook Road Road Proposals

Unauthorized roads decommissioned--database only 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (miles) Unauthorized roads decommissioned--groundwork 0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 needed (miles) Unauthorized roads changed to Classified (miles) 0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Unauthorized roads changed to hiking trail (miles) 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Road Maintenance (miles)* 0 26.2 22.1 24.9 26.2 Road Reconstruction (miles)* 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 Authorized roads decommissioned (miles) 0 0 0 0 0.8 New Road Construction (miles) 0 0 0 0 0.8

38

Pemi Northwest Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Proposed Activity (all acres are approximate) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 No Action Proposed Action Number of existing landings proposed for re-use 0 37 29 31 37 Number of new landings proposed 0 6 6 5 7 * Maintenance involves activities associated with bringing an existing road up to the standard use for which it was established. This process may change the appearance of a road considerably, particularly if the road has not been used for ten or more years. Most of these roads would be used for the hauling of timber during this project, after which time temporary culverts or bridges would be removed and roads would be closed to all motorized use. In the Pemi Northwest Project discussion and analysis, “maintenance” refers to all activities on Forest System roads except for work associated with Tunnel Brook Road. “Reconstruction” or “construction” refers to actions associated with Tunnel Brook Road. Resource specialists have analyzed effects of all potential ground disturbing activities involved in bringing these roads up to required standards.

39

30-Day Comment Report Chapter 3—Environmental Analysis Issue 1: Tunnel Brook Road Restoration/Reconstruction

See Chapter 2 for details regarding the development of the two issues for the Pemi Northwest Project. Issue 1: Reconstruction or relocation of Tunnel Brook Road will be expensive, the road may still be at risk of future flooding, and negative resource impacts could still occur. Measurement Indicators:

1. How well are floodplain function and wetland habitat along Tunnel Brook restored (scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the greatest ability for floodplain to function)? 2. What is the risk of the road suffering damage from future flood events based on past events and best available science (scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being highest risk of damage from future flood events)? 3. What is the approximate cost for reconstruction and/or restoration work on Tunnel Brook Road?

Table 3.1—Issue 1: Measurement Indicators by Alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Measurement Indicator Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 No Action Proposed Action 1-1: Floodplain function and wetland 1** 2 5** 3 4 habitat along Tunnel Brook (scale of 1 to 5) 1-2: Risk of future flooding of Tunnel Brook 1** 2 5** 3 4 Road (scale of 1 to 5) 1-3: Estimated cost for work on Tunnel $0 $750,000 $0 $250,000 $400,000 Brook Road * * Costs do not include restoration work necessary for the old roadbed and stream, which could be approximately $50,000 for each alternative, but would be higher for Alternatives 3 and 5 because they require more rehabilitation work along the existing FR700 roadway ** Under these alternatives, there would be no road at all in the flooded area. In Alternative 1, while the floodplain would be able to function, lack of restoration work would have other environmental consequences including increased damage from erosion and sedimentation during future high water events. Because Alternative 3 includes restoration work, future flood risk is considered low and floodplain function good. Summary of Effects

Under all action alternatives, watershed restoration work would lead to a long-term improvement in channel function and reduced sedimentation over the existing condition, with the greatest positive effect arising from Tunnel Brook Road relocation and rehabilitation. All action alternatives would have a much smaller portion of Tunnel Brook Road in the floodplain than there was prior to Tropical Storm Irene. Alternatives 2 and 4 would cause the most disturbance to water resources and leave more road area in the floodplain. Alternative 5 would have an intermediate impact but would provide access for land management and timber harvest up the Tunnel Brook Valley without having a road in the floodplain, and Alternative 3 would have the least impact but 40

Pemi Northwest Project would not provide for any access involving motorized use. Alternative 2 differs from the other action alternatives in having more permanent stream crossings. Affected Environment

The portion of Tunnel Brook Road (FR 700) discussed in this section runs along Tunnel Brook from the junction of Tunnel Stream and Tunnel Brook Roads southward to the parking area for the Tunnel Brook Trail. This road has traditionally been opened for public motorized use in the summer and gated in the winter and mud seasons. Tunnel Brook Road is used for public recreational access to the Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailheads. The Tunnel Brook Trail begins at the end of the road and travels south through the Mud Ponds area to the village of Glencliff. It is a scenic, low use trail that winds up the valley and along several picturesque wetlands and ponds. This trail is part of the local snowmobile network, though it is ungroomed, difficult, and receives little use. The Tunnel Brook Road is also used by hunters, fishermen and visitors seeking a scenic drive or casual walk along a scenic, low-traffic road. The Benton Trail is one of several trails accessing the summit of Mt. Moosilauke. It is the only trail that climbs to the summit from the Tunnel Brook valley and it receives less use than other trails over the summit, in part because it is not part of the Appalachian Trail. Tunnel Brook Road also provides administrative Forest Service access up the Tunnel Brook valley. It is the The floodwaters in Tunnel Brook found a new path through portions of Tunnel primary access for hauling timber out Brook Road during Tropical Storm Irene (WMNF photo). of the valley and also provides access for trail maintainers to more readily access hiking trails. A portion of Tunnel Brook Road lies in the floodplain of Tunnel Brook. In this location, the road disconnected the stream from a portion of its floodplain, reducing its ability to handle high flows. Washouts on this road have been a concern since the 1990s, requiring occasional repairs. When scoping for the Pemi Northwest Project began, there was a proposal to relocate the historically problematic portion of the road out of the floodplain and on to an adjacent bench. This original proposal involved keeping the road open for public motorized access in the summer and keeping it maintained to the same standard as it has been for the last several decades. In August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene washed out over 800 linear feet of Tunnel Brook Road, including the area that had been proposed for relocation. A channel up to six feet 41

30-Day Comment Report deep was carved into some sections of the road. Approximately 3.25 inches of rainfall were recorded in Benton, NH during the storm (NHSCO, 2011). While this is less rainfall than other parts of the National Forest, saturated conditions prior to the storm, shallow or hardpan soils, and steep drainages led to a noticeable effect on channels and infrastructure. Bank erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and shifts in channel location were observed along several sections of road. Some of these changes were due to natural causes such as rock slides, and streams would be expected to recover as they have from past events. The presence of Tunnel Brook Road resulted in increased impacts to channel function and water quality, particularly with the segment of road located in the floodplain. Turbidity in project area streams had returned to typical values by November 2011, but was slightly elevated in some streams during high flows in spring 2012 (data in Pemi Northwest project record). Due to bank sloughing and increased erosion from damaged roads, turbidity will likely be higher on average than it has in recent years until exposed surfaces stabilize. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

Cumulative effects on water quantity and stream stability were analyzed in relation to climate change. Increasing intensity and frequency of large precipitation events occurred in the United States from 1910 to 1995 (Karl and Knight, 1998). In the Northeastern U.S., climate models project a five to eight percent increase in annual precipitation and an eight percent increase in the number of heavy precipitation events by mid-century (Huntington et al., 2009; NECIA, 2006). Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Restoration of Floodplain Function and Wetland Habitat

Stream reaches that are currently unstable due to historic activity or Tropical Storm Irene would gradually shift to a more stable condition that may differ from the channel’s historic morphology. Localized erosion and sedimentation from unstable streambanks would continue. The lack of restoration on the washed out Tunnel Brook Road bed would leave channel function impaired for several years until woody debris, large material, and substrates allowing revegetation naturally enter the old road bed. Storm recovery work not related to this proposal may mitigate this, but is unlikely to eliminate all impacts. Risk of Future Flooding What is left of the roadbed in its current state would most certainly flood again, both due to the lack of restoration and the decision to not pull culverts or address existing drainage problems. This alternative poses the highest risk of future flooding. Cumulative Effects

The combination of climate change and undersized culverts in the Tunnel Brook watershed is more likely to have a detrimental cumulative effect on channel function near and downstream from Tunnel Brook Road. A cumulative effect of climate change

42

Pemi Northwest Project and taking no action to improve channel function or stream crossing size would be increased risk of sudden bank failure and 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. No known past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities would have a detrimental effect on wetland and floodplain function, so cumulative effects will be similar to direct and indirect effects from not restoring the Tunnel Brook Road bed. The cumulative effects of climate change, Tropical Storm Irene impacts, and not fully restoring the Tunnel Brook Road bed would increase the likelihood that there will be future flooding in the washed out section of road, adjacent sections and near undersized culverts. Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes relocating and/or reconstructing much of the 0.8 mile section of Tunnel Brook Road beyond the existing northern gate and FR 147. Approximately 2,000 feet of road would be moved onto a terrace above the floodplain, requiring construction of one bridge and several culverts. Remaining road segments would be on the existing alignment or shifted slightly further from the stream. Three undersized culverts and four deteriorating culverts would be replaced. See Chapter 2 for a complete description of this and other activities. Road reconstruction under this alternative could disturb 2 seeps and approximately 50 feet of intermittent stream, resulting in approximately 1800 square feet of impact. Approximately 300 linear feet of road would remain in the floodplain of Tunnel Brook. Permanent stream crossing structures would remain in place. Alternative 2 would retain the current number (6) of permanent stream crossing structures on perennial streams. Closure of roads after the timber sale under all other action alternatives would decrease this number to zero. Since stream crossings tend to increase opportunities for sediment deposition due to the proximity of road activities to streams, there would be a slight increase in sedimentation risk under Alternative 2. With implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for properly sized stream crossings, this increase would likely be minimal and would not pose a risk to water quality overall. Restoration of Floodplain Function and Wetland Habitat Alternative 2 would restore some floodplain function by relocating portions of Tunnel Brook Road, but would leave approximately 6000 square feet of unrestored road bed in the floodplain (see Table 3.2) and retain six permanent stream crossings on perennial streams. Function of tributary streams could be minimally affected by permanent stream crossings. Application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for stream crossing design should minimize this effect.

43

30-Day Comment Report Risk of Future Flooding The risk of future flooding would be much less than the risk level of the road in its current footprint. The shorter stretches of road that could not be moved out of the floodplain due to steep slopes would remain vulnerable. The risk and extent of damage in these stretches could be mitigated by improved road design. This level of risk is greater than Alternatives 3 or 5 due to the larger area of road in or near the floodplain. Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2-5

Cumulative effects are the same for all action alternatives. 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 and bridge repairs related to Tropical Storm Irene and the Oliverian watershed restoration project. A long-term reduction in sedimentation in the cumulative effects analysis area would be expected due to the intent of these and other watershed projects to decrease erosion and bank failure, which may be particularly beneficial in the Tunnel Brook watershed. No known past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities would have a detrimental effect on wetland and floodplain function, and floodplain restoration would occur in a different watershed. Therefore, cumulative effects will be similar to direct and indirect effects on wetland and floodplain function for each action alternative. The expected precipitation trends under climate change would increase the risk of future flood damage on Tunnel Brook Road. Cumulative effects on flood risk would be greater in magnitude, but follow the same order as, direct and indirect effects under each action alternative. All action alternatives would have less risk than Alternative 1. Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes deferral of any reconstruction on Tunnel Brook Road. Under this alternative, all culverts would be pulled, the road would be rehabilitated, a new trailhead would be built near the existing gate, and the road would be converted to a trail beyond this point. Approximately 450 square feet of intermittent stream and seeps could be affected by trail construction. Restoration of Floodplain Function and Wetland Habitat Because the roadbed would be fully rehabilitated, Alternative 3 would best restore floodplain function and wetland habitat. In areas where the roadbed was rehabilitated, the floodplain could be fully utilized during flood events and wetland habitat would likely establish in some areas where the roadbed previously altered channel function. Risk of Future Flooding Alternative 3 would have the lowest risk of future flooding since there would be no road to flood. Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2. 44

Pemi Northwest Project Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Restoration of Floodplain and Wetland Habitat Alternative 4 proposes reconstruction of Tunnel Brook road in the same location as Alternative 2, but to a standard for winter use only. The road would be closed after harvest, and all bridges and culverts would be temporary. Trailheads would be relocated as in Alternative 3. Areas of impact would be approximately the same as Alternative 2, but stream crossing structures would be removed after harvest. Effects would be the same as in Alternative 2, except the function of tributary streams might be slightly improved because all bridges and culverts would be temporary. Risk of Future Flooding The risk of flooding is nearly the same as Alternative 2. Because bridges and culverts would be temporary, there is no possibility of plugged culverts or damage to bridges, thereby reducing flood risk on tributary streams relative to Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2. Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 proposes construction of a “winter only” road up the east side of Tunnel Brook Road, connecting to FR 700A. This would require approximately 0.8 miles of new road construction and use of a temporary bridge crossing on Little Tunnel Brook. The bridge and all culverts would be removed after harvest. The 0.8 mile section of Tunnel Brook road between the gate and FR 147 would be decommissioned and rehabilitated, and trailheads would be relocated as in Alternative 3. This would have the same impacts associated with trail construction as Alternative 4, and may result in an additional 200 square feet of stream disturbance to create a suitable bridge crossing site on Little Tunnel Brook. Restoration of Floodplain and Wetland Habitat Alternative 5 removes most of Tunnel Brook Road from the floodplain area and thereby allows floodplain function and wetland habitat establishment similar to that in Alternative 3. There are no known significant wetlands on the route proposed for new road construction, therefore there should not be any loss of existing wetland habitat. Risk of Future Flooding As in Alternative 3, this alternative minimizes the risk of future flooding along the existing Tunnel Brook Road by restoring this section of road and allowing the floodplain to function. The new road would not be in the floodplain and would be “winter-only” and would have no permanent culverts or bridge crossings, thereby reducing the risk of future flooding.

45

30-Day Comment Report Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2. Comparison and Summary of Impacts

Table 3.2 compares these alternatives with regard to location and area of disturbance. Areal disturbance to water resources represents permanent disturbance to resources due to construction of new road or trail routes. Alternatives with higher disturbance to water resources would have greater direct impacts on water quantity and channel function by potentially changing the path of water flow in these areas. Under all action alternatives, the area of disturbance to water resources is much less than the disturbance from washouts in the current road bed (an estimated 16,000 square feet of direct stream channel disturbance during Tropical Storm Irene). Prior washouts affected channel function by decreasing bank stability and causing streams to run down road beds that lacked the large material needed to dissipate energy. Increasing the amount of road in the floodplain would increase detrimental effects on channel function, since the road bed would not dissipate energy as effectively as a natural floodplain. All action alternatives would have a much smaller portion of road in the floodplain than the condition prior to Tropical Storm Irene (same as Alternative 1, since the road bed would not be completely restored). The number of permanent crossings represents permanent effects to channel function in the area of the crossing. These effects should be minimally detrimental, since Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines specify that crossings must accommodate expected flood flows (p. 2-31). Table 3.2 Comparison of impacts related to Tunnel Brook Road (FR700)

Criteria Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Permanent disturbance to water resources, such as streams, 0 1800 450 1800 650 springs, seeps, wetlands (sq. ft) Area of unrestored road/trail bed in floodplain (sq.ft) 40000 6000 0 6000 1200

Number of permanent crossing structures on perennial streams 0 6 0 0 0

The area of direct disturbance to water resources is greatest in the existing condition, intermediate for Alternatives 2 and 4 (1800 square feet) and lowest for Alternatives 3 and 5 (650 square feet or less). As described in the Existing Condition section of this report, washouts on Tunnel Brook Road have led to ongoing sediment inputs to streams, which would be mitigated in all alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose road construction that may go through two small seeps and near streams, increasing the risk of sedimentation. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose trail construction in the same location, with the addition of bank disturbance for a large, new stream crossing in Alternative 5. These would pose a lesser sedimentation risk than Alternatives 2 and 4. With implementation of Best Management Practices, impacts under any alternative would most likely be temporary and limited in spatial extent. No alternative would be expected to have a measurable detrimental impact on water quality at the subwatershed scale, and all action alternatives would represent an improvement over the existing condition. 46

Pemi Northwest Project Alternative 3 would have the least amount of road in the floodplain, followed by Alternative 5, then Alternatives 2 and 4. The existing condition and Alternative 1 would have the most road in the floodplain, reflecting the original location of Tunnel Brook Road. Reducing the amount of road in the floodplain would represent a positive effect on water quality, since the regrowth of vegetation would prevent further washouts (sediment sources) and enhance the ability for sediment and associated nutrients to be deposited in these areas. Issue 2: 2005 Forest Plan Inventoried Areas

Concern that proposed timber harvest and connected activities would adversely impact the roadless character of one of the areas inventoried in the Forest Plan as having roadless characteristics (Jobildunk) and jeopardize future consideration of this area for Wilderness designation. This issue was developed due to known public concern regarding timber harvest proposals in areas identified as containing roadless characteristics during the 2005 Forest Plan revision process. Some groups have consistently expressed concern that any timber harvest in these areas jeopardizes future consideration for Wilderness designation. Alternative 4 was developed to address this issue. Measurement Indicators: 3. Does the alternative cross the threshold for exceeding any roadless/wilderness characteristics/criteria? If so, which one(s) and by how much? 4. Do any activities proposed in the alternative jeopardize future consideration of this area for Wilderness designation?

Table 3.3—Issue 2: Measurement Indicators by Alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Measurement Indicator Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 No Action Proposed Action 2-1: Does alternative exceed any threshold for No No No No No roadless/wilderness characteristics/criteria? 2-2: Do any proposed activities jeopardize future No No No No No consideration for Wilderness designation? Summary of Effects

None of the alternatives in the Pemi Northwest Project exceed any thresholds identified in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70 for roadless character or wilderness capability criteria. None of the alternatives propose any activities within any areas that were part of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) inventory. Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 include timber harvest, road maintenance and other activities within the Jobildunk Forest Plan (FP) inventory area, but effects from these activities will be temporary and small. Alternative 4 proposes no activities within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. All action alternatives propose activities outside of the FP inventory area that will temporarily be heard, and possibly seen, from within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. No activities proposed in any alternative would preclude this area from future Wilderness designation. 47

30-Day Comment Report Affected Environment

Identifying and evaluating areas with roadless characteristics is a planning process, not a formal management area designation effort. In essence, it is a tool designed to determine which National Forest lands meet the baseline criteria of size and condition to be considered for possible wilderness study or recommendation. A document providing an explanation and brief history of roadless area inventories, including discussion of the connection between two recent inventories on the White Mountain National Forest and the Forest Plan, is in the project record. Information from that document is not repeated here. This discussion focuses on areas in or near the project area that were identified in the 2005 Forest Plan revision roadless area inventory (USDA—Forest Service, 2005b, Appendix C). Within the 16,577 acre Jobildunk 2005 FP inventory area are 3,660 acres that were included in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (referred to in this document as RACR Inventory). The Pemi Northwest project does not propose any activities within the RACR Inventory. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not apply to the portion of the Jobildunk FP inventory area outside of the Jobildunk RACR Inventory area. In the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005c, p. 25-26), no lands contained within the Jobildunk FP inventory area were recommended for wilderness designation. The Jobildunk FP inventory area is located near the western edge of the White Mountain National Forest on the Pemigewasset Ranger District, in the towns of Benton, Woodstock, Warren, and Easton, New Hampshire. The FP inventory area boundary is adjacent to State Route 112 to the north and approximately parallels Route 118 to the southeast. The western boundary of the FP inventory area parallels the North/South Road (FR 19) and non-federal lands to the southwest. The FP inventory area nearly encircles a private parcel owned by Dartmouth College and managed by the Dartmouth Outing Club. The Carr Mountain and Gordon Pond FP inventory areas are adjacent to the Jobildunk FP inventory area, but outside the scope of the Pemi Northwest Project and analysis area. The Gordon Pond FP inventory area is within two miles of the nearest proposed management activity but separated from the project area by Route 112. The Carr Mountain FP inventory area is greater than two miles from the nearest proposed management action and separated from the project area by Route 118 and the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Because the Carr Mountain and Gordon Pond areas are outside the project area and separated from the project area by geographic features and/or substantial distance, direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Pemi Northwest Project relative to roadless and Wilderness capability criteria will focus on the Jobildunk FP inventory area. The Pemi Northwest Project does not set a national precedent by harvesting timber within a FP inventory area, nor does it set a local or regional precedent. Previous projects have harvested timber on the White Mountain National Forest in areas that were part of the FP revision inventory. These include the West Branch timber sales in the 48

Pemi Northwest Project Kilkenny FP inventory area, the Connor Brook sale in the Wild River FP inventory area, the Popple sale in the Presidential-Dry River FP inventory area, and the Fool Killer and Kanc 7 East Sales in the Sandwich FP inventory area. Furthermore, implementing the activities proposed — including harvesting timber — does not constitute a commitment to take similar actions in any other White Mountain National Forest FP inventory area or in any other FP inventory area in the country. This proposal was developed by local resource specialists after analysis of field information concerning the need for management in this habitat management unit (HMU) and consideration of the Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired future condition for the Pemi Northwest Project Area. As noted in other specialist reports, the Pemi Northwest proposal is anchored in site-specific work: field analysis, determination of resource conditions, observation of effects, and results of past actions on adjacent lands. This proposal does not make similar actions in other FP inventory areas on the Forest or elsewhere more or less likely. No other project action is dependent upon implementation of this proposal. The Pemi Northwest Project is a stand-alone proposal tailored to address site-specific resource needs. Recreational Setting Recreation in the Jobildunk FP inventory area consists primarily of hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, hunting, walking, snowmobiling and skiing. The area contains 11.2 miles of hiking trail and 3.9 miles of snowmobile trail. Recreational use of the Jobildunk FP inventory area is dominated by the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) corridor which runs southwest to northeast through the southern portion of the area. The AT receives heavy backpacking use, particularly at the Beaver Brook Shelter. Many hikers begin their trek on the adjacent Dartmouth College property. The Moosilauke Carriage Road is a system snowmobile trail that is coincident with one of the southeast boundaries of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. A short section of the Elbow Pond Snowmobile Trail is within the FP inventory area. There is a popular rock and ice climbing site southwest of NH Route 112, as well as recreational gold panning in Tunnel Brook in the western portion of the FP inventory area. Mountain biking and snowmobiling occur along the Tunnel Brook Trail. Based on Forest Service Handbook (FSH) guidance at the time, improved roads were identified during Forest Plan revision to evaluate the road densities as part of the inventory. Improved roads included those on the Forest Service system and others that had a prism, drainage features, surfacing on much of their length, and no trees more than three inches in diameter. Since that time, road terminology has changed. Project- level travel analysis documents refer to National Forest System (NFS) or forest system roads and unauthorized roads. The improved road dataset includes some roads in each of these categories. Measurements of change in miles of road or road density are based on miles of improved road as they were identified during the inventory. Changes in classification to roads that are in the improved road dataset do not affect road miles or road densities in FP inventory areas for this analysis. There are currently 3.9 miles of improved roads in the Jobildunk FP inventory area for a road density of 0.24 miles per 1000 acres.

49

30-Day Comment Report The management history of the Jobildunk FP inventory area is similar to other eastern inventoried roadless areas, which to the discerning eye often reveal evidence of past management activity and land use. The Jobildunk FP inventory area has historically been managed for multiple-use objectives. Timber management activities have occurred in the past within the Jobildunk FP inventory area, however, no harvest has occurred in this area in the last 10 years. Of the total 3,661 acres of vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action, approximately 1,011 acres are within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. The FP inventory area acreage within the Pemi Northwest Project Area is distributed to the following MAs: Total acres of Jobildunk FP inventory area within Pemi Northwest Project Area: 3200* MA 2.1: General Forest Management 3170 acres MA 6.1: Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation 30 acres *Approximate rounded acreage

Jobildunk Forest Plan inventory area (includes RACR area) Past Harvest: 1983-2012 Areas that were logged in the past are regenerating, and most recreational users would perceive the area as natural in appearance. Past management, including timber harvest, has occurred on areas in the White Mountain National Forest currently identified as containing roadless character and in some instances these areas have been recommended for Wilderness designation.

Table 3.4: Historic Timber Harvest Activity in the Jobildunk Forest Plan inventory area

Jobildunk FP Inventory Area 1983-1992 1993-2002 2002-present Acres Acres Acres Even Age--Regeneration 538 55 0 Even Age--Intermediate 133 306 0 Uneven Age 35 201 0 Total Acres Harvested 706 562 0 A complete description of the Jobildunk FP inventory area is available in Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-Forest Service 2005d, pages C-173 to C-182). Background for Analysis

Our analysis of effects on FP inventory areas for the Pemi Northwest Project is based on the inventory criteria and the wilderness capability criteria from FSH 1909.12 chapter 70, the same criteria used in Forest Plan revision. We first considered whether the proposed activities would alter the degree to which lands included in an FP inventory area would meet the inventory criteria from the FSH (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section 71) during and following project implementation. Table 3.5 describes the Inventory Criteria and the method used to measure project-level effects on each criterion.

50

Pemi Northwest Project Table 3.5: Roadless Inventory Criteria and Measurement Methods

Criteria Description Method for Measuring Project-level Effects on the Criteria

1 The land is regaining a natural, untrammeled appearance. Measured by acres of harvest and miles of new road construction.

2 Improvements in the area are being affected by the forces of Measured by miles of new road or trail construction. nature rather than humans and are disappearing or muted.

3 The area has existing or attainable National Forest System Measured by total acres of national forest ownership patterns, both surface and subsurface, that could ownership. ensure perpetuation of identified wilderness values.

4 The location of the area is conducive to the perpetuation of Measured by total acres of harvest and total miles wilderness values. Consider the relationship to the area to of new road construction. sources of noise, air, and water pollution, as well as unsightly conditions that would have an effect on the wilderness experience.

5 The area contains no more than ½ mile of improved road for Measured by total miles of existing improved road each 1,000 acres, and the road is under Forest Service and total miles of proposed new road construction. jurisdiction.

6 No more than 15 percent of the area is in non-native, planted Measured by total acres of non-native planted vegetation. vegetation.

7 Twenty percent or less of the area has been harvested within Measured by total acres of harvest. the past ten years.

8 The area contains only a few dwellings on private lands and the Measured by total number of private dwellings. location of these dwellings and their access needs insulate their effects on natural conditions of Federal lands.

After taking a hard look at whether lands in the FP inventory area would continue to meet Roadless Inventory Criteria during and after project implementation, we evaluated the degree to which possible Wilderness characteristics of lands within the FP inventory area would be affected by the proposed project. 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 3.6).

Table 3.6: Wilderness Evaluation Criteria (Capability) and Measurement Method

Criteria Method for Measuring Project-level Effects on the Criteria

1 Natural Integrity A measure of whether the long-term ecological processes of the area are intact and operating. Addressed by describing the effects a project may have on natural processes in the area.

Natural Appearance A measure of the degree of environmental modification that will occur because of a project. Addressed by describing the extent of modification that will occur in the area (e.g. length of roads built, facilities constructed) and how apparent the impact will be to the visitors of the area in both the short-term and the long-term.

51

30-Day Comment Report Criteria Method for Measuring Project-level Effects on the Criteria

2 Opportunities for Measured by the opportunity to be isolated from the sights, sounds, and evidence of Experiences Often Unique humans, and experience a high degree of challenge and risk while using primitive to Wilderness: outdoor skills. Addressed by describing how project activities might affect the size of • Solitude the area, the number and type of primitive recreation opportunities available, the • Challenge opportunity to experience natural quiet, and the addition or absence of facilities. • Primitive Recreation

3 Special Features Addressed by describing the effect proposed activities would have on other values of ecological, geologic, scenic or historical or cultural significance.

4 Description/Boundary A measure of the ability to manage an area as Wilderness, the resulting configuration Conditions/Manageability of the potential Wilderness, and the interaction of the other elements above. as Wilderness Addressed by discussing how proposed activities may affect the boundary location, size, shape, and access to the area.

Evaluating the effects of the project considering these criteria allows us 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 roadless areas for Wilderness availability and need is inherently a part of land allocation planning (such as during Forest Plan revisions). Consequently, those criteria are not useful or practical in judging the effect of project-level actions on lands within a roadless area and are thus not part of this analysis. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on inventory criteria and potential wilderness characteristics is the entire 16,577 acre Jobildunk FP inventory area. This analysis area was chosen because it is consistent with the criteria used in the Forest Plan FEIS analysis for inventoried roadless areas and their potential to be studied for Wilderness designation. This analysis area was confined to the Jobildunk FP inventory area because of its proximity to the project area and because the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are localized. Other FP inventory areas, such as Gordon Pond and Carr Mountain, would not incur effects from this project because these areas are separated from the project area by considerable features and distance, including the Ammonoosuc River, Hwy 112 and Hwy 118. The time frame is 10 years in the past and 10 years in the future (2002-2022) based on the potential effects including scenery modifications shown to be apparent for up to 10 years, after which they quickly revert to a natural-appearing forest cover (USDA, 2005d; p. 3-447). However, nearly all of the effects are expected to last only for the duration of the sale (generally 2–5 years, depending on the alternative selected and how quickly the project is implemented). This analysis timeframe was selected because once implementation is completed, the majority of the effects cease. Visual effects are an exception and may persist for up to ten years.

52

Pemi Northwest Project Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 proposes “No Action” in the Pemi Northwest project area or the Jobildunk FP inventory area, and thus would have no direct or indirect effects on the area. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet IRA inventory criteria: Inventory criterion 1: The Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to regain a natural, untrammeled appearance. The area would continue to appear primarily affected by the forces of nature. The recreation improvements, the trail system, and associated trail improvements would remain and would be managed in accordance with their appropriate maintenance levels. Inventory criterion 2: No road construction, reconstruction, or landing construction is proposed in the No Action alternative. Ongoing maintenance of road, trail and recreation facilities would continue according to Forest Service standards appropriate to the management area(s) in which improvements lie. Inventory criteria 3, 6 and 8: Ownership patterns would not change, no non-native planting would occur, and no dwellings or access would be constructed. Inventory criterion 4: There would be no change in the relationship of the Jobildunk FP inventory area to sources of noise, air or water pollution, or other existing effects on wilderness experience. Baseline off-Forest noise and visual intrusions, including highways, motorized recreation, low-level over-head flights, and private timber operations would persist. Inventory criterion 5: There would be no increase or decrease in miles of improved road. The Jobildunk FP inventory area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres. Inventory criterion 7: There would be no harvest within the FP inventory area. No acres have been harvested in the last ten years. If Alternative 1 were selected, the lands identified as the Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future inventory of Roadless Areas. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet Wilderness Capability Criteria: Capability criterion 1: This alternative would allow the Jobildunk FP inventory area to retain the current degree of natural integrity and natural appearance. There would be no management induced changes or improvements to the natural integrity within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Capability criterion 2: This alternative would have no effect on the existing opportunities for challenge and solitude within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. There would be no changes to the availability of primitive recreation or the opportunity to experience natural quiet. Capability criteria 3 and 4: Alternative 1 would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as Wilderness as described in 53

30-Day Comment Report Appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-Forest Service, 2005d, pp. C-146 to C-158). Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary of any inventoried roadless areas or Forest Plan inventory areas or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 1 would not preclude any future land use options, including the possibility of recommending some or all of the Jobildunk FP inventory area for potential future wilderness designation. Cumulative Effects

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project on the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Alternatives 2 and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2 and 5 would have temporary short-term direct and indirect effects on the Jobildunk FP inventory area. The activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 5 do not approach an intensity, duration, or permanence such that the lands within FP inventory areas would no longer meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory as a result of project implementation. No timber harvest has occurred in the analysis area over the last ten years (Table 3.4). The long-term roadless characteristics are not expected to change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in these alternatives. The acres of harvest proposed in each of the action alternatives would not affect the size of the Jobildunk FP inventory area or its ability to meet roadless area criteria. Based on the amount of harvest, including even-aged regeneration harvest, within the FP inventory area, Alternatives 2 and 5 would have a greater amount of disturbance to the Jobildunk FP inventory area than Alternatives 3 or 4. Associated management activities including skid trails, landing use, prescribed fire, and road maintenance 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 IRA inventory criteria: Inventory criterion 1: Timber harvest activities would affect the natural appearance of approximately 1,011 acres or a little over 6% of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. These effects would be temporary and should not be noticeable to the casual observer within a decade. Effects include the appearance of skid trails, stumps, and openings in the foreground as well as modifications to forest composition including texture, pattern, and color when viewed from a distance. Within the FP inventory area, seven existing landing locations would be utilized and two new landing locations are proposed. It is anticipated that harvest operations would require approximately 37 miles of temporary skid trails in the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Hazard tree removal and aspen/alder release work would also have a temporary visual effect on a small portion of the inventory area. Prescribed fire would be considered for 73 acres, effects of which may include charred vegetation and tree trunks, modifications in understory vegetation 54

Pemi Northwest Project texture and pattern, and temporary fire lines. Effects to appearance associated with these activities would be limited in duration, diminishing quickly as trees, shrubs, and grasses regenerate following management activities. Effects to soils and water quality within the Jobildunk FP inventory area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources specialist reports. Based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests, effects to natural appearance are not anticipated to persist. As evidenced by historical vegetation management maps of recently designated Wilderness and increases in acreage included in the 2005 roadless area inventory on the WMNF, changes in land appearance from timber harvest do not prevent an area from meeting these inventory criteria. Inventory criterion 2: No new road or trail construction is proposed within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Existing roads in the area would be maintained, two new log landings would be constructed within the inventory area, and 7 existing log landings would be utilized. These activities would have temporary effects on the natural character of the area, but would diminish as grasses and other vegetation regenerates after the completion of the project. Roads would be maintained according to Forest Service standards. Trails that are present within the FP inventory area would be maintained according to Forest Service standards consistent with their management areas. 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 during project implementation. Equipment associated with timber harvest may be heard up to two miles from where logging activities occur. Noise estimates are based on data and analysis gathered by a recent forestry noise study that measured the decibel levels of various harvesting machinery, and professional experience specific to field observations in New England (Neitzel & Yost, 2007). The distance is generally based on the assumptions of average decibels produced by machinery and measured over distance from the specific source. The sound to distance estimate does not take into account the buffering effects of vegetation, wind, or topography which will further reduce the distance at which activities can be heard (MPCA, 2008). Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, it is possible that noise could be audible from harvest activity or road construction related activities on up to 90% or 14,919 acres of the Jobildunk FP inventory area during some phase of project implementation. Due to local topography and vegetation cover, most noise effects would be more localized than the two mile maximum. These impacts would be temporary, occurring only occasionally during times of actual operations for the duration of the project (2–5 years). The percent of the area affected at any one time would vary depending on specific location of activities. A complete discussion of effects from transient air quality and prescribed fire can be found in the Air Resources specialist report. It indicates that a short-term increase in air pollutants can be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, harvesting equipment, 55

30-Day Comment Report and prescribed fire activities. These are temporary sources of emissions and particulate matter; they would occur in the context of larger sources such as vehicle use along State Highways 112 and 118, smoke from campfires at backcountry campsites and campgrounds, and snowmobile use in and adjacent to the Jobildunk FP inventory area. In this context, the relatively small-scale increases associated with the project would be of an intensity or duration such that lands within FP Inventory area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, State of NH 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. Consequently, lands within the Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to meet criteria for inclusion in future inventories. See the Water Resources report for more information. When the proposed management actions are complete, the only noise, air pollution and other impacts on a “wilderness experience” would be those that currently exist, such as from Highways 112 and 118, popular developed recreation sites and campgrounds, and existing multi-use trails. Inventory criterion 5: The Jobildunk FP inventory area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose no new road construction within the Jobildunk FP inventory area, only the reconstruction and maintenance of existing inventoried roads. Within the inventory area, seven existing landing locations would be utilized and two new landing locations are proposed. Harvest operations would require approximately 37 miles of skid trails. Effects to soils and water quality within the project area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources analysis sections. Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 1,011 acres of harvest within the FP inventory area, including 179 acres of regeneration harvest. This equates to 6% of the Jobildunk FP inventory area, well below the Forest Service roadless inventory criterion of harvesting no more than 20% of an area within 10 years. There have been no harvest activities within the Jobildunk FP inventory area within the last decade (see Table 3.4). Under Alternatives 2 and 5, the Jobildunk FP inventory 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 limited in extent (based on proximity to operations), temporary in nature (approximately 2–5 years depending on harvest operations) and would primarily occur during the lower-use times of the year. They must also be viewed in the context of other ongoing sources of noise and air pollution such as Highway118 and Highway 112 and associated improvements, popular developed recreation sites and campgrounds, as well as existing multiple use trails enjoyed by visitors. Capability criterion 1: As described above, Alternatives 2 and 5 would temporarily add to the degree of disturbance in the analysis area. Activities including road reconstruction, reconstruction of 7 landings, construction of 2 landings and vegetation 56

Pemi Northwest Project treatments, including 179 acres of even-aged regeneration harvest, would affect the short term natural appearance of the FP inventory area. Prescribed fire could be prescribed on up to 73 acres within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Prescribed fire is not an “uncontained force of nature.” Fire however, is a natural force in nature and this burn could assist in balancing a history of fire suppression on National Forest Land. These activities would not affect the area’s capability for wilderness consideration. Effects would be noticeable for a decade, becoming muted as regeneration of vegetation occurs. Visual effects of harvest would be further muted through the use of design features. The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Due to the relatively small amount of harvest activity (1,011 acres or approximately 6% of the FP inventoried area), the absence of new road construction, and the natural recuperative qualities of the land, implementation of Alternatives 2 or 5 would not affect the natural appearance or integrity of the Jobildunk FP inventory area nor would it preclude its consideration for any future land use, including possible Wilderness recommendation. Capability criterion 2: The Wilderness experience, including opportunities for solitude, available in the Jobildunk FP inventory area would be temporarily impacted by harvesting operations, road reconstruction/maintenance, watershed improvement, and prescribed fire due to the presence of motorized equipment, noise, smoke and transient air pollution. However, the availability of solitude and challenge of recreation opportunities in the area would remain largely unchanged if either Alternative 2 or 5 were selected. Noise associated with timber harvest on 1,011 acres within the Jobildunk FP inventory area would occur during summer, fall, and winter. As discussed in Inventory criterion 4, localized noise associated with harvest would be audible within approximately 1–2 miles of stands proposed for harvest in and adjacent to the FP inventory area (Neitzel and Yost, 2007; MPCA, 2008). 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 Highway 112, Tunnel Brook and Long Pond Roads, low level flights, snowmobile trails, and popular recreation sites. Smoke and odor associated with prescribed fire would occur during spring and fall for short periods of time. Effects would only occur during and shortly after prescribed fire activities. Localized odor and smell from charred wood may be detectable for up to one month following the activity depending on local weather conditions. The effects of this activity must also be considered in the context of other contributing factors, including smoke from backcountry campfires, campgrounds, and other local sources. In Alternative 5, Tunnel Brook Road would be relocated to the east side of Tunnel Brook. The relocated road would be closer to the inventory area than is the current, washed-out road. Because it is closer, the sights and sounds associated with construction of the new road would be slightly more than in Alternative 2. The relocated road in Alternative 5 would, however, be a winter-only, administrative road not open to public motorized use. This would result in a lower long-term effect.

57

30-Day Comment Report The Recreation Section discusses the potential effects to recreation associated with each alternative. Alternatives 2 and 5 do not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Three hiking trails in the FP inventory area are within two miles of harvest units. Opportunities for challenge and primitive recreation would not change due to harvest activities. Capability criteria 3 and 4: The Jobildunk FP inventory area includes Mt. Moosilauke, a prominent peak with spectacular views. The summit of this peak is owned by Dartmouth College. The higher elevations and viewpoints on Mt. Moosilauke are outside of the project area. Scenic effects from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke are evaluated in the Visual Effects Analysis. Proposed activities would not affect any special features in the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Selection of either of these alternatives would not alter the boundary of any inventoried roadless area or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain essentially the same as prior to project implementation. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have limited and temporary effects on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area, and no effect on its future 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

Cumulative effects for all action alternatives are similar and are described below. Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet IRA inventory criteria: Harvest within the Jobildunk FP inventory area would occur in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. No harvest would occur in the FP inventory area in Alternative 4. Although the amount of harvest varies between the alternatives, cumulative effects across the four action alternatives are similar. Because there are no past or future harvests, prescribed fire, road construction, or similar activities in the analysis area, the only inventory criterion for which there might be cumulative effects is criterion 4. As stated in the direct and indirect effects section, it may be possible to hear some noise associated with harvest activities 1–2 miles from the origin of the noise. There would be minor air pollution associated with prescribed fire and vehicle and machinery exhaust. However, this project does not establish a permanent, irretrievable source of mechanized noise or air pollution within or in proximity to the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Cumulative effects from any action alternative and ongoing use of NH Route 112, Route 118, Tunnel Brook Road and the North-South Road by cars and trucks, snowmobiles, and smoke from campfires and residential homes would be minimal. Management related effects would be limited in duration to the length of project activities, returning to baseline noise and air pollution levels at the conclusion of operations. Consequently, cumulative effects from implementation of any action alternative would not be great enough to affect the area’s ability to meet inventory criterion 4. When examined in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, lands within the Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to meet all of the criteria for 58

Pemi Northwest Project inclusion in a future roadless inventory under any action alternative. Cumulative effects on the Jobildunk roadless characteristics would not alter the ability of the area to continue to meet Forest Service roadless criteria. The Pemi Northwest Project is not expected to have any lasting or substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the Jobildunk FP inventory area or its potential to be recommended for Wilderness during the next Forest Plan Revision process. Cumulative effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria: Capability Criterion 1: Minor trail maintenance and past mowing of two small wildlife openings (landings) are the only additional actions contributing to cumulative effects. These activities involve a very small amount of effect on the natural processes or modification to the Jobildunk FP inventory area, therefore any cumulative effects would be extremely small under all action alternatives. Capability Criterion 2: It is unlikely that a visitor to the Jobildunk FP inventory area would experience a lower level of solitude, challenge or primitive recreation due to the cumulative effects of minor trail maintenance in conjunction with any activities proposed in Alternatives 2-5. Cumulative effects on noise are described above in inventory criterion 4. Effects from proposed activities would be temporary and would not cumulatively cause substantial impact to capability criterion 2, nor would they preclude any future land use options, including possible wilderness recommendation, for lands within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Capability Criterion 3 and 4: Because Alternatives 2-5 would have no direct or indirect effects on capability criteria 3 and 4, there would be no cumulative effects associated with these criteria. Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes 249 fewer acres of timber harvest within the Forest Plan inventory area than Alternatives 2 and 5. It would therefore have fewer temporary effects on the area’s natural appearance. Additionally, the reconstruction of FR 700 would be deferred under Alternative 3, which would decrease the accessibility of the Jobildunk FP inventory area to the recreating public. This would potentially decrease associated social and physical impacts to the wild character of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Implementation of Alternative 3 would not affect the area’s ability to meet criteria for inclusion in a future roadless area inventory. The long-term characteristics of this area would not change as a result of the vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 3. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet IRA inventory criteria: Inventory Criterion 1: Timber harvest activities would temporarily affect the natural appearance of approximately 762 acres or a little over 4.5% of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Effects in the eastern portion of the inventory area would be the same as described for Alternative 2. Effects in the western portion would be reduced because of 59

30-Day Comment Report the lack of activity on and near Tunnel Brook Road. All this considered, effects to natural appearance related to timber harvest are not anticipated to persist beyond ten years. This assumption is based on the highly recuperative nature of eastern forests and evidenced by historical vegetation management maps of recently-designated Wilderness and increases in acreage in the 2005 inventory on the White Mountain National Forest; changes in land appearance from timber harvest do not prevent an area from meeting these inventory criteria. Inventory criterion 2: No new road or trail construction is proposed within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Existing roads in the area would be maintained, two new log landings would be constructed within the inventory area, and 7 existing log landings would be utilized. These activities would have temporary effects on the natural character of the area, but would diminish as grasses and other vegetation regenerates after the completion of the project. Roads would be maintained according to Forest Service standards. Trails that are present within the FP inventory area would be maintained according to Forest Service standards consistent with their management areas. Inventory criteria 3, 6, and 8: None of the action alternatives would change ownership patterns, plant non-native vegetation, or construct dwellings or access. Inventory criterion 4: As in Alternatives 2 and 5, some short-term increase in noise would occur within 1 to 2 miles of timber harvest and road maintenance during implementation. In Alternative 3, noise and social impacts would be less than in Alternatives 2 or 5 in the vicinity of FR 700 because the road would not be reconstructed and timber harvest would not occur in stands accessed by this road. Noise from activities associated with rehabilitating FR 700 would be temporary. Noise associated with vehicular traffic in the Tunnel Brook valley would be similar to the current condition (because the road is washed out), but less than under any alternative that involves reconstruction of the road. Inventory criterion 5: The Jobildunk FP inventory area currently contains 0.24 miles of improved roads per 1,000 acres, well below the ½ mile per 1,000 acre criterion. Alternative 3 proposes no new road construction, only the maintenance of existing roads in the Forest Plan inventory. Within the inventory area, seven existing landing locations would be utilized and two new landing locations are proposed. Harvest operations would require approximately 37 miles of skid trails. Effects to soils and water quality within the Jobildunk FP inventory area are disclosed in the Soils and Water Resources sections. Inventory criterion 7: This alternative proposes 762 acres of harvest within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. This is well below the Forest Service roadless inventory criterion of no more than 20% of the area (3,315 acres or 20% of 16,577) being harvested within ten years. There has been no harvest activity within the Jobildunk FP inventory area within the last decade (see Table 3.4). Under Alternative 3, the Jobildunk FP inventory 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 60

Pemi Northwest Project Criteria: Capability criterion 1: Alternative 3 would temporarily add to the degree of disturbance in the analysis area. Timber harvest (including 146 acres of even-aged regeneration) and associated activities including road maintenance, reconstruction of 7 existing landings, and construction of 2 landings under Alternative 3 would affect the short term natural appearance of the FP inventory area. Forty-two acres within the inventory area are considered for prescribed fire. Effects from these activities would be similar to those in Alternatives 2 and 5, though effects from fire in Alternative 3 would be slightly less because fewer acres could be burned. The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within the Jobildunk FP inventory area, as discussed in specific resource analyses. Due to the relatively small amount of harvest activity (762 acres or approximately 4.5% of the FP inventoried area), the absence of new road construction, and the natural recuperative qualities of the land, implementation of Alternative 3 would not affect the natural appearance or integrity of the Jobildunk FP inventory area nor would it preclude its consideration for any future land use, including possible Wilderness recommendation. Capability criterion 2: The Wilderness experience, including opportunities for solitude, available in the Jobildunk FP inventory area would be temporarily impacted by harvesting operations, road maintenance, prescribed fire and other activities due to the presence of motorized equipment, noise, smoke and transient air pollution. Because this alternative defers reconstruction of FR700, noise from road reconstruction would be of a similar nature but slightly lower than in Alternatives 2 and 5, particularly on the west side of the inventory area, and effects on solitude and the Wilderness experience would be slightly less than in those two alternatives. Alternative 3 does not propose any changes to the existing recreation infrastructure within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. By deferring reconstruction of FR 700, access to the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trailheads would be more challenging, thereby slightly increasing opportunities for solitude and challenge in the Tunnel Brook valley. Capability criteria 3 and 4: Effects on these criteria are the same as in Alternatives 2 and 5. Alternative 3 would have limited effect on the roadless characteristics of the analysis area, and no effect on its eligibility as a roadless area. None of the proposed actions would result in an irreversible or irretrievable change in the condition of the land or its capability as potential Wilderness. Cumulative Effects

See Alternatives 2-5 above.

61

30-Day Comment Report Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 is largely the same as Alternative 1 with respect to the Jobildunk FP inventory area. In Alternative 4, no activities are proposed in the Jobildunk FP inventory area, and only effects from activities outside the area (such as noise) would temporarily affect the area. Alternative 4 is second only to Alternative 1 (No Action) in having the fewest temporary effects on the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Alternative 4 addresses concerns expressed during development of past projects in the project area that timber harvest activities would impact roadless values of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Concerns included the possibility that these activities would preclude the consideration of these areas for Wilderness designation in the future. Alternative 4 was designed to minimize impacts from wildlife habitat and vegetation management and connected transportation system management activities on the roadless characteristics of the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Alternative 4 would not implement any activities beyond ongoing maintenance within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. All other activities proposed outside of the FP inventory area are the same as described in Alternative 2. No timber harvest and road construction has occurred in the analysis area over the last ten years. The long-term roadless characteristics are not expected to change, or be appreciably enhanced as a result of deferring vegetation management or other proposed actions in Alternative 4. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet IRA inventory criteria: Inventory criterion 1: The Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to regain an untrammeled, natural appearance. The area would continue to appear primarily affected by the forces of nature. The recreation improvements, trail system, and associated trail improvements would remain and would be managed in accordance with their appropriate maintenance levels. Inventory criterion 2: Alternative 4 proposes no new road or trail construction or other activities within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Roads would be maintained according to Forest Service standards. Trails that are present within the FP inventory area would be maintained according to Forest Service standards consistent with their management areas. 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 some short-term increase in noise within the Jobildunk FP inventory area from activities outside but near the area, including timber harvest and road traffic. The baseline off-Forest noise and visual intrusions, including highways, motorized recreation, low-level over-head flights, and private timber operations would persist. Because there would be no additional noise from any activities within the area, the intensity and duration of any noise heard from within the 62

Pemi Northwest Project area would be less than in the other action alternatives. Inventory criterion 5: There would be no change in miles of improved road within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. Inventory criterion 7: Under Alternative 4, there would be no harvest within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. None of the area has been harvested within the last ten years. If Alternative 4 were selected, the lands identified as the Jobildunk FP inventory area would continue to meet the criteria for inclusion in a future inventory of roadless areas. Direct/Indirect effects on the degree to which lands would meet wilderness capability criteria: Capability criterion 1: The Jobildunk FP inventory area would retain its current degree of natural integrity and natural appearance. There would be no management induced changes or improvements to the ecological function within the Jobildunk area. Capability criterion 2: There would be some localized temporary effects from sounds of timber harvest and other activities outside of the Jobildunk FP inventory area (see inventory criterion 4). There would be no short term changes to the opportunities for challenge or primitive recreation. Capability criteria 3 and 4: Alternative 4 would not result in modification of the area’s special features or the ability to manage the area as wilderness. Selection of this alternative would not alter the boundary of the FP inventory area or change access to the area. Management and boundary considerations would remain the same as prior to project implementation. Alternative 4 would not preclude any future land use options, including the possibility of recommending some or all of the Jobildunk FP inventory area for potential future Wilderness designation. Cumulative Effects

See Alternatives 2-5 above. Conclusion

None of the action alternatives considered in detail in this analysis would change the ability of the Jobildunk FP inventory area to meet roadless inventory or Wilderness capability criteria. Roadless area values and vegetation management activities have co- existed in this area previously, as evidenced by the area’s historic use and its inclusion in the most recent roadless inventory. Alternatives 2-5 would have some temporary, limited direct, indirect and cumulative effects on some inventory criteria, but would not affect the Jobildunk FP inventory area’s ability to meet Forest Service roadless inventory criteria. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 and to a lesser degree Alternative 4, would have some temporary effects on Wilderness criteria 1 and 2 within the Jobildunk FP inventory area. 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. 63

30-Day Comment Report Air

Activities associated with the proposed Pemi Northwest Project will be conducted in a manner that meets 1) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (State of New Hampshire) and 2) applicable provisions in the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (Forest Plan, 1-4). National and state policies applicable to air quality under this analysis are the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland Fire and Prescribed Fire, and the New Hampshire Regional Haze State Implementation Plan of March 2011. Summary of Effects

Activities associated with this project that could temporarily affect air quality include the release of particulates from prescribed fire and dust and the release of pollutants from vehicle exhaust. Under Alternative 1, no direct increase of particulates or pollutants related to the project would occur. Hazardous fuel loads would continue to increase, and could support wildfires that produce amounts of particulates in excess of what would occur in the action alternatives. Each of the action alternatives would temporarily increase amounts of particulates and pollutants (with Alternatives 2 and 5 releasing the most and Alternative 4 the least) but none would cause nonattainment of Federal or state regulations or substantially degrade visibility in Class I Areas. Fuels that could support a wildfire would be reduced through timber harvesting and prescribed fire to varying degrees in each action alternative. Affected Environment

The proposed Pemi Northwest Project would use prescribed fire on up to 426 acres of oak-pine and aspen-birch habitat to improve growing conditions for these species and reduce the fuel loads that may contribute to fire growth in the stands. It is expected that some areas would need repeated burns (up to three burns over fifteen years) in order to achieve objectives. Fire return intervals (the average years between fires necessary to maintain a specific habitat type) for these stands range from 50 to 200 years. The last large fire in the project area (on Black Mountain) probably occurred in the mid-1800s. Since the early 1900s, small fires have ignited in the project area on an infrequent basis and have been suppressed. The last fire occurrence was in 2011 near Long Pond. Regional winds move from west to east, and local winds are dominated by mountain and valley dynamics interacting with large-scale atmospheric movements. During the spring and fall prescribed burn seasons the area often experiences dry, windy days with good airflow and rapid recharge of the airshed. Current air quality in the project is considered to be good. NH Department of Environmental Services maintains monitoring stations to record levels for NAAQS. The project area is considered to be in attainment for all six criteria pollutants. Existing emissions in the air and pollution in the airshed are mostly caused by regional

64

Pemi Northwest Project and industrial sources. Localized pollution, such as is produced by vehicle emissions and road dust, is minimal. In the winter, woodstoves contribute particulates and carbon monoxide to the air. Periodically, large wildfires in Canada or the Lake States contribute particulates. Dust from roads contributes particulates. On occasion, ground-level ozone in the area exceeds air quality standards. This occurs mostly in summer months due to weather and air flow, and is not frequent enough for the area to be categorized as a nonattainment area. Sensitive receptors near the project area include the towns of Benton, Haverhill, and Landaff, as well as homes, roads and other infrastructure. Areas near the proposed project that are considered to be smoke-sensitive are the Cottage Hospital, 6.5 miles northwest of the proposed project area; the Glencliff Home for the Elderly, 2 miles south of the project area; and local schools near the project area. The Dean Memorial airport lies 4 miles west of the project area. Popular recreation sites near the burn units include the Long Pond Recreation Area, the Black Mountain and Chippewa hiking trails, hiking trails on Mount Moosilauke, and scenic Long Pond Road. Private land and communities border the project area. The short distance from these areas to the burn units will restrict burning conditions to periods when wind, weather, and fuels cause smoke to quickly disperse into the atmosphere. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The direct and indirect effects analysis airshed is a 5 mile radius around the proposed burn units. The timeframe for this analysis is 15 years in the future. The cumulative effects area for air quality is the same as the direct/indirect effects and selected for the same reasons. The time frame analyzed is from 2001-2026. Rationale for these boundaries is included in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

This alternative would not harvest any trees, apply prescribed fire, construct or improve any roads or trails, accomplish wildlife habitat or recreation facility improvements. Direct and Indirect Effects

No activities are proposed so no emissions related to this project would occur. Forest Service classified roads would continue to receive their scheduled level of maintenance. Vehicle use will continue in the project area. These existing emissions are currently contributing to the air quality condition described in the affected environment as well as larger scale air quality issues. Fuel levels in the oak-pine stands would continue to accumulate and could support a wildfire that may be difficult to suppress. These emissions could reduce visibility along roads, and increase health and safety concerns for segments of the population and fire suppression forces. Cumulative Effects

No local emissions related to the project would occur. As fuel loads in the project area 65

30-Day Comment Report increase, the potential for greater particulate emissions from wildfire in the project area would also increase. This could add cumulatively to other upwind, regional sources of emissions. Alternatives 2 and 5

Effects from Alternatives 2 and 5 are the same and therefore will be described together. Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber harvest and the transportation system Active timber harvest operations and connected actions, such as road construction (in Alternative 5), reconstruction (in Alternative 2) or restoration, increase short-term pollution release from vehicle exhaust, heavy equipment exhaust and during dry periods, fugitive dust. These activities may cause levels of carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter to increase in the immediate area when work is ongoing but will not contribute to nonattainment of NAAQS or deterioration of visibility in Class I Areas. There would be slightly more emissions related to these activities under Alternative 5 than Alternative 2. There will be few indirect effects to air quality related to the proposed timber harvesting and road construction or reconstruction. Once harvesting and hauling of wood is completed, emissions from these activities would cease. Public motorized access would not change (Alternative 2) or would be more limited (Alternative 5). Prescribed fire Alternatives 2 and 5 would apply prescribed fire to underburn up to 426 acres of oak- pine and aspen-birch habitat in order to increase regeneration of those desired species and reduce competition from undesired hardwood and softwood species. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity fires, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak-pine and aspen-birch seedling establishment, reduce the amount of competition for established oak-pine and aspen-birch in the understory, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape. Proposed underburning areas include some of the proposed timber harvest units and a fire dependent natural community. Underburning treatments in the timber units would be implemented following harvest. The direct effects of prescribed burning in the project area would be the release of particulate matter (PM 10 and 2.5), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides during combustion. Ignition of prescribed burn units in MA 2.1 land is estimated to last 10 hours. Ignition in the natural community prescribed burn unit is estimated to last 24 hours due to the larger size of the unit. During this period, the majority of burnable fuels would likely be consumed. Residual smoke may be seen in the immediate area for several days afterward but will not be sufficient to impact sensitive populations or Class I Areas. The burn unit would be considered “out” when no fire is found in the unit for 24 hours. Adverse effects of smoke produced by prescribed burning include reduced visibility due to haze, and exposure to the public and fire crew to smoke and carbon monoxide. The pollutant of most concern is PM 2.5 which in high concentrations can

66

Pemi Northwest Project have adverse impacts on people’s health. Effects of smoke emissions would be mitigated by design features (see Appendix A). Units in MA 2.1 lands will only be burned if silvicultural objectives are not met through timber harvest. Only one unit would be burned on any given day. Emissions in the MA 2.1 units would be spread out over the next 15 years post-harvest, reducing the impacts of these emissions by releasing them over a longer period of time. Models were used to estimate emissions of particulates (PM 2.5 and PM 10) and direct effects of smoke on identified critical smoke sensitive receptors and Class I Areas (see Air Resources Report in project record). Smoke plumes generated by the model were plotted on maps to show effects on air quality in any wind direction. Of the nine units proposed for prescribed fire in Alternatives 2 and 5, Unit 61 and Black Mountain have potential to impact critical smoke receptors without some mitigation. Unit 61- Unit 61 is located 3.5 miles northeast of the Glencliff Home for the Elderly and a nursery school. The V Smoke web model indicates that a north-northeast wind could cause a Moderate level of health concern during a peak smoke event. To mitigate the potential for smoke impacts to these areas, Unit 61 would not be burned if winds were from the north or northeast or other weather conditions were not favorable (see Air Resource Design Features 1, 2, 4, 5 in Appendix A). A monitoring station would be set up at the Glencliff Home during ignition of Unit 61 to monitor air quality during the burn. Black Mountain- The analysis area for prescribed fire on Black Mountain is 270 acres. This is the maximum size a prescribed burn would be allowed to grow. Fire spread models indicate that the fire size on Black Mountain would actually be between 59-128 acres and would not affect any smoke sensitive receptors. Air quality analysis and mitigations use the maximum acreage of 270 to determine potential effects. A fire that burned 270 acres on Black Mountain could cause a moderate impact to smoke sensitive receptors during peak hourly concentrations if winds are from the north, south, or east. A west wind would not cause impacts to smoke sensitive receptors. To mitigate the potential for smoke impacts, Black Mountain would not be burned unless winds were from the west or southwest (see Design Features 1, 2, 4, 5). A monitoring station would also be set up at the Glencliff Home or in the town of Landaff during ignition of Black Mountain to monitor air quality during the burn. Because prescribed burns would be ignited when wind and weather patterns were most favorable for smoke dispersion, wind currents would carry the smoke into the atmosphere and disperse it. Once the direct effects associated with ignition and containment were over there would be no indirect effects related to air quality. Recreation Recreation activities may cause increased levels of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone pollution along roads, parking lots, and snowmobile trails due to enhanced recreation opportunities that increase the amount of vehicles in the area.

67

30-Day Comment Report Cumulative Effects

Timber harvest and the transportation system

Five vegetation management projects have been completed within the cumulative effects analysis area in the previous 15 years and one is ongoing. Assuming approximately the same level of activity occurs over the next 15 years, the cumulative effects of these activities will not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide and particulate matter because (1) emission rates of these pollutants during harvest and road construction are spread out over time (1-5 years) and space (project area) and (2) the baseline levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter in the analysis area are low. Prescribed fire The Pemigewasset Ranger District has two other projects within the analysis area that include prescribed fire. The Oliverian Project, located in Benton and Warren, plans to burn a total of 120 acres in the next five years (2010-2015), and the Forest-wide Wildlife Opening Maintenance project plans to burn 15 acres in the next five years. The proximity of these projects to one another will require coordination to ensure that smoke management is not an issue and that NAAQS are not exceeded by burning large units simultaneously. These requirements are covered in the design features for this project. Recreation

Cumulative effects from these and other activities will not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide, particulate matter or ozone.

Alternative 3

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Timber Harvest Alternative 3 proposes 801 fewer acres of timber harvest than Alternatives 2 & 5. This will result in fewer pollutants being released by machinery. Because of the small difference in acres from an air quality monitoring standpoint, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 3 are the same as those in Alternatives 2 & 5. Prescribed Fire Alternative 3 proposes 43 fewer acres of prescribed fire than Alternatives 2 & 5. Unit 61, which requires mitigation to prevent smoke effects to smoke sensitive receptors, would not be burned in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 proposes to burn a maximum of 383 acres. No more than one unit would be burned per day. The direct effects on air quality from prescribed burning in Alternative 3 are very similar to Alternatives 2 & 5. The reduction in acreage means fewer pollutants would be released into the atmosphere. Models are the same as in Alternatives 2 & 5. Unit 61 is not included in this alternative so no smoke mitigations are needed. Design features used to mitigate smoke effects from burning on Black Mountain would be the same as in the other action alternatives.

68

Pemi Northwest Project Indirect and cumulative effects from prescribed fire would be the same as those in Alternatives 2 & 5. Recreation

Cumulative effects from these and other activities will not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide, particulate matter or ozone.

Alternative 4

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Timber Harvest and the transportation system

Alternative 4 would harvest 1135 fewer acres than Alternatives 2 and 5 and 334 fewer acres than Alternative 3. Types of effects would be the same as in the other action alternatives, but Alternative 4 would release the fewest amounts of emissions from these activities. The indirect and cumulative effects are the same for Alternative 4 as the other action alternatives. Prescribed Fire Alternative 4 proposes 59 fewer acres of prescribed fire than Alternatives 2 & 5 and 16 fewer acres than Alternative 3. Unit 61, which requires mitigation to prevent smoke effects to smoke sensitive receptors, is not included in Alternative 3. Alternative 4 proposes to burn a maximum of 367 acres. No more than one unit would be burned per day. The direct effects on air quality from prescribed burning are similar to Alternatives 2 & 5, but the reduction in acreage means fewer pollutants would be released into the atmosphere. Design features used to mitigate smoke effects from burning on Black Mountain would be the same as in the other action alternatives. Indirect and cumulative effects would be the same as those in Alternatives 2, 3 & 5. Recreation Cumulative effects from these and other activities will not violate NAAQS for carbon monoxide, particulate matter or ozone.

Monitoring

Project effects to air quality would be monitored using the NAAQS, and the Air Quality Index (AQI). (Burns & Honkala, 1990) Effects to be measured will be: particulate and ozone levels in relation to visibility in Class I Areas; particulate levels in relation to health concerns and visibility at critical smoke sensitive receptor areas; carbon monoxide levels in relation to health concerns; and ozone levels in relation to health concerns. Particulate/ozone levels in relation to visibility in Class I Areas will be measured by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Camp Dodge IMPROVE and Mount Washington air quality monitoring stations. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and ozone measurements in relation to NAAQS will be taken by the

69

30-Day Comment Report NHDES air monitoring network. Particulate levels in relation to burns identified as having potential to affect critical smoke sensitive receptor sites will be measured by USFS PM 2.5 monitoring station. Fire-Dependent Natural Communities

Summary of Effects

Under Alternative 1, red pine will diminish as the natural community shifts to one dominated by red spruce, similar to what has occurred already on nearby Sugarloaf Mountain. The fire regime in these stands will shift from frequent low intensity and infrequent high intensity fire, to infrequent high intensity fire that results in high mortality of spruce and other species. Under the action alternatives, fire will be reintroduced to imperiled, fire-dependent natural red pine communities. Effects would be the same for all action alternatives. The quality of the fire-dependent, State of NH- imperiled red pine rocky ridge community on Black Mountain would be improved through a cooperative effort. Affected Environment

The red pine rocky ridge (RPRR) natural community on Black Mountain is recognized as fire dependent, requiring frequent, low intensity surface fires to increase sunlight levels in the understory and infrequent, higher intensity fires to open the canopy and promote seedling development (Burns & Honkala, 1990). Plant associates of this community include blueberry, huckleberry, and a variety of grass and sedge species. In 1993, a survey indicated that this community was approximately 130 years old and likely created by wildfire (Sperduto & Engstrom, 1993). The State of NH ranks red pine rocky ridge communities as “Imperiled—at high risk of extinction/elimination or extirpation” (Sperduto and Nichols, 2011). In 2011, members of the WMNF, NH Natural Heritage Bureau (NHNHB), State of NH Forest and Lands, The Nature Conservancy, and The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (Forest Society) visited the Black Mountain RPRR community, which extends from WMNF lands on to the adjacent Black Mountain State Forest and Forest Society lands. The group agreed to work to restore this imperiled natural community across ownership and management boundaries. Existing condition The RPRR community begins mid-slope on the western and southern sides of Black Mountain and reaches an elevation of approximately 2600’at the edge of the rocky ledges that continue to the summit. This area is a transition zone between the RPRR community and a “red spruce-heath-cinquefoil-rocky ridge” community. The red spruce community is widespread on the summit and, in the absence of fire, has replaced the fire tolerant RPRR community below the summit. Red spruce is less fire tolerant than red pine and is not found in areas with frequent fire disturbance (Burns and Honkala 1990).

70

Pemi Northwest Project Conditions observed during field visits to Black Mountain indicate the transition from a red pine to a red spruce dominated rocky ridge community has begun. Although red pine remains the dominant species in the overstory, the understory and midstory layers consist of red spruce with minimal red pine regeneration. Red spruce seedlings, once established, can tolerate lower light levels and a heavier duff layer than red pines (Burns and Honkala 1990). The understory shade and duff levels in the area have shifted to favor red spruce. Red spruce-heath-cinquefoil is a valued community on the WMNF, though more widespread and secure than RPRR. The goal of the proposed project is not to favor one community over another but to reestablish natural boundaries between the two. Prescribed fire will not be directly applied outside of the core red pine area but fire may travel into the red spruce community as it would in a natural fire event. A history of fire suppression is evident on Black Mountain. Charred stumps and trees can be found on its slopes; most appear to date back over 100 years. The south facing slopes likely have had more recent fires and numerous lightning struck trees have been located in these areas. A fire tower was operational on the summit of Black A charred tree bole on the north slope of Black Mountain from 1911-1964. The presence of a fire tower and Mountain helps tell the history of the area (WMNF lookout on Black Mountain for over 50 years resulted in photo). quicker fire detection and suppression, favoring the forest’s transition to red spruce. Desired condition In recent years, wildfires have occurred on the WMNF in habitat similar to that found on Black Mountain. These fires can provide important information about fire effects on natural communities. By analyzing the weather conditions, drought levels, and amount of moisture in the fuels that carried the fire, and comparing that to vegetation changes post fire, a set of parameters can be developed that help determine if proposed prescribed fires can be implemented to meet a desired outcome. The Lucy Brook Fire in November, 2004 in Bartlett, NH occurred in a RPRR community with a mature dominant red pine overstory similar to what is found mid-slope on Black Mountain. This human-caused fire stimulated regeneration of different desired species without causing substantial mortality to mature seed-producing trees in the overstory. Monitoring of this area post-fire in conjunction with information on the conditions in the area when the Lucy Brook Fire began indicate that the desired effects for the RPRR community on Black Mountain could be achieved through prescribed fire (Lucy Brook FireFamily Plus Report 2012). In 2007, a lightning strike occurred on Blueberry Mountain in Benton, NH, just four 71

30-Day Comment Report miles south of Black Mountain. The RPRR community on Blueberry Mountain closely resembles the one found on the upper slopes of Black Mountain and is characterized by smaller, shorter trees and a more developed heath shrub layer. The Blueberry Mountain fire occurred in late August, not during a drought, where burning conditions were similar to those found during typical spring and fall WMNF prescribed burns. This is representative of the frequent, low intensity surface fires that red pine communities experience. Post fire effects observed during a 2011 field visit included low mortality of overstory species, some regeneration of pine and oak, and a strong response by blueberries and huckleberries in the understory. These would also be desired effects from prescribed fire on the upper slopes Black Mountain. The weather and fuels conditions observed during the Blueberry Mountain fire are similar to conditions during a typical prescribed burn season on the WMNF (Blueberry WFU FireFamily Plus Report 2012). Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the red pine and red spruce communities is a 270 acre polygon that includes USFS, State of NH, and Forest Society lands. This polygon includes the natural communities that may be affected by the proposed actions and the area that may be influenced by the proposed action. The analysis area represents the perimeter where all fire would be suppressed. The temporal scope for analysis is 20 years in the future as that is considered to be a minimum period of time needed to determine if red pine recruitment was successful (Clark, 1991). Alternative 1—No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Red pine rocky ridge community: The community would continue to transition from a red pine to a red spruce dominated canopy. If a human caused fire occurred on WMNF, State of NH, or SPNHF lands it would be suppressed to the detriment of the RPRR community. If a natural fire occurred on the WMNF, it would either be monitored or suppressed, depending on specific resource conditions and safety concerns. Red spruce heath cinquefoil community: The red spruce community would continue to increase and replace the RPRR community. If a natural or human caused fire occurred, the potential would exist for it to become intense and fast moving, increasing the difficulty of suppression, potentially damaging stands of merchantable timber, and degrading soil, air, water and scenic resources. Alternatives 2-5

Because the proposal to use prescribed fire on Black Mountain is the same in all action alternatives, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects will be the same for Alternatives 2-5. Direct Effects

Red pine rocky ridge community: Under all action alternatives, prescribed fire would be applied to the RPRR community on Black Mountain. Ignition would be by hand,

72

Pemi Northwest Project using drip torches. Dot ignition patterns would be used in conjunction with natural barriers and weather parameters to limit fire spread on the upper slopes of Black Mountain but the fire would not be suppressed unless the fire burned to the edge of the 270-acre boundary. A fire-modeling tool was used to predict fire spread in the red pine and red spruce stands on Black Mountain. Fire spread was calculated using historic weather and fuel data from the Lucy Brook and Blueberry Mountain fires. Applying these burning conditions to the RPRR community on Black Mountain helps predict where the fire will go and how large it will be. This helps WMNF staff determine if the prescribed burn can be implemented safely under controlled conditions while achieving the desired results. The model was run to show what would happen during seven days with no fire suppression. The results of the model runs indicate that it would be unlikely for a prescribed burn implemented under weather conditions similar to those for the Lucy Brook and Blueberry Mountain to move into the summit red spruce community. Minimal suppression effort would be required to contain the fire within the analysis area. Direct effects on vegetation include consumption of dead and downed material such as pine and spruce needles, twigs, and branches. This material would be the main carrier of the fire. Red spruce and balsam fir in the understory would be killed by the fire. Dead stems on heath shrubs and grasses would burn off but not result in mortality of the plant. Most of the mature red pine would survive the fire because of their age and bark thickness (Forest Plan FEIS), but some trees would die. The Chippewa and Black Mountain Trails would be closed to the public during the prescribed burn, possibly for up to a week depending on fire and weather conditions. Red spruce heath cinquefoil community: Under the action alternatives, fire would not be directly applied to the red spruce community but the model indicates that there is a 5-19% probability that it would spread into some parts of this community. Modeling using weather parameters from the Blueberry Mountain fire shows a higher probability (40-59%) that the fire would spread into the red spruce community. This is probably due to higher temperatures and winds experienced during the Blueberry Mountain fire. Red spruce that is directly impacted by fire will most likely be killed as this is a species that is much less fire tolerant (Burns and Honkala, 1990) than red pine. Indirect Effects

Red pine rocky ridge community: Indirect effects to the red pine rocky ridge community will be a flush of growth in the heath shrubs and grasses the following growing season. Red pine seedlings may take several years to develop, intervals between “good” seed crops average 3 to 7 years and “bumper” crops every 10-12 years (Burns and Honkala, 1990). Root/shoot growth (Mallik & Roberts, 1994) and resin flow (Santoro et al, 2001) in surviving trees would increase post-fire. Mortality of mature red pine and red spruce would provide openings in the canopy that encourage red pine seedling growth. The maximum predicted mortality for red spruce is 80% and for red pine is 35% (Behave plus 5 run). Standing dead red pine and red spruce trees would be scattered throughout the burned area. In areas where snags pose a hazard to the public, 73

30-Day Comment Report the trees would be cut down. Red spruce heath cinquefoil community: Indirect fire effects to the red spruce community would be a flush of growth in the heath shrubs and grasses the following growing season. Aspen and birch species may quickly colonize burned areas in the spruce community but within a few years red spruce would develop in the aspen/birch understory (Lorimer, The use of land survey records in estimating presettlement fire frequency, 1980). Red spruce seedlings may take several years to develop; intervals between “good” seed crops average 3 to 7 years (Burns and Honkala, 1990). Mortality of the overstory red spruce would provide openings in the canopy that encourage red pine seedling growth (Sperduto & Engstrom, 1993). The maximum predicted mortality for red spruce is 80% and for red pine is 35% (Behave plus 5 run). Snags that pose a hazard to the public would be removed. Cumulative Effects

Red pine rocky ridge community: The red pine rocky ridge community on Black Mountain would begin to reestablish after approximately 100 years of fire exclusion. Because the prescribed fire would be a planned event, land managers would have the ability to determine when, where, and how fire would be applied, rather than during a wildfire event. It is unlikely that this project alone would change the state-wide ranking of this imperiled community, but it should improve the quality rank of this occurrence and contribute to the perpetuation of the community. Red spruce heath cinquefoil community: The transition zone between the red spruce and red pine communities on Black Mountain would be redefined. Historic records do not indicate how extensive either community was on Black Mountain, therefore land managers are not proposing treatment outside of the core fire dependent community. Red spruce would begin to re-invade the red pine stands in approximately 50-60 years (Forest Plan FEIS) if no other disturbance occurs. Monitoring

Mitigation to minimize effects to the red spruce community will be timing the burn to moderate fire danger conditions like those experienced during the Lucy Brook and Blueberry Mountain fires. These parameters will meet objectives in the red pine rocky ridge community while staying out of most of the red spruce community. Pre-monitoring, including field visits, duff layer surveys, and fuel load surveys, has been completed. Photo points would be in place prior to implementation. Post-monitoring would include revisiting photo points and re-surveying duff layers and fuel loads. Recreation

Summary of Effects

All action alternatives will have some temporary effects on recreation resources due to activity associated with timber harvest, prescribed fire and other proposals. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the most timber harvest and therefore will have the most of 74

Pemi Northwest Project these temporary effects, including visual disturbance and noise. All action alternatives propose prescribed fire on Black Mountain, which will also temporarily affect recreation activities in that area since the trail will be closed during the burn and for a short period following the burn. The biggest differences to effects on recreation occur among alternatives relative to actions associated with Tunnel Brook Road. Alternative 2 provides recreation access relative to Tunnel Brook Road that is most similar to how it was prior to closure of the road in August 2011. Alternatives 3-5 all involve reconstruction of Tunnel Brook Road to a lower standard that would not accommodate public motorized use. They require construction of new hiking trail to access the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trailheads. In Alternatives 3-5 there would no longer be access to the Tunnel Brook Snowmobile A hiker explores the open, ledgy summit of Black Mountain (WMNF Trail from its northern end because stream photo). crossings (bridges and culverts) along the road would be temporary. All action alternatives would provide varying degrees of hunting opportunities due to increased habitat diversity in the project area. Affected Environment

Recreation resources within and immediately adjacent to the Pemi Northwest Project Area include Black Mountain Trail, Long Pond Day Use Area, Wildwood Picnic area, Wildwood Campground, Tunnel Brook Trail, Benton Trail, North South Road, Tunnel Brook Road, Tunnel Brook, a portion of the Wild Ammonoosuc River, several snowmobile trails and designated Forest Service roads. The Pemi Northwest Project Area has been managed for multiple uses since inception as a National Forest including the coexistence of recreation and timber management. Evidence of past timber management activities is apparent in the form of existing skid trails, Forest Service roads, and in the existing vegetation types and stand ages. To the average observer these past harvest treatments may be evident, yet the forest has a remarkable ability to regenerate new stands with a diversity of tree species, understory conditions, and wildlife habitat including foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of native wildlife species. Higher elevation forests and steep areas retain timber stands that regenerated following extensive harvesting that occurred prior to 1910. Existing hiking and snowmobile trails within the project area often lie on former skid trails and secondary or abandoned logging roads. Occasional stone foundations found in the project area, are remnants of a bygone era. Recreational Setting

The recreational setting is described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). 75

30-Day Comment Report ROS defines a range of unique recreation experiences as Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non- motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural/Urban (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-10 and Map 1-11). The areas where harvest is are within Semi- Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural ROS classes. Semi-Primitive Motorized is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentrated use is generally uncommon, but there is evidence of human uses. The area is managed with minimum on-site controls and restrictions. Snowmobile use on designated trails is allowed. Roaded Natural is characterized by a predominately natural appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Hiking Trails

Summer and fall are the busiest seasons for hiking on the WMNF and in the project area. The Black Mountain, Tunnel Brook and Benton Trails all receive low to moderate use trails even in the busier seasons. The Benton Trail, which accesses the summit of Mt. Moosilauke, is the most popular of the three trails. In winter, Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailheads are accessible by snowmobile, and use is very minimal. The Black Mountain Trail however, attracts small numbers of snowshoers, skiers and winter hikers. Snowmobile Trails

Several snowmobile trails are located within the project area. Some of these snowmobile trails are located on existing logging roads open only to winter traffic. Other trails exist on seasonally closed Forest roads open only to snowmobiles in the winter.

Table 3.7—Snowmobile Trails in Project Area

Trail/Road Name Use Level Length Description

Whitcher Brook Low 2.25 This trail is minimally groomed and follows a logging road and narrow path Trail through the woods.

Titus Brook Trail Low 2.5 This trail follows a logging road and dead ends at the road terminus as it enters steeper terrain.

North South Road Low 7.5 In winter, this road is a snowmobile trail connecting Glencliff and Benton.

Tunnel Brook Road Low 6.5 This challenging, ungroomed trail is a little-used, alternate route between Glencliff and Benton through the Mud Ponds area. It is frequently impassible due to inadequate snowpack.

Howe Hill Road Low 0.7 This town road serves as a primitive snowmobile trail.

Dispersed Recreation

Light levels of dispersed camping, walking, hunting and biking occur on logging roads 76

Pemi Northwest Project and throughout the woods within and around the project area. The Wild Ammonoosuc River is stocked with trout, and it and Tunnel Brook are used by anglers. Streams in the area contain some nice swimming holes, and motorists passing through the area will occasionally stop for a picnic at pulloffs along the roads. Developed Recreation Sites

The Pemi Northwest Project Area encompasses or is adjacent to several popular developed recreation sites including Wildwood Picnic Area, Long Pond Day Use Area, and Wildwood Campground. Long Pond Day Use Area is a popular destination for picnickers, fishermen, kayakers and canoeists. This full amenity fee area offers several fishing/observation platforms from which visitors can enjoy the pond. Wildwood Picnic Area: Situated along the Wild Ammonoosuc River and adjacent to Wildwood Campground, Wildwood Picnic Area is a low to moderate use site enjoyed by visitors traveling State Route 112 looking for a place to eat a picnic lunch or enjoy the river. This moderate capacity area is also utilized by families and groups seeking a tranquil gathering place for reunions and parties. Wildwood Picnic Area includes a picnic pavilion, outhouse, water spigot, fire grates and picnic tables. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on recreation is the Pemi Northwest Project Area. The time frame is 10 years in the future, though many effects will only occur during project implementation (likely 1-2 years in any localized area). The analysis area for cumulative effects is the project area and the remainder of the town of Benton. The timeframe for cumulative effects is ten years past and ten years in the future (2002-2022). Rationale for these boundaries is in the Recreation Resources Report in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would not alter current recreational opportunities. Proposed activities listed under the action alternatives would not take place. Ongoing routine maintenance of roads, trails and other sites and facilities in the project area would continue. Access to the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trailheads would remain as it is now (hikers would walk down or next to the damaged streambed along a user-created trail). There would be no new trail or road down the Tunnel Brook valley. Improved hunting opportunities created by timber harvest would not occur. Recreationists would not encounter sights and sounds associated with timber harvest or other proposed activities. Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated under this alternative.

77

30-Day Comment Report Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would have the most short-term direct and indirect effects on recreational experiences. Timber harvest activity such as noise, trail use and visual impacts would affect hiking, snowmobiling, and to a lesser degree dispersed uses. However, timber harvest has occurred in the analysis area in the past, and the long-term recreation experience is not expected to change dramatically from current conditions and use levels as a result of the proposed actions. In all action alternatives, some harvest units are proposed off of Howe Hill Road. Improvements to the road for timber hauling would have the indirect effect of improving access to the Black Mountain Trailhead. Placement of barrier rocks to restrict unauthorized motorized use in several locations in the project area would have a positive effect for non-motorized recreationists in the area. Hiking trails, snowmobile trails and dispersed recreation Timber harvest in the project area would be visible from some hiking trails and other areas frequented by recreationists. Three hiking trails in the project area would be affected to some degree by vegetation treatment activities, road reconstruction, log hauling, and other activities. For safety reasons, weekday temporary closures could occur on some trails when log trucks are operating. The Benton Trail borders the south side of Unit 63 which is prescribed for single tree selection. FR 700A, an intermittent haul road, crosses the trail at a right angle. Short and long-term affects to visitor experience on this trail would be minimal due to the prescribed single tree harvest technique and log skidding plan. The haul road would be used to remove logs from this unit as well as other units north of the Benton Trail and south of Little Tunnel Brook. No skidding would occur along the trail. There would be no widening or modification of the trail corridor except for where FR 700A crosses it. Some hikers would notice a more open forest in the harvested area. The Tunnel Brook Trail parallels Unit 59 which is prescribed for a 28 acre clearcut. Logs would be skidded down the trail to a landing on the south end of Unit 60. This trail was built along a logging road, which has brushed in but is still evident. This trail would be widened to support skidding logs approximately 3500 feet to an existing log landing. The Black Mountain and Chippewa Trails climb to the summit of Black Mountain from the east and west, respectively. The Black Mountain Trail is adjacent to three small over- story removal units (12, 14 and 15). Design features such as trail buffers (see Appendix A) would mitigate some effects of this harvest to hikers, but some recreationists will notice the difference—the areas will receive more sunlight and the texture of the landscape will temporarily change. Alternative 2 (as well as all of the other action alternatives) proposes prescribed fire on up to 270 acres on the upper, forested slopes of Black Mountain. The trails up Black 78

Pemi Northwest Project Mountain would be closed during and for a short period of time after a prescribed burn. Prescribed burning may inconvenience some forest users if they arrive planning to hike on the day a prescribed burn is planned. Nearby residents may be affected, but burning prescriptions consider air quality and wind direction requirements prior to ignition. Adequate pre-burn communication and notification would occur. Burning would have limited effects on recreation resources because spring and fall burning periods occur when public use is low. Proposed prescribed fire would be conducted in accordance with burn plans which account for wind direction and air quality. These effects include charring of the stems of small saplings and some blackening at the base of trees. Some hikers would notice evidence of along portions of the trail, though charred ground would soon be replaced by a regenerating understory. Noise from timber harvest-related and other activities may be heard by recreationists in the project area. Noise from harvest activities typically travels no more than one mile in forested areas (Neitzel and Yost, 2003; MPCA, 2008) Noise will travel farther during leaf- off. Noise could indirectly affect users on trails, in developed sites, and along the Wild Ammonoosuc River. Noise effects are short-term and temporary and would be limited to equipment operating periods, generally during the day. They would not occur across the entire project area at any one time. Noise effects cease when the project is complete. Logs would be hauled on several roads within the project area including but not limited to Long Pond Road, Howe Hill Road, Tunnel Brook Road. In winter months, some roads may be plowed to accommodate log trucks. Roads may be closed to snowmobile traffic mid-week to mitigate conflicts between snowmobiles and truck traffic. Efforts will be made to close the minimum amount of trail necessary to provide for safety (see Appendix A). Effects to other dispersed recreation will either be nearly unnoticeable or similar in nature to effects from hiking trails, depending on an individual’s location. Some hunting opportunities would be improved. Developed recreation Wildwood Picnic Area is well buffered from visual impacts but lies within ½ mile of five proposed harvest units. Visitors at the picnic area may hear sounds associated with harvest activities when these aren’t muted by the river and noise from Highway 112. There are no skid roads or landings within a half mile of the picnic area. The southern end of Long Pond is within ½ mile of units 20, 21, 22 and 25. Unit 21, prescribed for single tree selection, is closest to the pond. Due to screening and treatment type, the visual environment from the lake should not be affected. Harvest activity will likely be audible to recreationists on Long Pond because sound carries well across the surface of the lake. This effect will be limited to the duration of logging activity. Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2 through 5

There have been no recreation-related projects beyond routine maintenance to recreation sites, facilities and trails within the cumulative effects area or timeframe. No cumulative effects are expected from implementation of any action alternatives with the exception of 79

30-Day Comment Report effects to snowmobile trails. The Oliverian Project, south of the Pemi Northwest Project, involves some temporary closure of the south end of the North South Road when winter hauling is in progress. Implementation of the Oliverian Project should be completed before implementation of the Pemi Northwest Project would begin, but because the Pemi Northwest Project will also temporarily impact a portion of the snowmobile network along Long Pond Road, there will be a slightly longer-term effect to this trail network than there would be from implementation of this project alone. This effect will still be short-term, and hauling will be restricted to allow for snowmobile use during busier weekends and holidays. Alternative 3

This alternative is identical to Alternative 2, except for actions associated with Tunnel Brook Road. Effects to recreation resources in the Black Mountain, Long Pond, and North South Road areas are the same as described for Alternative 2. Direct and Indirect Effects

The noise effects of the proposed activities would be somewhat less than in Alternative 2 because fewer acres would be harvested. This would reduce the intensity and duration of logging activities and associated noise. Timber harvest near recreation areas would be similar to that in Alternative 2 despite the overall reduction in acres harvested. Therefore the effects are also similar. Hiking trails, snowmobile trails and dispersed recreation Alternative 3 eliminates all timber harvest and other activities associated with FR 700 (Tunnel Brook Road). The Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailheads would be moved northward to a location near the existing gate at the beginning of FR700. A new 5-car trailhead would be constructed at this location, and a new 0.8 mile hiking trail would be constructed to connect the new trailhead with the unaffected portion of FR700 and the existing Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails. This would add approximately 1.6 and 2.3 miles to these two trails respectively, thereby adding overall distance for hikers and increasing the remoteness of the area. Noise and visual effects along the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails would be less because no harvest activities would occur adjacent to or along the trails. The Tunnel Brook Road would be rehabilitated and the northern portion would be removed from the snowmobile system. Snowmobilers could still use the southern portion of the trail from Glencliff. Developed recreation The effects to developed recreation sites would be the same as in Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2. Alternative 4

Alternative 4 eliminates all proposed activities within the 2005 Jobildunk Forest Plan

80

Pemi Northwest Project inventory area. This area includes a portion of the Benton Trail and all of the Tunnel Brook Trail within the project area. It also includes some, but not all, lands along the eastern side of Long Pond Road. Effects to recreation resources outside of the Jobildunk inventory area are the same as in Alternative 2 and are not repeated in this section. Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would not implement any activities within the 2005 Jobildunk inventory area. This would have a slight temporary negative effect on some hunting opportunities in this area because no regeneration age class would be created. Recreationists in this area would not hear or see nearby timber harvest equipment, nor would they see visual effects of timber harvest on the landscape. In this alternative, no hazard tree removal would occur along Long Pond or Long Pond Spur Roads. This could result in higher frequency of blowdowns across these roads, potentially temporarily blocking travel and possibly posing a slightly higher risk to travelers along the road. Hiking trails, snowmobile trails and dispersed recreation Because Alternative 4 eliminates units within the Jobildunk Forest Plan inventory area, hikers on the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails would see and hear less evidence of timber harvest. Tunnel Brook Road and FR 700A would still be used for hauling (crossing the Benton Trail to access Units 63 and 67) but a smaller portion of the Benton Trail and none of the Tunnel Brook Trail would be directly impacted by timber harvest adjacent to the trails. Access to the Benton and Tunnel Brook Trails would be similar to Alternative 3; hikers would park in the same location and walk along a gated, low-standard winter road until it met up with existing trailheads. Effects to snowmobile trails would be the same as in Alternative 3 because the north end of Tunnel Brook Road would no longer be suitable for snowmobiling. Outside of the Forest Plan inventory area, effects to dispersed recreation would be the same as Alternative 2. Within the area, there would be a reduction in visual and noise impacts because timber harvest or other activities would occur farther away from this area. Recreationists would still hear some activity from equipment operating in the Tunnel Brook valley, as well as other background noise. Any benefits to hunting associated with creation of young forest habitat would not be achieved within the inventory area. Developed recreation Effects to developed recreation would be the same as in Alternative 2, except that those driving Long Pond or Long Pond Spur Roads would have a slightly greater likelihood of being inconvenienced by blowdowns because roadside hazard tree removal would not occur. Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2.

81

30-Day Comment Report Alternative 5

Effects to recreation in Alternative 5 are nearly the same as in Alternative 2, with the exception of activities associated with Tunnel Brook Road. In this alternative, Tunnel Brook Road would be reconstructed on the east side of Tunnel Brook, connecting FR 700A with FR 170. The road would be intermittent and not open for public motorized use. Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects on recreation resources are the same as in Alternative 2, except for in the Tunnel Brook Road area, in which effects are nearly the same as in Alternative 4. Access to the hiking trails would be the same as in Alternative 4, but a new, intermittent road would be constructed on the east side of Tunnel Brook instead of on the west side. This would result in a slight change in non-motorized opportunities along the roadbed. Effects to snowmobiling would be the same as in Alternatives 3 and 4. Timber harvest effects would be the same as in Alternative 2, log trucks would remove wood via a different route. Cumulative Effects

See Alternative 2. Water Resources

This section includes a summary of the effects to water resources from the Pemi Northwest Project. For a detailed analysis, please see the Pemi Northwest Water Resources Report in the project record. This section does not include effects pertaining solely to Tunnel Brook Road—these effects and discussion are included in the beginning of Chapter 3, under “Issue #1”. Summary of Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not expected to have a measurable, negative impact on water quantity or quality. Harvest is below the 25% threshold where effects on perennial streamflow or water chemistry may occur. Since basal area removal is greater under Alternatives 2 and 5, localized effects in some watersheds would be greater than in Alternatives 3 and 4. These may include temporarily wetter conditions and changes in water chemistry in small drainages that would not violate water quality standards. The location and small magnitude of prescribed fire and hazard tree removal indicates that water quantity and quality effects would be extremely unlikely, though fire may extend any localized effects seen in harvested units. Under all action alternatives, watershed restoration work would lead to a long-term improvement in channel function and reduced sedimentation over the existing condition, with the greatest positive effect arising from Tunnel Brook Road relocation and rehabilitation. Alternatives 2 and 4 would cause the most disturbances to water resources and leave more road area in the floodplain. Alternative 5 would have an intermediate impact, and Alternative 3 would have the least impact. Alternative 2 differs 82

Pemi Northwest Project from the other action alternative in having more permanent stream crossings. Additional benefits and minimum impacts to water quantity and quality would accrue from stream crossing replacements, removal of fill from Davis Brook, redirecting flow from a gully, and restricting vehicle access to stream banks under all action alternatives. 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 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 5, followed by Alternative 2, 3 and 4, based on the amount of disturbance in each alternative. Impervious areas follow the same pattern, but comprise too small of a portion of the watershed for meaningful differences to be apparent. Affected Environment

Existing Condition The Pemi Northwest Project Area is located primarily in the Headwaters Wild Ammonoosuc and Wild Ammonoosuc watersheds, with smaller portions in the Oliverian Brook and Clark Brook- Connecticut River watersheds. All four watersheds ultimately drain into the Connecticut River upstream from its confluence with the Waits River. Perennial streams in the project area include the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook, Little Tunnel Brook, Davis Brook, Whitcher Brook, Spillman Brook, Howe Hill Brook, Titus Brook, Jeffers Brook and several unnamed perennial streams. Other water bodies in the project area include Long Pond, unnamed ponds, 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 (project record). Certain water bodies are subject to additional protection under state law based on their size or stream order. The classification system currently used by the State of New Hampshire differs slightly from that used in the Forest Plan FEIS. The Wild Ammonoosuc is classified by NH as a fourth order stream below the confluence of an unnamed stream (just upstream of the Tunnel Brook confluence). Long Pond is considered a great pond since its surface area is greater than 10 acres. Both of these receive additional protection under NH Basal Area Law and the Comprehensive Shoreland Water Quality Act. Basic water quality data and water samples were collected from streams in or near the Project Area. Streams were monitored on two to six dates in 2010 through 2012. A complete record of sampling locations, dates and data is in the Pemi Northwest project record. The pH values range from acidic (less than the New Hampshire water quality standard of 6.5) to relatively neutral. Aluminum (Al) can be mobilized under acidic conditions, and certain forms are harmful to aquatic life. Total aluminum values in some waters within the analysis area exceed New Hampshire’s chronic toxicity standard for aquatic life. This value is more moderate on the west side of the project area, with all streams 83

30-Day Comment Report but Tunnel Brook meeting the standard. Low 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. However, most of the project area lies within watersheds that are better buffered from these effects relative to other sites across the Forest. 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 headwaters of the Wild Ammonoosuc above the confluence of Tunnel Brook, the Wild Ammonoosuc main stem near the lower end of the project area, and the headwaters of Clark Brook are listed as impaired on New Hampshire’s 303(d) list due to pH. 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, waters in the project area 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). Stream morphology has been altered at crossings, particularly where undersized structures exist and in one location on Davis Brook, where fill was placed in a floodplain to establish a crossing location. Gabions have been placed along Tunnel Brook for bank stabilization. Dams are in place on the Wild Ammonoosuc River and the outlet of Long Pond. One instance of streamflow being diverted from an intermittent channel in the headwaters of Waterman Brook into a less stable gully was observed on what appeared to be an old skid trail. In August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene affected the area. Approximately 3.25 inches of rainfall were recorded in Benton, NH during the storm (NHSCO, 2011). While this is less rainfall than other parts of the National Forest, saturated conditions prior to the storm, shallow or hardpan soils, and steep drainages led to a noticeable effect on channels and infrastructure. Bank erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and shifts in channel location were observed in several project area streams. Some changes in the project area were due to natural causes such as rock slides, and streams would be expected to recover as they have from past events. In other cases, anthropogenic activity increased impacts to channel function and water quality. Channel function was further compromised at stream crossings and where roads occurred in floodplains, most notably along Tunnel Brook Road. Turbidity in project area streams had returned to typical values (less than 1 NTU) by November 2011, but was slightly elevated (2-3 NTU) in some streams during high flows in spring 2012 (data in Pemi Northwest project record). Due to bank sloughing and increased erosion from damaged roads, turbidity will likely be higher on average than it has been in recent years until exposed surfaces stabilize. Most of the project area is within a public water supply watershed. The size of the 84

Pemi Northwest Project watershed above the water supply is approximately 400 square miles, and the intake is several miles downstream from the project area. A back-up water surface water supply exists within the project area. Eleven public water supplies using groundwater exist in the cumulative effects area. Eight of these are community water supplies, while three are transient, non-community water supply wells associated with businesses or campgrounds (NHDES, 2010). None of these are within the project area, though one is within 400 feet of it. Desired Condition 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 elsewhere in the Environmental Assessment that are designed to protect and maintain designated uses and prevent degradation would be implemented in all action alternatives analyzed for this project. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on water resources is the 6th level Headwaters Wild Ammonoosuc and Wild Ammonoosuc subwatersheds, in addition to the smaller catchments of Titus Brook, Jeffers Brook, and an unnamed tributary to Clark Brook, totaling 42,611 acres. While the focus of this analysis is streams within the 12,000- acre Project Area, lands outside this boundary will be included to analyze complete watersheds. The analysis period for direct and indirect effects is 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). The analysis area for cumulative effects on water resources is the combined Wild Ammonoosuc watershed, Oliverian Brook watershed down to confluence with North Branch, and Clark Brook tributary subwatershed which totals approximately 89.5 square miles (57,271 acres). The analysis period for cumulative effects is 10 years in the past and 10 years into the future (2002-2022), because water quality and quantity effects from vegetation management would be expected to subside in this period due to vegetation regrowth (Hornbeck et al, 1993; Martin et al, 2000). This project proposes changes to infrastructure (e.g. roads, trails, culverts and parking lots) that could contribute to cumulative effects of watershed development, but trends should become apparent within the ten-year timeframe. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities between 2002 and 2022 that are most 85

30-Day Comment Report relevant to water resources are listed in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quantity

Water quantity would remain similar to the present state. Stream reaches that are currently unstable due to historic activity or Tropical Storm Irene would gradually shift to a more stable condition that may differ from the channel’s historic morphology. The lack of restoration on the washed out Tunnel Brook Road bed would leave channel function impaired for several years until woody debris, large material, and substrates allowing revegetation naturally enter the old road bed. Storm recovery work not related to this proposal may mitigate this, but is unlikely to eliminate all impacts. Water Quality Under Alternative 1, localized erosion and sedimentation around undersized stream crossings and disturbed stream banks would continue, and may affect water quality in short stream reaches. Sediment loads and turbidity may be higher than in recent years due to Tropical Storm Irene impacts, but would gradually return to pre-storm levels as disturbed areas stabilize or revegetate. Sedimentation from disturbance along roads and trails would continue at present levels, which have not resulted in water quality impairment. Water quality in project area streams would be unlikely to be affected by other aspects of Alternative 1 and would remain similar to the present state. Cumulative Effects

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 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). A summary of past and projected climate trends related to hydrology in New England has been compiled (Johnson, 2012), and can be found in the Pemi Northwest Project Record. 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 an unnamed intermittent stream could have a cumulative effect of worsening channel function when combined with the effects of high flows due to climate change. Effects to Davis Brook, Spillman Brook, and the headwaters of Waterman Brook would likely be somewhat localized due to watershed size and isolated nature of the site. The combination of climate change and undersized culverts in the Tunnel Brook watershed is more likely to have a detrimental cumulative effect on channel function near and downstream from Tunnel Brook Road.

86

Pemi Northwest Project 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 channel function or stream crossing size would be increased risk of sudden bank failure and 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. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Alternative 1 complies with all relevant guidance. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects on 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 (Blue Brook) was 25.5 percent under Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, and 18.1 percent under Alternative 4. Based on this analysis and best available science, any localized increase in water tables and headwater stream flow would be virtually undetectable in the main stem 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 any action alternative. A map of subwatersheds used in analysis and detailed calculations are in the Pemi Northwest Project Record. Prescribed Fire Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 propose restoration of fire-dependent oak/pine communities on up to 270 acres on the upper slopes of Black Mountain using prescribed fire. Additionally, the action alternatives propose consideration of prescribed fire in conjunction with other vegetation management prescriptions in some harvested units, totaling up to 156 acres in Alternative 2 and 5, 113 acres in Alternative 3, and 97 acres in Alternative 4. Proposed underburning treatments would be relatively low intensity, targeted to burn forest duff layers to provide a seed bed for oak-pine and aspen-birch seedling establishment, reduce the amount of competition for established oak-pine and 87

30-Day Comment Report aspen-birch in the understory, and create a mosaic burn pattern over the landscape. Underburning treatments in the timber units would be implemented following harvest. The maximum percentage of each subwatershed potentially burned under each alternative is summarized in the Water Resources report in the project record. In contrast to wildfire, prescribed fire typically has minimal effects on hydrologic processes like canopy interception, infiltration, runoff and evapotranspiration because the canopy is relatively undisturbed and much live vegetation remains in place (Baker 1988). Burning only part of a watershed further reduces the likelihood of hydrologic effects. The maximum percentage of a subwatershed that would be burned is 5.5 percent in all action alternatives. Where burning is prescribed in conjunction with harvest, burning is expected to have minimal effect on water quantity relative to harvest treatments in that unit. Based on the low intensity and small area burned, effects on water quantity are extremely unlikely under any alternative. Therefore, no detrimental effect on water quantity or channel function would be expected under any alternative. Watershed, aquatic habitat and riparian restoration Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 include replacing three undersized and misaligned culverts on Long Pond and Bunga Jar roads, removing fill material within Davis Brook at a former bridge crossing site, and redirecting intermittent flow from an unstable gully to its original streambed in the headwaters of Waterman Brook. These activities would not have a direct effect on water quantity because they would not consume or divert water. Replacing undersized culverts and removing fill from Davis Brook would improve channel function by increasing the capacity of a crossing site to accommodate high flows. Properly sized and constructed stream crossings allow channel-forming (bankfull) flows and flood flows to pass unimpeded and prevent years of scouring and changes in channel shape (University of New Hampshire, 2009). Redirecting flow into Waterman Brook would directly improve channel function by directing flow into its original channel, which has adequate capacity and bed material to accommodate high flows. Recreation access and transportation system All action alternatives propose restriction of unauthorized vehicular access by installing barrier rocks on lands west of the Black Mountain Trail, an old road along the Wild Ammonoosuc River and the south end of the Tunnel Brook Trail as it approaches Slide Brook. These activities would have no direct effect on water quantity because they would not divert or consume water. Restricting vehicle access to the banks of the Wild Ammonoosuc, Slide Brook and any smaller tributaries present would improve channel function by preventing vehicles from damaging banks and riparian areas. Healthier riparian areas are better able to dissipate energy of flood flows. Hazard tree removal Removal of hazard trees within a 100 foot buffer along Long Pond Road (7.5 miles) is proposed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. This area is in the Whitcher Brook Upper and Lower, Spillman Brook, and Jeffers Brook subwatersheds. Even if 10% of trees were removed from this area, this activity would remove only 0.3 to 0.5% of the basal area in the subwatersheds listed. This would not push any subwatershed over the 25% 88

Pemi Northwest Project threshold for effects on water quantity. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water quantity is expected. Transportation Transportation system work differs by alternative and includes the following activities: road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and classification; driveway construction; landing use and construction; and skid trail use. The amount of soil-disturbing work under each Action Alternative is summarized in Table 3.8. Potential mineral soil disturbance would be as high as 384 acres under Alternative 5. This estimated potential disturbance is conservatively high, since road maintenance and decommissioning would result in little soil disturbance over most of the area covered. All alternatives would disturb less than 1% of the 42,611-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. The Action Alternatives include use of 43 landings in Alternative 2, 35 landings in Alternative 3, 36 landings in Alternative 4, and 44 landings in Alternative 5, each approximately 0.75 acres in size. Six new landings would be established in Alternatives 2 and 3, while five new landings would be established in Alternative 4, and seven under Alternative 5. 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 landing locations, reuse of former landing sites and temporary nature of disturbance, no direct or indirect effects on water quantity would be expected under any alternative. The combination of road, driveway and skid trail construction or reconstruction would be highest under Alternatives 2 and 5, intermediate under Alternative 3 and lowest under Alternative 4, as shown in Table 3.8. Construction of new roads, which may concentrate flow in ditches or constrict flow in stream crossings, would normally be expected to have the greatest hydrologic effect. All road construction or reconstruction in this project would be offset by decommissioning washed out road segments, yielding a net benefit to hydrologic function relative to maintaining that segment in place. Design features (including Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State Best Management Practices) to minimize effects on hydrology include limiting slope of roads and skid trails, constructing cross drainage at specified intervals, dispersing water bar or ditch relief outflow to vegetated areas, and leaving a buffer between roads or skid trails and streams. These practices reduce concentration of flow, formation of gullies and impacts to riparian areas. Based on project monitoring, hydrologic effects due to 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 the action alternatives, 22 to 26 miles of existing road beds would be maintained. Because this would use an existing footprint and maintain or upgrade drainage features, no negative effect on hydrology would occur from road maintenance and use. The miles of road decommissioning under all action alternatives would result in an overall positive effect on channel function. Approximately 0.5 of these miles are unused roads that require no work on the ground. Approximately 2.7 miles are currently disrupting channel function by capturing stream flow or causing erosion, and decommissioning 89

30-Day Comment Report would correct this disturbance. Road reclassification would require no disturbance on the ground, but would update Forest databases to reflect current use. Therefore, under any action alternative, road and skid trails would not be expected to directly or indirectly affect water quantity or channel function to a measurable extent.

Table 3.8 Potential disturbance of mineral soil and stream banks by alternative Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 1 1 1 1 Existing and New Landings (acres)a 0 32 26 27 33 Road Construction (miles/acres)b 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0.8/1.9 Road Reconstruction (miles/acres)b 0/0 0.8/1.9 0/0 0.8/1.9 0/0 Road Maintenance (miles/acres)b 0/0 26/63 22/53 25/60 26/63 Road Decommission (miles/acres)b 0/0 3.2/7.7 3.2/7.7 1.06/7.7 4.0/9.6 Skid Trails (miles/acres)b 0/0 114/273 93/223 77/184 115/275 Hiking trail Construction (miles/acres)c 0/0 0/0 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5 6 New Driveways 500 ft (miles/acres)b 0/0 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 Total Disturbed Acres 47 379 312 282 384 Perennial haul road crossings (number) 9 11 6 10 12 Perennial skid trail crossings (number) 0 6 5 4 6 Total % of 42,611 acre Analysis Area 0.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% Disturbed a Landing size =0.75 acres b 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/mile Direct and Indirect Effects on Water Quality

Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement As described in the Affected Environment section, there is a high level of confidence that no effect on water chemistry would occur if approximately 25 percent or less of the basal area is removed from a watershed. All subwatersheds are below this threshold in all action alternatives, with the exception of the Blue Brook subwatershed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. With a calculated basal area removal of 25.5%, this watershed could be slightly above the set threshold, but does not differ sufficiently for detrimental effects to be anticipated. The Blue Brook subwatershed is a small watershed with little perennial habitat, a minor contribution to Tunnel Brook’s flow, and relatively high alkalinity for the White Mountains. Therefore, there is a low risk of detrimental changes in water chemistry from harvesting at the conservative threshold determined for the project area. This watershed will be monitored before and after harvest to promote better understanding of how watersheds respond to a combination of even- and uneven-age treatment throughout the watershed. Based on the literature cited in the methodology section of the Water Resource report (project record), no direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected due to timber management combined with prior effects from acid deposition.

90

Pemi Northwest Project 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). In addition to State of New Hampshire basal area law and Best Management Practices, Forest Plan Guidelines G-1 and G-2 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (pp. 2-24, 2-25 and 2-26) would be implemented to protect water quality. These measures are summarized in Table 3.9 and described in more detail in Appendix A, “Design Features” and the Forest Plan.

Table 3.9 Riparian management zone descriptions for various water body types

Stream reach Stream order Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) width Wild Ammonoosuc River below Clay Brook 300 ft: 25 foot no cut, plus 275 foot uneven- (with exception of treatment in unit 76 for Scotch Pine 3 age management eradication) Mapped perennial streams: Wild Ammonoosuc above Clay Brook, Jobildunk Brook, Bunga Jar Brook, Tunnel Brook, Little 100 ft: 25 foot no cut, plus 75 foot uneven 1 or 2 Tunnel Brook, Tunnel Brook Trib13, Davis Brook, Whitcher age management Brook, Howe Hill Brook, Titus Brook 100 ft no cut buffer based on site-specific Unmapped perennial stream: Blue Brook 1 prescription Other unmapped perennial streams in project area 1 75 ft: uneven-age management only Ponds, lakes, identified natural vernal pools N/A 100 ft A map of perennial streams is in the project record. Though intermittent streams may not have riparian buffers in some areas, they are often in boulder or bedrock settings and relatively stable stream types. Forest Plan Guideline G-15 for Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (Forest Plan, p.2-26), which prescribes 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 is unlikely (see Soil Resources Report). The risk of sedimentation caused directly by harvest is 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 (USDA-Forest Service, 2010a). The limited extent of basal area removal 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, 3, 4 or 5. Transportation systems associated with harvest are considered in a separate section. See the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats report for a discussion of stream temperature changes and their influence on aquatic species. Prescribed Fire The action alternatives include prescribed burning on up to 426 acres in Alternatives 2 and 5, 383 acres in Alternative 3, and 367 acres in Alternative 4. The proposed burning would not exceed 5.5% of the area of any subwatershed under any alternative. 5.5% is a very conservative estimate, since it is unlikely that the entire 170 acres on Black Mountain would actually be burned during a prescribed fire. It is likely that 91

30-Day Comment Report considerably less than 5.5% of the subwatershed would be burned. Fire can cause releases of nutrients such as nitrate into stream water, but properly conducted prescribed fire is unlikely to produce a detectable change (Richter et al, 1982; Elliot and Vose, 2005). The locations proposed for burning are at least 100 feet from perennial streams and in most cases are far from any mapped stream. Maintaining this riparian buffer would further prevent sediment or nutrient changes after burning (Elliot and Vose, 2005). Burning only part of a watershed further reduces the likelihood of water quality effects (Beche et al, 2005), and the maximum of 5.5% burned area indicates that any detectable effect on water quality would be extremely unlikely. Any effect due to vegetation removal from fire would be expected to be negligible compared to harvest, and would not push any watershed over the 25% basal area removal threshold. Therefore, no detrimental effect on water quality would be expected under any alternative. Watershed, aquatic habitat and riparian restoration Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 include replacing three undersized and misaligned culverts on Long Pond and Bunga Jar roads, removing fill material within Davis Brook at a former bridge crossing site, and redirecting intermittent flow from an unstable gully to its original streambed in the headwaters of Waterman Brook. These activities would not have a direct effect on water chemistry because there is little likelihood of chemicals being deposited into the water with the use of Best Management Practices for construction. All of these activities would indirectly reduce sedimentation by increasing the capacity of channels to accommodate high flows, which reduces unnatural erosion of stream banks and beds. Recreation access All action alternatives propose restriction of unauthorized vehicular access by installing barrier rocks on lands west of the Black Mountain Trail, an old road along the Wild Ammonoosuc River and the south end of the Tunnel Brook Trail as it approaches Slide Brook. These activities would have no direct effect on water quality since rock placement causes minimal disturbance. Restricting vehicle access to the banks of the Wild Ammonoosuc, Slide Brook and any smaller tributaries present would have an indirect beneficial effect on water chemistry and sedimentation, since it would reduce disturbance from vehicles and waste disposal in the riparian area. Hazard tree removal Removal of hazard trees within a 100 foot buffer along Long Pond Road (7.5 miles) is proposed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. This area is in the Whitcher Brook Upper and Lower, Spillman Brook, and Jeffers Brook subwatersheds. Even if 10% of trees were removed from this area, this activity would remove only 0.3 to 0.5% of the basal area in the subwatersheds listed. This would not push any subwatershed over the 25% threshold for effects on water chemistry. Equipment would remain on the road and tree removal would be selective in nature. This would minimize mineral soil disturbance and prevent sedimentation. This work would meet Forest Plan guidelines for riparian buffers in that it would not involve even-age regeneration and would remove only trees necessary for public safety. Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water quality is 92

Pemi Northwest Project expected. Transportation system Table 3.8 describes the length and areas of work associated with transportation activities, including road construction, road maintenance, road decommissioning, road classification, landing use and construction, and skid trail use. Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there is a small chance of leakage or spills of lubricants or fuel from vehicles for recreation, transportation or construction equipment. The risk to water resources is minimized by implementation of riparian buffers, locating roads and landings away from riparian areas, and using construction BMPs. Work would follow all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (2005) and State of New Hampshire BMPs for road and trail maintenance and construction (NH DOT, 2001; NH DRED, 2004). Therefore, no direct or indirect effect on water chemistry is expected from landing development, road construction and maintenance, and skid trail development. Most forestry-related sedimentation and increases in stream turbidity are associated with transportation systems (Martin et al. 1994). The magnitude of effects caused by sediment transport is related to area of disturbance. Areas which lack vegetation and have disturbed soils become the source for sediment transport, particularly near stream crossings. The area of disturbance associated with transportation systems and trails is shown in Table 3.8. The area of disturbance is greatest under Alternative 5, followed by Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The difference between alternatives is primarily a result of less road maintenance, skid trail and landing use in Alternatives 4 and 3, related to the lack of harvest in Forest Plan inventory or areas accessed by Tunnel Brook Road, respectively. Since this level of disturbance does not exceed soil erosion and compaction limits under the Forest Plan, no indirect effect on sedimentation is expected under either action alternative (see Soil Resources report). Proposed activities pose varying levels of short- and long-term risk of direct effects on sedimentation based on design and proximity to stream networks, which are discussed in the following paragraphs. The number of landings is greatest under Alternative 5, followed by Alternatives 2, 4 and 3. New proposed landing locations are over 100 feet from perennial streams in well- drained areas. If any landing (new or existing) extends to the area within 100 feet of a stream, measures to minimize sedimentation will 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 35 to 44 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 (USDA-Forest Service, 2010a & 2011). Alternative 5 proposes 0.8 miles of road construction, while Alternatives 2 and 4 propose 0.8 miles of road reconstruction. These proposals involve the only new road footprints in the project area and are related to replacement of the Tunnel Brook Road corridor. In all action alternatives, 0.8 miles of the existing Tunnel Brook road corridor would be decommissioned, along with several segments of unauthorized road, leading 93

30-Day Comment Report to a net decrease in road miles. As a result, soil disturbance related to road construction or reconstruction in new corridors may be temporarily greater in Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 than in Alternative 3. However, sedimentation due to road use and washouts would be expected to decrease in the long term. Careful selection of road corridors, road construction BMPs and proper stream crossing design would be expected to minimize direct effects on sedimentation due to road construction. Since most new construction would use an existing skid trail footprint, indirect effects on sedimentation due to hydrologic alteration on road beds would not be expected. The 53 to 63 acres of proposed road maintenance would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and may involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. While road maintenance and increased use may mobilize sediment on a short-term basis, activities such as resurfacing and improving drainage reduce sediment loss (NCASI, 2000). Road reclassification would result in no change on the ground, but would update databases to reflect current use. Skid trails account for the greatest amount of potential soil disturbance, ranging from 184 acres in Alternative 4 to 275 acres in Alternative 5 (see Table 3.8). New skid roads would not be located within the stream or pond management zone (within 50 feet of the bank, or a greater distance in high slope areas), as defined in Forest Plan, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guideline G-5 (p. 2-25), except in the immediate vicinity of stream crossings. If skid roads must be in the stream management zone, additional sedimentation measures must be taken. State BMPs such as water bars, ditches with cross drainage, erosion barriers, properly sized stream crossings and slope limitations would be used to prevent water from draining down skid trails and carrying sediment to streams (see Soil Resources report for further description of Best Management Practices). Skid trails would be expected to revegetate within 2 to 3 years and have no more than a temporary impact. Because of application of Forest Plan guidelines and State Best Management Practices, direct and indirect effects on sedimentation due to skid trails would be expected to be negligible in all areas except stream crossings under both alternatives. The transportation system proposed for use involves 6 to 12 perennial stream crossings on haul roads and 4 to 6 perennial stream crossings on primary skid trails (Table 3.8). The number of crossings is highest in Alternative 5, followed by Alternatives 2, 4 and 3. The difference is related to the use of Tunnel Brook road, which has a number of perennial stream crossings. Within the proposed transportation system, stream crossings have higher potential than other road segments for effects on sedimentation based on water quality monitoring in Maine (MDOC, 2009). Several factors contribute to minimizing this effect. Some of the proposed roads and skid trails are on existing footprints with crossings in place. Skid trail systems 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

94

Pemi Northwest Project 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 road 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 permanently degrade water quality, if all appropriate measures have been taken to minimize effects. Cumulative Effects on Water Quantity and Quality

Vegetation management and wildlife habitat improvement Timber management activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 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 2002 was analyzed in combination with each Action Alternative. Based on studies at Hubbard Brook, any effects on water quantity would subside within seven to nine years after harvest as vegetation regrows (Hornbeck et al, 1993). Basal area removal in the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (CEA) as a whole would be 4.1 percent under Alternatives 2 and 5, 3.6 percent under Alternative 3, and 3.1 percent under Alternative 4, far below the level at which water quantity effects are expected. 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 2002 is an inclusive estimator of cumulative effects on water quality. Since no individual subwatershed would be caused to exceed the conservative 25 percent threshold for effects on water chemistry and the overall harvest in the CEA would be 4.1 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 60 percent of non-NFS land in the CEA would have to be cleared to approach the threshold where effects on water resources may appear.

95

30-Day Comment Report Calculations are in the Pemi Northwest 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. Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire may be used to maintain approximately 23 acres of wildlife openings in the CEA. This would add no more than 5 acres of additional burning to any subwatershed where burning is already prescribed. Since no more than 5 percent of any subwatershed is proposed for burning, this small addition would not have a detrimental cumulative effect. No cumulative effect of prescribed fire on water quantity or quality is expected because 1 percent or less of the CEA would be burned under any action alternative. Watershed, aquatic habitat and riparian restoration No cumulative effects on water quantity are 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 and bridge repairs related to Tropical Storm Irene and Oliverian watershed restoration project. 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. Monitoring of a typical culvert replacement on the National Forest found no increase in turbidity 100 feet downstream during active construction (Johnson, 2012b). 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, which may be particularly beneficial in the Tunnel Brook watershed. Recreation Access and Transportation System Management No cumulative effect on water quantity or quality is expected from blocking unauthorized vehicle access, since these activities would not have detrimental direct or indirect effects in themselves. Reduction of vehicular access to stream banks would have a positive effect on channel stability and water quality, leading to a potential beneficial cumulative effect. Hazard tree removal was included in basal area removal calculations, which found no likely cumulative effect on water quantity or quality from all vegetation management in the CEA. The road work proposed in all 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). This level 96

Pemi Northwest Project of impervious cover may also be accompanied by decreased dissolved oxygen and increased nitrogen and phosphorus (Morse and Kahl, 2003). Considering the estimated existing impervious surface in conjunction with the action alternatives, total impervious cover in the CEA was estimated at 3.7 percent under Alternatives 2 and 5, 3.6 percent under Alternative 3, and 3.5 percent under Alternative 4. This is a small increase over the 3.0 percent impervious cover estimated for the no action alternative. Furthermore, these are high estimates, since landings and skid trails are expected to be minimally compacted (see Soil Resources Report). The 18,834 acres of private land were assigned an average 5 percent impervious value based on aerial photos and levels of development. 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. Calculations of impervious cover are in the Pemi Northwest 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. Approximately 500 acres (1.2 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternatives 2 and 5, while approximately 400 to 450 acres (1.0 percent) of the CEA would be disturbed in Alternative 3 and 4. The difference is related to additional landings, road maintenance and skid trail construction in Alternatives 2 and 5. This is a small increase in ground disturbance relative to the 175 acres (0.4 percent) under the no action alternative. No cumulative effect on sedimentation would be expected due to design features such as riparian buffers, location of landings and skid trails away from water and appropriate season of operation (see Soil Resources Report and Direct and Indirect Effects analysis in this report). 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 (USDA-Forest Service, 2010a). 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 may affect hydrology within the analysis period. Changes within the next decade will likely be small and will be subject to short-term climate patterns which produce year-to-year variability. It is reasonable to expect a continuation of trends that have been observed over the last century. These trends include more frequent, intense storms, a greater proportion of precipitation falling as rain, and a slight overall increase in annual precipitation. Changes in water quality are quite uncertain. Higher peak flows may result in increased sediment loads due to runoff and stream channel scour, but it is uncertain whether any measurable change would occur over the analysis period. See the summary of climate trends for water resources (Johnson, 2010) in the Pemi Northwest Project Record for more information. The activities proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not expected to have a cumulative effect on water quantity when considered in light of climate change because they are not expected to measurably increase streamflow or runoff. Short-term, localized sediment inputs due to disturbance would be offset by long term decreases in 97

30-Day Comment Report erosion due to recreation and watershed work. Therefore, no cumulative effect on water quality would occur. The effects of Tropical Storm Irene, which passed through New Hampshire on August 29, 2011, have been incorporated into this analysis. The references used in analysis of water quantity and quality, as well as the design features incorporated into the project, take into account the possibility of high flow events such as Tropical Storm Irene. As described in this analysis, the primary effects of these peak flows are increased bank instability and sediment loading due to bank failure. Though human activity such as washed out roads increased sediment loads somewhat above natural levels, the effects were not so severe that impairment of the Wild Ammonoosuc River watershed is expected. Turbidity had returned to nondetectable levels by November 1, 2011 and remained below levels indicative of impairment during high flows in spring 2012 (data in project record). The addition of woody debris to streams during the storm has the effect of trapping sediment and minimizing downstream impacts throughout the stream network (Martin and Hornbeck, 1994). Therefore, the conclusions in this report relative to direct, indirect and cumulative effects on water quantity and quality reflect changes in the project area due to this event. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 on water quantity and quality comply with the Forest Plan in that they fall within limits of temporary and short-term degradation allowed only after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are implemented. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to water resources have been incorporated as design features. Streams are expected to remain in Proper Functioning Condition or improve due to restoration projects. The proposed activities would not change water quantity to an extent that would affect instream flows or water supplies. The proposed activities would comply with State of New Hampshire water quality standards for Outstanding Resource Waters in that no more than temporary and short- term changes in water quality would occur. Waters in the analysis area would continue to support designated uses. Where water quality is currently not meeting State standards for pH and aluminum, the proposed activities are not expected to cause further degradation. These activities are not expected to affect public or private water supplies. 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 activities 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. must also be done in compliance with appropriate state BMPs for spill prevention and waste disposal.

98

Pemi Northwest Project Soils

Desired soil conditions are considered here with respect to processes that affect long- term soil productivity (soil erosion, soil displacement, soil compaction, soil cover, and nutrient cycling). The 2005 Forest Plan FEIS states soil productivity, as is defined by the Forest Service, is the inherent capacity of the soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or sequences of plant com-munities. A productive soil is able to help support a healthy and growing forest. Soil may also play a role in buffering the impacts of other environmental concerns, such as changes in stream chemistry, which may originate from acid deposition. Detailed descriptions of soil productivity, erosion, compaction, and nutrient cycling relative to the Pemi Northwest Project are included in the Soils Resource Report in the project record. Potential effects looked at in all the stands and in the general project area to meet the regional and Forest Plan soil quality standards are soil erosion, compaction, puddling, displacement, and impaired nutrient cycling. The shovel test method and ocular measurements were used to evaluate these effects. The best available science was used to address the findings on the landscape. Summary of Effects

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, 2012). Each alternative would result in some amount of temporary soil disturbance: Alternative 5 has the most (311 acres), and Alternative 3 has the least (212 acres). With implementation of best management practices and design features, no detrimental effects are anticipated under any alternative. Alternative 5 is the only alternative proposing new road construction (Tunnel Brook Road re-route). This new road construction would result in permanent effects to the approximately 2 acres of land on which the new road would be constructed. For as long as the road is present, the soil beneath it would be compacted and would not be productive. If this new road was constructed, the same amount of old road would be decommissioned, so there would be no net increase of road mileage. Soils beneath the old road would eventually recover. Effects from the reconstruction of Tunnel Brook Road in Alternatives 2 and 4 would be of a similar nature but to a slightly lesser degree than those from new road construction in Alternative 5. No detrimental effects to soil productivity are anticipated under any alternative. Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The Pemi Northwest Project has soils common to the White Mountain National Forest: shallow to ledge to moderately deep, well- and moderately well-drained, fine sandy loams on 0 to 35 percent slopes. The project area is too low on the landscape and gentle 99

30-Day Comment Report 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, 2012). The project area is a mix of northern hardwood and softwood Ecological Land Types (ELTs). ELTs are useful for making management decisions about which treatment method of harvesting to use (even- or uneven-aged management) and in which seasons harvesting should occur to minimize soil disturbance. Land use records in the early 1900s indicate the project area has been harvested for timber for many decades. Desired Condition The Forest Plan desired condition is to protect the long-term sustainability of the soil resource with an emphasis on maintaining appropriate soil nutrients and to ensure soils are stabilized around management activities. The desired soil conditions are tiered to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and the Forest Service Soil Quality Standards (SQS) (USDA-Forest Service, 2012). Implementation of SQS and relevant BMPs to all phases of the project would ensure that long-term soil productivity is maintained in this area. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

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 Pemi Northwest Project. The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is the combined Wild Ammonoosuc watershed, Oliverian Brook watershed down to confluence with North Branch, and Clark Brook tributary subwatershed which totals approximately 89.5 square miles (57,271 acres). The temporal scope for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil erosion and compaction is eleven years in the past and ten years beyond the implementation of the project. 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. The actual percent of total calcium loss takes into account calcium depletion for the last 62 years, foreseeable calcium depletion for the next 10 years, previous harvests, and current harvest proposed. 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. Additional rationale for spatial and temporal boundaries is included in the specialist report in the project record.

100

Pemi Northwest Project Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Soil Erosion and Compaction: In the absence of activities such as timber harvesting, no increase in surface soil erosion or soil compaction is expected with Alternative 1. As discussed in the Water Resources section, there would be continued localized erosion around undersized stream crossings and disturbed stream banks. Soil Nutrient Cycling: Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impact on long- term soil nutrient cycling or forest health. Cumulative Effects

Soil Erosion and Compaction: There would continue to be localized erosion related to ongoing maintenance of Forest Service System roads, recreational trails, private roads, and 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 is the primary mechanism affecting soil acidification in this area. Because there are no direct or indirect effects from Alternative 1 on soil nutrient cycling, there are no cumulative effects. On-site evidence during timber and other inventories has not revealed any unusual dieback or mortality. Stands previously harvested in this vicinity have adequately regenerated (project record). No change in biomass accumulation has been documented at the nearby Bartlett Experimental Forest. Therefore there do not appear to be issues with soil nutrient cycling. Climate change was researched and analyzed in regards to soil productivity with no detrimental effects expected within the cumulative effects time period (Colter, 2010). Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Pemi Northwest Project would result in a short-term increase in the amount of soil disturbance in the analysis area. Table 3.10 displays all ground disturbing activities, by alternative, proposed in this project. Impacts from each of these activities on soil erosion, compaction and nutrient cycling are summarized below. Transportation system Maintenance would improve drainage and surfacing on the roads, and would involve cleaning culverts, blading of the road surface, and road resurfacing. Although road maintenance would 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, 1997). This is also true for access to log landings.

101

30-Day Comment Report Alternative 5 is the only alternative that proposes any new road construction. The new road segment, replacing Tunnel Brook Road, would be added to the WMNF road inventory, and would be managed as a “winter road,” for temporary administrative access only during timber harvest activities. The new segment of road would be approximately 0.8 miles long with a 20-foot wide zone of surface compaction of the soil. As long as this road exists, soil under the road would be detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed for up to six feet on either side of the road surface. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall and the top, organic-rich layer of soil could more easily erode, thereby 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. Reconstruction of Tunnel Brook Road in Alternatives 2 and 4 would involve moving some segments of the road upslope and out of the floodplain, while some other segments would remain in their current location. Effects would be similar to those of the new construction proposed in Alternative 5, but to a lesser degree because the newly disturbed and compacted area would be less than in Alternative 5 since some portions of the old roadbed would still be used. Six new temporary “driveways” (less than 500 feet) are proposed to access landings in all action alternatives. Effects from construction would be the same as for new road construction. Following use of the driveways, they would be decommissioned using BMP’s, in turn, putting this soil back into productivity. Each action alternative proposes some road decommissioning. Decommissioning of roads may consist of a change in the database to take it off the system or rehabilitation work such as water barring, restoring the contour and seeding. There would be potential for some short-term effects due to initial soil disturbance associated with rehabilitation, but long-term effects would be beneficial, as the soil in these roadbeds would become productive. Timber harvest Each alternative proposes some amount of timber harvest across the project area (see Table 2.1). The majority of the areas proposed for harvest are gently to moderately sloped, and harvesting would occur on slopes suitable for timber management. The lengths of these slopes are short enough to limit the potential for notable soil erosion. The combination of moderately-sloped terrain with Forest standards and guidelines and BMPs, such as soil stabilization and waterbars, should prevent soil erosion and promote revegetation across the landscape (Maine Forest Service, 2005; Maine Forest Service, 2006; State of New Hampshire, 2004; Stafford, Leathers, & Briggs, 1996). Skid trails and log landings can result in soil erosion or compaction. The intensity and longevity of impacts are based on the rate and success of revegetation. Studies in Maine and Vermont found that soil compaction on log landings and skid trails lasts two to three years after operations cease (Donnelly, 1991; Holman, 1978). Restocking surveys and field reviews on the White Mountain National Forest indicate that skid trails and

102

Pemi Northwest Project 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 because the trails are narrow enough that sunlight is limited, so herbaceous plants do not generally revegetate these locations. Timber harvests may occur in summer, fall or winter, depending on harvest unit (see Appendix B). Proper skid trail location, careful closeout at the end of operations, and harvesting many units during frozen conditions should minimum surface soil erosion or soil compaction (Maine Forest Service, 2005; Maine Forest Service, 2006; State of New Hampshire, 2004; Stafford, Leathers, & Briggs, 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 during summer or fall would most likely expose mineral soil, particularly on main skid trails, and would likely result in some 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. By utilizing existing skid trails and landings, activities would occur where the soil has already demonstrated the ability to recover quickly from short term effects of harvesting, due possibly to location, soil type, or post-harvest treatments. 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). New and existing log landings would be utilized in each of the action alternatives. Existing log landings and proposed new landings are well sited on 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. Minimal soil effects are anticipated with these proposals. Timber harvest can cause changes in available (exchangeable) soil calcium and base saturation that are attributed to forest harvesting (as compared to acid deposition). (FEIS, p 3-18) These changes can result in impacts to forest health, such as tree mortality and decay, reduced productivity, or changes in species composition. No impact is expected on forest health or productivity related to the timber harvesting program across the WMNF 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 (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 2-5. Sometimes there is a concern that organic matter may be lost, causing indirect nutrient consequences. However, it has been found that soil organic matter is 103

30-Day Comment Report not lost but rather is redistributed in the upper mineral layers during harvest (Johnson et al, 1991; Johnson et al, 1997). Therefore, indirect effects to nutrients from proposed harvesting are not expected under any action alternative. Watershed and resource protection All action alternatives propose activities to improve watershed function and protect resources, including replacement or removal of culverts, installation of barrier rocks across old roads, and stream channel restoration. BMPs would be followed to reduce chances of sedimentation to the streams (see Water Resources report) during these projects. Minimal soil effects are anticipated with any of these proposals. Trail construction and hazard tree removal Alternatives 3 and 5 propose construction of approximately 0.8 miles of new hiking trail to access the existing Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailheads. The new trail would be along or near 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. Soil under the trail would be detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil could be compacted, graded, sloped, or vegetation removed 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, thereby decreasing soil productivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion control at trail construction sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling drainage should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site. Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 propose removal of hazard trees along a 100 foot buffer on Long Pond and Long Pond Spur Roads. Equipment would operate from the main roads and no detrimental effects to soils are expected from this proposal. Prescribed fire Each alternative proposes some quantity of prescribed fire to promote aspen/birch habitat and/or to meet other silvicultural and ecological objectives (see Table 2.1). Prescribed burning would occur either in late spring, when the snow cover has melted, or in late summer/early fall, when temperatures have cooled. While some surface soil organic matter may be lost from burning, experience indicates that prescribed burning does not affect rainfall infiltration rates because most of the site remains covered by organic matter after the fire, and mineral soil aggregation is not altered. The magnitude of the potential effects from prescribed fire is less than those of wildfires, since the prescribed fire is typically of a lower severity (Landsburg & Tiedemann, 2000). Based on past monitoring, prescribed fires on the WMNF do not burn hot enough to consume all of the surface organic material. In fact, these areas may need to be burned more than once to achieve desired restoration or silvicultural results. Some surface soil organic matter would be lost due to burning, but this does not necessarily affect all soil nutrients. For example, soil calcium would not be reduced by burning, but it could be removed from a site by erosion. Erosion from prescribed fire is

104

Pemi Northwest Project not expected because not all of the surface organic material would be consumed. Some soil nitrogen would be lost when the organic matter burns, but nitrogen is not considered to be a limiting factor in plant growth on the WMNF so no detrimental effect to soil nutrient cycling is expected with prescribed burning. A fireline of up to 18” wide may be constructed around burn units. Firelines would be constructed with minimal impact, would be rehabilitated as necessary, and no erosion or loss of productivity from them is expected. Cumulative Effects

Soil Erosion and Compaction: Soil may be compacted due to repeated activities in one area. Shovel testing in the harvest units in the area (the last timber sale in this area occurred in the late 1990s) on National Forest lands (Colter, 2012)demonstrated little or no evidence of compaction from previous harvesting activities, implying that the soil has effectively recovered from this activity. Use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMPs would minimize the hazard and duration of effects due to soil erosion and compaction (FEIS, p 3-29; Maine Forest Service, 2005 and 2006; Stafford et al, 1996). For these reasons, no cumulative effects from past and proposed Forest Service activities are expected. Use of BMPs during timber harvest on private lands adjacent to the National Forest lands within the analysis area is expected to limit areas of soil disturbance and soil erosion and compaction. Impacts of residential development depend on the amount of clearing, excavation, and landscaping for each site. Given the moderately-sloped terrain of the cumulative effects analysis area, the potential for steep, erosive access roads and building lots is less than might be encountered elsewhere within and adjacent to the National Forest. Landscaping and erosion control measures would determine whether effects of residential development are short-term or long-term. However effects from all action alternatives are expected to be so minimal that no adverse cumulative effects are expected. Soil Nutrient Cycling: This cumulative effects analysis considers early land use practices (forestry, agriculture), long-term changes in atmospheric deposition (sulfate, nitrate, particulate matter), and future land uses (FEIS, p 3-18). Effects of atmospheric deposition would be no different in Alternatives 2-5 than in Alternative 1. Along with other timber harvest in the analysis area, the timber harvest proposed in Alternatives 2-5 could contribute to the removal of calcium within the area. Alternative 2 and 5 would remove the most calcium, and Alternative 4 would remove the least. However, modeling of soil exchangeable calcium and base saturation for a northern hardwood forest at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest has shown little long-term effect on these factors as a result of timber harvesting. Changes in exchangeable soil calcium and soil base saturation from 1850 to 2000 were nearly the same with and without forest harvesting (USDA-Forest Service 2005, FEIS, pp 3-23 to 3-25). Therefore, no detrimental cumulative effects on nutrient cycling are anticipated under any action alternative. Climate change was researched and analyzed in regards to soil productivity with no 105

30-Day Comment Report detrimental effects expected within the cumulative effects time period (Colter, 2010).

Table 1.10 Potential Ground Disturbance by Activity and Alternative

Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Existing and New Landings (acres)a 0 32 26 27 33 Roads Construction (miles/acres)b 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0.8/1.9 Watershed Restoration (acres) 0/0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Roads Reconstruction (miles/acres)b 0/0 0.8/1.9 0/0 0.8/1.9 0/0 Road Maintenance (miles/acres)b 0/0 26/63 22/53 25/60 26/63 Road Decommission (miles/acres)b 0/0 3.2/7.7 3.2/7.7 1.1/7.7 4.0/9.6 Road Reclassification (miles/acres) 0/0 3.3/7.9 3.3/7.9 3.3/7.9 3.3/7.9 Skid Trails (miles/acres)a 0/0 114/273 93/223 77/184 115/275 Hiking trail Construction (mi/ac)c 0/0 0/0 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5 0.8/0.5 Prescribed Fire (acres)d 0/0 426 383 367 426 New Driveways (miles/acres)b 0/0 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 0.06/0.1 Total Disturbed Acres 0 306.8 251.3 212.4 311.3 Total % of Stand Acres Disturbed 0% 8.4% of 3642 8.8% of 2841 8.5% of 2507 8.5% of 3642 ac. ac. ac. ac. a Landing size =0.75 acres b 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/mile dPrescribed fire acres are included for informational purposes but are not expected to contribute to ground disturbance and therefore are not included in “Total Disturbed Acres” calculations Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations & Policies

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, 2012). There will be some soil disturbance from implementation of any action alternative. Monitoring of past similar projects indicates that application of design features and BMPs would result in no detrimental effects from this project. All alternatives would be in compliance with Soil Quality Standards. Alternative 5 involves construction of 0.8 miles of new road and decommissioning of 0.8 miles of existing road (relocation of FR 700), and Alternatives 2 and 4 involve reconstruction of a portion of FR 700. Soils beneath the new sections of road would become compacted, while soils beneath the decommissioned sections would recover. Because there would be no net road mileage increase under any alternative, they all meet the Forest Plan objective that restricts the amount of new road construction during the life of the Plan.

106

Pemi Northwest Project Monitoring Recommendations

The Forest Soil Scientist will make periodic checks during and after project implementation to monitor effects on soils. If necessary, mitigation measures will be applied to address any concerns regarding the soil condition. Federally Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (TEPS)

District Biologist Weloth and Forest Botanist Mattrick completed a Biological Evaluation (BE, located in the project record) of the potential effects to TEPS and their habitat from the Pemi Northwest Project. Based on a review of best available information, the BE disclosed there is habitat in the Project Area for one Federally-listed threatened species and habitat for several and documented occurrence of three Regional Forester-listed sensitive species within portions of the Pemi Northwest Project Area. BE Effects Determinations and Rationale The Pemi Northwest Project BE details the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to TEPS having documented occurrence and/or suitable habitat present in the Project Area. The effects determinations with rationale taken from the Pemi Northwest Project BE are summarized below. The BE effects determinations were based on best available science, on internal and external database and scientific literature reviews, information from internal and external professional biologists, and based on site-specific Forest Service stream, plant, and wildlife surveys and field reviews. Affected Environment

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and the temporal scope with rationale for TEPS taken from the Pemi Northwest Project BE are summarized in the following table.

Table 3.11 Spatial and temporal boundaries for analysis

BE Analysis Area and Rationale BE Temporal Scope TEPS for Direct, Indirect, and Species Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Cumulative Effects MA 2.1 lands in the HMU because All NF lands in HMU (MAs 2.1, 6.1-.3, The past and future ten years 1) habitat objectives are based on 8.3), NS & Spur Roads, and abutting (2002-2022) because it spans a ELT capabilities on MA 2.1 land; private land. Considers habitat timeframe when benefits to some Terrestrial 2) includes the Project Area for an diversity and connectivity at the wildlife diminish after 10 years array of wildlife home ranges. landscape level. due to loss of 0 to 9 year old re- Except for Canada lynx habitat the BE used the WMNF Lynx Analysis Unit 13, generation age class and includes which includes the HMU & Project Area. WMNF Forest Plan S&Gs that have Perennial streams in the Project Perennial streams in the HMU and on and would protect soil, water, Aquatic Area due to restricted aquatic abutting private land due to restricted riparian, and wildlife including habitat requirements. aquatic habitat requirements. woodland bats. MA 2.1 land in the Project Area MA 2.1 land in the Project Area & Plants because plants are sessile. abutting private land.

107

30-Day Comment Report Federally-listed Species:

Canada lynx

• Alternative 1 would cause no effect to Canada lynx. However, under No Action, there would be lost opportunities to improve snowshoe hare habitat (lynx prey-base) in LAU 13. • Alternatives 2, 3, 4 or 5 may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, individual Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). • Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5 are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines outlined in the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for protecting Canada lynx habitat on the Forest (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a).

RATIONALE: Determination were based on site-specific Pemi Northwest Project Area surveys and field reviews, Forest-wide wildlife surveys, prior Forest Service BEs in the same and adjacent Lynx Analysis Units, and best available information from internal and external databases, scientific literature reviews, and communications with internal & external professionals.

1.) The USDI-FWS (2009) designated critical lynx habitat in a Federal Register Notice, which does not include NH or the WMNF. 2.) In 2011, four lynx kittens were documented in two locations in northern Coos County in Pittsburg, NH (approximately 100 miles north of the Pemi Northwest Project Area). In winter of 2006, lynx tracks and scat were found on private land north of US Route 2 in the Town of Jefferson, NH (approx. 50 miles northeast of the Pemi Northwest Project Area). DNA tests confirmed the scat was from one female lynx (USDA-FS, 2006a, b). As a result, breeding populations of lynx may be reoccupying a portion of their former range in NH (which includes the WMNF) after having been absent during the later portion of the 1900s. 3.) However, lynx or their sign were not detected via multi-year surveys in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. Also, no sign of lynx was documented during past years of winter tracking on the Walker Brook Wildlife Monitoring Transect (located in the same LAU 13 as the Pemi Northwest Project Area), or on the Lost River Transect (located adjacent to LAU 13) (USDA-FS unpub. data). 4.) Canada lynx have a relatively large home range and the Proposed Action or alternatives would not prevent lynx movement across the landscape. The action alternatives would adhere to WMNF FP S&Gs that protect lynx habitat. The action alternatives would enhance and maintain snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat (Alternative 2 & 5 the most, then Alternative 3, then Alternative 4). 5.) The NH Fish and Game Dept. Regional Wildlife Biologist field reviewed portions of the Pemi Northwest Project Area and agrees Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would improve habitat conditions for snowshoe hare (lynx primary prey base) (NHFG, 2012).

108

Pemi Northwest Project Regional Forester-listed Sensitive Species:

Woodland bats

• Alternative 1 would cause no impact to the population or species of the R9-listed bats for the WMNF shown below. However, there would be lost opportunities to open portions of the forest canopy and create favorable roosting and foraging habitat conditions within the Project Area for woodland bats. • Alternative 2, 3, 4, or 5 may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species of o Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) o Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) o Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) o Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) RATIONALE: Determinations were based on best available local and relevant science and new information (USDA-FS 2010, 2010b, 2011c) and on site-specific Pemi Northwest Project Area field surveys, and WMNF mist-net surveys (Chenger, 2002, 2004; Yamasaki, 2000), and recent cave surveys in NH (NHFGD, 2010; Veilleux, 2005, 06, 07; Veilleux & Reynolds, 2010), and woodland bat surveys off the WMNF in NY & VT (Kiser et al, 2001, 2002). 1.) There are no documented overwinter hibernacula (caves, mines, or tunnels) and no old buildings exposed to sun as roost sites (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix G, pages 224-227) within units proposed for silvicultural treatment in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. 2.) Forest-wide mist net surveys of woodland bats (included similar habitat as found in Pemi Northwest Project Area) detected Eastern small-footed, little brown, northern long- eared, and tri-colored bat (Chenger 2002, 2004). These species are assumed present in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. 3.) Tree removal under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 within the Pemi Northwest Project Area (approx.12,000 acres) would affect a very small percentage (approx. 1.5%) of the entire 800,000 acre WMNF. Using stringent Northern long-eared bat roost tree criteria, Forest Inventory and Analysis data determined there are approx. 55 million live trees, and approx. 13 million standing dead trees which are also available to N. long-eared and little brown bats on the WMNF. The WMNF only harvests approx. 85,000 trees per year, and < 1% of the WMNF is harvested in any one year (Millen, 2011). The majority of the WMNF is in the mature age class, and roosting habitat is not considered limiting on the WMNF (USDI-FWS, 2005). Silvicultural treatments that open the forest canopy allowing sunlight into stands could improve solar conditions for roosting and open foraging habitat for woodland bats (especially clearcuts and patch clearcuts). 4.) WMNF Forest Plan Riparian and Wildlife S&Gs (USDA-FS 2005a, Chap. II 24-26 and 33-36) would maintain riparian areas and wildlife trees Forest-wide. Site-specific project design would avoid prominent rock outcrops in the Project Area, and winter harvest for majority of the units is timed to avoid disturbance to bats because they would be

109

30-Day Comment Report hibernating elsewhere. Also, MAs 6.1-.3, 8.3 lands are not subject to vegetation management and woodland bat habitat would be available Forest-wide. The Tunnel Brook Road reconstruction/relocation/construction options would protect Tunnel Brook and the riparian area as a flyway for foraging woodland bats. 5.) Activities that harvest trees are unlikely to result in cumulative effects to the RFSS- listed woodland bats on the WMNF. Literature indicates Eastern small-footed myotis does not favor roosting in trees during the non-hibernation season. WNS has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities proposed in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. There are no known hibernacula on the WMNF. All activities proposed in the Pemi Northwest Project occur outside of known caves (off- Forest), with no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USDA-Forest Service, 2010c). The proposed recreation, watershed, and ecosystem restoration activities would not adversely impact woodland bat habitat. Common Loon (Gavia immer)

• Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 would cause no impact to the population or species of common loon

RATIONALE: This determination was based on site-specific Project Area stream and Long Pond surveys, personal communication with internal and external professional biologists, and scientific literature reviews. 1.) There is annual documented occurrence of common loon in Long Pond, Benton, NH within the Pemi Northwest Project Area. 2.) WMNF S&Gs would maintain the riparian of Long Pond within the Pemi Northwest Project Area during project activities. 3.) WMNF S&Gs protect riparian areas and maintain aquatic habitat that is well- distributed across the Forest for common loon. 4.) NH State wetland and water quality laws would provide some protection of aquatic habitats on private land adjacent to the HMU.

Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis)

• Implementation of Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 would cause no impact to the population or species of Northern bog lemming.

RATIONALE: This determination was based on the best available science, site-specific Project Area and stream surveys, and past Forest-wide directed searches for Northern bog lemming (included similar habitat as the Pemi Northwest Project Area). 1.) No documented and extremely low likelihood of N. bog lemming occurrence in the Project Area. Wet spruce-fir/riparian habitat in the Project Area would be excluded from harvest and prescribed burn units and timing and duration of activities would not affect wetter areas. Historic occurrences in the Towns of Benton and Woodstock occurred outside of the Pemi Northwest Project Area. 2.) WMNF FP Riparian & Wildlife S&Gs would maintain existing dead and down wood 110

Pemi Northwest Project and residual vegetation and provide cover for lemming if present in the Project Area (USDA-FS 2005a, II 24-26 & 33-36). Winter harvest for majority of stands would limit soil/snow compaction. 3.) NH State wetland and water quality laws would protect potential marginal lemming habitat on private land adjacent to the HMU. Ameletus mayflies

• Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 would cause no impact to the population or species of mayflies (Ameletus browni or A. tertius). RATIONALE: This determination was based on site-specific Project Area stream surveys, personal communication with internal and external professional biologists, and scientific literature reviews. 1.) There are no known current or historic documented occurrences of these mayflies in headwater streams in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. 2.) Suitable Ameletid mayfly aquatic habitat within the Pemi Northwest Project Area would be protected during project activities. 3.) WMNF Standards & Guidelines protect riparian & maintain aquatic habitat for mayflies that is well-distributed across the Forest. 4.) NH State wetland & water quality laws would provide protection of aquatic and riparian habitat on private land abutting the HMU. Plants

The following RFSS plants are either documented in or have a probability of occurrence within the project area: . Boreal Bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum)—documented . Butternut (Juglans cinerea)—documented . Bailey’s Sedge (Carex baileyi) . American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) . Clustered Sedge (Carex cumulata) . Goldie’s Woodfern (Dryopteris goldiana) . Northern Adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum pusillum)

• Alternative 1 would cause no impact to populations or species of RFSS plants • Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species of known or undiscovered RFSS-listed plants. RATIONALE: Based on site-specific project area plant surveys and best available information from database and scientific literature reviews:

1.) There is documented occurrence of two RFSS species in portions of the Pemi Northwest Project Area that would be avoided. 2.) Several multi-year and site-specific Project Area plant surveys documented no other TES plants

111

30-Day Comment Report Climate Change

The WMNF uses 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-FS, 2005a). Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scientific information indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitats or species’ populations from climate change within the Pemi Northwest Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2002-2022) (Prout L. , 2010). Climate change is not expected to affect wildlife resources (including EI, MIS, or TES species and their habitat) or how well the Pemi Northwest Project achieves the desired outcomes. Wildlife

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 would not cause any negative effects of disturbance, displacement, and/or mortality of wildlife from increased human presence, noise and habitat alteration or improvements because no Federal activities are proposed in the analysis area at this time. However, the No Action alternative would not create any 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class habitat, nor perpetuate the spruce-fir habitat, and would risk losing the aspen-birch type in the HMU and the Pemi Northwest Project Area long-term. Alternative 1 does not meet the Purpose and Need and would not move the forest towards the desired future condition for regeneration age class or habitat diversity on MA 2.1 lands in the HMU as outlined in the Forest Plan. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would cause negative effects of disturbance, displacement, and/or mortality of wildlife from increased human presence, noise and habitat alteration, or improvements during proposed project activities. These effects would be relatively minor and short-term (except mortality) and localized in MA 2.1 lands in the Pemi Northwest Project Area and are within the range of effects for wildlife resources described in the WMNF FEIS (2005b). Alternatives 2 and 5 would create more acres of the 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class in all habitat types and perpetuate more of the spruce-fir and aspen-birch habitats in the HMU via approximately 3,642 acres of vegetation treatments compared to 2,841 acres under Alternative 3 (defer harvest units along the Tunnel Brook Road), and 2,507 acres under Alternative 4 (no harvest units within the Forest Plan Roadless Inventory Area). Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 could cause relatively minor, short-term, and localized direct or indirect effects to Ecological Indicators, Management Indicator Species, or TEPS species or their habitats, but cause no cumulative effects from vegetation management activities. Reconstruction/relocation of the Tunnel Brook Road out of the flood plain (Alternatives 2 and 4), or restoration only (Alternative 3), or relocation to the east side with winter road access only (Alternative 5) would protect a potential wildlife travel and flyway corridor and improve habitat for woodland bats, EI, MIS, and TES species and their habitat.

112

Pemi Northwest Project Affected Environment

The Pemi Northwest Project Area and the entire Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU are dominated by northern hardwood, followed by mixedwood, then spruce-fir, with aspen-paper birch habitat types and few hemlocks. The mature age class dominates all the habitat types. There is a minor amount of regeneration age class for all the habitat types except oak-pine and hemlock in the Pemi Northwest Project Area (and the entire HMU), except recent wind throw occurred in several spruce-fir stands along the North South Road near the height of land that may encourage some softwood regeneration. There are relatively minor amounts of young age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU for northern hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir, and aspen-birch. The Pemi Northwest Project Area provides a great opportunity on the District to perpetuate the aspen-birch, spruce-fir, and oak-pine habitat types, and opportunities to increase the regeneration age class for all habitat types across the HMU landscape. The habitat in the Pemi Northwest Project Area is used by American marten (Ecological Indicator species), Blackburnian warbler (Management Indicator Species), moose, white-tailed deer, black bear, and other wildlife. There are no tunnels, mines, caves, talus, or prominent rock outcrops used by hibernating woodland bats within the stands proposed for treatment in the Pemi Northwest Project Area. There are several permanent wildlife openings and the constructed 110 acre Long Pond that provide habitats important to wildlife such as the common loon. There is documented occurrence of three Regional Forester-listed sensitive species within the Pemi Northwest Project Area: Common loon (Gavia immer), boreal bedstraw (Galium kamtschaticum), and butternut (Juglans cinerea). Habitat is present for several other sensitive plants and animals. There is no documented occurrence of the Federally- listed Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) within the Project Area or mapped suitable habitat for Canada lynx within the stands proposed for treatment (see TEPS section and the BE in the project record). Outstanding Natural Communities (ONC): The WMNF FEIS (pp. 3-293 to 298) identified 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 NH Natural Heritage Bureau (2012) database, and FS multi-year/seasonal and site-specific plant and wildlife surveys and forest inventories, there are no stands specifically identified as old growth forest and no other ONC within the project area. There are no alpine ravines, bog or wet sedge meadows. There are no caves, mines, tunnels, cliffs, talus, or prominent rock outcrops (rock outcrops are an abundant feature and not limited on the WMNF) as bat habitat in treatment stands in the project area. Private land abutting the HMU contains a mix of habitat types and age classes, paved and dirt roads, developments, and year-round residences. The private land contributes to habitat diversity, but not substantially to the 0 to 9 year-old regeneration age class by habitat type, especially northern hardwood. Future activities on private land are not expected to create substantial amounts of regeneration age class or early successional habitat such as aspen and paper birch. There is likelihood that some of the forested habitat or openings on private land could be lost as habitat due to development. 113

30-Day Comment Report Ecological Indicators

Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: There are no peregrine falcon nest sites (ecological indicator for cliff habitat) within the Pemi Northwest Project Area and none are expected in the future because there is no suitable cliff nesting habitat within the Project Area. The nearest breeding falcons are documented at Sugarloaf Mountain and Owls Head Cliff adjacent the western and southern boundary of the Project Area. The open canopy conditions in the wildlife openings in the Project Area may provide some foraging habitat for hunting falcons. American Marten: The marten is suspected as occurring in softwood habitat in the Project Area, but no marten or their sign were documented in the Project Area during recent field reviews and surveys. The red squirrel (Tamiascurus hudsonicus) was noted in portions of the Project Area. The red squirrel is one of the prey bases of the American marten. Important Wildlife Habitats

Long Pond: The constructed 110 acre Long Pond within the Project Area A loon at the Long Pond dam (WMNF photo). provides open water and riparian habitat for a variety of common insects, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, waterfowl, songbirds, Eastern brook trout and loon. Common loon and beavers occupy the pond, and other wildlife breed, forage, and drink from the pond. Woodland bats and birds forage on insects flying above the open water (an aerial foraging opportunity usually not present in a closed canopy forest). There is a picnic area and footpath with two fishing platforms that receive high levels of human activity. 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 deer survival during severe winter conditions. A management goal for wintering areas, regardless of species composition, is to intersperse mature softwoods with small openings to perpetuate critical softwood cover, maintain deer mobility and access throughout the wintering area during harsh winter months, and maintain high quality preferred accessible browse (NHDFL/SFPNF 1997). Multi-year and multi-seasonal site-specific surveys and field reviews documented deer and moose use (summer and winter fecal pellets, browsing pressure, bark-scarred trees, and scattered game trails) in portions of the Project Area. These surveys indicate white-tailed deer and moose occupy and travel through portions of the Project Area throughout the year. There is a documented deer wintering area (yard) in the Pemi Northwest Project Area, but not located within any units proposed 114

Pemi Northwest Project treatment. The NH Fish and Game manages white-tailed deer as a game species harvested annually, and their populations are viable in the state and on the WMNF. NHFG (2011) goals are to increase the population in the Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) D2, which includes the Pemi Northwest Project Area. Bear-clawed Beech Trees: The Project Area contains American beech (Fagus grandifolia) that produces beechnuts, a hard mast food source for black bears and other wildlife. Few beech trees clawed by foraging black bear were observed in portions of mixedwood and hardwood habitat in the Project Area during site-specific field reviews. NHFG manages black bear as a game species that is harvested annually. Black bear populations are viable in the state and on the WMNF and NHFG (2011) bear management goals call for a slight population decrease in NHFG WMU D2. White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Woodland Bats: Bats affected with WNS have a white fungus on their muzzles, ears, or wing/tail membranes. Other physiological and behavioral symptoms are exhibited. In winter, hibernating bats affected with WNS move near the cave entrance and often come out of the cave prematurely compared to the normal spring time emergence and fly around in the middle of the day. These affected bats generally have reduced fat reserves and are non-responsive and have been found dead both inside and outside of the caves in the affected area. WNS has been confirmed in hibernating bats from Canada to Tennessee to Oklahoma, and recently in NH. Currently, no bat hibernacula have been found on the WMNF (including the Pemi Northwest Project Area); however, there are 15 known small caves in NH, with more than half in Grafton County. In March 2009, WNS was confirmed for the first time in three hibernacula in NH (located off the WMNF), two of which are in Grafton County (Red Mine in Lyman and Bristol Mine in Bristol). In 2010, the big brown (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown (Myotis lucifugus), northern-long eared (Myotis septentrionalis), tri-colored (Perimyotis subflavus), and eastern small-footed (Myotis leibii) bats hibernating in Mascot Mine in Coos County (approximately 40 miles northeast of the Pemi Northwest Project Area) tested positive for WNS (NHFG 2010; USDA 2010, Veilleux and Reynolds 2010). No Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) were observed in NH hibernacula. Elsewhere outside of NH, WNS has been detected in Indiana bats. Several woodland bat species have been recorded across the WMNF during bat surveys in the early 1990s and 2000s (Krusic et al. 1996; Sasse 1995; Chenger 2002, 2004; Veilleux and Reynolds 2005, 2005a, 2010) and during recent Forest-wide acoustic bat surveys on the WMNF (WMNF unpublished data in project file). Bats that may forage or roost in or near the Pemi Northwest Project Area that may have been affected by WNS include the big brown, little brown, northern long-eared, tri-colored, and Eastern small-footed bats. Indiana bat does not occur on the WMNF. Unlike the Eastern small-footed myotis, these other bat species commonly roost in trees (most often snags and partially dead trees near foraging habitat and water) or buildings. Tri-colored bats primarily roost in trees during the summer, though they may occasionally use buildings (Veilleux and Reynolds 2005), and northern long-eared bats roost in deciduous trees and snags (Sasse 1995, Veilleux and Reynolds 2005). The Eastern small-footed (currently RFSS) and the northern long- eared bats and are also under a status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate whether they should be proposed for Federal listing. 115

30-Day Comment Report The Northeast Region of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS) maintains a website with the most recent scientific and local information on WNS. Current recommendations (developed by the USDI-FWS and multiple partners including the USDA Forest Service) are aimed at preventing and slowing the spread of WNS and are outlined in, “A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing WNS in Bats (National WNS Response Plan)”. Furthermore, the WMNF is implementing the “USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, WNS Regional Response Plan, 2011-12” that tier to the National WNS Response Plan. The bat conservation and WNS preventative measures under these plans focus on human visitation or research in affected hibernacula, human visitation between affected and unaffected caves and mines, and human handling of affected bats. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Table 3.12 shows the WMNF MIS (taken from the FEIS) and their representative habitat in the analysis area (MA 2.1 lands in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU including the Project Area). MIS probability of occurrence was based on known documented occurrence and/or suitable habitat present in the analysis area (suitable habitat was assumed occupied). Table 3.12 WMNF MIS Probability of occurrence in the analysis area MIS and Representative MIS and/or Habitats MIS Population Trends Habitat Condition in the Analysis Area

Chestnut-sided Warbler 27 acres regeneration age hardwood habitat in WMNF breeding bird monitoring & BBS(*) data Regeneration age class hardwoods MA 2.1 land in the HMU. Biologist and Bio Tech show a statistically significant declining trend. (seedling/sapling stages, but includes heard chestnut-sided warblers during several field The amount of regeneration age habitat on the some scattered regenerating reviews of the Project Area. WMNF has declined in recent decades. softwoods).

Scarlet Tanager 4,889 acres mature hardwood habitat in MA 2.1 WMNF bird monitoring shows a declining trend Mature hardwoods (predominantly land in the HMU. Biologist and Bio Tech heard since 1992. BBS data shows a stable trend last northern hardwood, could include scarlet tanager during several field reviews of the 4 decades (NH data show declining trends, scattered pole-size softwoods). Project Area. while VT & ME show increasing trends).

Magnolia Warbler 35 acres regeneration age spruce-fir habitat in MA WMNF bird monitoring data shows a declining Regeneration age softwoods 2.1 land in the HMU. Biologist and Bio Tech heard (not statistically significant) trend. BBS data (predominantly spruce-fir, but could magnolia warbler during field reviews of the shows stable trend (declining in northern NH & include some scattered regeneration Project Area. ME, increasing in southern NH & northern VT). age hardwoods).

Blackburnian Warbler 1,618 acres mature spruce-fir habitat in MA 2.1 in WMNF bird monitoring data shows a declining Mature softwoods (spruce-fir, includes the HMU. Biologist and Bio Tech heard this trend (not statistically significant). BBS data some scattered regeneration age warbler during several field reviews of the Project shows a stable trend. hardwoods). Area.

Ruffed Grouse 1,037 acres total age class of aspen/birch in MA WMNF bird data shows a declining trend (not All ages of aspen / paper birch. 2.1 land in the HMU. Biologist and Bio Tech saw statistically significant). BBS data shows gradual and heard grouse during several field reviews and decline from large peak in mid 1970s, but grouse drumming surveys within the Project Area. overall trend stable. WMNF MIS population trends were based on Forest-wide breeding bird data (1992-2008) summarized in recent 2008 & 2009 WMNF Monitoring & Evaluation Reports, and from MacFaden and Capen (2000). BBS(*) = Breeding Bird Survey data was summarized from Sauer et al., 2003. Suitable Habitat = Meets species’ life history needs (food, cover / shelter, water, breeding, and young rearing). Range and suitable habitat definitions were taken from USDA-FS FEIS 2005; DeGraaf et al. 2006; DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001. The determination of no occurrence of MIS considers the potential for occasional, incidental and infrequent travel through or flyover of a species within the Analysis Area.

116

Pemi Northwest Project Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the MA 2.1 lands within the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU. The analysis area for cumulative effects on wildlife and their habitat includes all National Forest system lands in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU, totaling approximately 16,441 acres and private land abutting the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU. The temporal scope for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the past and future ten years (2002-2022). Rationale for spatial and temporal boundaries is in the Wildlife Resources Report in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct Effects

Alternative 1 would not cause any tree or vegetation removal, soil or snow compaction, or human presence and noise from timber harvesting, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, recreation improvements, and public access and transportation system activities. The No Action would not cause any direct effects of mortality, disturbance, displacement, or interruptions of wildlife travel to, from, or within the Project Area due to no vegetation management or other activities at this time. Alternative 1 would not cause any direct effects on ecological indicators peregrine falcon (or cliff habitat) or American marten or other important wildlife habitats of concern, or MIS in the Project Area or the HMU. Annual maintenance of the Long Pond Dam (removal and installation of flashboards to regulate water level) would occur independently of the proposed Pemi Northwest Project. Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, the forest would continue to grow and mature and openings in the forest canopy would likely result from trees dying or from pockets of blow down. Changes in the existing habitat types or age classes would occur through the natural processes of forest succession or through larger scale natural disturbances such as wind throw, ice storm, hurricane, fire, or infestation, which tend to be infrequent and sporadic occurrences in the New England Region (Lorimer & White, 2003). Spruce-fir understory in hardwood and mixedwood stands on spruce-fir Ecological Land Types would remain the same. Balsam-fir in mature spruce-fir stands would continue to die gradually; understory species would take their place. Young age class forest would evolve into mature forest with no new regenerating forest to take its place unless stand-replacing natural disturbances occur. There would be an increase in the amount of mature forest as young forest matured. The mature age class is already dominant in the Project Area, the HMU, and Forest-wide, and is available habitat for EI American marten, MIS Scarlet tanager and Blackburnian warbler, and other wildlife like fisher that use mature habitat. Over time, Alternative 1 has a greater potential to develop large diameter cavity trees, snags, and accumulate downed woody material for wildlife habitat compared to the harvest units proposed under the action Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5. Regeneration Age Class: The No Action alternative would cause an adverse indirect

117

30-Day Comment Report effect of perpetuating the lack of 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class in all habitat types (including northern hardwood as browse for snowshoe hare, deer, and moose) that is already lacking in the Project Area and the entire HMU. Lack of this age class could cause some wildlife species to not occur in portions of the Project Area (including MIS chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers and ruffed grouse). Aspen-birch and Spruce-fir: The No Action alternative would also add to the decline of aspen-paper birch (early successional) habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the Project Area and the HMU. There would be lost opportunities to create dense shrub layers (as nesting and cover) and soft mast production (berries) as food source for deer, bear, and turkey. There would lost opportunities to perpetuate the softwood habitat or speed conversion of mixedwood into softwood for wildlife habitat diversity (spruce-fir habitat type important for snowshoe hare and deer wintering cover). Cumulative Effects

Mature northern hardwood, followed by softwood and mixedwood would continue to dominate the HMU. Individual dead or dying trees would fall to the ground via natural disturbances (i.e. windthrow) and create very small, infrequent, sporadic, and unpredictable canopy openings. Canopy openings would allow sunlight to reach the forest floor and create very limited amounts of 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class in the HMU with lesser habitat structural value compared to large openings. Field observations and aerial photos indicate the private land adjacent to the HMU does not contribute substantially to the 0-9 year old regeneration age class habitat. Aspen- paper birch habitat would be present in the HMU in 10 years, but would have matured and possibly begun converting towards northern hardwood or spruce-fir types. This alternative does not preclude future options for creating early-successional habitat or diversifying habitat types in the HMU. Visitors would continue to use the general area. Alternative 1 would not add a cumulative effect of increased human activity in the analysis area due to no proposed vegetation or other management activities at this time. There would be lost opportunities to improve snowshoe hare habitat (Canada lynx prey-base) via creation of 0 to 9 year old regeneration forest. Alternative 1 would not cause negative effects to EI American marten or peregrine falcon or cliff nesting habitat, or deer overwinter habitat, bear clawed beech trees, or add stress to woodland bats that summer roost in trees. But, Alternative 1 would not perpetuate aspen-birch or spruce-fir for marten or red squirrel (prey base), nor create 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class habitat for the MIS ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided and magnolia warblers, nor increase hardwood browse adjacent to deer habitat. Alternative 1 would add an adverse cumulative effect to the lack of regeneration age class and add to the steadily decline in aspen-birch type and cause a lost opportunity to perpetuate spruce-fir habitat in the HMU analysis area. Alternative 1 would not move the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU or the Forest toward the wildlife habitat diversity objectives outlined in the Forest Plan for the full range of wildlife species on the WMNF in the reasonably foreseeable future (USDA-FS 2005a, Chap. I, pp 20-22). 118

Pemi Northwest Project Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct Effects

The action alternatives would cause relatively minor, localized, and short-term increase in human presence and noise in the Project Area from timber harvesting, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, recreation improvements, and public access and transportation system activities. The vegetation management, prescribed fire, and other management activities proposed would not occur in the entire Project Area all at the same time. Direct negative effects could include mortality, disturbance and/or displacement of nesting birds, roosting bats, or denning mammals, or temporary alter wildlife travel patterns (including amphibians and reptiles and small and large mammals). Beneficial effects include regenerating spruce-fir and aspen-birch via harvest for MIS magnolia warbler and ruffed grouse, increasing mobility for some species on snow compacted by skidding, and increasing browse for moose and deer from residual treetops scattered on the ground. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have greater potential for minor negative and greater beneficial effects based on the amount of treatment acres proposed compared to Alternatives 3 and 4 respectively. Similar watershed restoration activities and rock barrier installation are proposed under the action alternatives, which would cause beneficial effects to wildlife habitat. Proposed Tunnel Brook Road relocation, reconstruction, or restoration activities under the action alternatives would require varying amounts of tree removal and earth disturbance. Alternative 3 would cause fewer direct negative effects to wildlife resources related to Tunnel Brook Road options compared to the other action alternatives. Season of Harvest: The season when a unit is harvested may directly affect wildlife and their habitat, especially during critical times in their life cycle such as breeding, rearing young, feeding, and winter survival. Individuals could be disturbed, displaced or killed during any season of harvest operation. Summer harvest could affect species that use trees for roosting, nesting, cover, and foraging (including woodland bats and breeding birds MIS scarlet tanager, MIS Blackburnian warbler, and MIS ruffed grouse that use mature habitat), and ground disturbance could affect ground dwelling species (amphibians, reptiles, and insects). Fall harvest would affect fewer nesting species but could potentially affect autumn breeding species, including some amphibians, species that feed on fall mast (beechnuts) such as black bear, and small ground-dwelling mammals. Winter harvest would not directly affect roosting bats because they would be hibernating elsewhere. Other species could be affected by winter harvest, such as owls that breed in the winter. White-tailed deer gather (yard) in areas of lowland conifers where cover and warmer temperatures provide protection from the elements, and where they would be vulnerable to disturbance during this time of year. The Project Area was surveyed to investigate deer activity and contains softwood habitat used by deer but there are no yards within the proposed harvest units. 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, with young fledging in June and July (NHDFL/SPNF, 1997), so they could be affected by both winter and summer harvest. Fall and winter harvest operations occur

119

30-Day Comment Report when ground conditions are dry or frozen to protect soil and water resources or to minimize bark damage on residual trees. Summer operations occur when non-frozen ground conditions are necessary to create a seedbed to establish regeneration of particular tree species, or where soils could support equipment without adverse effects. Under the action alternatives, the majority of stands would be harvested in winter only, with several fall and summer units. There would be very minor differences in magnitude of effects to wildlife (including woodland bats) between the action alternatives because the proposed season of harvest is the same under all alternatives, with fewer treatment acres proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4. While conducting 2012 spring breeding bird surveys in portions of the completed Moose Watch Timber Sale (located in Bethlehem, NH), District Biologist Weloth observed that winter harvest operations (frozen ground conditions) effectively protected vegetation, water, and soil substrates for wildlife habitat. No raptor nests were found in the stands proposed for treatment during site-specific surveys of the Project Area. If raptors such as the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) nested in a harvest unit, they are often vocal and aggressive and would be detected during unit layout or prior to harvesting. Any active raptor nest that was detected in a harvest unit would be protected under Forest Plan standards and guidelines (FP S&Gs). District Biologist Weloth observed FP S&Gs effectively protected raptor nests during active harvest and sale area closure work on the nearby Moody Ledge Timber Sale located on the WMNF in Benton, NH. Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: There are no peregrine falcon nest sites (ecological indicator for cliff habitat) within the Pemi Northwest Project Area nor is there any suitable cliff nesting habitat within the Project Area. The nearest breeding falcons are documented at Sugarloaf Mountain and Owls Head Cliff adjacent the western and southern boundary of the Project Area. The action alternatives would not cause any negative affects to falcon breeding, courtship, or migration, but would increase varying amounts of open canopy foraging habitat for peregrine falcon within the Pemi Northwest Project Area (Alternatives 2 and 5 more compared to Alternatives 3 and 4). American Marten: No marten or their sign were documented in softwood and mixed wood habitats in the Project Area. The treatments would perpetuate softwood, aspen- birch, mixedwood, and hardwood habitats used by marten and red squirrel (prey base for marten). Alternatives 2 and 5 would perpetuate more acres of these habitat types and create more forage opportunities for marten and red squirrel due to more acres proposed for treatment compared to Alternatives 3 and 4 respectively. The harvest treatments, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, or access and transportation activities proposed under the action alternatives would not reduce the stand basal area beyond a suitable habitat condition for EI American marten (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, 3-196). Mature habitat used by marten and red squirrel would remain within the Project Area and within the larger HMU. The approximately 2.7 miles of road decommissioning under all the action alternatives would improve and protect riparian habitat as suitable travel corridor for EI American marten and a foraging and flyway for woodland bats. 120

Pemi Northwest Project The relocation of the Tunnel Brook under Alternatives 2, 4, or 5 would transverse through mixedwood / hardwood habitat that would affect only a portion of a marten’s large home range, but would not prevent marten form foraging or traveling to, from, or within the Project Area or the larger HMU. Important Wildlife Habitats Long Pond: The proposed activities under the action alternative would not directly or indirectly affect Long Pond or the existing picnic area, footpath, and accessible fishing piers that receive moderate to high levels of summer human activity. There would be no change in habitat diversity or the current wildlife species composition from implementation of any of the action alternatives. Long Pond Dam maintenance would occur independently from the action alternatives. White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The harvest treatments proposed under the action alternatives (especially clearcut and patchcuts) would increase the amount of limbs and tops on the ground from timber harvesting, which would provide a localized, short-term source of nutritious browse for deer and moose when they need it the most for overwinter survival. In a couple years, these treated areas would create browse for deer, moose and other wildlife. The removal of individual trees and smaller group cuts would enhance and perpetuate the existing softwoods, possibly providing winter cover for deer in the future. In the long term, treatments may increase some beech regeneration within the Project Area, providing a source of hard mast in the future. The action alternatives (including harvesting, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, and access and transportation system activities) would not adversely affect mobility patterns or travel corridors of large mammals such as deer and moose traveling to, from, or within the Project Area and private land. These large mammals have large home ranges, and appear to adjust quickly to disturbance or displacement from human presence (including noise) and may adjust their foraging behavior to avoid human activity. Over a period of 20 years on the WMNF, District Biologist Weloth observed on numerous vegetation management projects across the district that placing small harvest groups in softwood habitat to perpetuate cover and placement of clearcuts or larger groups in hardwood habitat to create browse near softwood stands is an effective practices. This effective practice was monitored and photo documented at the recently harvested Right Angle Timber Sale located in Rumney, NH (see project record). The action alternatives would follow WMNF Forest Plan S&Gs that would avoid impacts to softwood habitat that is necessary to support wintering populations of white-tailed deer. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: Wildlife design feature that retains bear clawed beech trees would minimize the effect of a slight reduction of fall foraging habitat within the stands proposed under the action alternatives. Fall harvesting could temporarily displace bears feeding in beech trees, but they would likely move to adjacent hardwood stands until harvesting ended. There would be less potential for these effects under Alternatives 3 and 4 due to lesser acres proposed. Over a 20 year period on the WMNF, District Biologist Weloth observed this design feature is effective. There is mature northern hardwood habitat with a beech component in the MA 2.1 lands in the larger HMU that would not be affected. White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Woodland Bats: Winter harvesting (majority of the 121

30-Day Comment Report stands) would not disturb summer roosting bats as they would have left the WMNF for their winter hibernacula (usually a cave or old mine site) located elsewhere outside the Pemi Northwest Project Area. Furthermore, the potential effects of mortality, disturbance or displacement of individual bats and reduction in the amount of summer bat roosting habitat from timber harvest or other activities proposed under the action alternatives would likely be very minimal because: Most of the common woodland bats that summer roost in trees prefer to use snags (Sasse 1995, Veilleux and Reynolds 2005, 2005a). Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would protect snags and retain wildlife trees (USDA-FS 2005a, pp. 2-35-36) and minimize the potential loss of roost habitat sufficient for no effect to bats (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). Woodland bats oftentimes select roost sites in open areas that receive ample solar radiation (Sasse, 1995). Some bat species rely on solar radiation to help keep warm (e.g. bats are often found in homes attics or in snags in openings where they are exposed to direct sunlight for much of the day). Much of the forest habitat proposed for treatment in the Pemi Northwest Project Area has a closed canopy and would not provide suitable roosting habitat sites for bats seeking a site that is exposed to the sun. Only a portion of MA 2.1 land in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU is proposed for treatment leaving a large area of mature habitat available as bat roosting habitat. Upon completion of harvesting under the action alternatives, the residual stand condition of most harvest units (clearcuts would have reserve areas) as well as surrounding forest in the HMU would still retain adequate numbers of mature trees and live and dead snags as roosting habitat for woodland bats, including the Northern long-eared, tri-colored, Eastern small-footed, big and little brown bats (Sasse 1995, Veilleux and Reynolds 2005, 2005a, USDA-FS 2005a). Clearcuts and patchcuts would provide open forage areas and expose more suitable roosting sites to sunlight (more acres proposed under Alternative 2 and 5 compared to Alternatives 3 and 4). Research on the WMNF found that bats often forage near water bodies, trails, roads, and forest openings (Krusic et al. 1996), presumably because insect prey may be more abundant in more open habitats and maneuvering in the air is easier. WMNF data (Millen 2011) indicates snags are not a limiting factor on the WMNF. There are no known management activities that are directly affecting WNS on or near the WMNF (USDA-FS 2010). Timber harvesting and prescribe burning have the potential to impact roosting bats, but these actions have been mitigated through Forest Plan S&Gs, project design features, and pre-project surveys. As for indirect effects, management actions should result beneficial effects to bats and protection or enhancement of bat habitat (USDA-FS 2010). Indirect Effects

Overall, tree and vegetation removal during harvesting and road relocation activities could cause a reduction in the amount of roosting, nesting and denning habitat for wildlife within the treated areas. Indirect effects also include potential decreases in the amount of large woody material recruitment onto the forest floor, used by birds, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles and insects. The proposed prescribed fire, 122

Pemi Northwest Project recreation improvements, and watershed restoration, and access and transportation activities could cause a very localized and minor amount of tree and vegetation removal. Creating regeneration age class habitat Forest-wide, less than one percent of the WMNF is in the 0 to 9 year old northern hardwood regeneration age class (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 3-170). Currently, there is a lack of regeneration age class northern hardwood habitat (approx. 27 acres) compared to a Desired Future Condition (approx. 299 acres) in MA 2.1 land in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU (see project record, “Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU- Rationale For Habitat Objectives”). Alternatives 2 and 5 would treat approximately 539 acres via clearcut and patchcut even-aged harvest methods compared to Alternative 3 (475 acres) and Alternative 4 (287 acres). The clearcuts and patchcuts would increase age class and habitat diversity (dense shrub layer) causing long-term beneficial effects to the MIS chestnut-sided warbler and ruffed grouse and deer and moose (under Alternative 2 and 5 more acres would be treated compared to Alternatives 3 and 4 respectively). The same amount of 23 acres of shelterwood harvest is proposed under the action alternatives except 20 acres under Alternatives 4. Although an even-aged method, the shelterwood harvest would affect the condition of a stand, but would not change the stand age class. This treatment does not create the same habitat structural value for wildlife compared to clearcut and patchcut treatments that immediately establish regeneration age class habitat that develops dense shrub and brush layers, soft mast, and minimal overstory. Perpetuating and creating regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat There are minor amounts of regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat in the Project Area and the entire HMU (57 acres). The action alternatives would create regeneration age class aspen-birch habitat type via even-aged methods. Alternatives 2 and 5 would create approximately 475 acres compared to Alternative 3 (approximately 411 acres) and Alternative 4 (223 acres). All the action alternatives treat the same amount (64 acres) via patchcut harvest method. Clearcuts and patchcuts would perpetuate the aspen-birch and benefit species that use early successional shrub layers, herbaceous ground vegetation, soft mast, and minimal overstory components, such as MIS chestnut-sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. Without some type of disturbance, aspen-birch succeeds into northern hardwoods or softwoods. The WMNF Forest Plan Standard G-1 (pg. 2-33) states habitat should be managed according to guidance provided in the Forest’s Terrestrial Habitat Management Reference Document (see the project record). This reference document (pg. 5) states there is an expected deviation from the age class objectives for the first decade to allow the Forest to regenerate higher levels of aspen- birch forest before it degenerates further and is lost. The clearcut and patchcuts under the action alternatives are designed with the WMNF FP S&Gs that reserve large mature and overmature trees within the harvest units. Eventually many of the reserved trees become cavity trees, providing vertical structural diversity available to woodland bats, songbirds, small mammals, hawks, and woodpeckers as roost and nesting habitat. Approximately 150 species use northern hardwood regeneration habitat for all or part of their life cycle, including MIS chestnut-

123

30-Day Comment Report sided warbler and MIS ruffed grouse. The male aspen-birch buds and catkins are an important food for MIS ruffed grouse (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2001; DeGraaf et al. 1992). The patchcut and clearcut regeneration provides large patches of early successional habitat, young forest, and mature and old forest conditions in a shifting mosaic over time. Such management provides habitat for the most diverse wildlife community and maintains forest and wildlife diversity through time. Most of the wildlife diversity is associated with seedling and sapling stands. Once beyond the pole timber stage, stands have about the same wildlife species whether they are even-aged sawtimber or old forest. MIS chestnut-sided warblers are among the first birds to breed in hardwood clearcuts. They abandon the site after about ten years, when dense foliage is no longer present within three feet of the ground. Early-successional habitats are needed because it supports a diverse array of habitat specialist species that are declining throughout New England (DeGraaf et al. 2005). Under the action alternatives, site conditions on the forest floor within the harvest units would be hotter and drier for about 2 to 5 years after cutting, with increased decomposition of leaf litter. This micro-site condition could adversely affect some species of amphibians, such as the red-backed salamander (DeMaynadier & Hunter, 1998). If they do not relocate, individual salamanders in large unshaded openings would likely not survive. Amphibians and small mammals in clearcuts would likely be more vulnerable to predation. Forest Plan S&Gs that reserve patches of trees within the harvest units would continue to provide some escape and hiding cover for these and other wildlife species. The District Biologist observed wildlife using intact patches of trees that were reserved in harvest units in the completed Moose Watch Vegetation Management Project Area, and during recent monitoring of intact trees reserved in clearcuts completed in other vegetation management projects across the district; the same S&Gs apply to the Pemi Northwest Project Area. Habitat Connectivity Forest-interior ovenbirds are vulnerable to brood parasitism by the brown headed cowbird and predation by blue jays, raccoons, and red squirrels, particularly in forests fragmented with agricultural land with pasture used by cattle. A local study on the WMNF by DeGraaf and Angelstam (1993) on depredation of artificial ground and cup nests in even-aged seedling/sapling, pole, and mature stands of northern hardwood forest found no increase in the nest predation rate in the early stages of stand growth (0 to 9 age class), nor was rate of predation related to stand area. This study indicates nest predation of forest interior species in largely forested landscapes is not influenced by the presence of clearcuts. Another study in the same forest type compared predation rates in large blocks of managed areas vs. remote reserved areas. No differences in nest predation rates were found for either ground or shrub nests between the even-aged clearcut regenerated areas and the reserved forest blocks (DeGraaf, 1995). WMNF Forest-wide bird monitoring detected six cowbirds within managed, unmanaged, and remote areas, and during wetland inventories. Conversely, forest interior ovenbirds were found at over 90 percent of the survey points (USDA-Forest Service, 1993). Relevant studies on the WMNF show no increase in brown headed cowbirds (Yamasaki, 2000). Breeding Bird Surveys (1966-98) show a significant decline in brown-headed

124

Pemi Northwest Project cowbird population trends (Rosenberg & Hodgman, 2000). Since occurrence of cowbird and elevated predation rates are usually indicators of forest fragmentation, the results of these local and relevant scientific studies (plus over ten years of Forest-wide songbird monitoring on the WMNF) suggest that hardwood-dominated forests in northern New England are not fragmented by even-aged management. Alternatives 2 and 5 would create more of 0 to 9 regeneration age-class than Alternatives 3 and 4, creating short-term, localized edge habitat along the proposed patchcut and clearcut boundaries and group selection units until the new and released vegetation attained vertical height. Because some bird species prefer edge habitat, young successional stages within older forests can enhance species diversity. Ovenbird habitat use and reproductive success were examined in northern NH to determine the effect of edge in predominately-forested landscapes. The proportion of nests that failed from all causes, including predation, was higher along edges in 1992 but not in 1993. The number of young fledged per female and the proportion of pairs fledging at least one young did not differ between edge and interior in either year. This local scientific study concluded that the effects of clearcutting are moderated by the abundance of mature forest cover in the region and ovenbirds tend to re-nest after initial nest failure (King et al. 1995 cited in Harlow et al. 1997). These local and relevant scientific studies suggest applying a mix of both even-aged and uneven-aged methods in the WMNF would cause no adverse effects to MIS and Neotropical migrant songbirds and ecological indicator American marten. Creation of regeneration age class habitat would improve snowshoe hare habitat (Canada lynx habitat prey base). The Pemi Northwest Project would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that was designed to forestall hunting of migratory birds and the sale of their parts and was not meant to regulate timber harvesting. Cumulatively, timber harvesting would have a beneficial effect of creating early successional habitat required by many of the migratory birds on the WMNF, and therefore would not have a measureable negative effect on Neotropical migratory bird populations. Reducing the existing high amount of mature age class habitat There is an existing abundance of mature age class (81 percent) across the WMNF landscape (FEIS, p 3-84) available as habitat to MIS scarlet tanager, Blackburnian warbler, and ruffed grouse. Alternatives 2 & 5 would cause a relatively minor decrease in the existing high amount of mature age class habitat within the Project Area and the HMU. This would cause a minimal short-term change in the amount of mature age class habitat in the MA 2.1 lands in the Pemi Northwest Project Area and the HMU, as the young age class will move into mature age class relatively soon. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose fewer acres of harvest and would therefore have even less effect. Perpetuating and creating regeneration age class softwood habitat Alternatives 2 and 5 would treat approximately 1,355 acres via group and improvement harvest using uneven-aged methods compared to Alternative 3 (approx. 1,051 acres) and Alternative 4 (approx. 1,076 acres). These harvest treatments would remove some mature trees and open the canopy to partial sunlight, causing minor changes to shading of the forest floor. The open canopy would release the understory to create vertical

125

30-Day Comment Report structure and layers, diversifying the stand structure and increasing understory vegetation and browse availability for wildlife, but to a less-concentrated extent than even-aged harvesting. A windthrow event toppled mature trees and partially opened the canopy in several softwood stands located along both sides of the North South Road near Long Pond Spur Road. The windthrow will release the advanced softwood understory, but would not create substantial amounts of the 0 to 9 year old softwood age class habitat. The windthrow event and the proposed uneven-aged treatments would maintain the mature character of the stands. The group harvests would perpetuate spruce-fir, and would move northern hardwood or mixedwood types on ecological land types (ELTs) that indicate softwood capability towards spruce-fir (favorable to MIS magnolia and Blackburnian warblers). This would move the Project Area toward the long-term objectives of the HMU to maintain the mature age class within each habitat type and move stands with softwood ELTs towards spruce-fir habitat. After uneven- aged harvest, there would be habitat diversity in the MA 2.1 lands in the HMU (including the Project Area) for wildlife that use open and closed canopy forest, dead trees (roosting and denning), or softwood regeneration age class such as MIS magnolia warbler (Alternative 2 and 5 would treat more acres with uneven-aged harvest than Alternatives 3 and 4). Wildlife Reserve Trees (live and dead standing cavity, snags, and down wood recruitment) Within the stands proposed for even-aged treatment, there would be less large, dead and down wood (>11” DBH) on the forest floor 10 to 60 years post-harvest compared to the uneven-aged treatments. Trees left in untreated portions of the stands would continue to supply a component of standing cavity and snag trees and down woody material as trees die, branches break, and annual litter builds up. Over a period of 20 years, the District Biologist observed past Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (similar to current Wildlife Reserve Tree S&Gs on pp 2-35 to 2-36 of 2005 Forest Plan) effectively retained wildlife reserve trees within harvest units and untreated portions of the stand on numerous projects. These past and current WMNF Forest Plan S&Gs and design features ensure an adequate amount of cavity trees, snags, and dead and down wood is available for wildlife that use these habitat features including some amphibians, birds, mammals, and woodland bats. Riparian and Aquatic Standards and Guidelines (2005 Forest Plan, pp 2-24 to 26) would also maintain a 25 foot no cut riparian buffer around perennial streams and vernal pools (excluded from harvest units), and retain dead and down logs (also see TEPS Section of this Report). Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future Forest Service management activities in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU within the temporal scope shown in the project record have and would affect wildlife and their habitat within the HMU analysis area. The recently completed Ramsey Basin Vegetation Management Project in the HMU, and the proposed harvesting, prescribed burning, watershed restoration, access and transportation activities have or would use a similar mix of standards and guidelines that protected riparian and wildlife habitat described in the Forest Plan and the previous

126

Pemi Northwest Project direct and indirect effects section. The stands treated in the past vegetation management projects are growing out of the regeneration age class into the young age class. The Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU analysis shows a lack of 0 to 9 year old regeneration age class for northern hardwood, mixedwood, spruce-fir, and oak-pine and hemlock within the cumulative effects analysis area. MAs 6.1-.3 and 8.3 lands within the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU are not subject to vegetation management. These MAs plus MA 2.1 land unsuitable for harvest in the HMU (2,139 acres) would develop into older forest habitat available to MIS scarlet tanager, Blackburnian warbler, ruffed grouse, and woodland bats. Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon and Cliff Nesting Habitat: Alternatives 2-5 would not cause any negative direct effects on falcons or their habitat, and would cause beneficial indirect effects (increased foraging habitat) in the HMU. Thus, Alternatives 2-5 of the Pemi Northwest Project would not add any cumulative effects to peregrine falcon breeding, courtship, migration or cliff nesting habitat in the cumulative effects analysis area. American Marten: The action alternatives (including harvesting, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, access and transportation system or other proposed activities) would not add any adverse cumulative effects to marten or their habitat. Instead action alternatives would provide long-term beneficial cumulative effects by increasing the 0 to 9 year old age class, perpetuating aspen-birch and spruce-fir habitats for marten and red squirrel (prey base). Important Wildlife Habitats Long Pond: The presence of year-round fresh water is essential to various insects, amphibians, turtles, waterfowl, mammals, and numerous aerial feeding birds and woodland bats, especially when surrounded by mature closed canopy forest. Alternatives 2 through 5 would maintain the quality of wetland and/or pond and riparian habitats and would not contribute to any negative cumulative effects to these important habitats. White-tailed Deer Wintering Areas: The FP S&Gs that ensure deer wintering habitat is maintained in the HMU and Forest-wide (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, II-34, G-6) would be implemented. Past vegetation management projects in the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU adhered to similar S&Gs that protected deer habitat. Thus, the action alternatives would not add any adverse cumulative effects to deer wintering habitat. Even-aged harvesting in softwood or mixedwood habitat and land clearing for residential development on private lands could reduce the amount of winter habitat available to deer. Black Bear-clawed Beech Trees: Past, present, and future timber harvesting may have or could result in a minor reduction of bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU. However, the larger HMU contains substantial amounts of mature mixedwood and hardwood, which provides habitat for wildlife including black bears. Design features under the action alternatives would reduce direct and indirect effects to bear clawed beech trees within the Project Area so there would be no adverse cumulative effects to bear-clawed beech trees in the HMU. Harvesting and residential development on private lands 127

30-Day Comment Report adjacent to the HMU most likely affected bear-clawed beech trees, and some loss is likely to occur with future development on private land. White-nose Syndrome and Woodland Bats: Past timber harvest and other management activities in the analysis area did not add any additional stress to woodland bats, because the disease was unknown prior to 2007. The potential disturbance or displacement of individual bats or reduction of summer roosting habitat form timber harvesting, access and transportation system or other proposed activities would be minimal for the same reasons discussed under the direct and indirect effects section. Very few individual bats would likely be disturbed or displaced from summer/fall timber harvests because annually less than 1% of the WMNF is actively harvested each year and only a portion of this occurs during the period of time when bats would be present. While timber harvesting, culvert replacement, and road construction/reconstruction or trail building would result in some loss of potential roost trees, there are thousands of potential roost trees within and near the analysis area that would still be available to woodland bats during and upon completion of harvesting and other proposed activities. Predicting what the potential threats might be to bat populations on the WMNF is difficult, and it is difficult to take action to limit the spread of this disease except at hibernacula. The WMNF is in close contact with the US Fish & Wildlife Service and NH Fish & Game Department to stay informed about this issue and take appropriate actions as needed regarding WNS. From a cumulative effects standpoint, it is essential to emphasize that WNS has not been linked in any way to general forest management practices or any activities included in the Proposed Action or alternatives. No hibernacula have been found on the WMNF. All proposed activities under Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would occur outside known documented cave areas, which are off-Forest, with no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USDA-Forest Service 2010). Future projects within the HMU would also use similar standards and guidelines for protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. As a result, Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would not result in any adverse cumulative effects to wildlife or their habitat within the cumulative effects analysis area. Private Land: Activities on private land have and would affect wildlife and their habitat (altered habitat, loss of habitat, improved habitat). Increased development of surrounding private lands would result in increases in human presence in the HMU and portions of the Project Area over time, resulting in possible increased disturbance to wildlife in the HMU. Some activities on private land would likely cause cumulative effects of reduced amount of wildlife habitat and increased human presence adjacent to and within the HMU. Management Indicator Species Determinations

Table 3.13 summarizes the effects determinations of the No Action and Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 on WMNF MIS within the analysis area (MA 2.1 lands in the HMU, which includes the Pemi Northwest Project Area). The effects to MIS and their habitat are within the range of those described in the WMNF FEIS (2005b). The MIS framework is useful for indicating the effects of Forest Plan implementation. MIS may be affected by

128

Pemi Northwest Project individual project actions or no actions. However, viable populations of MIS are to be maintained or monitored in the WMNF Forest-wide planning area.

Table 3.13—Summary of effects of Alternatives on MIS and their habitat in the analysis area

MIS Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Least increase in Lesser increase in hardwood Chestnut-sided Perpetuates the lack of Greater increase in hardwood hardwood regeneration age class Warbler northern hardwood 0 to 9 regeneration age class habitat Regeneration age class habitat via Regeneration age* yr. old regeneration age 475 ac clearcut; habitat via 411 ac clearcut; Northern class habitat in the analysis 64 ac patchcut 223 ac clearcut 64 ac patchcut hardwood. area. 539 acres even-aged 64 ac patchcut 475 acres even-aged 287 acres even-aged Greater decrease in Lesser decrease in Least decrease in hardwood mature age class hardwood mature age class hardwood via via mature age class via Perpetuates the continued 475 ac clearcut; 411 ac clearcut; 223 ac clearcut Scarlet Tanager increase in the amount of 64 ac patchcut 64 ac patchcut 64 ac patchcut Mature mature hardwood age class 297 ac overstory removal 257 ac overstory removal 239 ac overstory removal Northern habitat that is already (a) 23 ac shelterwood 23 ac shelterwood 20 ac shelterwood. hardwood dominating the analysis 859 acres of even-aged 755 acres of even-aged 546 acres of even-aged area. The group selection, improvement cut, thinning, and single tree treatments would remove mature trees, but these uneven-aged treatments would maintain mature forest at the stand scale with some canopy gaps. Magnolia Perpetuates lack of Greater increase of softwood Least increase of softwood Lesser increase of Warbler softwood regeneration age regeneration age class habitat regeneration age class softwood regeneration Regeneration age class habitat in the analysis via 1,183 acres of group habitat via 879 acres of age class habitat via 980 Softwoods area. selection. group selection. acres of group selection. Perpetuates the continued Greater decrease in softwood Least decrease in mature Lesser decrease in mature Blackburnian increase in the mature age mature age class habitat via softwood habitat age class softwood habitat age class Warbler class habitat that is already 1,183 acres of groups. via 879 acres of groups. via 980 acres of groups. Mature dominating the analysis The group treatments would remove some mature softwood, but would maintain mature Softwoods area. forest habitat at the stand scale. Greater increase in aspen- Least increase in aspen- Ruffed Grouse Perpetuates the continued Lesser increase in aspen- birch habitat via 475 acres of birch habitat via 223 acres No distinct age decline and long term loss of birch habitat via 411 acres clear-cuts and 64 acres of of clear-cuts and 64 acres class aspen-birch via no of clearcut and 64 ac patch- patchcut even-aged of patchcut even-aged Aspen / Birch. regeneration harvests. cut even-aged treatments. treatments. treatments. Over the long term, MIS that prefer regeneration age class and paper birch habitats would decline Alternatives 2 through 5 would cause a relatively minor decrease in the dominant mature within the analysis area. age class, but would increase the amount of regeneration age class currently lacking in the Summary of Alternative 1 (in the near analysis area. They would perpetuate aspen-birch and spruce-fir and increase habitat Effects on MIS term) would not adversely diversity in the analysis area. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would not adversely affect affect population trends and population trends and viability of WMNF MIS within the Forest-wide planning area. viability of WMNF MIS within the Forest-wide planning area. Climate Change

Habitats and species may be affected by climate change, but current scientific information (Prout L. , 2010) indicates there would not likely be any substantive changes to habitat or species’ populations from climate change within the Pemi Northwest Project cumulative effects analysis timeframe (2002-2022).

129

30-Day Comment Report Vegetation

Summary of Effects

Under the No Action alternative, all stands in the project area would continue to grow and mature; however, the opportunity to enhance growth, yield, and forest health would be missed. Additionally, the Forest Plan’s goal of providing high quality sawtimber and non-sawtimber products on a sustained yield basis would not be met. No forest products would be available to local markets and no revenue would be generated for communities. No regeneration-age stands would be created and there would be a gradual species shift from stands containing birch species, aspen species, pine species, balsam fir, northern red oak, and white ash to stands dominated by American beech, maple species, eastern hemlock, and red spruce. Natural disturbances such as wind and ice events would influence succession by temporarily providing smaller forest openings, encouraging the establishment of shade-tolerant species. Implementing any of the action alternatives would create a broader mosaic of vegetative conditions in the project area. There would be more age-class diversity and a wider variety of species composition. In particular, action alternatives aim to increase the amounts of oak-pine, aspen-birch and softwood species, bringing the area closer to its desired future condition (as described in the Habitat Management Unit rationale in the project record). Direct and indirect effects on vegetation are similar in type but different in degree for each of the action alternatives. All four action alternatives propose the same methods of harvest, but acreages vary by alternative. Implementation of either Alternative 2 or 5 would result in the most acres of harvest, best meet the project’s purpose and need and contribute the most positive change toward the desired future condition for the Wild Ammo South HMU. Alternative 4 proposes the least harvest and would meet the purpose and need the least of any action alternative. Alternative 3 is between the two. Affected Environment

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries intensive harvesting occurred throughout the WMNF. Relatively large fires also occurred in the early 20th century due in part to large fuel accumulations, drought and human-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 disturbances. For more information on historical context see the WMNF FEIS (2005b), Pemi Northwest Heritage Resources Report and Pemi Northwest Fire/Fuels Report (project record). Today, the project area contains a mosaic of stands comprising a diversity of tree species and age structure. Most of these stands are in a stage of development that could support commercial timber harvesting. Their canopies are closed or partially closed and although sunlight may be limited on the forest floor, tree species tolerant of shade grow in abundance below the overstory canopies. Additionally, very few stands 130

Pemi Northwest Project (approximately 1% of the project area) are regeneration-age (0-9 years old). The current forest cover types consist of a mosaic of spruce-fir, northern hardwoods, mixed upland hardwoods, mixedwood, and aspen-birch forest type groups. Additionally, a small portion of the project area contains non-forested openings dominated by grass and/or shrubs, ponds, wetlands, or rock outcrops. Many stands 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. See the PemiNW Wildlife Report (project record) for more details pertaining to current vegetation species composition and age structure. Analysis of recent forest inventory data (USDA-Forest Service, 2010b) suggests it is appropriate to treat the stands at this time. Due to the lack of open forest conditions, species that require abundant sunlight, such as aspen, paper birch, and white pine are lacking throughout the project area. The lack of open forest conditions tends to foster continued development of the shade tolerant species such as American beech. Enhancing tree species diversity, in the absence of stand replacing disturbances, is limited by these current light regimes. Sustaining other forest types such as paper birch, aspen, and white pine is thus limited in the project area. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the MA 2.1 lands within the project area and the acres in which prescribed fire is proposed on Black Mountain. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is up to ten years post-harvest or fire. The analysis area for cumulative effects is the Wild Ammonoosuc South Habitat Management Unit. The temporal scope for cumulative effects is 20 years in the past through 20 years in the future (1992-2032). Rationale for these boundaries is included in the Vegetation Report in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, all stands in the project area would continue to grow and mature; however, the opportunity to enhance growth, yield, and forest health would be foregone. Additionally, the Forest Plan’s goal of providing high quality sawtimber and non-sawtimber products on a sustained yield basis would not be met. No forest products would be available to local markets and no income would be generated. Some trees would die from natural causes related to competition, age, stress and/or natural disturbances. Other more shade-tolerant trees would replace these trees. There would be a gradual species shift from stands containing birch species, aspen species, pine species, balsam fir, northern red oak, and white ash to stands dominated by American beech, maple species, eastern hemlock, and red spruce. Natural disturbances such as wind and ice events would influence succession by temporarily providing smaller forest openings, encouraging the establishment of shade-tolerant species. No regeneration age stands would be created and stands would continue to age. Some trees would die from senescence (old age). As shorter-lived species (aspen species, paper 131

30-Day Comment Report birch, and balsam fir) grow older they become more susceptible to ice damage, windthrow, forest insects, and disease. Over time, these agents contribute to tree mortality that may occur in small pockets or over large areas. Overall, stand vigor may decline because the opportunity to reduce competition among trees would be foregone. Dominant and co-dominant white pine would continue to control site conditions; however, without periodic disturbances or silvicultural treatments, pine regeneration would fail to become established. Many existing seedlings would stagnate in the understory and eventually die. The indirect effect of no action would be a continuing conversion of pine stands to northern hardwood stands dominated by shade-tolerant species such as beech. Untreated stands dominated by small-diameter beech would likely become infected with beech bark disease as they age, and many trees would incur early mortality. Numerous sprouts from roots would subsequently develop and thereby perpetuate the disease, leading to unhealthy and unproductive stands. These numerous sprouts would create dense understory conditions that would reduce the ability of other tree species to regenerate due to reduced access to resources such as light. Over time there would be a loss of species and age-class diversity within these stands as they gradually shift to northern hardwoods with substantial components of beech. Cumulative Effects

Past harvests were designed to foster forest health and promote species diversity. Implementation of Alternative 1 would forego the opportunity to achieve these goals across a larger portion of the landscape. Alternatives 2-5

Direct and Indirect Effects

The harvest prescription for any given unit does not vary by alternative. What may differ by alternative is whether a given unit is proposed for harvest at all. Therefore direct and indirect effects on vegetation are the same in type but different in degree (number of acres) for each of the action alternatives based on which stands would be harvested. See Appendix B for acreages specific to each alternative. Implementing any of the action alternatives would maintain some degree of a mosaic of vegetative conditions and improve species composition by increasing the amount of oak-pine, aspen-birch, and softwoods, moving toward the desired future condition (HMU rationale - project record). Alternatives 2 and 5 would contribute the most change toward the desired future condition for the Wild Ammo South HMU. Vegetation management activities proposed for treatment may be lumped into one of two categories: even- or uneven-aged management. Many direct and indirect effects to vegetation relate to the silvicultural system and, more specifically, the cutting method proposed for each unit. However, some direct and indirect effects to vegetation relate directly to the operating season (summer, fall, or winter) in which timber harvesting operations would occur, or the nature of openings created by the proposed treatments (group, clearcut, or patch clearcut). These effects are discussed below.

132

Pemi Northwest Project Effects of Operating Season Potential effects related to the operating season include damage to residual trees from logging operations (direct effect), and scarification (soil disturbance) on the forest floor with the expected vegetation response (indirect effect). Some residual tree damage would occur from timber harvesting operations. The operating season influences the amount of residual tree damage. Tree bark is most vulnerable to damage from logging operations in early summer when sap is at peak flow inside tree stems. Tree bark easily sloughs off when rubbed or bumped by equipment or falling timber. Treatments that could occur in early summer would be those that result in larger openings, and remove most, or all, of the trees from a site. These include clearcuts, patch clearcuts, and group selection in hardwood units. Treatments with the greatest potential for impacts to residual trees would occur in late summer or fall when the sap is not flowing, and tree bark tightens. When tree bark is tight, it is less susceptible to sloughing caused by rubbing or bumping by equipment or falling timber. These treatments include thinning, single tree selection, shelterwood, improvement cut, and group selection in softwood or mixedwood units. Harvesting in early summer, late summer, or fall increases scarification of the forest floor, which is necessary to regenerate some species. Treatments that would create relatively large openings would facilitate more extensive, and less intensive, soil scarification because harvesting equipment would not be limited to travel on skid trails throughout the opening. In contrast, treatments that would create small openings would facilitate less extensive, and more intensive, soil scarification. Plant species whose seeds benefit from direct contact with mineral soil (e.g. paper birch, aspen, red oak, white pine) are thereby likely to regenerate throughout the residual stand following a harvesting operation conducted in the summer or fall. In contrast, a winter operating season is generally planned for units where frozen soil is necessary to support timber harvesting equipment or protect other resources, or when silvicultural conditions would benefit from harvesting operations occurring on a snowpack, such as an overstory removal, where protection of existing tree seedlings and saplings is the objective. Snow can help to buffer or protect existing tree seedlings and saplings. Timber harvesting occurring on snowpack and frozen ground conditions would reduce the amount of disturbance to soil and understory vegetation. The operating season for any given unit does not vary by alternative. Appendix B states the operating season(s) for each proposed unit, by alternative. Effects of Windthrow There is a potential for windthrow to occur within, or adjacent, to stands where treatment occurs. Many factors influence the potential for windthrow, and these include: opening size, orientation and shape; stand condition (structure, species composition, age(s), health, and vigor); soil; topography; aspect; landform; elevation; and slope. Specifically, areas of stands adjacent to clearcuts, patch clearcuts, overstory removals, and large groups may experience increased potential for windthrow relative to untreated stands, or stands treated with other silvicultural methods. Stands treated with thinning, single tree selection, shelterwood, or improvement cut are 133

30-Day Comment Report susceptible to windthrow within the treated area, as opposed to the edge of the treated area, as described above. As stands of trees grow and develop over time, conditions can develop where individual trees hold each other upright during wind events. After trees are selectively removed from stands, individual-tree windthrow can occur in areas of stands where trees had effectively held one another upright during wind events. Depending on the combination of factors affecting the potential for windthrow, on both the micro and macro level of a stand, windthrow could occur on a single-tree / single event basis, or on a multiple-tree / multiple event basis, over time. Therefore, potential for windthrow was a consideration in the treatment prescribed for each stand. Even-Aged Management Clearcuts are proposed in stands containing poor quality, low vigor and/or mature trees to allow the next generation of trees the opportunity to grow to their full potential. Clearcutting is a silvicultural cutting method that focuses on the removal of all the trees in a stand. This type of treatment has the direct effect of creating a large opening (>10 acres) that allows high levels of sunlight to reach the forest floor. Uncut patches totaling five percent of the harvest area would be retained per Forest Plan standard (USDA- Forest Service, 2005a p. 2-35). Clearcuts would provide regeneration-age forest habitat and increased species diversity (within treated stands and across the project area) while salvaging timber value. Compared to other silvicultural treatments clearcutting would produce the most productive early-successional habitat. Indirect effects of clearcutting include the germination and establishment of fast- growing shade-intolerant tree species such as paper birch, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen. Clearcutting also stimulates 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 a clearcut the seeds of these plants germinate due to the abundance of sunlight 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. Another indirect effect of clearcutting is the promotion of root suckers and stump sprouts of northern hardwood species such as trembling aspen, bigtooth aspen and red maple. According to a study on four sites in New England (Pierce, et al., 1993), stump sprouting and germination of new seedlings begins in the first growing season after harvesting. This study found young, dense stands were established on all four sites within five years after cutting. Monitoring of regeneration on the WMNF has shown rapid establishment of hardwoods three years post treatment in clearcuts (USDA-Forest Service, 1992-2012). Stands adjacent to proposed clearcuts would be subjected to changes in micro-climate conditions along their perimeters. Likely changes include increased sunlight, lower humidities, and increased evapo-transpiration. Patch Clearcuts differ from clearcuts with respect to the size of openings. Patch clearcuts result in openings between two and ten acres. Patch clearcuts are proposed for stands with “patches” of conditions similar to those found in stands proposed for clearcuts. 134

Pemi Northwest Project Due to the inherently smaller opening size, the effects on neighboring stands related to changes in micro-climate conditions would be reduced compared to a clearcut. Additionally, the smaller size openings would limit the quality of early successional habitat compared to that found in a clearcut (see Wildlife report for more details). Overstory Removal is proposed in stands containing a layer of desirable advance reproduction growing beneath a mature overstory. A direct effect of this treatment is the increased sunlight to the smaller trees in the understory. An indirect effect would be the expected increase in growth rates (diameter and height) of the smaller trees following the overstory removal. This would be due to reduced competition for light and other resources following the treatment. The residual stand would contain a desirable mix of small trees that would be free to grow. Shelterwood involves the removal of trees comprising about half the overstory of a stand. Only one stand is proposed to be treated with this prescription. The goal of this prescription in this stand is to establish an adequate number of white pine seedlings that are well distributed throughout the stand. Shelterwood treatments create growing conditions for the regeneration of species that are moderately intolerant of shade such as northern red oak and eastern white pine. The disturbance of leaf litter and exposure of mineral soil (incidental scarification) associated with logging operations would also provide favorable conditions for the establishment of white pine seedlings. Most mature white pine exhibiting good quality and health would not be cut. Removing approximately half the tree stems (mainly suppressed and/or poor quality trees) would open the forest canopy, stimulate cone development, and create favorable conditions on the forest floor to establish white pine reproduction. Thinning is designed to improve species composition, growth, and quality of even-aged stands. Commercial thinning would focus on the removal of poor quality and/or low vigor trees while providing an opportunity for residual trees to increase growth rates. This treatment would provide adequate growing space for the highest value trees (Leak, Solomon, & DeBald, 1987). Commercial thinning would also facilitate the harvest of timber that would otherwise be lost due to mortality associated with overstocked stand conditions. Thinning would lead to increased percentages of sawlogs in the future. Uneven-Aged Management Group Selection would result in the creation of openings approximately 1/10 to 2 acres in size within stands for the purpose of releasing advanced reproduction, or regenerating new trees. Approximately 20 percent of the acreage of each stand proposed for group selection would be treated. Groups would be created in areas where desirable advanced reproduction could be released from competition, or where advance reproduction is currently lacking or dominated by American beech. Additionally, group locations would target areas containing poor quality, low vigor and/or mature overstory trees. Group selection can facilitate regeneration of a broad mix of shade-intolerant, intermediate, and shade-tolerant tree species, thus it is an appropriate silvicultural treatment for managing softwood, mixedwood or northern hardwoods. Nearly all the species currently represented in the stored seed mix, or those originating from nearby seed trees, would have an opportunity to germinate and grow in these varied light

135

30-Day Comment Report conditions. Some variation in species would be expected. Present advanced reproduction in areas designated for group selection would comprise a proportion of small trees within each group immediately following treatment. Within groups, small or regeneration-age trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space within five years following the treatment. Trees around the perimeter of groups would expand their crowns and also begin to occupy a portion of the groups within this five- year period. Single Tree Selection would release advanced reproduction and/or regenerate hardwood or softwood tree species by focusing on the removal of poor quality, low vigor and/or mature trees. Trees substantially affected by physical damage, insects and/or disease would also be among those targeted for removal from the stand. Single- tree selection would allow managers to improve the quality of shade-tolerant growing stock. Trees exhibiting good quality and favorable health would be retained. Approximately 1/3 of the trees would be removed to create space for residual trees to grow and to provide light for tree seeds to germinate. Trees would be cut from all size classes. Residual stands would contain trees of variable sizes (heights and diameters). Though small gaps would be created, trees within residual stands would restrict and filter sunlight thereby favoring shade-tolerant plants. Trees and other woody plants would begin to occupy growing space created by the harvest of individual trees within five years following the treatment. The presence of tree species considered intolerant of shade (e.g. paper birch, trembling aspen and bigtooth aspen) would decline. There would be a shift in species composition toward American beech, sugar maple, red maple, yellow birch, white ash, eastern hemlock, and red spruce. Single tree selection would create or maintain an uneven-aged stand condition, as well as stimulate stand regeneration, leading to a diversity of age classes among the species population of the stand. Improvement Cuts are designed to improve species composition, growth, and quality of uneven-aged stands. Improvement cuts would focus on the removal of poor quality and/or low vigor trees while providing an opportunity for residual trees to increase growth rates. This treatment would provide adequate growing space for the highest value trees (Leak et al., 1987). Improvement cuts would also facilitate the harvest of timber that would otherwise be lost due to mortality associated with overstocked stand conditions. Improvement cuts would lead to increased percentages of sawlogs in the future. Improvement cuts differ from single tree selection treatments in that the focus of the improvement cut is only on the overstory trees of the stand, whereas single tree selection focuses on both the development of the overstory trees and regeneration layer of the stand. Other Vegetation Management Activities Release treatments are non-commercial treatments involving the mechanical removal of submerchantable midstory and/or understory trees. Submerchantable trees include those less than 5.0 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (the diameter of a tree at 4.5 feet above the ground). The goal of these treatments is to provide adequate growing space for desirable trees to grow free from competition. Though desirability of tree species is determined by stand and site characteristics and silvicultural objective, 136

Pemi Northwest Project midstories and understories dense with American beech and/or striped maple currently inhibit regeneration of many other species in the project area. These treatments are considered a component of the harvest prescriptions described above and are not identified individually in alternative descriptions. Release treatments would include the mechanical cutting or girdling of some or all submerchantable trees within some units proposed for commercial timber harvests. Mechanical control of American beech has been found to be effective at promoting the development of desirable advanced reproduction (Smallidge & Nyland, 2009). Trees specifically targeted for release include desirable seedlings and saplings of northern red oak, eastern white pine, paper birch, trembling aspen, bigtooth aspen, sugar maple, yellow birch, white ash, red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock. Due to beech’s ability to reproduce prolifically through root suckering and stump sprouting, the effect of cutting beech would be temporary. Within five years beech would likely redevelop and regain a level of dominance in understories proposed for release treatments where beech has dominance. However, during this time other trees would respond to the release treatments and occupy a greater height and vigor in the treated stands’ understories or midstories, and therefore have a greater chance of outcompeting beech. Areas targeted for release treatments include units that would be treated with clearcut, patch clearcut, overstory removal, and group selection. If implemented, release treatments would be conducted following the completion of logging operations. Specific units targeted for release treatments would depend on the vegetative response following the logging operation. One or more release treatment per unit may be implemented, as necessary, to achieve the desired conditions outlined in the silvicultural prescriptions. Prescribed fire may be applied in up to eight units throughout the project area (see map) to promote white pine or aspen/birch regeneration. In these units, timber harvest would occur first, and fire may be used to promote desired regeneration of white pine or aspen/birch if necessary. Prescribed fire is also proposed on up to 270 acres on Black Mountain to promote oak/pine habitat. No timber harvest is proposed in this area. Direct and indirect effects to vegetation would depend, in part, on the season of the prescribed fire. Prescribed fire conducted in the spring, just before or during leaf expansion, would be most effective at top-killing vegetation. When a plant is top-killed, the portion of a plant above the root surface dies but its root system remains alive. Species capable of asexual reproduction via root suckering and/or stump sprouting (e.g. American beech and red maple) would thus be temporarily impacted by prescribed fire. Due to the abundance of young beech in the areas proposed for prescribed fire, this species would likely suffer the greatest amount of top-kill mortality. Within a few growing seasons, beech and other hardwoods would resprout. The temporary reduction in young beech would provide an opportunity for other species, including oak and pine, to germinate. Small, thin-barked trees incapable of reproducing asexually would likely suffer the highest mortality and thus be most adversely impacted. Examples include red spruce, eastern hemlock, and eastern white pine. To the extent operationally feasible, stands and inclusions of stands containing desirable vegetation would be protected from fire. Prescribed fire would reduce fuel accumulated on the forest floor including small twigs, 137

30-Day Comment Report branches, coarse woody material and the litter/duff layer. An excessive amount of litter can limit the capability of seeds obtaining adequate contact with mineral soil. Thick litter can thus reduce the probability of a seed’s chance to germinate and develop into a seedling. Top-kill mortality of trees, particularly beech, and reduction of litter/duff on the forest floor should benefit many species, including oak, pine, aspen and birch by providing two elements necessary for their successful regeneration: adequate light, and soil scarification (disturbance). Monitoring of post burn conditions on the WMNF has demonstrated relatively low mortality (less than 20 percent) in mature northern red oak and eastern white pine. However, some mortality and damage to mature trees would be expected. Mature trees exhibiting low vigor and/or stressed by insects, disease, or damage would be particularly vulnerable to mortality. Additionally, thin bark mature trees of some species (e.g. paper birch) would also be vulnerable to mortality from fire. Road Construction or Reconstruction Alternative 5 would involve new construction to replace a decommissioned section of FR 700. Alternatives 2 and 4 would involve reconstruction of FR 700. This would involve the removal of vegetation to accommodate equipment and to construct or reconstruct the road bed. Road reconstruction would improve the road surface and associated drainage, and may involve maintenance or replacement of culverts, road grading, and/or road resurfacing. Road reconstruction would likely result in the removal or trimming of vegetation in some areas to accommodate equipment and improve the road bed. Road reconstruction would include the trimming of some lower, overhanging tree limbs but higher limbs would continue to occupy space above the road surface. Though the anticipated width of a road is expected to be approximately 20 feet, additional disturbance of approximately 10 feet in select locations may be necessary to provide adequate drainage and clearance. The total amount of area affected by road reconstruction would thus be approximately 2 acres. The removal of trees would be limited to areas adjacent to roads; therefore, the health and productivity of adjacent stands would not be impacted. New road construction would involve clearing of a 0.8 mile new road alignment to engineering standards, which would require removal of additional vegetation within the width described above. The health and productivity of adjacent sands would not be impacted. Hazard Tree Removal – FR 19 & 19A Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 propose the removal of trees with hazardous defects along Long Pond Road and Long Pond Spur Road. Lack of roadside silvicultural treatments in the past coupled with natural succession of roadside forest vegetation has resulted in an accumulation of trees exhibiting hazardous defects along roads. The effect to post-treatment residual vegetation would be similar to that described in “Single Tree Selection”, except fewer trees would be removed. Directional felling of hazard trees, whether by a chainsaw or mechanical equipment, would minimize damage to standing trees and regeneration. Machinery used to fell hazard trees would be restricted to the roadbed. 138

Pemi Northwest Project Forest Service guidelines for the identification of hazard trees would be used to determine which trees should be removed. Other Activities Additional activities in action alternatives 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 new landings, and maintenance and re-use of existing landings; utilization of primary skid trails, installation, replacement, and maintenance of culverts and bridges; removal of hazard trees from timber sale operation areas; restoration of stream channel shape / function; installation of barrier rocks to control motor vehicle access. Cumulative Effects

Approximately 11% (1541 acres) of the cumulative effects analysis area has been harvested since 1992. No known adverse effects to vegetation, as a result of these management activities, have occurred during this time period. Commercial timber harvesting could occur in the cumulative effects analysis area within the next 20 years, but there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions known in the area. The cumulative effects of Alternatives 2-5 would be the same as the direct and indirect effects described previously in this report. These effects are also consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the FEIS (USDA FS 2005b, pp 3-73 to 3-164). Past harvests were designed to improve forest health and species diversity and this project would achieve these goals on a greater portion of the area. The degree of enhancement to forest health and productivity would be relative to the number of acres and the optimality of silvicultural treatments proposed for each stand in each alternative. Climate Change

Climate change will have an influence on vegetation, water, disturbance frequencies, and forest pests. These changes will each influence one another, making it difficult to predict what changes will occur and when. Within the 40-year period of this cumulative effects analysis, climate change should have little if any measurable effect on our local forests. The exceptions might be isolated pest infestations, if those are actually related to climate change, and slight changes in the location of some forest species at higher elevations. Maintaining optimal forest and tree health is widely supported as a means to buffer climate changes (Millen, 2009a). Monitoring of regeneration, as required by the National Forest Management Act (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, 2008). Management actions such as thinning, prescribed 139

30-Day Comment Report 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 elevation 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, 2009). Two climate change studies particularly relevant to the analysis of the Pemi Northwest Project include “A Rapid Upward Shift of a Forest Ecotone During 40 Years of Warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont” (Beckage et al, 2008) and “Seventy Years of Understory Development by Elevation Class in a New Hampshire Mixed Forest: Management Implications” (Leak, 2009). Both studies utilize long-term vegetative plots to study responses of vegetation to climate change. The Leak study shows that it is possible that the conditions and changes, revealed locally by this research, are related to natural succession and soil conditions. The Leak study and time-tested silvicultural prescriptions used in the Pemi Northwest Project validate the effects analysis and the predicted changes over the next 20 years. 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, Sedjo, & Sohngen, 2003). Stocking surveys conducted on the Pemigewasset Ranger District three years after regeneration harvests indicate that similar treatments result in the successful establishment of a diversity of tree species (USDA-Forest Service, 2009 -2011). These treatments help to create stand conditions relatively resilient to longer-term trends, especially if stands are maintained and insect and disease outbreaks are treated. Based on all of this information, climate change will not affect the likelihood of any action alternative meeting the purpose and need for the project. Overall the cumulative effects of climate change and any action alternative would be minimal, if any, because climate change is altering site conditions and vegetation very slowly and little change is expected in the analysis timeframe. Proposed activities would improve ecosystem resiliency and therefore the ability of the forest to adapt to climate change as it happens. Monitoring

In accordance with FS Manual 2472.4 and the NFMA, reforestation surveys are required to monitor reforestation activities in artificial and natural regeneration treatments. As such, 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. Monitoring of vegetation in areas proposed for prescribed fire would also be conducted to assess pre- and post-burn conditions. As noted in Appendix A--Design Features, monitoring procedures would vary in accordance with the objectives of the fire use (fuel reduction, restoration and maintenance of oak/pine habitat, and enhancement of white pine and aspen/birch regeneration). 140

Pemi Northwest Project Consistency with Forest Plan and NFMA

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires all site-specific project activities be consistent with direction in the applicable Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a). Vegetation management on the WMNF is conducted in accordance with specific goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 1 of the Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a). Silvicultural methods described in this report were selected to meet multiple resource goals and objectives in response to the purpose and need for this project as described in Chapter One of this EA. The proposed silvicultural methods were not selected to achieve the greatest financial return or produce the greatest volume of timber. Even-aged Regeneration Even-aged regeneration treatments proposed in the Pemi Northwest Project include the following: clearcut, patch clearcut, overstory removal, shelterwood. Even-aged regeneration treatments proposed in this project do not exceed the maximum size (30 acres) of a temporary opening allowed in accordance with a Forest Plan standard for vegetation management (USDA FS, 2005a). Where proposed, these treatments are appropriate and/or optimal methods to achieve Forest Plan, Management Area 2.1 and Habitat Management Unit (HMU) objectives pertaining to vegetation and wildlife. The following paragraphs provide rationale for the adoption of even-aged treatments proposed in the project area. The creation of early successional habitat would enhance the structural diversity of vegetation within the HMU. As noted in the Wild Ammonoosuc South Habitat Management Unit (HMU) rationale document, there is a limited amount of early successional habitat (stands that are 0–9 years old) within the project area. Patch clearcutting, and in some circumstances shelterwood cutting, are appropriate means to provide early successional habitat. However, clearcutting is the optimal even-aged regeneration method used to meet this objective. In contrast to patch clearcuts, clearcuts are larger in size (greater than 10 acres). In contrast to shelterwood cuts, clearcuts do not leave trees sparsely scattered throughout as a residual stand. For more information pertaining to the optimality of clearcuts please see the corresponding silvicultural prescriptions for each unit as well as the Wild Ammonoosuc South Habitat Management Unit – Rationale for Habitat Objectives (see project record). Even-aged regeneration treatments are also appropriate where a diverse mix of plant species is desired but where sub-merchantable American beech is currently abundant and controlling the understory. Understories dominated by beech can impede the re- generation of other tree species. In contrast to even-aged regeneration methods, uneven- aged regeneration methods tend to promote mid shade tolerant tree species while no treatment tends to promote shade tolerant species (e.g. beech). Treatments that result in moderate to large size openings (2 - 30 acres) and adequate soil scarification tend to increase the probability of regenerating a diverse mix of tree, shrub and herbaceous species. Even-aged regeneration treatments are also appropriate in stands containing an abundance of poor quality trees on sites where it is appropriate to promote the development of high quality sawtimber. Though poor-quality trees can provide valuable 141

30-Day Comment Report habitat for wildlife, an overabundance of such trees within a stand reduces the likelihood that the stand will meet the vegetative goal of producing high quality sawtimber in the future. Even-aged regeneration treatments in these stands would result in the establishment of new stands that would foster the growth and development of high-quality sawtimber. Stands containing softwood in their understories are primarily treated using group se- lection (a form of uneven-aged management) within the project area. However, some stands containing a single age class of dense to moderately dense softwood in their understories, are proposed for overstory removal. The application of an overstory removal is an appropriate method to release a relatively similar age class of well established and well distributed advance reproduction in a stand’s understory. This treatment would increase the amount of sunlight and result in increased growth and vigor of the pre-existing understory trees. Finally, a shelterwood prescription is proposed to regenerate pine in one stand containing an abundance of mature eastern white pine. The use of the shelterwood method to regenerate white pine is appropriate and well supported by scientific literature (Lancaster & Leak, 1978). Culmination of Mean Annual Increment The average age of stands proposed for even-aged regeneration range between approximately 80 and 140 years of age; the majority are estimated between 100 to 120 years of age. On the WMNF, the culmination of mean annual increment (the point where the total growth increment divided by age is at its maximum) is expected to occur by age 60 for all ecological land components (USDA FS 2005b, pg. 3-146). All stands proposed for even-aged regeneration harvests have thus exceeded the age where the culmination of mean annual increment has passed. This determination is based on stand exam data (USDA FS 2010) and field reconnaissance by professional foresters. Vegetative Response Following Regeneration Treatments

Field reconnaissance and stocking survey data (USDA FS 1992 -2012) of the project area indicates previous regeneration treatments regenerated a mix of tree species including, but not limited to, yellow birch, paper birch, aspen species, striped maple, pin cherry, sugar maple, red maple, American beech, white ash, eastern hemlock, eastern white pine, red spruce, and balsam fir. Based on these observations as well as stand exam data (USDA FS 2010) collected in the project area there is reasonable assurance that all stands proposed for regeneration treatments will be adequately restocked with trees within five years of harvest. This determination is also supported by monitoring of regeneration in other areas of the Pemigewasset Ranger District conducted three years after regeneration harvests (USDA FS 1992 -2012). These data indicate similar treatments result in the successful establishment of a diversity of tree species. Therefore, regardless of the alternative, even and uneven-aged cutting methods described in this report are sufficient to ensure adequate natural regeneration of each stand in accordance with NFMA requirements.

142

Pemi Northwest Project Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS)

The White Mountain National Forest worked with The New England Wild Flower Society from 2001-2004 to determine locations of NNIS on or near the WMNF. WMNF staff continues to make updates and additions to this data set on an annual basis. The resulting database was used, in conjunction with site-specific field surveys for the Pemi Northwest Project, to evaluate the presence of or likelihood of NNIS spreading to the project area and the environmental consequences of their potential establishment. The overall risk rating assigned for the Pemi Northwest Project is low. Summary of Effects

Despite the reduced risk of NNIS infestation in Alternatives 3 and 4, and a slight increase in risk in Alternative 5, 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. Even though there are known NNIS populations within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, the low levels of infestation and incorporation of the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect of implementing the Proposed Action or one of the action alternatives incurs a minor risk of introducing or exacerbating NNIS in the Analysis Area. The cumulative effects of the Pemi Northwest Project would be nearly identical under all action alternatives. Alternative 4 has a slightly reduced contribution to cumulative effects due reduced acres of regeneration harvest (clearcut). Affected Environment

The project area and the surrounding local landscape are relatively free of NNIS plant infestations. NNIS plants exist in small numbers within the project area in discreet locations along the Tunnel Brook Road, Titus Brook Road and in several seeps and former log landings/wildlife openings. Additional infestations exist off National Forest land. The most common invasive plant species found in the project area is coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara). This is a species that colonizes disturbed areas. As an invasive species it poses little threat to ecosystem function and typically occupies unoccupied niches. Very little effort to control this species is expended on the WMNF, specifically only when it is perceived as a threat to some other resource objective. Other documented invasive plants in the project area include a number of single plants to small clusters of infestations of Japanese barberry and one small infestation of Japanese knotweed in a pullout along the Tunnel Brook Road. The plants were likely transported to their current locations by contaminated fill material or by mechanical means (perhaps mowers) in the case of coltsfoot and Japanese knotweed, and by wildlife or intentional planting in the case of Japanese barberry. The Japanese knotweed infestation is undergoing active control efforts. The control of this NNIS infestation and initial treatments of the other infestations within the project area is being 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 Pemi Northwest Project.

143

30-Day Comment Report Approximately 50% of these infestations were discovered during botanical surveys conducted during the project planning phase of the Pemi Northwest Project. The remaining infestations were revealed during a search of the WMNF NNIS database. This database inquiry also indicated there are additional documented infestations of a handful of species off the National Forest but within the analysis area on private land both in cultivation or escaped from home landscapes in Easton, Benton, Haverhill and Landaff. These include coltsfoot, Japanese barberry, burning bush, non-native honeysuckle, black locust, goutweed, common reed, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese knotweed, privet, and glossy buckthorn. These are found primarily on private lands along public roads and most are not directly adjacent to the project area. Areas where heavy disturbance (log landings and haul roads) will occur should be surveyed periodically for the presence of new infestations during and following project activities so control measures can be implemented before new infestations spread in size or disperse to new locations. There is a greater likelihood of introducing and/or spreading NNIS within the project area as a result of activities on private lands than on National Forest lands. The Forest- wide NNIS inventory (USDA-Forest Service, 2007b) 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. Design features and mitigation measures for NNIS are included in Appendix A. A full risk assessment for NNIS for the Pemi Northwest project area is in the project record. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on NNIS is the Project Area, and the temporal scope is the duration of project implementation. The Analysis Area for cumulative effects on NNIS is the lands within the Wild Ammonoosuc South HMU and the adjacent public and private land in the surrounding towns of Easton, Benton, Landaff, and Haverhill, NH. The temporal scope for cumulative effects is the past and future ten years (2002 to 2020). Rationale for these boundaries is included in the project record. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

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 and other known sites of NNIS would receive treatments to control these species under the authority of the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Until such time that existing infestations are completely eradicated they

144

Pemi Northwest Project would continue to persist and potentially spread vegetatively and via seed. Cumulative Effects

Existing NNIS infestations outside the National Forest boundary would persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur, creating new infestations. 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 cumulative effects to the National Forest lands from this continued growth and spread of invasive plants is considered to be minimal based on the lack of ground disturbing activities in this alternative. Furthermore, monitoring 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. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

All project activities would implement the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to 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. These measures likely would reduce but not eliminate all potential for spreading invasive plants within the project area. Under all action alternatives, soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities would have the potential to spread NNIS. This potential would be 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, pp 2-11-12). The most likely locations of these effects would include areas of culvert removal, road construction and reconstruction, watershed restoration, trail relocation/construction, the development of new of log landings, haul roads, skid trails, and stands prescribed for even-aged regeneration harvest. These effects would be the greatest during and for 1-2 years after the activity takes place, when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites. Potential effects would 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 145

30-Day Comment Report regeneration harvests (clearcut, patch cut, etc.) and new log landing construction in this project. Foot and vehicle traffic to new parking areas and roadways would provide new migration routes for NNIS on tires and shoes. This could result in the introduction of NNIS into previously uninfested areas. NNIS may crowd out native plant species. This can result in reduced species diversity and fewer native plants. If NNIS infestations occur at undiscovered threatened, endangered or sensitive species locations, competition from invasive plants could threaten individuals or populations of these plants. Additionally, introduction of NNIS may impair ecosystem function and reduce preferred food and cover sources for various wildlife species. If invasive plants become established along trail corridors, it may affect recreational opportunities. Trails can become overrun and impassable if infestations are not controlled. There is a slight chance that the use of prescribed fire to manage red pine and oak/pine communities may create suitable conditions for establishment of NNIS. Fire can be a mechanism of spread for some invasive plants species by stimulating the growth of dormant portions of the root systems. Fire can also be a useful tool in effort to control invasive plant species. As the areas immediately adjacent to these sites are not currently infested the chances of any direct or indirect effect is miniscule. The decommissioning of unauthorized roads and the installation of barriers at the Black Mountain and Tunnel Brook trails would prevent vehicle access to these areas. This action, combined with the subsequent re-vegetation of these locations, would reduce the risk of NNIS introduction. Road maintenance, reconstruction, the relocation of the Black Mountain trailhead and subsequent parking lot construction, restoration of stream channels at Davis and Waterman Brook, the construction of 0.8 miles of the Tunnel Brook Road and culvert replacements may result in direct effects if NNIS propagules were introduced to the area 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 would be expected from the change of unauthorized road to trail or classified road as these activities would not cause a significant change in landscape condition nor would they increase ground disturbance. The proposed Tunnel Brook and Benton Trailhead relocations would follow existing tread/roadways and would not result in any substantial ground disturbing activities. The potential for direct and indirect effects to NNIS in Alternatives 2 and 3 are nearly identical. The reduced acres of proposed prescribed fire in Alternative 3 somewhat reduces the likelihood of NNIS introduction, but due to the lack of NNIS in the area proposed for fire the reduction is miniscule. The decrease in even-aged harvest acres is so small that it has no effect on the potential for NNIS introduction or expansion. The elimination of the 0.8 miles of Tunnel Brook Road and the replacement of seven culverts along this road slightly reduces the risk of both direct and indirect effects due to the temporary absence of vehicular traffic on the road and lack of ground disturbing activity related to the culvert removal.

146

Pemi Northwest Project The potential for NNIS introduction or migration is reduced in Alternative 4 due to the reduction in acres proposed for regeneration harvests (clearcuts) in this alternative. Other project activities are so similar as to cause no significant change in direct or indirect effects. Vegetation management proposals in Alternative 5 are identical to the proposed action. Watershed and recreation activities are identical to those proposed in Alternative 3. The most relevant difference in Alternative 5 relative to the other action alternatives is the construction of 0.8 miles of new road and the decommissioning of 0.8 miles of road. Road construction would slightly increase the likelihood of NNIS introduction due to possibility of introduction of NNIS propagules on equipment and in fill material. Indirect effects would be limited as the road is proposed for winter use only, but are possible as the road prism will be maintained in an open condition. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to NNIS would minimize the potential for direct and indirect effects. There are no known NNIS infestations within the proposed road construction prism. The decommissioning of 0.8 miles of existing road and its rehabilitation would reduce the likelihood of infestation by NNIS in that area. Despite the reduced risk of NNIS infestation in Alternatives 3 and 4, and a slight increase in risk in Alternative 5, 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. Cumulative Effects

The greatest potential cumulative effect from the Pemi Northwest 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 (see project record) and residential development and traditional agriculture on private lands. Information on the NNIS introductions resulting from these past events on private lands is not available. However the current distribution of invasive plants both on and off the National Forest strongly supports this assumption. Any effects from the Pemi Northwest Project would be additive to the effects of any past activities within the cumulative effects boundary. Present and on-going projects include the Red Oak, Fishpole, and Hogsback Timber Sales, the repair and maintenance of Beaver Pond dam, Oliverian Brook watershed restoration. Foreseeable management actions and projects over the next ten years include ongoing wildlife opening and orchard maintenance, road maintenance, on-going prescribed fire in previously burned oak/pine stands, and on-going maintenance of hiking and snowmobile trails, 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

147

30-Day Comment Report past invasions on private land will likely continue to spread NNIS. Most project activities would have negligible effects on NNIS in the analysis area. The application of the 2005 Forest Plan 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 Pemi Northwest Project would be nearly identical under all action alternatives. Alternative 4 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. Even though there are known NNIS populations within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, the low levels of infestation and incorporation of the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the cumulative effect of implementing the Proposed Action or one of the action alternatives incurs a minor risk of introducing or exacerbating NNIS in the Analysis Area. Climate Change

Climate change may have some effects 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 (USDA-Forest Service, 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 (Mehrhoff, Silander Jr, Leicht, & Mosher, 2008). Although several invasive plant species appear to be spreading northward, there does not seem to be any correlation to these expansions and climate change. These expansions appear to be due to mechanical transport by human and wildlife activity. At this time, based upon the recent literature review, available data, and project surveys there does not appear to be any effects to NNIS from climate change, especially within the cumulative effects analysis time-frame. Socio-Economics and Environmental Justice

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 would generate no revenue, accomplish no timber-harvest activities, nor potentially change the rural character of the area. All of the action alternatives would, to varying degrees, contribute funds to local towns and temporarily increase activities in the project area and on adjacent public roads. Alternative 5 would generate the most funds, alternative 4 the least, and alternatives 2 and 3 would generate similar amounts in the middle. No action alternatives are expected to change the rural character of the area or create unsafe conditions for residents or visitors to the area.

148

Pemi Northwest Project Affected Environment

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan details the social environment of the White Mountain National Forest in terms of populations, demographics, partnerships, values, uses of the Forest, and attitudes toward land management (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-472 to 3-486). The Forest Plan recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1- 3). While many of the communities surrounding the national forest share a history of reliance for their livelihood on natural resource management and tourism, social and economic patterns constantly change. Housing markets and their associated need for raw materials, economic markets, and population trends adjust over time and spatially, with marked differences regionally. For example, populations and local economies are growing in the communities surrounding the southern portions of the Forest, while communities in the north are slowing. The current regional and national economic trends may stall further economic growth, especially in the northern portions of the forest, where the economy has a greater dependence on traditional natural resource- based manufacturing industries. The White Mountain National Forest recognizes the Forest’s support to local and regional economies and strives “to provide both healthy ecosystems and a sustainable yield of high quality forest products, with special emphasis on sawtimber and veneer” (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, p. 1-3 and 1-17). Continued demand for national forest timber is expected due to the Forest’s high value sawtimber and demand for pulp products. The quality sawtimber products represent a key niche in the region, and its continued availability may have direct impacts on the local economy (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-473 to 3-520; High et al., 2004). Several forest product manufacturers are within viable hauling distance from the project area, and it is reasonable to assume that products from this project would supply some of these businesses. This is reflected in the interest in National Forest timber sale bids. 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.

Measuring Socio-Economic Effects Analysis of social and economic effects, including low income and minority populations, is required if they are important to a reasoned decision. Social impacts in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) were analyzed in the context of what people value about the Forest, and the effects of national forest management on the quality of life and rural character of the Forest Region. Effects were based primarily on assessments of

149

30-Day Comment Report 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 Pemi Northwest project would not constitute changes in development levels or access other than temporary displacement of recreation activities due to harvest activity near trails and the associated temporary trail closures. Displacement would likely be to other trails within the Forest. See the Recreation Section, Chapter 3 for effects on recreation. • Quality of life may be measured by changes in recreational opportunities, long term maintenance of healthy ecosystems and scenic beauty, and the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Each of these subjects is discussed in other sections within Chapter 3 of this report (see Recreation, Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Scenic, and Heritage). • Environmental Justice may be measured (Executive Order 12898) by analyzing the potential for minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by the proposed activities.

Economic elements analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS included regional employment and labor income as affected by an array of factors including timber harvest and the structure of the forest products industry, road construction and maintenance, recreation management, and state and local government (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, p. 3-509). Relevant, measurable economic elements at the project level are: • Costs and revenues of planning and implementing the proposed activities. • Timber tax payment to the affected Towns. • 25% Fund reimbursements to the State of New Hampshire.

The Forest Service is not required to select the alternative with the highest timber volume or revenue. Many social and economic effects are not tangible and cannot be quantified, and are recognized as either beneficial or not, depending on one’s values and perspectives. For example, clearcuts may have adverse visual effects to some, but may be viewed as valuable wildlife habitat by others. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on socio-economics incorporates the towns of Benton, Easton, Landaff and Woodstock, where project activities would take place and tax revenues would be generated. The temporal scope used for direct and indirect effects is the duration of project activities. The analysis area for cumulative effects on socio-economic effects includes the Towns of Benton, Easton, Landaff and Woodstock. The temporal scope for cumulative effects on socio-economics is the present to ten years into the future (2012-2022). Further rationale for effects boundaries is in the project record.

150

Pemi Northwest Project Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No revenue would be generated and no reimbursements would be received by the state of New Hampshire or the towns of Benton, Easton, Landaff and/or Woodstock. 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. Additionally, non-timber activities would not be accomplished at this time. Cumulative Effects

There are three ongoing National Forest timber sales that are located within the town of Benton and will be operating during the analysis timeframe. Timber harvest operations are nearly completed on two of these timber sales, Fishpole and Red Oak. The Fishpole Timber Sale has generated approximately $17,000 in timber yield tax receipts to the town of Benton to date, and is expected to generate an additional $5,000 of tax receipts prior to completion. The Red Oak Timber Sale has generated approximately $$36,000 in timber yield tax receipts to the town to date, and is expected to generate an additional $5,000 of tax receipts prior to completion. The Hogsback Timber Sale has generated approximately $14,000 in timber yield tax receipts to date, and is expected to generate an additional $36,000 of tax revenue for the town of Benton prior to completion. No other known revenue would be generated to the towns of Benton, Easton, Landaff or Woodstock from timber yield taxes from National Forest lands within the next ten years. A small amount of tax revenue may be generated for these towns from the sale of private timber during this period. There would be no cumulative changes to the existing rural character, quality of life, or public health and safety. Receipts from recreation fees would continue. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects to quality of life and rural character should be minimal because the project proposals replicate decades of similar past activities in this project area and throughout the Wild Ammonoosuc River Watershed. The project alternatives would continue management of the forest in accordance with the Forest Plan and Best Management Practices. Forest vegetation would be managed in accordance with Forest Plan objectives to promote healthy ecosystems, sustainability, and diverse habitats. Tables 1 and 2 itemize the estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing the alternatives. For Alternatives 2-5, the percent revenue for the 10% timber yield tax to towns would be prorated to the towns from which the timber is harvested. The majority of proposed timber harvest in this project under all alternatives would occur within the town of Benton. The estimated value of receipts from timber harvested under Alternative 2 would be approximately $794,000 (Table 3.14), which accounts for connected road reconstruction costs. The estimated 10% timber yield tax under Alternative 2 would be $79,400. The town of Benton would receive approximately 89% 151

30-Day Comment Report of the tax receipts, or $70,500; the town of Easton would receive about 9%, or $7,300, and the towns of Landaff and Woodstock would each receive about 1% respectively. The estimated value of receipts from timber harvested under Alternative 3 would be approximately $606,500, and the timber yield tax would be about $60,650. Approximately 86% of the yield tax, or about $52,250, would be distributed to the town of Benton, the town of Easton would receive about 11%, approximately $6,895, the town of Landaff would receive about 2% and Woodstock would again receive about 1% under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, the estimated value of receipts from timber harvested would be approximately $373,000, and the timber yield tax would be about $37,300. Again under Alternative 4 the town of Benton would receive an estimated 86% of yield tax receipts, or about $32,050, with the town of Easton receiving 12%, or about $4,530, and the town of Landaff receiving the remaining 2%. Since there is no timber harvest proposed within the town of Woodstock under Alternative 4, the town would not receive any corresponding tax receipts. Under Alternative 5, the estimated value of receipts from timber harvested would be approximately $579,000, and the timber yield tax would be about $57,900. This tax revenue would be divided among the four towns using the same distribution percentages as Alternative 2, the amount of tax revenue each town would receive under Alternative 5 would be approximately 27% less than under Alternative 2 to account for a decrease of about $21,500 in total tax revenues under Alternative 5. For the 25% Fund, the State of New Hampshire determines how funds are distributed. The 25% fund payments would provide amounts listed in Table 3.14. The collection to the State under Alternatives 3 and 5 would be about 25 percent less than that for Alternative 2, while under Alternative 4, the collection would be less than 50 percent of the amount generated from Alternative 2. Human activity would be increased during project operations, but not to a level having a noticeable effect on the rural character of the area. Permanent public access would not change appreciably under any of the action alternatives (2-5). Although no new roads or trails are proposed under Alternatives 2-5, approximately 3.3 miles of currently unauthorized roads would be added to the Forest Transportation System. These roads would be classified as intermittent service roads which would not be maintained or open to the public for motorized use. Another 3.2 miles of unauthorized roads would be decommissioned; however since these are not currently open for public vehicle use, public access would not change as a result. The 0.8 miles of new road construction proposed under Alternative 5 would not change permanent access, because it would replace an existing road which would be decommissioned. Motorized trail access would decrease slightly under Alternatives 3-5, due to proposed changes to Tunnel Brook Road, however hiking trail access would increase by about 0.4 miles under all action alternatives (2-5). Direct effects to public safety resulting from harvest activities would be avoided through public use closures (signs) along the trails and at the affected trailheads. Use of New Hampshire State Highways 112 and 25, as well as the main forest access roads by log trucks is comparable to those activities occurring on other roads within and near the Forest, and along main roads to lumber mills. Logging traffic along these routes is not

152

Pemi Northwest Project without precedence from traffic associated with past timber harvests in the vicinity. Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would create an increase in jobs, tax revenues, and presence of logging trucks during the first half of the period. Alternative 2 would contribute the most to the economy, Alternative 4 would contribute the least, and Alternatives 3 and 5 are relatively close in their potential contribution. See Tables 3.14 and 3.15 for estimated costs and revenues associated with implementing these alternatives. In addition to this revenue, three ongoing National Forest timber sales located within the town of Benton would contribute tax revenue to both the state and the town during the analysis timeframe as described in detail under Alternative 1 above. As relates to economic opportunity and/or revenue, no other known timber harvests are planned on National Forest lands within these townships during the analysis period and an unknown but modest amount of private timber may or may not be harvested within these townships. The effects of intermittent displacement of recreational hiking to other trails which are available within the vicinity of the project area or within the White Mountain region would not have a measurable effect on the local economies of Benton, Easton, Landaff or Woodstock because the same level of dependence on and use of local amenities is expected to occur. 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. Environmental Justice

There are a number of private landowners with residences located adjacent to or nearby the project area. The closest population center is located in the town of Benton, which is located approximately 1 mile from the project area. No public comments were received from adjacent landowners or others indicating 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.

153

30-Day Comment Report Table 3.14 – Estimated Timber Harvest Costs and Revenues by Alternative

Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Environmental Analysis & Project Planning $187,800 $187,800 $187,800 $187,800 $187,800

Timber Sale Preparation & $122,500 $100,000 $85,000 $122,500 Administration NA

Total Costs $187,800 $310,300 $287,800 $272,800 $310,300

Revenues Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Est. Harvest Volume (MBF) NA 11,000 8,500 7,000 11,000

Net Stumpage Receipts 0 $794,000 $606,500 $373,000 $579,000

10% Timber Yield Tax 0 $79,400 $60,650 $37,300 $57,900

Total Revenues 0 $873,400 $667,150 $410,300 $636,900

Net Value (revenues–cost) ($187,800) $563,056 $379,328 $137,478 $326,556

Net Value/MBF NA $51.19 $44.63 $19.64 $29.69

Est. 25% Fund Payment to NH 0 $198,500 $151,625 $93,250 $144,750

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 average of awarded values for timber sales recently awarded on the Forest. At the time of this analysis, stumpage was estimated to be $89 per thousand board feet for this project. Net stumpage receipt estimates deduct anticipated road construction and re-construction costs; net values account for sale preparation and administrative costs.

Table 3.15 - Estimated Costs of Non-Timber Activities

Proposed Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Wildlife Habitat NA $4,000 $4,000 $1,500 $4,000 Improvement

Prescribed Burning NA $110,000 $100,000 $100,000 $110,000

Trail/Trailhead Relocation NA 0 $50,000 $25,000 $50,000

Watershed Restoration NA $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Road Decommissioning NA $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $20,000

154

Pemi Northwest Project Proposed Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Culvert Replacements NA $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000

Totals 0 $290,000 $330,000 $303,000 $335,000

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 would not affect the free-flowing condition, classification, or potential outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) of the Wild Ammonoosuc, Tunnel Brook Upper, Tunnel Brook Lower, or Little Tunnel Brook river segments. All four river segments would remain eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation in the future. Each of the action alternatives would have minor impacts on floodplain function, classification attributes, and/or potential ORVs for one or more of the eligible river segments. None of the action alternatives would negatively impact the free-flowing condition of any river, alter the classification of any river segment, or adversely affect any potential ORV for the identified river segments. Therefore all action alternatives would maintain the eligibility of the Wild Ammonoosuc, Tunnel Brook Upper, Tunnel Brook Lower, or Little Tunnel Brook river segments. Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Portions of the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook, and Little Tunnel Brook are within the Pemi NW Project Area and are identified as potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation (USDA Forest Service, 2005a, Appendix C). A brief description of each river’s location and their potential WSR classification is shown in Table 3.16. Additional description is in the resource report in the project record. Table 3.16 Potential WSR Designation by River Segment in the Project Area Eligible Segment Location Description Classification Wild The segment in and adjacent to the project area is about 4.9 miles in length, beginning at Beaver Pond and continuing Ammonoosuc Recreational downstream to a point on the river across from where NH Route 116 departs from NH Route 112 to the northeast. Tunnel Brook From the headwaters at “Mud Pond,” continuing downstream Wild Upper for approximately 1.3 miles. From the end of the “Wild” segment identified above, which corresponds to the point where the river passes into MA 2.1 Scenic lands, continuing downstream for approximately 1.7 miles to where the Benton Trail crosses the river.

155

30-Day Comment Report Eligible Segment Location Description Classification Tunnel Brook From the point where the Benton trail crosses the river, 4.3 Lower miles downstream to its confluence with the Wild Recreational Ammonoosuc River. Little Tunnel From the MA 6.2 and 2.1 boundary, continuing 0.9 miles Recreational Brook downstream to its junction with Tunnel Brook. From the point mentioned above upstream approximately 0.8 Wild miles. Forest Plan standards require the Forest Service to maintain the classification and eligibility or these rivers and Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (Chapter 82.5) requires that the free-flowing condition, ORVs, and inventoried classification of eligible rivers be protected. This section and the associated resource report in the project record describe the effects of all five alternatives on the each of these three factors. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is the river bed and banks and the area within one quarter mile of the ordinary high water mark and one quarter mile beyond the beginning and end points of the segments in or adjacent to the Project Area. The segments of Tunnel Brook and Little Tunnel Brook that are identified as eligible for “wild” classification are not part of the analysis area. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects is ten years from the start of implementation. See the specialist report in the record for the rationale for these boundaries. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would not rehabilitate Tunnel Brook Road bed, which would leave channel function impaired for several years. There would not be any activity that would actively impede the free-flowing condition of Tunnel Brook, but this alternative would not restore the natural flow of the waterway. Because no management actions are proposed in this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects to the classification attributes or the potential outstandingly remarkable values. Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects from this alternative because no direct or indirect effects are expected to the free-flowing condition, classification, or ORVs for any of the eligible river segments. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers report in the project record provides a more detailed discussion of potential effects to all three factors for each river segment under each alternative. This write-up summarizes the findings for each factor and alternative, 156

Pemi Northwest Project combining river segments into one discussion where impacts would be similar. Free-Flowing Condition None of the alternatives propose any impoundments on any of the eligible river segments under consideration. Alternative 5 proposes construction of one temporary bridge with temporary abutments across Little Tunnel Brook, but the abutments would be placed to allow bank-full flow and be removed after project implementation. Therefore there would be no short or long-term impact to the free-flowing condition of Little Tunnel Brook. All action alternatives would result in a much smaller portion of Tunnel Brook Road remaining in the floodplain than prior to Tropical Storm Irene, which would improve the free-flowing condition of the Tunnel Brook Lower segment and allow for more natural floodplain function. As discussed in the analysis for Issue 1, Alternatives 2 and 4 would leave more road area in the floodplain and protect some road segments with riprap or rock vanes; Alternative 3 would best restore floodplain function; and Alternative 5 would restore almost as much of the floodplain as Alternative 3. Since work to Tunnel Brook Road would be outside the streambed and designed to improve the free flowing condition of the brook in the event of a flood, there should be no negative effects to Tunnel Brook’s free flowing condition from any action alternative. Classification Analysis in this section focuses on the shoreline development and accessibility classification criteria, as there are no modifications of the waterway proposed under any alternative. Classification criteria for scenic river segments differ from those for recreational segments. Therefore effects are summarized individually for Tunnel Brook Upper (scenic) and together for the three recreational river segments (Wild Ammonoosuc, Little Tunnel Brook, and Tunnel Brook Lower). Tunnel Brook Upper Activities proposed in this corridor in one or more alternatives that could affect shoreline development or accessibility include timber harvest (group selection, group and single tree selection, and clearcut), rehabilitation or relocation of FR700, and replacement of several undersized culverts on FR700. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 include several harvest units within 0.25 miles of this segment of Tunnel Brook. As a result, the forest may appear slightly more open, but would appear relatively natural when viewed from the river due to the setbacks to meet Forest Plan guidelines. Alternative 3 would not result in any harvest in this segment corridor. Alternative 3 proposes rehabilitation of Tunnel Brook Road within this segment corridor, which would reduce development, change accessibility to a hiking trail, and improve the natural appearance of the eligible scenic corridor. Under Alternative 1, this section of Tunnel Brook Road would gradually revegetate or be altered by Tunnel Brook. In Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, this section of road would be maintained within the corridor so there would be little change in appearance from the river; Alternatives 4 and 5 would change access to foot traffic only. Proposed culvert replacements might be visible from the river during implementation, 157

30-Day Comment Report but would not alter the shoreline or river corridor appearance. None of the action alternatives would alter the eligibility of the Tunnel Brook Upper segment for scenic classification due to shoreline development or accessibility. Wild Ammonoosuc, Tunnel Brook Lower, Little Tunnel Brook All action alternatives propose harvest in these river corridors. The number of stands proposed for harvest, and therefore the intensity of impacts, varies by alternative and by river segment (see report in project record for more details). However the shoreline development criterion for recreational rivers specifies that the lands may show evidence of past or ongoing timber harvest and the land can be developed for the full range of forestry uses. Therefore the management actions planned in the analysis area would be consistent with the criteria for shoreline development. The criteria for this attribute indicate that recreational segments may be readily accessible by road and have parallel roads and bridge crossings in the corridor. None of the action alternatives propose to modify roads within the Wild Ammonoosuc River corridor. Alternative 5 proposes construction of one temporary bridge on temporary abutments across Little Tunnel Brook and new road within the river corridor; no other alternative proposes changes to roads in this segment corridor. Each action alternative proposes a different approach to Tunnel Brook Road in the Tunnel Brook Lower segment corridor (see project record for more detail). All road work proposed in all action alternatives would be consistent with the recreational river classification criteria for accessibility. None of the action alternatives would alter the eligibility of the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook Lower, or Little Tunnel Brook for recreational classification due to shoreline development or accessibility. Outstandingly Remarkable Values The 1991 Forest-wide river assessment did not identify specific outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) for each of the listed rivers. Therefore, this analysis summarizes effects to all potential ORVs detailed in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (Chapter 82.14a): scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, and other values. See the Eligible Wild and Scenic River report and report on identified resources for additional information. Scenery The primary impact to scenery from all action alternatives would be visibility of timber harvest, particularly even-aged regeneration harvests, from these river corridors. Therefore the impact of each alternative to scenery varies primarily based on the amount of harvest within each corridor and the associated river valley. Overall impacts to scenery in all four corridors analyzed would be greatest under Alternatives 2 and 5. Effects would be reduced in Tunnel Brook and Little Tunnel Brook under Alternative 3, and reduced in all river segments under Alternative 4. None of the action alternatives would substantially reduce the scenic value of any river segment or prevent any of the rivers from remaining eligible for designation. Recreation 158

Pemi Northwest Project Timber harvest within the river corridors would have a temporary effect on canopy closure and noise in some areas, but would not impact the recreational opportunities along any of these rivers. Road management activities in action alternatives along Tunnel Brook Lower, Tunnel Brook Upper, and Little Tunnel Brook would impact recreational experience for a short time and determine whether public access was motorized or via hiking trail. However none of the action alternatives would substantially alter the recreational opportunities that make up the potential ORV for any river segment. Geology No management activities are proposed that would alter the local geology or landforms so none of the action alternatives would impact the geologic value of these three river corridors. Fish Forest Plan standards and guidelines would ensure that none of the action alternatives would have a measurable, negative impact to stream temperatures, in-stream aquatic habitat, or stream connectivity. Some improvements to stream connectivity would arise from all four action alternatives. Wildlife The analysis area consists of habitats that are typical on the WMNF. No endangered, threatened, or Regional Forester’s sensitive (RFS) wildlife species are documented as occurring in the analysis area. Suitable habitat occurs for several RFS wildlife species, but none of the action alternatives would cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability. None of the action alternatives would alter any nationally or regionally significant habitat or populations and therefore would not impact this potential ORV for any of the eligible river segments. Historic and Cultural A cultural resource paraprofessional surveyed this area and a report summarizing the potential for impacts was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (see project file). Effects to historical and cultural resources within these river corridors are not anticipated under any action alternative. Other Values To date, no other values have been identified as outstandingly remarkable along these stretches of the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook, or Little Tunnel Brook. Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the combination of the Upper Wild Ammo and Lower Wild Ammo HUC 6 watersheds. The analysis timeframe is from 10 year in the past to 10 years into the future (2002-2012). See the specialist report in the record for the rationale for these boundaries. Past, current, and future activities within these eligible segment corridors are wildlife opening maintenance and the repair and maintenance of Beaver Pond Dam. Other activities in the analysis area are well away from each of the eligible river segments and 159

30-Day Comment Report could not affect the classification attributes for these river segments. Free-Flowing Condition There would not be any cumulative effects to the Wild Ammonoosuc or Little Tunnel Brook from any action alternative because there would be no direct or indirect effects. None of the activities in this analysis area and timeframe would alter the free-flowing condition of Tunnel Brook, Upper or Lower. The only project that would impact any of the rivers is the repair and maintenance of Beaver Pond Dam, which is on the Wild Ammonoosuc River and would maintain the existing impoundment. Therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to the free-flowing condition of any Tunnel Brook segment beyond the direct and indirect effects described above. Classification There would not be any cumulative effects to the water development attribute for these rivers from any action alternative because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Tunnel Brook Upper None of the past, on-going, or reasonably foreseeable future activities are in the upper reaches of the Tunnel Brook subwatershed. Therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to the scenic classification of the Tunnel Brook Upper segment corridor. Wild Ammonoosuc Repair and maintenance of the dam and maintenance of wildlife openings would have minor impacts on the appearance of the river corridor. When combined with impacts from timber harvest proposed in all action alternatives, would not exceed the shoreline development classification criteria for a recreational river, which allow for substantial evidence of human activity. There would not be any cumulative effects to the accessibility attribute for the Wild Ammonoosuc from any action alternative because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Therefore none of the action alternatives would impact the eligibility of this river for classification as a recreational river. Little Tunnel Brook None of the past, on-going, or reasonably foreseeable future activities are in the Little Tunnel Brook drainage. Therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to the potential classification of the Little Tunnel Brook. Tunnel Brook Lower Any minor effect to the appearance of the corridor from wildlife opening maintenance, when combined with impacts from timber harvest and changes to FR700 proposed in all action alternatives, would not exceed the shoreline development classification criteria for a recreational river, which allow for substantial evidence of human activity. None of the past, on-going, or reasonably foreseeable future actions would alter access to the Tunnel Brook river corridor, so there would not be any cumulative effects to accessibility of the Tunnel Brook Lower. Therefore none of the action alternatives would impact the eligibility of this river for classification as a recreational river.

160

Pemi Northwest Project Outstandingly Remarkable Values None of the past, on-going, or reasonably foreseeable future activities are in the Tunnel Brook Upper or Little Tunnel Brook drainages. Therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to the any of the potential ORVs in either of these eligible river segments. There would be no cumulative impacts to the geology, historic and cultural, and other values ORVs in either river corridor because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Neither wildlife opening maintenance nor work at the Beaver Pond Dam would impact current scenery because the openings and dam already exist. Therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to the scenery of either eligible river corridor. Wildlife opening maintenance would not impact recreation or fish along either river segment. Since that is the only past, current, or future project in the Tunnel Brook Lower corridor, there would not be any cumulative impacts to these potential ORVs for the eligible Tunnel Brook Lower segment. Repair and maintenance of the Beaver Pond Dam would maintain existing fish habitat and populations and reduce the risk of erosion from a spillway or dam failure in the future. This work would increase accessibility of the spillway to more recreationists. Therefore cumulative effects from action alternatives and work at the dam would not negatively impact either of these potential ORVs for the Wild Ammonoosuc River. Wildlife opening maintenance and work on Beaver Pond Dam both affected wildlife habitat. These activities did not benefit or negatively impact any nationally or regionally important wildlife species or habitat. Therefore the wildlife potential ORV for the eligible river segments would not be adversely impacted by cumulative effects from any proposed action and known past, current, and future activities. Summary Based on the above analysis and additional information available in related specialist reports, cumulative effects from the action alternatives and past, current, and future projects in the analysis area would not adversely impact any of the potential Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook Upper, Tunnel Brook Lower, or Little Tunnel Brook eligible rivers. Scenery

Summary of Effects

A detailed scenery analysis was conducted for the Pemi Northwest Project. This analysis, including a description of the affected environment, methodology, and detailed effects analysis, is included in the project record. Two stationary and superior viewpoints were selected for detailed analysis for this project: one from the summit of Black Mountain and one from the summit of Mount Moosilauke. These two viewpoints provide the broadest range of direct views and represent the areas of highest visitor use. The changes visible under the action alternatives would be very evident to some viewers 161

30-Day Comment Report and to some degree, less apparent to others. Some areas of treatment would appear as textural and color changes on the mountain slopes. Shadowing would change during the daylight and vary by the season. These changes would eventually add to the visual diversity of the scenery while following landscape contours and remaining mostly in context. From the two superior viewpoints, clearcuts and patch cuts at lower elevations might appear to be forested meadows and would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings typical of this area. Larger or clumped clearcuts and patch cuts on the hillsides would have a less natural appearance and would initially attract the observer’s attention but would gradually fade over time and become less defined. Alternative 1 would impact local scenery the least because no timber harvest would occur. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least impact on scenery because it includes fewer visible harvest units and visible acres of even-age and uneven aged treatment than that of Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Although Alternative 4 has less overall total acres of treatment than any of the other action alternatives, including Alternative 3, it is the amount of visible acres that impacts scenery management. The eastern facing slopes along Tunnel Brook, west of Mt. Moosilauke, are arguably some of the most viewed and visible portions of the landscape in the project area. In Alternative 3, all of the units along this slope are dropped from the harvest proposal. Primarily for this reason, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in considerably less visible alteration than would implementation of either Alternatives 2, 4, or 5. Alternative 1 would be consistent with all scenery management direction in the Forest Plan. All action alternatives would be consistent with all scenery management direction in the Forest Plan except for MA 2.1 guideline G-5. Based on the number of stands proposed for even-aged regeneration harvest, Alternative 3 would be the most consistent with Forest Plan scenery management guidelines, followed by Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 5 would have the most inconsistencies. Affected Environment

The Project Area encompasses mountainsides and bottomlands within watersheds that are a mosaic of color, form and texture. A blanket of softwood trees covers most of the highest elevations. Draping over the slopes and extending into the lower elevations are swaths of softwood trees, hardwood trees, or a mixture of the two. Other features include the granite outcrops interspersed throughout the upper elevations, low meadows, past and recent agriculture, including forestry and the sporadic meadow-like openings created by the river valley. 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. The 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 upon these slopes and lowlands. More recent clearcuts and large groups are noticeable on the landscape. Older harvests may not be evident to the casual observer, but they are visible to those who know what to look for or those that are spending more time observing the landscape. 162

Pemi Northwest Project Two stationary and superior viewpoints were selected for detailed analysis for this project: one from the summit of Black Mountain and one from the summit of Mount Moosilauke. These two viewpoints provide the broadest range of direct views and represent the areas of highest visitor use. Black Mountain affords a closer, more intense view of about half the project area while Mount Moosilauke offers more distant views from the opposite side of the project area, but overlooks a majority of the area. A multiple step modeling effort was used to evaluate which of the proposed openings created by clearcuts, patch clearcuts, overstory removals and group selection treatments would fall within the visible area for each viewpoint. With the data assembled, it was possible to visualize the view from the viewpoints and determine how the landscape would appear in the future following the proposed treatments in each action alternative. Due to modeling limitations, the foreground vegetation’s shadowing is not part of the model. Therefore the model results depict more canopy opening (and the illusion of potential bare ground visible) than would ever actually be visible unless the viewpoint peers directly down and into an opening. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects is primarily the Project Area because this is the zone within which the proposed vegetative management activities would alter the scenery, but it does extend to encompass the viewshed from each viewpoint. The timeframe for effects is 30 years into the future. The analysis area for cumulative effects is the viewshed from each viewpoint and the timeframe is from 30 years ago to 30 years in the future. See the Scenery report in the project record for additional rationale for these boundaries. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 there would be no change from the present condition and therefore no visible change to the landscape within the project area. Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects to scenery under Alternative 1 because there would be no direct or indirect effects. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Views differ according to the viewpoint’s location, elevation, and proximity to the units, the Project Area’s aspect of the slope, season and weather. From stationary viewpoints, the intensity of effects from new openings is a function of distance, the size and shape of the visible opening as well as their proximity to other visible openings and or other features that would attract the observer’s attention. Estimates of acreages visible (seen) will always be less than the total acres treated (even if only slightly) due to natural screening by topographic features, leading edge

163

30-Day Comment Report vegetation of the viewed opening and by any reserve areas placed within these openings that would create additional visual barriers. The difference between treated and visible acres will vary greatly depending on the topography, elevation of the viewpoint, and aspect of slope the opening is on. Seasons play an intricate role in how viewsheds appear and what is visible or even recognizable as features within it. Typically leaf-on conditions are assumed for analysis as that is when a majority of the observers have potential of viewing the project areas. It should be noted that in the winter all openings will be more evident, with snow highlighting the opening until the regenerated forest develops sufficient height to begin blending with the surrounding landscape. Even without snow, shadow and texture would be accentuated without leaves on trees as limited color exists to blend the eye’s

Using a model to simulate the view of timber harvest proposals from the summit of Mt. Moosilauke. The top image shows harvest proposals in Alternatives 2 and 5, middle image shows Alternative 3, bottom image shows Alternative 4. Yellow and blue polygons are even-age (clearcuts and overstory removal) harvest; green polygons are uneven-age harvest.

focus. The impact of changes on scenery also varies based on context. The valley bottom is historically a place of agricultural practices (forest and food). Harvest in these areas would continue the tradition and follow the culture of the area and the use and appearance of the landscape. After the initial years of regeneration, smaller openings would fade off into the mosaic of colors and textures covering the valley floor. The 164

Pemi Northwest Project larger openings would be more indicative of historic agricultural openings and would easily blend as such after the first few years of revegetation, bringing back color and texture in context with the surrounding. The keen observer would likely notice age differences between the new and old openings, but since the area has been manipulated over time, it would not seem that out of place. Larger stands located higher on the hillsides would have a less natural appearance and be perceived as a more negative impact by many observers for years into the future. After approximately 15-20 years, the openings should be sufficiently regrown that the texture changes and amount of shadow would diminish and the colors would blend with the surroundings to all but the most keen observer. Those openings at a distance would fade sooner. Openings that are distant from a viewpoint would have the advantage of appearing less noticeable for their size. Due to their greater distance and apparent reduced scale, the most distant of the visible openings created by proposed project activities would fade more rapidly and reduce the overall extent of visible disturbance within a few years. Scenic effects of newly created openings under all action alternatives would initially be very evident, but over time would blend with the existing landscape. The openings would eventually become nearly unnoticeable to most observers, especially during seasons of the year when leaves are on the hardwoods. A fair portion of the changes that would be visible under all action alternatives would be consistent with the historic patchwork of forest and openings indicative of the region. Over time, establishment of forest regeneration combined with careful placement of openings on the landscape, would ensure that the scenery would remain intact under all action alternatives analyzed. Uneven-aged treatments or group selections would have effects on the scenery after the initial harvest and for several years to follow, but would fade more rapidly than that of the even-aged treatments. This is mostly due to their reduced scale or size (in acres). The reduced visibility is a direct function of both actual size and that the leading edge of vegetation may provide increased screening of the smaller opening. Groups are to be laid out utilizing design features that encourage their placement and occurrences upon flatter topography and that their size and shape stay within contours (rather than allowing for the length of the opening to go up or down hill). Groups will also be random in size, location and proximity. There would not be recognizable patterns created on the landscape. Due to the inherent smaller scale of the openings, distance (far middle ground and background) increases the fade of their visibility to the point of only being recognizable as a change in texture, color and shadow on the overall landscape, typically within a few years. Group selections are, by definition, limited in size. The types of impacts described above would be true for all action alternatives from both viewpoints. The difference among alternatives is the amount of clearcutting and group selection harvest and how much of that would be visible from each viewpoint. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the highest amount of treated acres overall and the largest amount of openings (Table 3.17) 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. 165

30-Day Comment Report Alternative 3 would reduce the impacts of logging on scenic values as compared to Alternatives 2 and 5 by eliminating 3 clearcuts, an overstory removal and by substantially reducing the amount of group selection harvest (see Table 2.1), as observed from Viewpoint 2. The observer from Viewpoint 2 would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the intensity of effects would be less than under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. The reduction in treatments would increase the geographic separation between openings, allowing visual effects created by these openings to blend in much sooner than under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5. Under Alternative 4, two clearcuts are dropped from the viewshed visible from Viewpoint 2 as compared to Alternatives 2 and 5. Group selection harvest levels would remain the same as found in Alternatives 2 and 5. An observer at either viewpoint would still notice changes in the canopy immediately following a harvest, but the lasting effects from Alternative 3 and 4 would be reduced in comparison to those of Alternatives 2 and 5 and would fade and blend with the untreated surroundings more readily due to the decreased harvest intensity within a closer distance from the viewpoint. Alternative 3 has the least activity visible of the action alternatives. Table 3.17 New visible openings1 by Alternative and Viewpoint Viewpoint Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 # Acres # Acres # Acres # Acres Black Mountain (Viewpoint #1) 12 332 12 332 12 332 12 332 Mount Moosilauke (Viewpoint #2) 15 376 11 303 13 327 15 376 1 Openings include clearcuts, patch cuts, and overstory removal harvest Under all action alternatives, impacts from prescribed burning to visual quality from superior viewpoints should be minimal because the burns are planned as ground level disturbances. During most of the year, observers would not be viewing the charred ground or the bases of trees; they would be seeing canopy or snow. For the first 3-5 years following the burning activity, the burn areas could show signs of color, texture and lighting differences in comparison to the unburned surroundings during parts of 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 eliminate impacts to the scenery. Alternatives 2 and 5 proposed the most prescribed burning, so would have the greatest potential for visibility during spring and fall. Alternative 3 proposes 43 acres less burning, and Alternative 4 proposes 59 acres less than Alternatives 2 and 5, so they would have reduced impacts. Cumulative Effects

No future harvests are currently proposed in the analysis area. Some of the openings created by clearcuts and groups harvested within the Project Area over the past 30 years are still visible from the viewpoints analyzed. Larger openings from past harvests are marginally evident when viewed from distances of over three miles. When viewed from closer than three miles, these older openings, as well as some of the “cookie cutter” group selections that are not well distributed, are noticeable, particularly with snow in the winter. During the rest of the seasons they appear mostly as texture, lighting and 166

Pemi Northwest Project shadow changes that blend with the existing historic landscape. Although the visibility of these openings has faded over time, they could be highlighted by proposed harvest activities. 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. The only difference in cumulative effects among alternatives is related to the intensity of harvest activity. From Viewpoint 1 there is no difference as there is no reduction of visible openings between alternatives. The cumulative impacts for the alternatives are related to the intensity of each proposal and are equal to that of the direct and indirect effects. From Viewpoint 2 the reduction of harvest activity is evident between the four action alternatives. Alternative 4 has two fewer clearcuts, the equivalent of 49 acres, than Alternatives 2 and 5. Alternative 3 has three fewer clearcuts, one less overstory removal and a reduction in group cuts compared to Alternatives 2 and 5. This results in 73 fewer acres of even age treatments. The intensity is affected because the reduction in visible acreage would all occur along the same slope, visible from Viewpoint 2. Past harvest units are readily visible from Viewpoint 1 but are not as evident from Viewpoint 2 where the reductions in proposed alternatives are visible. No past or future burns are known to be visible with either darkened earth or tree damage seen within the analysis area, so no cumulative effects from that activity would be anticipated under any alternative. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations & Policies

The Forest Plan includes guidelines for scenery management in MA 2.1 that should be met by projects that include timber harvest. As acknowledged in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p. 2-3) some projects may not be consistent with all guidelines, though a rationale for the deviation must be provided. Most projects that propose timber harvest struggle to balance the need for regeneration age habitat and habitat diversity with the thresholds identified in some of the scenery management guidelines. That was true for this project. As a result, all of the action alternatives include some visible openings that are inconsistent with one scenery management guideline. This section looks at each applicable guideline and how well is it met by the action alternatives. MA 2.1 Scenery Management G-1 The Black Mountain viewshed is 11,316 acres. The most even-aged regeneration treatments within the Black Mountain viewshed proposed by an action alternative total 370 acres, or approximately 3% of the viewshed. The stands in this viewshed treated with regeneration treatments within the past 30 years plus the maximum proposed harvest total 618 acres or approximately 6% of the Black Mountain viewshed. Therefore all action alternatives would meet this guideline for the Black Mountain viewshed. The Mt. Moosilauke viewshed is 19,092 acres. The most even-aged regeneration treatments within the Mt. Moosilauke viewshed proposed by an action alternative total

167

30-Day Comment Report 372 acres, or approximately 1.9% of the viewshed. The stands in this viewshed treated with regeneration treatments within the past 30 years, plus the maximum proposed harvest, total 978 acres, or approximately 5% of the Mt. Moosilauke viewshed. Therefore all action alternatives would meet this guideline for the Mt. Moosilauke viewshed. MA 2.1 Scenery Management G-3 Six stands proposed for harvest have acres with a “high” scenic integrity objective. However, only one unit of the six is visible. Unit 37 is a 15 acre overstory removal and is visible in both viewsheds under all action alternatives. Visual modeling in the project record indicates that this stand would meet this guideline once design features were incorporated to ensure that no more than five acres would be visible from the Mount Moosilauke viewpoint. From Black Mountain, the visible acreage is within the guideline’s threshold due to foreground topography and vegetation reducing the unit’s visibility. The mitigation will reduce that visibility even further and ensure the unit meets the guideline from both viewpoints. From Mount Moosilauke this mitigation is achieved by incorporating a design feature (Wildlife Retention Area) into Unit 37 that enhances the foreground leading edge of the unit and would block enough of the opening from view that it would effectively mitigate visual concerns and meet this guideline. MA 2.1 Scenery Management G-4 and G-5 These two guidelines together address how to be consistent with the “moderate” scenic integrity objective. An interdisciplinary team discussed each stand proposed for even-aged regeneration harvest that would be visible from either viewpoint. For each stand and viewpoint combination the team reached one of three conclusions: less than 10 acres of opening would be visible so the stand would be consistent with these guidelines, a well-placed reserve area would 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 (see project record for details). A design feature was developed to ensure that reserve areas would be placed appropriately where necessary to bring stands into compliance with these guidelines. With the use of reserve areas to limit opening visibility, only four of the stands proposed for harvest in all action alternatives would be inconsistent with these guidelines. One stand (# 20) is more than 2.6 miles from the Black Mountain viewpoint and not visible from Mt. Moosilauke, so the proposed clearcut would be distant and the impacts to scenery would be muted. However, Stand 20 is not compliant in any of the four action alternatives. The other three stands (52, 58 and 59) are visible from Mt. Moosilauke only. Stand 52 is not compliant in Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 and would not meet these guidelines. Stands 58 and 59 are not compliant in Alternatives 2 and 5 only, and would not meet these guidelines. Not every situation is the same though, as Stand 59 has approximately 21 of its 28 acres visible but is in the valley bottom so the opening would be consistent with the landscape character. This along with the implementation of design features such as a reserve area 168

Pemi Northwest Project placed to block visibility of some of the opening will improve the compliance but still not bring the stand into complete compliance with the guidelines. Stand 52 and 58 are located on a hillside and therefore are not consistent with the landscape character. Each will also have design features such as a reserve area placed to block visibility of some of the opening and that will improve the compliance but still not bring the stands into complete compliance with the guidelines. To reduce impacts to scenery, these clearcuts mention above may receive feathered edges and reserve areas placed to block some of the opening from visibility. These stands would be obvious to most observers on Mt. Moosilauke for probably 20 years as the canopy regains enough height to begin to blend with its surroundings. MA 2.1 Scenery Management G-7 All Alternatives are in compliance with the guidelines for group selection. The groups will be design and implemented in random, none recognizable or eye catching patterns and within the context of the surrounding landscape, therefore meeting the guidelines. Alternative 3 is the only action Alternative that has visible reductions in group selection treatments and is observed from Mt. Moosilauke. Heritage Resources

The Pemi Northwest Project Area includes historic archaeological sites relating to the history of the area as a 19th century agricultural community, early 20th century large- scale logging operation, and the site of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp during the Great Depression. 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. Summary of Effects

Activities under all action alternatives would avoid any known cultural sites. If new sites were discovered during implementation, activity would stop and consultation with the Forest Archaeologist would occur. Therefore, no effects are expected under any alternative. The NH State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the project and concurred with this determination. Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Native American occupation of northern New Hampshire dates to as early as 11,500 years before present. It is possible that native inhabitants of this area utilized the landscape for purposes such as hunting, gathering, fishing, lithic procurement or habitation. No direct evidence of this has yet been uncovered within the boundaries of the Pemi Northwest Project Area. No historic Indian trails are cited as having run through the project area (Price, 1958). The town of Benton, originally called Coventry, was chartered in 1764 by Royal Governor Benning Wentworth. Though relatively mountainous and not ideally suited

169

30-Day Comment Report for agriculture, it was sparsely settled by the end of the 18th century (Nutt, 2004). Settlement expanded through the course of the first half of the 19th century, so that by the time of Walling’s atlas of 1860, Coventry Rd. (Route 116) was crowded with a number of residences, as well as a clapboard mill, a sawmill, a cooper’s shop, a blacksmith’s shop, and two cemeteries (Walling, 1860). North South Rd. (Long Pond Rd./FR 19), laid out in the first decade of the 19th century, comprised Coventry/Benton’s principal access road to points south, and it is shown in the Walling atlas lined with eight residences, a school, and a sawmill (Coventry was renamed Benton in 1840). Walling’s 1860 atlas also shows other roads, residences, sawmills and other structures throughout the area. Based off of this historic map, it could be stated that North Benton in the middle of the 19th century was a small, but reasonably successful community, dependent on agriculture and the manufacture and processing of forest products, as well as blacksmithing. Much of this activity would have necessitated the deforestation of the inhabited portions of the area. The present-day remains of this historic community consist of stone features that dot the landscape: cellar holes, barn foundations, outbuilding foundations, wells, stone walls, stone cairns, push piles, etc. Already by the time of the Hurd atlas of 1892, population density and commercial activities within Benton had dwindled as settlers dispersed in the wake of western expansion and the Civil War. By the 1880s, farmers had begun selling their lands to local and larger-scale logging operations and abandoning the area. By the early years of the 20th century, most of the land along North South Road and Tunnel Brook Road had been dedicated to logging activities under the authority of large companies such as International Paper Company and Fall Mountain Paper Company (Nutt, 2004). Logging camps sprang up within the river valleys, particularly along Tunnel Brook where there were logging camps scattered throughout the woods (Brown, 1999). This historic logging activity necessitated the deforestation of large tracts of the area, as horse-drawn sledges dragged timber down the mountain slopes to the Wild Ammonoosuc River to be floated further downstream and into market. In 1904, Lebina H. Parker built the three- story Parker House along Tunnel Brook in an attempt to draw recreational tourists to the area at the base of Mt. Moosilauke. The venture was unsuccessful, and the county burned the structure down sometime after 1930 (Nutt, 2004). By 1929, the Black Mountain fire tower and the Parker House were the only remaining permanent structures not located directly adjacent to a state highway or a spur road of a state highway (USGS, 1929). The first fire tower at the summit of Black Mountain was constructed in 1911, and consisted of an open-topped wooden tower with a telephone line strung along poles three miles down to the valley. This was replaced by another wooden tower in 1915, then by a 20'-tall steel tower with enclosed observation room in 1926. Damaged in the hurricane of 1938, this one was replaced by another wooden tower in 1941, built by CCC workmen. This tower remained functionally utilized until again damaged in the winter of 1977-78. The tower was demolished by Army Special Forces on May 5, 1978, and the debris was for the most part removed (Baird, 2003). Following establishment of the Weeks Act in 1911, the federal government began to actively acquire the heavily logged lands of Benton. The purchase of the “Bertram Pike

170

Pemi Northwest Project Tract”, which included much of the lands around North South Road and Howe Hill Road, in January 1914, represented the very first land acquisition for the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF Lands Acquisition files, Supervisor’s Office, Campton, NH). Camp Wildwood, New Hampshire’s first CCC work camp during the Great Depression, was located along Tunnel Brook Rd. from 1933-1937. It engaged previously-unemployed young men in various public work projects in the area, such as restoration of the Black Mountain fire tower, the damming of Long Pond, and the construction of the Wildwood picnic area pavilion. The Forest Service has reconstructed and maintained many historic roads of Benton for recreational and administrative purposes. These roads generally, but not exactly, conform to the historic roadbeds mapped in 1860 and 1892. Recreational trails have also been reconstructed throughout the area, generally conforming to historic roadbeds of the 19th century. Timber harvests have remained active in the area under the management of the Forest Service. Desired Condition

As the US Forest Service Manual for Heritage Program Management states: The Congress in 1966 declared it to be our national policy that the Federal government will “administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations.” To this end, the Forest Service will provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage through responsible stewardship activities that recognize, preserve, protect, enhance, and use cultural resources for the greatest public benefit.’ (USDA Forest Service, 2008). Included in the Forest Service’s policy are objectives to integrate opportunities for preservation, protection, and utilization of cultural resources into land use planning and decisions; provide opportunities for public use and enjoyment of cultural resources through education and outreach programs that promote resource stewardship; and to protect cultural resources from the effects of Forest Service or Forest Service-authorized undertakings, unauthorized use, and environmental damage (USDA Forest Service, 2008). Many laws, Executive Orders, and Federal Regulations apply to cultural resources and Forest Service actions. The Heritage Report in the project record describes these in more detail. Methodology

Following review of historic maps and files, the project area was walked over by a Forest Service archaeological field technician. When historic sites were located, they were photographed, mapped, GPSed, and marked as heritage reserves. Reserves include the area around cellar holes, barn foundations, and other significant historic features, with a 50' buffer in order to protect both above-ground structural remnants and below-ground archaeological deposits, such as outbuildings or wells. Relevant GPS information was passed along to timber harvest personnel to be incorporated into the Heritage overlay of the proposed action plan. Isolated stone walls were also GPSed and flagged with no buffer due to their limited potential of containing subsurface cultural features. A total of fifty-eight heritage sites were recorded as lying within or on the edge of the Pemi Northwest Project Area.

171

30-Day Comment Report 19th century residences, as well as a schoolhouse and possible sawmill sites, were relocated and monitored in the course of fieldwork for the Pemi Northwest Project. The remains of 20th century logging camps were also relocated and monitored, as well as the Wildwood CCC camp dating to the 1930s. Three transects of four shovel test pits apiece were excavated at 8-meter intervals within the Tunnel Brook floodplain in the area of a proposed road relocation that will include substantial ground-disturbing activities. No cultural resources were documented in the course of this testing. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for Analysis

The analysis area for cultural resources is the project area. Cultural sites beyond the project boundary would not be affected. 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 temporary (1-2 years after harvest), as new growth would quickly again obscure the sites. The temporal boundaries for cumulative effects are twenty years before and twenty years after 2012. 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. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

There would be no ground disturbing activities associated with this alternative, therefore no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected. Alternatives 2 through 5

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under all alternatives, archaeological sites potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, based on their ability to contribute information important to the study of history, are present. 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 effect from project activity is anticipated. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects from the project, there would be no cumulative effects. Other Agencies Consulted

A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report with a determination of “No Effect” was submitted to the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office, which concurred with the determination on October 18, 2012 (see Project Record). Riparian and Aquatic Habitats

For this analysis, stream thermal class, stream connectivity, and in-stream habitat

172

Pemi Northwest Project quality and productivity are used as measures to analyze possible effects related to riparian and aquatic habitats. These measures are further discussed in the Methodology section. A more lengthy discussion of these measures and rationale for their use is included in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Report in the project record. Summary of Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not expected to have a measurable, negative impact to stream temperatures, in-stream aquatic habitat, or stream connectivity. Some improvements to stream connectivity would arise from all four action alternatives. Under all action alternatives, application of Forest Plan standard and guidelines, as well as project specific design features, would ensure only small changes to riparian forest canopy, preventing any warming of streams to levels that change fish community composition. While forest canopy cover over some small intermittent streams may be lost, these channels generally don’t flow during hot periods of the summer when coldwater fish bearing streams are vulnerable to warming. 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 perennial stream shading trees. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would all improve stream connectivity in the project area. Differences between alternatives are minimal in terms of fish passage. All culverts being replaced on fish bearing streams would be designed to simulate stream beds and pass fish. Removal of some crossings, as compared to replacing with larger structures, would be considered the best improvement to stream connectivity in terms of floods and the movement of sediment and wood. Alternative 3 would make the biggest improvement as ten culverts would be removed from the Tunnel Brook road. Alternative 4 and 5 would be similar to alternative 3, other than temporary crossings would be in place during implementation of vegetation management, therefore only affecting stream connectivity if floods of 25 year recurrence intervals occur during logging operations. Alternative 2 would have the most permanent crossings, but stream connectivity would be improved as stream simulation designs would be constructed at all sites. There would not be any long-lasting negative direct or indirect negative effects to stream habitats from any of the action alternatives. No alternative is likely to 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, road construction, road maintenance, commercial logging operations, prescribed fire units and restoration activities on Tunnel Brook Road 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 acres of land treated, miles or road reconstructed and maintained, any difference in effects to stream habitats would be very localized and difficult to detect. Stream stability would not be further degraded in any the action alternatives from what has already occurred from Tropical Storm Irene. All action alternatives would promote stream stability of Tunnel Brook; however, the watershed may never be a highly

173

30-Day Comment Report productive trout stream on the whole, given the fast runoff caused by the steep mountains and narrow valley bottom. Alternatives 3 and 5 may improve stream stability, and therefore trout productivity, the most, by allowing downed wood to create side channels since road fill would be removed from the floodplain and road prisms would not need to be armored along the river. Alternatives 2 and 4 would still require some road fill and road armoring within the floodplain to withstand high stream flow events. Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The Pemi Northwest Project Area is located primarily in the Headwaters Wild Ammonoosuc and Wild Ammonoosuc watersheds, with smaller portions in the Oliverian Brook and Clark Brook- Connecticut River watersheds. The Headwaters Wild Ammonoosuc River watershed is approximately 16,951 acres (26.5 sq. mi.) and the Wild Ammonoosuc watershed is approximately 21,187 acres (33.1 sq. mi.). While the Wild Ammonoosuc drains directly into the Ammonoosuc River, all four watersheds ultimately drain into the Connecticut River upstream from its confluence with the Waits River. Fish-bearing perennial streams in the project area include the Wild Ammonoosuc River, Tunnel Brook, Little Tunnel Brook, Davis Brook, Whitcher Brook, Spillman Brook, Howe Hill Brook, Titus Brook, Jeffers Brook and several unnamed perennial streams. For the purposes of riparian standard and guideline application in this project, the Wild Ammonoosuc below the confluence of Clay Brook will be treated as a third order stream. All other streams in the project area are first and second order streams. Unnamed and in some cases unmapped perennial streams have been identified and their subwatersheds were delineated in the Water Resources report. Water temperature collected in the watershed indicates the majority of streams in the project area are coldwater streams. Fish sampling has occurred in the Wild Ammonoosuc River at three sites and in Tunnel Brook at three sites. Visual observations of fish occurred within many of the smaller perennial streams. Brook trout dominate the fish community in all streams except in the Wild Ammonoosuc River downstream of Bunga Jar Brook. Table 3 Mean July Water Temperatures and corresponding Thermal Classification for sample sites in the Project Area.

Mean July (2006) Water River/Stream Location Thermal Classification Temperature (F)

Wild Ammonoosuc River – Lower (upstream of Bowen Brook) 68.2 Cool (65-70 F)

Wild Ammonoosuc River – Middle (upstream of Tunnel 63.5 Cold (<65 F) Brook)

Wild Ammonoosuc River – Upper (upstream of Stony Brook) 61.7 Cold (<65 F)

Whitcher Brook 63.0 Cold (<65 F)

174

Pemi Northwest Project Tunnel Brook 61.3 Cold (<65 F)

Habitat in the Wild Ammonoosuc River and Tunnel Brook is generally characterized by a highly mobile and unstable stream bed. The steep nature of the mountains and shallow nature of soils results in high stream power and an abundance of sediment to transport down to the wider valley bottoms. In addition, NH Route 112 and the Tunnel Brook Road have disconnected both streams from their floodplains, further increasing the instability of the stream beds and fish habitat. Currently most stream reaches have low brook trout productivity with the exception of; the upper reach of Tunnel Brook above the last Tunnel Brook road bridge; and the upper reach of the Wild Ammonoosuc River above Clay Brook. Trout productivity is very poor in the lower reaches of Tunnel Brook and the Wild Ammonoosuc River due to channel instability and high stream power. Tributaries of the both Tunnel Brook and the Wild Ammonoosuc River generally have higher fish productivity than the lower mainstem reaches. Fragmentation of the stream network is mostly limited to the small tributaries of the project area. There is a dam on the Wild Ammonoosuc River at the downstream end of the project area as well as one on Long Pond, the headwaters of Whitcher Brook. Tributaries of Tunnel Brook are fragmented by undersized culverts on the Tunnel Brook Road, although upstream fish habitat is fairly limited above the road. These small and short streams do provide important spawning and nursery habitat for brook trout given the unstable nature of Tunnel Brook. Fish barriers also exist on Spillman Brook and Bunga Jar Brook. In August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene affected the area. Approximately 3.25 inches of rainfall were recorded in Benton, NH during the storm (NHSCO, 2011). While this is less rainfall than other parts of the National Forest, saturated conditions prior to the storm, shallow or hardpan soils, and steep drainages led to a noticeable effect on channels and infrastructure. Bank erosion, sediment transport and deposition, and shifts in channel location were observed in several project area streams. Some changes in the project area were due to natural causes such as rock slides, and streams would be expected to recover as they have from past events. In other cases, human activity increased impacts to channel function and water quality. Channel function was further compromised at stream crossings and where roads occurred in floodplains, most notably along Tunnel Brook Road. Desired Condition

Relevant goals and objectives for riparian and aquatic habitats from the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest are: • Protect, restore, or improve riparian area conditions to benefit riparian dependent resources and values. • Manage riparian areas to provide for coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater aquatic communities within the ecological capability of the landscape. • Restore and improve self-sustaining populations of indigenous fish and other aquatic species and their habitats. • Restore or improve 5-10 miles of instream habitat per year over the planning period with emphasis on 6th level watersheds best suited for managing self-sustaining wild 175

30-Day Comment Report brook trout populations and their associated coldwater aquatic communities.

Methodology

The relevant factors for analysis of the effects to riparian and aquatic habitats are stream thermal class, stream connectivity, and in-stream habitat quality and productivity. More detailed descriptions of these factors are in the project record. 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. The best available science regarding stream buffers suggests that implementation of Forest Plan guidelines for riparian and aquatic habitats would prevent significant changes in summertime stream temperatures and therefore maintain the integrity of coldwater streams. Stream Connectivity Stream connectivity refers to the ability of a stream to move water, organisms, stream sediments, and in-stream wood freely within the natural capacity of the stream network. The occurrence of both man-made (culverts and dams) and natural barriers (waterfalls, beaver dams, landslides) influence stream connectivity within a watershed. While connectivity generally has recently focused on the passage of aquatic organisms, it also includes linkages of other biotic and physical processes and materials between upstream and downstream reaches. Physical processes include the movement and distribution of woody debris, sediment, and migration of channel patterns. Streams in the White Mountains that can be crossed with culverts are typically coldwater or coolwater habitats. Most of the impacts associated with culverts in the White Mountains will affect coldwater and coolwater fish populations – salmonids (brook trout), cyprinids (minnows and dace), catastomids (suckers), and cottids (sculpin). Aquatic salamanders associated with these habitats may include spring (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), two-lined, and dusky (Desmognathus fuscus) salamanders. In-Stream Habitat Quality and Productivity In-stream habitat quality and productivity is a description of those variables that have the most influence over stream productivity in the White Mountains: risk of aluminum toxicity from episodic acidification, sedimentation from roads and logging activity, and the status of in-stream large woody debris and pool habitat area. Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on riparian and aquatic 176

Pemi Northwest Project habitats is the 6th level Headwaters Wild Ammonoosuc and Wild Ammonoosuc watersheds, with smaller portions in the Oliverian Brook and Clark Brook- Connecticut River watersheds. While the focus of this analysis is streams within the Pemi Northwest Project Area, some lands outside this boundary will be included to analyze complete watersheds. This area was chosen because it includes all streams draining the project area. The timeframe for analyzing effects will differ for short-term and long-term effects. The direct and indirect effects will be examined 10 years into the future as the effects of timber harvesting, road building, and stream crossings are no longer evident after that time. The timeframe for cumulative effects will be 10 years in the past and 25 years into the future. This timeframe covers all short-term effects of past projects that may still be occurring and examines into the future approximately the timeframe before all current culverts need to be replaced. Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Stream and Pond Thermal Class

Forest canopy along and over streams would remain much as the current situation. Only natural tree falls or hazard tree management would create openings in the canopy that would allow sunlight on surface waters. Based on water temperatures measured within the project area in past years, all streams would most likely remain as coldwater 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, with human caused fragmentation continuing to occur on many small tributaries in the project area such Bunga Jar Brook, Spillman Brook, and several un-named tributaries of Tunnel Brook. 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. Cumulative Effects

Stream Thermal Class

No changes in stream thermal classes are expected in any tributary stream of the Wild Ammonoosuc River in Alternative 1 as future land management is expected to follow Forest Plan guidelines and BMP’s. Streams in the project area would not be expected to change thermal class, unless extreme weather results in severe drought or catastrophic 177

30-Day Comment Report ice storms were to damage riparian forest canopy. Stream Connectivity In this alternative, improvements to stream connectivity may occur if undersized culverts were to wash out and not be replaced. Otherwise, future actions in the project area are not expected to reduce or increase stream connectivity. In-stream Habitat Quality and Productivity In most streams of the project area habitat conditions would remain similar to today’s conditions. One exception would be in Tunnel Brook. Without restoration or maintenance of the 0.8 miles of Tunnel Brook Road that was damaged, additional instability could be realized if Tunnel Brook permanently relocates into the damaged roadbed. This could cause channel instability for many years further reducing aquatic habitat productivity. 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. In Tunnel Brook, additional wood loadings could cause additional washouts of the already damaged Tunnel Brook Road. Extreme weather events such as floods, windstorms, ice storms, or droughts could cause dramatic effects that alter habitat quality and productivity if they occur within the cumulative effects analysis area. Alternative 2 through 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Stream Thermal Class

Vegetation management near perennial streams would not alter the stream thermal classification of perennial stream reaches. The application of Forest Plan Riparian and Aquatic Habitat guidelines G-1 and G-2 would prevent any substantial removal of riparian forest canopy cover. Clearcuts would generally 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. Howe Hill and Whitcher Brook are well buffered from timber treatments in all action alternatives largely by steep elevation changes along the brooks. The deep valleys of these brooks promote self-cooling of the brooks as they flow from their headwater areas to the Wild Ammonoosuc River, therefore treatments would not change thermal classes of these brooks. Group selection and single tree selection treatments along Tunnel Brook western slope tributaries in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would not occur within 25’ of perennial stream banks. These tributaries have very small channel widths and will easily be shaded by trees within the no-cut zones between the stream and the harvest treatments. Harvesting treatments in the Jobildunk Brook drainage would not have any detrimental effects as this brook is poor fish habitat with the exception of the lower quarter mile reach. The brook flows through a deep gorge which also buffers the stream from temperature change. Group cuts and single tree selection harvest may occur within the riparian area of Bunga Jar 178

Pemi Northwest Project Brook. The 25’ no-cut zone and partial harvest restrictions would minimize any change in stream temperature in this brook and no change in thermal class would occur in this very cold water stream. Some trees could blow down in the riparian area adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments where elevations between riparian and harvested areas is similar, and the probability of blowdown is similar for Alternatives 2, 3 ,4 and 5. 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. The best available science regarding the effects of forest harvesting on stream temperatures demonstrated that the buffers prescribed in Forest Plan guidelines would prevent any measurable change in stream temperatures downstream of harvesting. Since these guidelines, as well as additional design features, are being prescribed on all known perennial stream reaches, no changes in stream thermal class would occur in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Landings, road construction, and temporary stream crossings associated with vegetation management, as well as trail closures, watershed improvements, and prescribed burning 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, 3, 4, and 5. Stream Connectivity Stream connectivity would improve in all four action alternatives as compared to the No Action alternative. In Alternative 2, culverts on Bunga Jar Brook, Spillman Brook, and Tunnel Brook tributary perennial streams would be replaced using “stream simulation” techniques. These new culverts would be passable by fish, sediment, and debris. Only in very large flood events (exceeding 100 year flood frequency) would stream connectivity be compromised. In Alternatives 3 and 5, stream connectivity would be restored to the maximum possibility along the western tributaries to Tunnel Brook as all culverts are removed and stream and floodplain connectivity are fully restored. In Alternative 4, stream crossings of Tunnel Brook tributaries would become temporary crossings during timber sale operations and are generally viewed as less of an impact to stream connectivity, since they are only in place for several years at most. Instream Habitat Quality and Production The adherence to Forest Plan guidelines, BMPs, and design features during the implementation of all action alternatives minimizes any direct or indirect effect to instream habitat structure from operations related to vegetation management. The water resources report indicates no increased runoff would occur from tree harvesting in any watershed in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 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 179

30-Day Comment Report would increase stream habitat complexity. There is some small potential for increased wood inputs to stream habitats where the blow down of riparian trees adjacent to clearcut, patch cut, or group treatments could occur. Although habitat complexity may be improved by trees blown down into stream channels, these effects would be very infrequent and localized. 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 BMPs. 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, the instream effects eventually disappear after several spring season run-off events. Forest Plan guidelines would protect stream habitats from sedimentation commonly associated with trail closures, watershed improvements, and prescribed burning. No direct or indirect effect on habitat quality or productivity is expected from these activities. While there are differences by alternative in the amount of land disturbed, roads constructed, stream crossings needed, and landings used, impacts are 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 invertebrate production, but the free movement of fish and other aquatic life would allow areas to quickly re-colonize. Stream stability issues are of concern in the Tunnel Brook watershed given the damage to the Tunnel Brook Road and active erosion in the stream valley following Tropical Storm Irene. All action alternatives would promote stream stability in the short term by restoring floodplain features in the old road bed and restoring stream channels at damaged stream crossing sites, or by improving undersized stream crossings. Stability of the stream bed generally increases stream habitat productivity by increasing invertebrate production or fish food availability. Ultimately, stream instability caused by Tropical Storm Irene will still be evident in Tunnel Brook despite actions taken in any of the alternatives. Removal of forest products from the project area is not likely to cause increased acidity or the mobilization of aluminum, known to be toxic to fish, as discussed in the Water Resources Report. Basal area removal in perennial stream drainages exceeds 25% only in the Blue Brook drainage in alternatives 2 and 5. A design feature provides an extended streamside buffer to mitigate any chance that stream chemistry could be altered. In alternatives 3 and 4, basal area removal does not exceed 25% in any perennial stream watersheds. Based on the best available science, this is well below levels identified to increase the mobilization of aluminum and cause fish mortality. Cumulative Effects

Stream Thermal Class

Given that stream thermal classes would not directly or indirectly change from 180

Pemi Northwest Project 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 is improved in all action alternatives and this should continue to be true 25 years into the future. Habitat Quality and Aquatic Productivity While there may be some localized direct and indirect sedimentation effects of these alternatives on habitat quality and productivity, cumulative effects of all alternatives would be similar to Alternative 1. Closure procedures for logging roads and temporary crossings generally prevent sedimentation sites from becoming chronic stream sedimentation issues. The effect of past timber harvest, and harvest from either Alternative 2, 3, 4 or 5 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. The possibility of detrimental cumulative effects to habitat quality and productivity may be slightly higher in Alternatives 2 and 4 as the Tunnel Brook Road is reconstructed. While much of the road is relocated to higher ground, there still is the possibility of localized washouts where it interacts with old floodplain features. There is potential, however, for fish habitat quality and productivity to improve in all alternatives as downed wood recruits to the stream channel and forces side channel and floodplain connectivity in the upper reaches of the Brook. Alternatives 2 and 4 would still require some areas of road fill in the floodplain, and this fill would need to be armored to minimize erosion. As these natural processes occur through time, damage to localized portions of the Tunnel Brook Road could occur in Alternatives 2 and 4, and possibly to some portions in alternative 5. It is difficult to predict how much fish habitat productivity will be improved in the Tunnel Brook watershed from natural floodplain restoration over time and from relocating portions of the Tunnel Brook Road out of the floodplain. In the end, this watershed experiences very fast runoff from the steep slopes of the mountains and a narrow valley bottom, and full floodplain development in the upper reaches may not be sufficient to promote streambed stability in the lower reaches. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Laws, Regulations and Policies

All activities and effects in all alternatives comply with existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to the riparian and aquatic habitat resources, as well as USDA and USFS policies and handbook direction. Climate Change

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 M. , 2010). Given the generally cold water temperatures of all perennial streams in the project area, average July water temperatures would not exceed thresholds for coldwater streams. The lower reaches of the Wild Ammonoosuc River may exceed 70ºF

181

30-Day Comment Report by 2035 given climate change predictions, but this would be independent of any past or future management activities within the riparian area of the river or its tributaries.

182

Pemi Northwest Project Appendix A—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 (State of New Hampshire, 2004). Air Resources

Air Quality design features to comply with Forest Plan direction and National and State policy will be: • Use weather and smoke management forecasts to predict smoke impacts; • Postpone burns during pollution alerts or stagnant conditions; • Burn on days when smoke will disperse rapidly; • Burn when wind direction will take smoke away from critical smoke sensitive areas • Notify local authorities, nearby residents and smoke sensitive populations prior to burning; • Use a test fire to ensure smoke behavior predictions are accurate; • Use backing fires when possible to reduce emissions; • Aggressively mop up along roads; • Have a contingency plan to suppress the fire if smoke impacts are unfavorable; • Monitor particulate levels during prescribed burns visually or with particulate monitoring stations; • Coordinate with other agencies engaged in prescribed fire activities nearby to ensure NAAQS are not exceeded. Water Resources, Riparian Areas and Aquatic Habitats

The following Best Management Practices are emphasized for this project: • 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, hay bale 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). 183

30-Day Comment Report Project-specific design features: • Place a 100-foot no-cut buffer on either side of Blue Brook in units 66 and 64 for water quality protection (Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 only). • Place a total of 50 acres of untreated reserve areas in units 64, 66 and 82 within the Blue Brook watershed for water quality protection. These design features will limit total basal area removal in the Blue Brook watershed to approximately 25%, which would be expected to result in little or no detectable change in water quantity or quality, based on watershed conditions and available literature (discussed in Environmental Consequences section of this report). • Water quality in Blue Brook has been monitored since 2010 and would continue during and after harvest (Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 only). • Place a total of 10 acres of untreated reserve areas in units 28 and 31 within the Unnamed Tributary to Titus Brook watershed for water quality protection (All Action Alternatives). This will comply with Forest Plan Vegetation Management Guideline G-1 (p. 2-29), designed to prevent changes in water chemistry related to combined effects of acid deposition and timber harvest. This guideline is likely more protective than necessary, since the studies used to develop it were based on watersheds with lower buffering capacity and whole-tree harvest treatments (Lawrence & Driscoll, 1988). • In Unit 76, up to 2.5 acres of clearcut may occur within 275 feet of the Wild Ammonoosuc River to eradicate non-native Scotch pine. To mitigate effects on water quality, this unit must be harvested in winter to minimize ground disturbance in the floodplain. Within the 100-foot buffer zone, mature native trees will not be cut, and seedlings will be planted to speed vegetation establishment. • Landings near units 58, 87 and102 have the potential to extend within 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 within 100 feet of the stream it must be reviewed by a soil or water specialist during implementation to ensure that all necessary soil and water conservation practices have been applied. • Activities that disturb mineral soil, such as fireline construction, shall occur outside the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ), and firelines shall be constructed to avoid channeling water directly into streams. • New trailhead construction will employ stormwater management practices to promote infiltration or disperse runoff into vegetated areas rather than directing runoff into surface waters. Vegetation, Recreation and Scenery Resources • Traffic safety signage would be placed around the junction of Tunnel Stream Road and NH Route 112, and the junction of FR19 and NH Route 116, during log hauling operations. • Log hauling would not occur on weekends or Federal holidays in all seasons for timber harvest units accessed by FR19. • A 20’ buffer would be placed along hiking trails adjacent to clearcut and overstory 184

Pemi Northwest Project removal units. • Benton Trail would be temporarily closed during active felling and skidding operations in unit 62. • Caution or closure signs would be placed as necessary along trails and at trailheads affected by the proposed timber harvest activities to alert visitors to logging operations and insure public safety. • Traffic safety signage would be placed around the junction of Tunnel Stream Road and NH Route 112 during log hauling operations. • Log hauling would be restricted to weekdays and non-Federal holidays in all seasons for timber harvest units accessed by FR19. • Tunnel Brook Snowmobile Trail would be closed to snowmobiling for the duration of timber harvest operations in units accessed by FR700. • Architecturally approved designs that comply with Scenery Management guidelines would be implemented in Units 11, 25, 26, 28, 31, & 37. • Group selection and patch clearcut treatment areas adjacent to new clearcut and overstory removal units will not be placed such that the total treatment area creates an opening size greater than 30 acres. • Where possible, skid trails would cross trails a minimum number of times and approximately at right angles. • 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. • Trees not in Cut-Tree-Mark (CTM) units within approximately 100 feet from hiking trails would be marked on the opposing side of the tree to reduce marking paint visibility.

Where prescribed fire may be considered to promote aspen/birch regeneration, the following design features would be applicable: • Prescribed fire would not occur within units proposed for timber harvesting until logging operations are completed. Understory tree species composition and fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter) would be evaluated following harvesting to determine the need for prescribed fire. • Prescribed fire would preferentially be applied in the spring just before or during leaf expansion to reduce competing vegetation (Brose et al, 2006). However, prescribed fire may be applied in the fall, as necessary, to reduce the litter layer (Dey and Fan, 2008). • Stands and inclusions of stands containing desirable forest vegetation would be excluded from fire if operationally feasible. • Pre- and post-burn forest conditions would be monitored. Monitoring would include an assessment of fuel conditions (particularly leaf litter), tree mortality and understory species composition. Non-Native Invasive Species

• Any heavy equipment must be visibly free of seeds and plant parts prior to entering the project area. Cleaning should take place off-Forest unless an on-Forest cleaning 185

30-Day Comment Report site has been approved by a Forest Officer in advance. • Before ground disturbance begins, control small infestations of weeds already existing in the project area. This will be undertaken under the Forest wide NNIS Control Environmental Assessment and its associated prioritization strategy. • Whenever possible conduct project activities working from areas of no or lesser infestation to areas of heavier infestation. • Gravel and fill must come from weed-free sources. The Forest 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. • Minimize soil disturbance to no more than needed to meet project objectives. • Where project disturbance creates bare ground, consistent with project objectives, reestablish vegetation to prevent conditions which favor the establishment of weeds. Use native seed where appropriate and feasible, and use certified weed-free or weed-seed free hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably available. • Periodically monitor log landings and haul roads for dispersal or expansion of NNIS plants. Soil Resources

The following soil conservation practices are emphasized for this project. These Standards and Guidelines (including NH BMPs) are expected to be effective in meeting soil quality standards (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, FEIS, pg. 3-54): • 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), (OSU Extension Service, 1983; NH DRED, 2004). Limiting locations for skid trails (pitch) ensures 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 (OSU Extension Service, 1983; Martin W, 1988; NH DRED, 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 (NH DRED, 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 effects to soil and water. This would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator (Martin, 1988). This ensures 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 186

Pemi Northwest Project 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 (OSU Extension Service, 1983; NH DRED, 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. 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 (OSU Extension Service, 1983). To minimize compaction, operate on a cushion of slash, or over snow. A surface 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 (NH DRED, 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 (NCASI, 2000). Heritage Resources

• All known heritage 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 in order to assess and protect the site.

187

30-Day Comment Report Appendix B—Silvicultural Prescriptions

Unit Prescription Alts 2 & 5 Alt3 Alt4 Season of Acres Acres Acres Harvest * 1 Group Selection 49 49 49 W 2 Single Tree Selection 12 12 12 W 3 Group Selection 116 116 116 W 4 Group Selection 21 21 21 W 5 Clearcut 13 13 13 W 6 Group Selection 28 28 28 W 7 Group Selection 61 61 61 W 8 Clearcut 15 15 15 W 9 Clearcut 12 12 12 W 10 Group Selection 66 66 66 W 11 Clearcut 30 30 30 W 12 Overstory Removal 26 26 26 W 13 Overstory Removal 19 19 19 W 14 Overstory Removal 22 22 22 W 15 Overstory Removal 17 17 17 W 16 Clearcut 23 23 23 W 17 Thinning 27 27 27 W (Su, F) 18 Patch Clearcut and Thinning 48 48 48 W (Su, F) 19 Overstory Removal 14 14 14 W (Su, F) 20 Clearcut 21 21 21 W (Su) 21 Single Tree Selection 25 25 25 W 22 Clearcut 18 18 18 W 23 Single Tree Selection 32 32 32 W (Su, F) 24 Group Selection 17 17 17 W (Su) 25 Overstory Removal 30 30 30 W 26 Overstory Removal 18 18 18 W 27 Single Tree Selection 56 56 56 W 28 Overstory Removal 30 30 30 W 29 Patch Clearcut 64 64 64 W 30 Single Tree Selection 73 73 73 W 31 Overstory Removal 28 28 28 W 32 Improvement Cut 14 14 14 W (Su) 33 Improvement Cut 31 31 31 W 34 Single Tree Selection 16 16 16 W 35 Patch Clearcut and Thinning 28 28 28 W 36 Patch Clearcut and Thinning 7 7 7 W 37 Overstory Removal 15 15 15 W 38 Single Tree Selection 19 19 19 W 39 Clearcut 13 13 13 W 188

Pemi Northwest Project Unit Prescription Alts 2 & 5 Alt3 Alt4 Season of Acres Acres Acres Harvest * 40 Group Selection 46 46 46 W (Su, F) 41 Overstory Removal 12 12 12 W (Su, F) 42 Single Tree Selection 16 16 16 W (Su, F) 43 Overstory Removal 6 6 0 W 44 Group Selection 15 15 15 W (Su, F) 45 Group Selection 29 29 29 W (Su, F) 46 Group Selection 17 17 0 W (Su, F) 47 Single Tree Selection 9 9 0 W (Su) 48 Group Selection 7 7 0 W (Su) 49 Group Selection 73 0 73 W 50 Overstory Removal 9 0 9 W 51 Single Tree Selection 39 0 39 W 52 Clearcut 15 0 15 W 53 Group and Single Tree Selection 79 0 79 S (W) 54 Group Selection 51 0 51 S (W) 55 Group and Single Tree Selection 78 0 78 S (W) 56 Single Tree Selection 29 0 29 S (W) 57 Group and Single Tree Selection 24 0 24 S (W) 58 Clearcut 21 0 0 S (W) 59 Clearcut 28 0 0 W 60 Single Tree Selection 101 0 0 W (Su) 61 Overstory Removal 30 0 0 W 62 Single Tree Selection 69 0 0 W 63 Single Tree Selection 146 0 146 W 64 Single Tree Selection 119 119 0 S (W) 65 Clearcut 30 30 0 S (W) 66 Single Tree Selection 79 79 39 S (W) 67 Single Tree Selection 11 0 11 W 68 Thinning 56 56 56 W 69 Group Selection 59 59 59 W 70 Single Tree Selection 142 142 142 W 71 Group Selection 10 10 10 W 72 Group Selection 24 24 24 W (Su) 73 Group and Single Tree Selection 47 47 47 W (Su) 74 Shelterwood 23 23 20 Su, F (W) 75 Thinning 8 8 0 W (Su) 76 Clearcut 5 5 5 W 77 Clearcut 22 22 22 S (W) 78 Group Selection 69 69 69 W 79 Clearcut 27 27 0 S (W) 80 Group and Single Tree Selection 38 38 0 S (W) 189

30-Day Comment Report Unit Prescription Alts 2 & 5 Alt3 Alt4 Season of Acres Acres Acres Harvest * 81 Clearcut 16 16 0 S (W) 82 Single Tree Selection 46 46 0 S (W) 83 Clearcut 10 10 0 S (W) 84 Clearcut 22 22 0 S (W) 85 Group and Single Tree Selection 48 48 0 S (W) 86 Single Tree Selection 53 53 36 W 87 Group and Single Tree Selection 25 25 4 S (W) 88 Single Tree Selection 48 48 0 W (Su) 89 Group Selection 15 15 15 S, F (W) 90 Improvement Cut 4 4 4 W 91 Single Tree Selection 8 8 0 W (Su) 92 Single Tree Selection 31 31 28 W (Su) 93 Clearcut 17 17 17 W 94 Improvement Cut 39 39 34 W (Su) 95 Single Tree Selection 31 31 0 W (Su) 96 Clearcut 9 9 0 W (Su) 97 Improvement Cut 18 18 0 W (Su) 98 Improvement Cut 34 34 0 W (Su) 99 Improvement Cut 17 17 12 W (Su) 100 Clearcut 29 29 0 W (Su) 101 Single Tree Selection 8 8 0 W (Su) 102 Single Tree Selection 17 17 0 W 103 Single Tree Selection 6 6 0 W 104 Single Tree Selection 13 13 0 W 105 Clearcut 22 22 0 W (Su) 106 Overstory Removal 22 22 0 W (Su) 107 Clearcut 15 15 0 W 108 Group Selection 38 38 0 W 109 Group and Single Tree Selection 35 35 0 W 110 Clearcut 11 11 0 W (Su) 111 Clearcut 30 30 20 S, F (W) 112 Improvement Cut 15 15 0 W (Su) * W=winter, F=fall, Su=summer. Seasons listed first are preferred, seasons in parentheses are optional.

190

Pemi Northwest Project Appendix C—Preparers and Consultants

Ken Allen, Landscape Architect—White Mountain National Forest Brett Bayer, Forester—White Mountain National Forest Robert A. Colter, Soil Scientist—White Mountain National Forest Terry Fifield, Archaeologist—White Mountain National Forest Sheela Johnson, Hydrologist—White Mountain National Forest Sarah Jordan, Archaeologist—White Mountain National Forest Scott Kelman, Engineering Technician—White Mountain National Forest Stacy Lemieux, Forest Planner—White Mountain National Forest Kori Marchowsky, IDT Leader—White Mountain National Forest Chris Mattrick, Botanist—White Mountain National Forest John Neely, Fire and Fuels Specialist—White Mountain National Forest Jacob Ormes, Transportation Engineer—White Mountain National Forest Mark Prout, Fisheries Biologist—White Mountain National Forest Ryan Twomey, Developed Recreation Manager—White Mountain National Forest Clara Weloth, Wildlife Biologist—White Mountain National Forest Jeff Williams, Silviculturist—White Mountain National Forest

191

30-Day Comment Report Works Cited

Baird, I. (2003). Black Mountain Lookout Tower, Benton, NH. In Lookout Network: The Newsletter of the Forest Fire Lookout Association, Inc. (Vol. 14 (1)). Priest River, ID. Baker, M. (1988). Hydrologic Effects and Water Quality Effects of Fire. Effects of Fire in Management of Southwestern Natural Resources, (pp. 31-42). Tucson, AZ. Beche, L., Stephens, S., & Resh, V. (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., Pucko, C., Siccama, T., & Perkins, T. (2008). A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of VT. 105(11), 4197-4202. Binkley, D., & Brown, T. (1993). Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin, 29(5), 729-740. Brown, J. (1999). Forest History of Mount Moosilauke. In R. Averill (Ed.), The Moosilauke Reader, Volume 1 (pp. 135-162). Moose County Press. Burns, R., & Honkala, B. (1990). Silvics of North America: Conifers. Washington, DC: USDA-Forest Service. Center for Watershed Protection. (2003). Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Chase, V., Deming, L., & Latawiec, F. (1995). Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Concord, NH: Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Chenger, J. (2002). Summer survey for NH woodland bats. Carlisle, PA: Prepared by Bat Conservation Management for USFWS, NEFO. Chenger, J. (2004). Summer survey for NH woodland bats. Carlisle, PA: Prepared by Bat Conservation Management for USFWS, NEFO. Clark, J. (1991). Disturbance and tree life history on the shifting mosaic landscape. Ecological Society of America, 72(3), 1102-1118. Clinton, B. (2011). Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 979-988. Colter, R. (2010). Soils and Climate Change (Draft). Campton, NH: White Mountain National Forest. Colter, R. (2012). Pemi Northwest Integrated Vegetation Management Project Soil Assessment. Campton, NH: White Mountain National Forest. DeGraaf, R. (1995). Nest predation rates in managed and reserved extensive northern hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 79, 227-234. DeGraaf, R., & Angelstam, P. (1993). Effects of timber size-class on predation of artificial nests in extensive forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 61, 127-136. DeGraaf, R., Yamasaki, M., Leak, W., & Lester, A. (2006). Technical guide to forest wildlife habitat management in New England. Burlington, VT: University of VT Press. DeGraff, R., & Yamasaki, M. (2001). New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. DeMaynadier, P., & Hunter, M. (1998). Effects of silvicultural edges on distribution and abundance of amphibians in NH. Conservation Biology, 340-352.

192

Pemi Northwest Project Donnelly, J. e. (1991). Harvesting causes only minor changes in physical properties or an upland Vermont soil. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 8(1), 33-35. Elliot, K., & Vose, J. (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. Haartz, C. (2011). Report on Forest Service Telephone Line which Serviced Black Mountain Fire Tower. Campton, NH: WMNF heritage files, unpublished report. Harlow, R., Downing, R., & Vanlear, D. (1997). Responses of wildlife to clearcutting and associated treatments in the Eastern US. Clemson, SC: Department of Forest Resources, Tech. Paper #19, Clemson University. High, C., Hathaway, K., Hinkley, J., & Risk, B. (2004). A Socio-Economic Assessment to Provide a Context for the WMNF Plan Revision. Laconia, NH: Resource Systems Group for the WMNF. Holman, G. (1978). The effects of mechanized harvesting on soil conditions in the spruce-fir region of north-central Maine. Orono, ME: Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Maine. Hornbeck, J., Adames, M., Corbett, E., Verry, E., & Lynch, J. (1993). Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology, 150, 323-344. Hornbeck, J., Alexander, M., Eager, C., Carlson, J., & Smith, R. (2001). Database for Chemical Contents of Streams on the White Mountain National Forest. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report. Huntington, T., Richardson, A., McGuire, K., & Hayhoe, K. (2009). Climate and hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent trends and implications for forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 79, 199-212. Johnson, C. (1991). Whole-tree clear-cutting effects on soil horizons and organic-matter pools. Soil Science of America Journal, 55, 497-502. Johnson, C. (1997). Conservation of exchangeable cations after clear-cutting of a northern hardwood forest. Can. Jour. For. Res., 27, 858-868. Johnson, S. (2010). Overview of Possible Effects of Climate Change to Water Resources in the White Mountain National Forest. Johnson, S. (2012a). Pemi Northwest Project field notes. unpublished. Johnson, S. (2012b). White Mountain National Forest, FY2011 Monitoring Report for Water Resources (Draft). unpublished draft. Karl, T., & Knight, R. (1998). Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79(2), 231-241. Kiser, J., Beverly, J., & Brack Jr, V. (2002). A survey of eastern forest bat community in the Lake Champlain Valley, with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Cincinnati, OH: Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Kiser, J., Kiser, R., Brack Jr, V., & Britzke, E. (2001). A survey for eastern forest bats on Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Cincinnati, OH: Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Krusic, R., Yamasaki, M., Neefus, C., & Pekins, P. (1996). Bat habitat use in the White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60(3), 625-631. Lancaster, K., & Leak, W. (1978). A silvicultural guide for white pine in the Northeast. USDA Forest Service, 193

30-Day Comment Report Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Landsburg, J., & Tiedemann, A. (2000). Drinking water from forests and grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature: Chapter 12--Fire Management. USDA Forest Service--Southern Research Station GTR SRS-39. Lawrence, G., & Driscoll, C. (1988). Aluminum chemistry downstream of a whole-tree-harvested watershed. Environmental Science and Technology, 22, 1293-1299. Leak, W. (2009). 75 years of understory development by elevation class in a New Hampshire mixed forest: management implications. North J of App For, 26(4). Leak, W., Solomon, D., & DeBald, P. (1987). Silviculture Guide for Northern Hardwood Types in the Northeast (revised), Res. Pap. NE-603. Broomall, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northeastern Experimental Station. Lorimer, C. (1980). The use of land survey records in estimating presettlement fire frequency. Fire History Workshop, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. Tucson, AZ: University of Wisconsin. Lorimer, C., & White, A. (2003). Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and Management, 185, 41-64. MacFaden, S., & Capen, D. (2000). White Mountain National Forest wildlife monitoring program:analyses of bird surveys on permanent plots--1992-1999. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. Maine Department of Conservation (MDOC), Maine Forest Service. (2009). Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2008. Forest Policy and Management Division. Maine Forest Service. (2005). Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001-2003. Department of Conservation. Maine Forest Service. (2006). Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness 2001-2005. Department of Conservation. Mallik, A., & Roberts, B. (1994). Natural Regeneration of Pinus resinosa on burned and unburned sites in Newfoundland. Journal of Vegetation Science, 5(2), 179-186. Martin, C., Hornbeck, J., Likens, G., & Buso, D. (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, W. (1988). Soil disturbance by logging in New England--review and managment recommendations. Northern J. of Applied Forestry, 5(1), 30-34. Mehrhoff, L., Silander Jr, J., Leicht, S., & Mosher, E. (2008). IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. (D. o. Biology, Producer, & University of Connecticut) Retrieved from http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/ Millen, W. (2009a). Estimated climate change effects on New England forests--Literature Review and Summary. Laconia, NH: Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest. Millen, W. (2011). Perspective on scale of tree harvesting versus inventory related to woodland bat roosting habitat. Campton, NH: Unpublished report. Moll, J. (1997). Traveled Way Surface Shape. USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program. Morse, C., & Kahl, S. (2003). Meauring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. Retrieved January 14, 2005, from http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/Publications%20To%20Serve/Stream%20 Digest.pdf. MPCA. (2008). A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota--Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis and Regulation. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

194

Pemi Northwest Project National Council of Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). (2000). Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations--Unpublished draft technical bulletin. Research Triangle Park, NC: NCASI, Inc. NECIA. (2006). Climate Change in the US Northeast: A Report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. Neitzel, R., & Yost, M. (2007). University of Washington Forestry Vibration and Noise Exposure Project. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Department of Environmental Health. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). (1999). State of New Hampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations, Chapter 1700. Retrieved from http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-wq1700.pdf New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). (2010). 2010 List of Impaired Waters that Require a TMDL. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). (2010). One Stop Date Retrieval Site. Retrieved 2012, from Public Water Supply Sources: http://www2.des.state.nh.us/gis/onestop/ New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (NH DRED). (2004). Best Management Practices for Erosion Control During Trail Maintenance and Construction. State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NH DOT). (2001). Practices for Routine Roadway Maintenance Activities in New Hampshire. New Hampshire DOT. NHFG. (2010). NHFG News: Winter surveys of NH caves show WNS affecting NH bats. Concord, NH: NH Fish and Game Department. NHFG. (2012). Letter from Wildlife Biologist W. Staats to USFS District Ranger Fuller with site-specific comments on field reviews of proposed treatments for the Pemi Northwest Project in the towns of Benton, Easton, Woodstock, NH. Lancaster, NH: NH Fish and Game Department. NHSCO. (2011). August 2011 Weather and Climate Summary. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Climate Office. Nutt, E. (2004). Coventry-Benton Revisited: A supplement to William F. Witcher's 1905 "Some Things about Coventry- Benton, NH". Benton, NH: self-published. OSU Extension Service. (1983). Designated Skid Trails Minimize Soil Compaction. In Woodland Workbook. Oregon State University. Pierce, R., Hornbeck, J., Martin, C., Tritton, L., Smith, C., Federer, C., et al. (1993). Whole Tree Clearcutting in New England: Manager's Guide to Impact on Soils, Streams and Regeneration. Durham, NH: USDA Forest Service--Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, GTR NE-172. Price, C. (1958). Historic Indian Trails of New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Archaeological Society. Prout, L. (2010). Literature review of current and scientific information on climate change related to wildlife. Campton, NH: WMNF. Prout, M. (2010). Climate Change and Aquatic Habitats. Campton, NH: White Mountain National Forest White Paper. Richter, D., Ralston, C., & Harms, W. (1982). Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling. Science, 215, 661-663. Rosenberg, K., & Hodgman, T. (2000). Partners in Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan--Physiographic Area 28, Eastern Spruce-Hardwood Forest. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Santoro, A., Lombardero, M., Ayres, M., & Ruel, J. (2001). Interactions between fire and bark beetles in an old 195

30-Day Comment Report growth pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. Sasse, D. (1995). Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. Shugart, H., Sedjo, R., & Sohngen, B. (2003). Forests and Global Climate Change, Potential Impacts on US Forest Resources. PEW Center on Global Climate Change. Smallidge, P., & Nyland, R. (2009). Cornell Woodland Guidelines for the Control and Management of American Beech. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Cooperative Extension Forest Connect Fact Sheet. Sperduto, D., & Engstrom, B. (1993). An Ecological Inventory of the White Mountain National Forest, NH. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. Sperduto, D., & Nichols, W. (2011). Natural Communities of New Hampshire, 2nd Edition. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. Stafford, C., Leathers, M., & Briggs, R. (1996). Forestry-related nonpoint source pollution in Maine: A literature review. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine. State of New Hampshire. (2004). Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire. Concord, NH. State of New Hampshire. (n.d.). Code of Administrative Rules, Chapter Env-A 1000 Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Open-Source Air Pollution. Concord, NH. State of New Hampshire, Division of Forest and Lands/ Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests (NHDFL/SPNHF). (1997). Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for NH. Concord, NH. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. Washington, DC: EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). AQI: Air Quality Index, A guide to air quality and your health. Washington, DC: EPA. University of New Hampshire. (2009). New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines. USDA Forest Service. (2008). FSM 2300, Chapter 2360--Heritage Program Management. Washington, DC: USDA- Forest Service. USDA-Forest Service. (1992-2012). Pemi Northwest Project Area Stocking Surveys. Campton, NH: Unpublished data, White Mountain National Forest. USDA-Forest Service. (1993). WMNF Monitoring Report--1993. Laconia, NH: White Moountain National Forest. USDA-Forest Service. (2005a). White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Laconia, NH: USDA-Forest Service. USDA-Forest Service. (2005b). White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan--Final Environmental Impact Statement. Laconia, NH: USDA Forest Service. USDA-Forest Service. (2005c). White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Record of Decision. USDA-Forest Service. (2005d). White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS, Appendix C--Inventoried Roadless Area Evaluation. Laconia, NH. USDA-Forest Service. (2006). WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Guide. Laconia, NH: USDA-Forest Service.

196

Pemi Northwest Project USDA-Forest Service. (2006b). FSH 1909.12-Chapter 80, Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. Washington, DC. USDA-Forest Service. (2006c). Results of scat sample collected from north of Route 2 in Jefferson, NH confirm Canada lynx. Missoula, MT: Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA-Forest Service. (2006d). Results of scat sample collected from north of Route 2 in Jefferson, NH confirms female lynx. Missoula, MT: Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA-Forest Service. (2007a). FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70--Wilderness Evaluation. Washington, DC. USDA-Forest Service. (2007b). White Mountain National Forest Forest-Wide Invasive Plant Control Project Envirnomental Assessment. Campton, NH: USDA-Forest Service. USDA-Forest Service. (2008). Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change, V 1.0. Washington, DC. USDA-Forest Service. (2009). Draft WMNF Strategy for Addressing Climate Change in NEPA. Campton, NH: Unpublished report. USDA-Forest Service. (2010a). Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2009. USDA-Forest Service. (2010b). Pemi Northwest Project Area Common Stand Exams, WMNF. Campton, NH: Unpublished data. USDA-Forest Service. (2010c). WMNF review of new information for white-nose syndrome and forest bat populations. Campton, NH: WMNF. USDA-Forest Service. (2011). White Mountain National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2010. Campton, NH: USDA Forest Service. USDA-Forest Service. (2011). Wildlife species and habitat surveys in PNWPA, Benton, NH. Campton, NH: Multi- dated unpub. report. USDA-Forest Service. (2012). Forest Service Handbook R9 Supplement 2509.18-2012-1, Soil Quality Monitoring. Milwaukee, WI. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous US distinct population segment of the Canada Lynx. Federal Register Notice, Feb. 24, 2009. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Concurrence letter on the BA for the revised WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Concord, NH: USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. USGS. (1929). Topographical Survey Map, Moosilauke Quadrangle. Veilleux, J. (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, NH. Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers from Franklin Pierce College, NH. Veilleux, J. (2006). 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, NH. Submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers from Franklin Pierce College, NH. Veilleux, J. (2007). 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, NH. Report submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers from Franklin Pierce College, NH. Veilleux, J., & Reynolds, S. (2010). 2009/2010 survey of bat populations and status of WNS in select NH hibernacula. Concord, NH: Submitted to NHFG.

197

30-Day Comment Report Walling, H. (1860). Topographical Map of Grafton County, NH. New York, NY: Smith, Mason & Co. Yamasaki, M. (2000). Forest Bat Surveys on the WMNF. Durham, NH: Unpublished data, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station.

198