moat mountain trail system projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...moat mountain...

Moat Mountain Trail System Project

Environmental Assessment

Saco Ranger DistrictSeptember 2010

Whi

te M

ount

ain

Nat

iona

l For

est

For Information Contact: Jana JohnsonSaco Ranger DistrictWhite Mountain National Forest33 Kancamagus HighwayConway NH 03818Telephone: 603 447-5448 Ext 106FAX: 603 447-8405

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

EasternRegion

This document is available in large print.Contact the

White Mountain National Forest Supervisor’s Office

Phone: 603 528-8721TTY: 603 528-8722

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 infor-mation (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

Figure 1, Cover: Mountain biker on a Moat Mountain trail. WMNF photo by Terry Miller.

Moat Mountain Trail System Project — Environmental Assessment

3

ContentsChapter 1 — Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3 Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.4 Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.5 Issues Used to Develop Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Chapter 2 — Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.2 Alternative 1: No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.3 Alternative 2: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.4 Alternative 3: Proposed Action with Winter Use Limitations . . . . . . .122.5 Alternative 4: Proposed Action with Additional Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.6 Project Design Features and Forest Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . .152.7 Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172.8 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully Evaluated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences . . . .213.1 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223.2 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303.3 Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .393.4 Soils and Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Chapter 4. Preparation and Consultation — Team Members and Contacts . .54Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Appendix A — Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Comment & Forest Service Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

White Mountain National Forest — Saco Ranger District

4

Map 1. Moat Mountain Trail System Project Vicinity.

Æü

Ì

High Street

West Side Road

Cathedral Ledge Rd

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379

Route 16

Swift River

Saco River

River Road

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

Legend

National Forest System Trails

Non-System Trails

Forest Service Roads

Moat Mountain Project Area

White Mountain National Forest

Echo Lake State Park

Echo Lake

Ì Moat Mountain Mineral Site

Æü Parking

Moat MountainProject Area

.

Map 1. Moat Mountain Trail System Project Vicinity


5

Chapter 1 — Purpose and Need1.1 Introduction

The Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is pro-posing to formalize a network of non-system trails in the Moat Mountain area in the Towns of Albany, Bartlett, Conway, and Hale’s Location, New Hampshire. This document is the final environmental assessment for this project.This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Appeals Reform Act of 1993 (ARA) and other relevant laws and regulations. The analysis for this project is “tiered” to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the 2005 WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan. The project would add 11.6 miles of non-system trails to the National Forest System (NFS); 11.3 of which would be multiple-use trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use. The remaining 0.3 miles would have hiking as the Designed Use with mountain biking not allowed. The decision to incorporate these trails into the National Forest System would require some maintenance to bring them to standard per Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2309.18) direction. Additionally, there are 0.4 miles of trail that cross onto private land that would be part of this system, per landowner approval. The enclosed maps display the proposed project area and trail layout.

Changes to Proposal Since ScopingThe Proposed Action differs from the Scoping Report issued September 2, 2009, by the addition of an expanded parking area at the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead. This addition was made to all three action alternatives in response to specific concerns expressed regarding parking and access to the proposed trail network.

1.2 BackgroundThe Moat Mountain Project Area is located on the eastern slope of the Moat Mountain Range in eastern-central New Hampshire within the White Mountain National Forest. More specifically, the area is bounded by the Moat Mountain Trail to the north, West Side Road to the east, Passaconaway Road to the south, and the mid-slope of the Moat Mountain Range to the west, as shown in Map 1. It also abuts local town lands, a New Hampshire State Park, and private lands.Located in close proximity to populated areas in the Conway, NH, vicinity, this highly accessible area has received increasing amounts of biking use on Forest roads, skid trails, old farm trails, and abandoned railroad grades, as well as considerable cross-country use. The concentrated use in this area, combined with the apparent development of an increasingly well-established system of cross-country trails, caused the District and Forest to focus attention on the area.The use of mountain bikes on the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) has increased steadily since their advent in the mid-1980s. The 1986 Forest Plan acknowledged mountain bikes as a recreation use on National Forest land, and allowed for their use on Forest land and trails “unless posted closed to non-motor vehicle use” (USDA – Forest Service, 1986, LRMP p III-10). The growth of


6

mountain biking during the period of the first Forest Plan (1986 to 2005) caused them to receive greater attention as an issue during the latest Forest Plan revi-sion process, which began in the late 1990s.The Saco Ranger District began the process of proactively addressing the situation with the publication of a 2004 study titled “A Case for Action — Recommended Strategies for Mountain Bike Trail Management in the Moat Mountain Area.” This report explained the circumstances surrounding this situ-ation, suggesting steps to be taken to gain a better understanding of the network of trails and travelways, and work toward management solutions in the Moat Mountain Project Area, with a focus on mountain biking as representation of an underserved recreation user group. The document was utilized during Forest Plan revision to help define and clarify mountain biking concerns.The revised White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA — Forest Service, 2005a, from here forward referred to as the Forest Plan) and Record of Decision (ROD, USDA Forest Service, 2005c) issued in 2005 eliminated the cross-country use of mountain bikes, limiting their use to “designated Forest Trails” and “Travel Corridors.” These Travel Corridors were defined to include “discernible routes not likely to recover naturally within one year,” such as skid routes and temporary or abandoned roads. (Forest Plan Glossary, p 32)The 2005 Forest Plan called for, on an as-needed basis, the systematic review with public involvement of travel corridor areas, “with the goal of establishing a designated Forest trail system.” (Forest Plan p 2-22) The Plan further suggested that “incidental trails should be evaluated for eventual removal or inclusion in the Forest trail system.” (Forest Plan, p 2-20).

1.3 Purpose and Need for ActionAs discussed in the Background section above, existence and use by mountain bikes and other users of roads, trails, and travelways, as well as some user-created trails, in the Moat Mountain Project Area has generated a need for management action. Due to the incidental nature of the trail system develop-ment in the 1980s and ’90s, it evolved without planning, analysis of effects, or coordination with other resource specialists, which may have resulted in unintended, undesired, or unacceptable effects on the physical resources and/or the social experiences available in the area. This is one of the earliest areas of concentrated mountain bike use on the WMNF, with resource concerns attract-ing the Forest Service’s attention as an emerging management issue in the late 1990s.The Moat Mountain area presents both a need and opportunity:• The need is to address the existing and potential future environmental and

social impacts from managed and unmanaged trail use.• The opportunity is to formalize a public area where the soils and topography

appear to be well-suited for such use, and where management of such an area can occur with strong partner and volunteer support.

The Moat Mountain Project Area hosts a wide range of public land uses. Activities include vegetation management, habitat management for fish and


7

wildlife, and recreation uses including mountain biking, hiking, cross-coun-try skiing, snowmobiling, rock climbing, hunting, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and hobby mineral collecting at a popular mineral site.The area offers a broad range of recreation opportunities but actually has a somewhat limited recreation infrastructure in that relatively few official NFS trails traverse or enter the project area. Within the project area there are nine miles of NFS trail: over 2/3 with hiking as the Designed Use, less than 1/3 des-ignated as snowmobile trails, and 0.5 miles of trail with mountain biking as the Designed Use. There are also several miles of hiking trail within the adjacent Echo Lake State Park.The non-system trails in the Moats, as shown in Map 2, follow a combination of Forest Service roads, hiking trails, abandoned town roads and farm paths, non-system historic logging roads, and old railroad grades. They also include trails that were established through repeated incidental use over time. Still others are the result of active construction, including vegetation cutting, tread work, and, in some cases, minor installations such as bog bridging.Trail-based recreation has a long history on this Forest, and many routes were constructed prior to the creation of the White Mountain National Forest in 1914. As such, many were laid out and constructed according to design standards that never considered uses other than hiking. Trails in the area historically climb steeply from valley bottom to ridgeline or summit, and often directly parallel the fall line of the slope. The combined effects of trail age, layout and design, use levels, and the naturally rough and rugged terrain is a trail system that is steep, rocky, and eroded, and requires heavily reinforced, constructed erosion control features for sustainability. Such a system is inherently heavily weighted toward hiking, and largely unsuited for uses such as mountain biking, skiing, or horseback riding. This renders many NFS trails unsuitable for any significant amount of mountain bike use on a sustainable basis.The Forest Plan provides overall management direction for the Forest. The east slope of Moat Mountain Range comprises two Management Areas (MAs), which are areas “zoned” by the Forest Plan with specific management direction: MA 2.1, General Forest Management, and MA 6.1, Semi-Primitive Recreation which emphasizes hiking, backpacking, and related foot trail use.The lower elevations of the project area and all of the proposed trails lie within MA 2.1 (Forest Plan p 3-3 to 3-8). This MA emphasizes providing high quality saw timber in addition to meeting ecological, visual, and recreation objectives. Recreation opportunities will be diverse, including activities such as hiking, mountain biking, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, roadside camping, and developed camping. The higher elevation east slopes of Moat Mountain lie within MA 6.1; however, none of the proposed mountain bike trails lie within MA 6.1.During Forest Plan revision, an inventory of areas with “roadless” characteristics was also conducted to identify potential wilderness areas, in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1909.12. Portions of the Moat Mountain Project Area lie within the 15,628-acre Table Mountain Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) identified during that inventory. None of the proposed trails are within the Table Mountain IRA.


8

Project Area ConsiderationsAs Forest Plan direction applies to mountain biking and use of travel corri-dors, the desired future condition consists of a managed, sustainable network of multi-use trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use. It also includes a network that is sufficient in trail volume and range of difficulty to support trail users of varying ability levels, seeking experiences of various types and durations.Sustainable trails are those that pose minimal threat to trail tread sustainability and are laid out in a manner that reduces erosion potential and excessively wet areas. In addition to sustainability, another component of the desired future condition is that all trails will be constructed and maintained in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2309.18 direction. This maintenance consists of improving drainage to reduce erosion and encourage trail tread stability, minor trail relocations to reduce steepness and erosion, and minimal construction of structures such as bog bridges to mitigate wet areas. The trail system will also be signed and marked consistent with this direction. Sustainable trails also create a system that does not substantially compromise habitat for wildlife and plants in the area.

1.4 Public InvolvementScoping of this project was conducted in September and October, 2009. The scoping report was sent to 45 individuals, agencies, and groups. These included abutters on parcels adjacent to the WMNF on which the proposed trail system lies, key members of the mountain bike community, interested parties, stake-holders, and those that specifically requested a scoping package. The proposal was also advertised in the form of a legal notice in the New Hampshire Union Leader and Conway Daily Sun newspapers on September 4, 2009. This informa-tion was made available to the public on the WMNF website as well, and the project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the White Mountain National Forest since October 1, 2009.The Forest Service received 60 responses, 26 of which were a form letter that contained the same basic text. This letter expressed overall support of the project as proposed, and requested the inclusion of an additional 1.2 miles of trail avail-able for mountain bike use. Of the 1.2 miles, 0.3 miles is proposed for inclusion, but for hiking only — mountain bikes would be prohibited. The remaining 0.9 miles were considered as part of the project but were not recommended for inclusion into the system with mountain biking as the designed use. The remain-ing responses addressed a range of concerns including increased use and its potential associated impacts as well as limited parking and access.The 30-Day Comment Report was posted to the White Mountain National Forest website on June 21, 2010 and mailed on June 22, 2010. The legal notice was posted in the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Conway Daily Sun on


9

June 22, 2010. Ninety-five reports were sent to those that had responded to the informal Scoping Report mailed September, 2009 and individuals that otherwise expressed interest in the project; this included many individual landowners abutting or near the project area – including Echo Lake State Park and the NH Bureau of Trails, local NEMBA chapter members, and mountain bikers and other trail users. 55 responses were received, 49 of them supported Alternative 4: Proposed Action with Additional Trails, which includes the greatest trail mileage to be incorporated as NFS trails. Several of these comments also referenced concerns related to limited parking and access, and their impacts to private landowners associated with this project area. Two comments expressed opposition to the project and one was in favor of Alternative 3: Proposed Action with Winter Limitations. Comments are listed in Appendix A with responses to the indi-vidual issues raised.

1.5 Issues Used to Develop AlternativesThe purpose of scoping is to identify issues and concerns related to a project early in the analysis process (40 CFR 1501.7). All comments and concerns raised in scoping are considered throughout the planning process, and some ultimately drive development of unique alternatives. Other concerns may be addressed

Figure 2. The Moats in Autumn. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.


10

in design features or mitigation measures common to all alternatives, may be already decided by law or regulation, may be conjectural or not supported by factual evidence, or may be determined to be beyond the scope of the project. Still other issues are identified internally as part of the analysis process by resource specialists serving as member of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). A table summarizing comments received during scoping can be found in the project record.Public comments were reviewed and the potential resource issues associated with the proposed bike trail system were identified. The significant issues for this project used to generate alternatives are:1) Public access and parking.2) Potential undesirable impacts to abutters and nearby residential landowners.3) Winter habitat–potential impacts of winter recreation use to winter wildlife

habitat.


11

Chapter 2 — Alternatives2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a detailed description of the No Action, Proposed Action, and two additional action alternatives created to address the issues identified in Chapter 1. It also discusses the design features and mitigation measures to be applied to the three action alternatives. The No Action alternative is used as a source for comparison against all three of the action alternatives, and enables a thorough evaluation and comparison of the effects of implementing — or not implementing — the proposed activities.

2.2 Alternative 1: No ActionThis alternative proposes that no action be taken within the Moat Mountain Project Area beyond the current and routine maintenance and management of the existing roads and hiking and snowmobile trails. This alternative would not address management of the existing use, or maintenance of the non-system trail network primarily used by mountain bikers, and the current use and condition of this network would not be addressed. This includes potential impacts to the resource and user conflicts (further described in Chapter 3 of this EA).Some of these existing roads and trails are maintained as part of the Forest’s Transportation System. Under this alternative, the Forest Service would continue to maintain the gated roads in the area; grading, cleaning drainage structures, removing blowdowns, and other associated basic maintenance. The existing NFS hiking trails would also see routine maintenance such as cleaning drainage structures, clearing blowdown, and brushing.

2.3 Alternative 2: Proposed ActionThis alternative would formalize 12.1 miles of trail of the total 13.9 miles inven-toried on Forest Service land. These trails are part of the current network of non-system trails in the Moat Mountain Project Area. These trails would be added to the existing miles of hiking and snowmobile trails that currently make up the network of NFS trails on the Saco Ranger District. 11.8 miles would be managed with mountain biking as the designed use; however, these trails would also be open to other non-motorized uses. The remaining 0.3 miles that make up the Thompson Falls Trail would have a designed use of hiking, and mountain biking would not be allowed.As NFS trails, they would be managed and maintained according to the stan-dards and guidelines outlined in the 2005 Forest Plan and FSH 2309.18. In order to achieve minimum FS standard, trail improvements would be required on various segments of trail. These improvements would include reestablishing tread, improving drainage, relocating short steep, wet, or otherwise ill-suited segments of trail, installing bog bridging and boardwalks, hardening stream banks at crossing locations, and erecting signage. Modifications would be accom-plished using a phased approach designed to methodically address individual trails. Once brought to standard, the formalized trails would be managed and maintained as part of the larger system of NFS trails. NFS trails receive recurring


12

annual basic trail maintenance that includes cleaning drainage structures, clear-ing blowdown, and brushing, as well as maintaining signs. This work would be accomplished in partnership with the White Mountains chapter of NEMBA.This alternative also provides for the expansion of the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead parking area. The current parking lot has a capacity of 4–6 cars and the expansion would result in 12–15 spaces; the parking lot is currently not available for winter use and would continue to be a three-season parking area in coordination with seasonal road closure and opening. This measure attempts to address limited parking and access to the proposed trail system. This is a change from the proposed action as stated in the scoping report, which did not address the need for additional parking.Please see Map 2.

2.4 Alternative 3: Proposed Action with Winter Use Limitations

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, but with restrictions on winter use on some trails. The land between West Side Road and the Moat Ridge has seen steady development over the last two decades in the form of housing devel-opments, road systems, and trail networks, and with these, increased human presence. There is concern for wildlife that has been pushed further west due to this encroachment on what was once suitable habitat. Winter is the most stressful time for wildlife because of the limited movement deep snow allows, and the higher energy output required when human presence results in wildlife moving when not necessary. This alternative proposes to close winter use on all trails west of, but not including, FR 379 from the junction with FR 380 to the junction with the Red Ridge Trail and east of the Moat Mountain Trail.As found in Alternative 2, this alternative also provides for the expansion of the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead parking area to accommodate 12–15 vehicles.Please see Map 3.

2.5 Alternative 4: Proposed Action with Additional TrailsThis alternative begins with a baseline of the proposal that is Alternative 2, with the addition of Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector. The inclusion of these two trails would result in an additional 0.9 miles of NFS trails, for a total of 13 miles, to be managed and maintained as described in Alternative 2.As in Alternatives 2 and 3, the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead would also be expanded under this alternative, to accommodate 12–15 vehicles.Both of these measures attempt to address limited parking and access to this trail system; expanding the parking area would better accommodate antici-pated increased use and the addition of these two trails makes usable another access point along Cathedral Ledge Road. These trails also provide more loop opportunities and maximize the existing network of trails on the north end of the project area suitable for riding. Upon viewing the map, it would appear that trails already exist to facilitate loop opportunities on the north end of the project area; however, the current condition of the Hale’s Location snowmobile trail


13

IA

Ì

¤

¤

¤

High School Loop

Upper Stony Ridge

Stony Ridge Lollypop

Lower Stony RidgeThompson

Falls Trail

High Street

Switchback Hill Trail

West Side Road

Birch Hill Development

Cedar Creek

Hale's Location Development

Electric Loop

100 Acre Woods Trail

Tent Boulder Trail

Bloody Arm Trail

Red Ridge Trail

Cathedral Connector

Moat Mineral Site Trail

White horse

Red Ridge Link

Carroll Reed Trail

Ledg

eTr

ail

Moat Mountain Trail

Way in the Woods Trail

Red's Snowmobile Trail

Hale's LocationSnowmobile Trail

Cathedral Ledge Rd

Woods Road

Moat Mountain Trail

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379

Railroad Grade and Connector

Fireline Trail

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

Legend


Non-System TrailsHiking Only

Not Permitted - Closed

Permitted - Open

Echo Lake SP Trails

¤ Gate

Ì Mineral Site

IA Parking Lot Expansion

Local Roads



.

Map 2. Moat Mountain Trail System - Alternative 2Map 2. Moat Mountain Trail System — Alternative 2.


14

IA

Ì

¤

¤

¤

High School Loop

Upper Stony Ridge



Falls Trail

High Street


West Side Road


Cedar Creek


Electric Loop


Tent Boulder Trail

Bloody Arm Trail

Red Ridge Trail

Cathedral Connector


White horse

Red Ridge Link

Carroll Reed Trail

Ledg

eTr

ail

Moat Mountain Trail




Cathedral Ledge Rd

Woods Road

Moat Mountain Trail

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379


Fireline Trail

0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

Legend


Echo Lake SP Trails

¤ Gate

Non-System TrailsPermitted, with Winter Closure

Permitted - Hiking Only


Permitted - Open

Ì Mineral Site


Local Roads



.



15

and the lower portion of the Red Ridge Trail are not well suited to non-winter use and mountain bike use, respectively.Please see Map 4.

2.6 Project Design Features and Forest Plan Implementation

Implementation of the action alternative would meet all applicable regulations, policies, Forest -wide and MAs 2.1 and 6.1 standards and guidelines (Forest Plan), Forest Service Handbook trail standards direction (FSH 2309.18) and New Hampshire Best Management Practices (BMPs). Design features are high-lighted applications of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. They clarify, where necessary, how these standards and guidelines may apply to specific actions in the proposal. Mitigation measures are employed to provide addi-tional resource protection above that required by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Mitigations help meet project objectives and reduce or eliminate unwanted effects.The following design features and mitigations apply to the Proposed Action:• Trails will be kept in their current location to minimize soil, water and veg-

etation impacts beyond the trail corridor unless resource concerns such as erosion or excessively wet areas are present.

• Additional consultation with resource specialists may take place during implementation of trail maintenance based upon pre identified criteria or a change in conditions.

• Efforts will be made to contain trail use within a defined corridor on seg-ments of trail traversing ledges to preserve fragile vegetation growing on ledge adjacent the trail corridor.

• Efforts will be made to minimize the spread of invasive species through education and the potential installation of a bike wash station(s) at a central location in the Mt Washington Valley (working closely with community partners).

• Trails may be signed closed during Goshawk nesting season in areas where active nests are present.

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2309.18) standards will be followed to provide the following:o All stream crossing locations will remain or be relocated at sites that are

most stable. Banks will be hardened where necessary to reduce erosive impacts

o A sign plan will be implemented to ensure all trails are identified and signed to standard

o Trails will be maintained, reconstructed or relocated with mountain biking as the designed use; trails will be assigned a Trail Class 3 and will be managed and maintained to this standard.


16

IA

Ì

¤

¤

¤

High School Loop

Upper Stony Ridge



Falls Trail

High Street


West Side Road


Cedar Creek


Electric Loop


Tent Boulder Trail

Bloody Arm Trail

Red Ridge Trail

Cathedral Connector


White horse

Red Ridge Link

Carroll Reed Trail

Ledg

eTr

ail

Moat Mountain Trail




Cathedral Ledge Rd

Woods Road

Moat Mountain Trail

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379

Fireline Trail


0 0.5 1 1.50.25Miles

Legend


Non-System TrailsPermitted - Hiking Only


Permitted - Open

Echo Lake SP Trails

¤ Gate

Ì Mineral Site


Local Roads



.



17

2.7 Comparison of AlternativesTable 1. Comparison of Alternatives as Relates to Recreation.

Alternative Name

Description of Alternatives

Rec

omm

ende

d M

ount

ain

Bik

e Tr

ail

mile

age

on F

S la

nd

Rec

omm

ende

d H

ikin

g Tr

ail m

ileag

e on

FS

land

Rec

omm

ende

d M

ount

ain

Bik

e Tr

ail

mile

age

on p

rivat

e la

nd

Tota

l add

ed m

ileag

e

Parking and

Access

User Conflicts

Alternative 1: No Action

Existing non-system trail network would remain unmanaged as would its trail use and resource and social impacts. No additional mileage will be formal-ized to become NFS trails. Existing NFS roads and trails in the area would continue to be maintained but non-system trails would not.

0 0 0 0 Provides the least amount of parking and Ac-cess. No additional parking or access would be provided beyond what currently exists.

Has the highest potential for con-flict due to limited capacity to manage social impacts on non-system trails.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

11.8 miles of non-system trails would be formalized to become NFS trails. FS would then assume management and maintenance of this trail system. The Moat Mineral Site Trailhead would be expanded to accommodate up to 15 vehicles.

11.8 0.3 0.4 12.5 Same as Alternative 3. Provides an expand-ed parking lot at the end of High Street to accommo-date 10-15 vehicles.

Has lowest potential of all alter-natives for increased user con-flict.


18

Alternative Name

Description of Alternatives

Rec

omm

ende

d M

ount

ain

Bik

e Tr

ail

mile

age

on F

S la

nd

Rec

omm

ende

d H

ikin

g Tr

ail m

ileag

e on

FS

land

Rec

omm

ende

d M

ount

ain

Bik

e Tr

ail

mile

age

on p

rivat

e la

nd

Tota

l add

ed m

ileag

e

Parking and

Access

User Conflicts

Alternative 3: Proposed Action with Winter Use Limitations

11.8 miles of non-system trails would be formalized to become NFS trails. FS would then as-sume management and maintenance of this trail system. Some trails would be closed to winter use due to habitat considerations. The Moat Mineral Site Trailhead would be ex-panded to accommo-date up to 15 vehicles.

11.8 0.3 0.4 12.5 Same as Alternative 2. Provides an expand-ed parking lot at the end of High Street to accommo-date 10-15 vehicles.

Has the same po-tential as Alternative 2..

Alternative 4: Proposed Ac-tion with Addi-tional Trails

0.9 miles of trail would be added to the 11.8 proposed in alterna-tives 2 and 3. In this alternative 12.7 miles of non-system trails would be formalized to become NFS trails. FS would then assume management and maintenance of this trail system. The Moat Mineral Site Trailhead would be expanded to accommodate up to 15 vehicles.

12.7 0.3 0.4 13.4 Provides most ac-cess and parking due to the additional access point via the Cathe-dral Ledge Road and an expand-ed parking lot at the end of High Street.

Has less potential than Alter-native 1 and more than Al-ternatives 2 and 3 due to the proximity of Diana’s Bath in relation to the addi-tional trails included in this alterna-tive.


19

2.8 Alternatives Considered But Not Fully EvaluatedProhibiting (through Closure Order) all mountain bike use in the Moat Mountain area, other than on Forest System roads and trails.

Although we briefly considered a specific alternative that would restrict all bike use to existing maintained trails, this alternative was not considered in detail for a number of reasons. First, all of the currently used trails pre-date or have existed since the 1986 Forest Plan was in effect, and that Plan allowed cross-country mountain bike travel. Also, most of the trails are environmentally benign, and those that have resource (or other) concerns have been dropped from consideration in the various alternatives in this EA. Finally, the amount of law enforcement that would be required to implement such an alternative would be enormous, and the likelihood of damage to relationships with key partners, and to local agency credibility, would be high. Furthermore, Forest plan direction supports providing a diverse range of rec-reation opportunities and specifically addresses mountain bike use by calling for the review of existing travel corridors with, following appropriate analysis, the goal of establishing a designated Forest trail system. It also presents an opportunity to work collaboratively with NEMBA as a partner to the FS, and to demonstrate responsiveness by addressing this user-created trail system. And lastly, the well-drained soils and negotiable topography within the project area are well-suited to accommodate this trail network that is currently seeing consistent use. It correlates with Forest Plan direction to concentrate use in heavily used locations.

Inclusion of the Thompson Falls trail as a NFS trail with mountain biking as the designed use.

While there is a desire amongst many trail users to incorporate this trail into the NFS with mountain biking as the designed use, there are resource concerns that currently have dissuaded a recommendation to that end. There are several topographical and design characteristics that have resulted in these resource concerns. The trail is located on a steep grade that has already seen a noticeable degree of erosion due primarily to mountain bike use over the past 15 years; the steep terrain encourages braking and skidding that leads to erosion. It should be noted that the erosion present on this trail far exceeds the amount of erosion found elsewhere in this network, on trails of a similar age and estimated levels of use.The potential for relocation is limited as the trail is bordered to the north by Thompson Brook, and the topography is not well suited to relocation to the south given its grade and frequent hummocks. Furthermore, relocating the trail would move it away from Thompson Falls which markedly detracts from the original intent of the trail, to bring trail users to the falls. Finally, this is a short segment of trail (0.3 mi) that essentially fulfills the same purpose as FR 379 in terms of the access it provides to the rest of the network. It is for these reasons that Thompson Falls Trail is recommended for hiking only.


20

Maintaining access through the Woods Road (see map) in Cedar Creek

The Woods Road was not included in any of the alternatives because a portion of the trail crosses onto private land. Use of this portion of the Woods Road is not authorized by the landowner and therefore the trail will not become part of the NFS trail network. A portion of this trail is also on Forest land, however, no part of this trail is included as part of the proposal as it does not provide further benefit such as connectivity to the rest of the network, or access to the proposed network. The portion of Woods Road that is on the Forest will be closed to all use and will not be maintained in the future.

Figure 3. Electric Loop Trail. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.


21

Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Resource issues discussed during the initial scoping process or by Forest Service personnel are addressed in this chapter. Each resource section analyzed in detail is organized as follows:• Description of Affected Environment.• For each alternative, analysis of direct and indirect effects on the resource.• For each alternative, analysis of cumulative effects on the resource.• Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.Cumulative effects analyses require consideration of past, present, and rea-sonably foreseeable future actions in the analysis area for each resource. The geographic area and the temporal scope for cumulative effects analyses are identified for each resource based on potential effects of this action in its site specific context. The bounds are the same for some resources and different for others. In all cases, the rationale for the area and time period is noted in indi-vidual resource sections in this chapter. Activities and effects on private lands are considered when they are within the spatial and temporal cumulative effects analysis area.Table 2 summarizes the effects of each alternative on the various resource areas.

Table 2. All Resources Comparison.

Alternative Effects on Recreation

Effects on Wildlife

Effects on Soils

Effects on Water

Resources

Effects on Invasive Species

Alternative 1 Greatest Effect – no defined recreation op-portunity

Greatest Effect Greatest Effect Greatest Effect Greatest Effect

Alternative 2 Least Effect – managed recre-ation opportunity provided

Greater Effects than Alternative 3 and less than Alternatives 1 and 4

Least Effect, same as Alter-native 3

Least Effect, same as Alter-native 3

Least Effect

Alternative 3 Moderate Effect – man-aged recreation opportunity pro-vided with winter limitations

Least Effect Same Effect asAlternative 2

Same Effect as Alternative 2


Alternative 4 Moderate Effect – Man-aged recreation opportunity provided; user conflicts present due to Diana’s Bath

Greater Effect than Alternatives 2 and 3, and Less Effect than Alternative 1

Greater Effect than Alternatives 2 and 3 and Less Effect than Alternative 1

Greater Effect than Alterna-tives 2 and 3 but Less Effect than Alternative 1



22

3.1 RecreationAffected EnvironmentThe affected environment for this analysis is the Moat Mountain Trail System Project Area as shown in Map 1. Recreation resources within the project area include hiking and snowmobile trails, several miles of gated Forest Service gravel roads, trailheads, and developed day-use sites. The area provides year-round opportunity for a wide variety of recreation activities such as hiking, biking, dog walking, jogging, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, hunting, camping, horseback riding, swimming, and hobby mineral collecting. Recreation use has increased as neighboring housing developments were established. The concentration of trails and roads in proximity to these neighborhoods has made this area a popular “backyard” destination over the past 20 years. In addition to recreation use, this area also has a varied and lengthy history including a railroad, stone quarry, and logging activity.Within and adjacent to the project area are a popular hotel, private communi-ties, and State Park lands–including Echo Lake State Park and Cathedral Ledge. Several trails, Town roads, and private association roads directly abut private housing developments and provide local residents with convenient access.More generalized public access for those that travel to the area for mountain biking is somewhat limited to the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead, Echo Lake State Park and through user-created trails in neighboring housing developments. Recreation opportunities exist within the State Park such as rock climbing, hiking, and swimming.

Table 3. Existing Recreation Opportunities in the Moat Mountain Project Area.

Feature Name Length (mi.) Primary ActivityWMNF Hiking Trails Moat Mountain Trail 9.7 Hiking

Moat Mineral Site Trail 1.8 HikingRed Ridge Trail 3.6 HikingRed Ridge Link Trail 0.4 HikingWhitehorse Ledge Trail 1.6 Hiking

WMNF Snowmobile Trails

Red’s Trail 2.0 Snowmobiling

Hale’s Location Trail 1.6 SnowmobilingForest Service Roads

FR 379 3.0 Snowmobiling/Walking/Biking

FR 379A 0.6 Walking/BikingFR 380 1.3 Trailhead Access – open to vehicles

Day Use Areas Diana’s Baths Waterfall ViewingMoat Mineral Site Hobby Mineral Collecting

State Park Lands Echo Lake SwimmingCathedral and White Horse Ledges

Rock/Ice Climbing

Echo Lake trail network 4.5 (approx)

Hiking


23

Trail and Road Networks

Hiking trails–both on Forest and State Park, snowmobile trails, and primarily gated roads connect to form a transportation network within the project area. The majority of these trails surround or ascend Cathedral Ledge and the summit of Whitehorse Ledge. The others access day-use sites such as the popular Diana’s Bath, and the Moat Mineral Site. Snowmobile trails in the area receive moderate use in the winter and very low use during the non-snow season. The roads are the primary thoroughfare that connect the trails within the project area and are often used by residents of the adjacent housing development, as well as others to pursue activities such as biking, dog walking, cross-country skiing, and running.

Day Use Sites

The Diana’s Bath site receives very high visitation during the summer months, with high use extending into spring and fall. The 0.7 mile trail, which is part of the Moat Mountain Trail, is ABA Accessible and is used by people of all ages and abilities and is quite popular with young families. The site includes multiple pools and cascading water on the ledges in Lucy Brook making this a popular destination in the summer heat, or a scenic destination at other times of year. This section of trail is currently closed to mountain bike use in an effort to minimize potential user conflicts..The Moat Mineral Site attracts hobby mineral collectors to the area in search of amethyst and smoky quartz. The site is accessed by the Moat Mineral Site Trail, which is also travelled frequently by mountain bikers.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Management Areas

The recreation setting for this area is described by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). ROS defines a range of unique recreation experiences as: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural (Forest Plan, 2005, p.1-10 and Map 1-11).The lands within the project area fall almost entirely into Management Area 2.1 (General Forest Management) with the remainder in MA 6.1(Semi-Primitive Recreation). The ROS goal for MA 2.1 is to offer a full mix of ROS objec¬tives. The MA 2.1 lands in the project area are identified as Semi-Primitive Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized.“Semi-Primitive Non-motorized” is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Interaction between users is low but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present but subtle. Motorized use is not permitted with the exception of snowmobile use in winter. Semi-Primitive Motorized is similarly characterized; however, motor-ized use is permitted.


24

Direct and Indirect EffectsThe analysis area for the direct and indirect effects to recreation is the Moat Mountain Trail System project area (see Map 1) because the direct and indirect effects of these actions will occur locally and are limited to the extent of the immediate area. The temporal scope of this analysis is the time during which the project is implemented (3-7 years).

Alternative 1Under the No Action alternative, existing levels of recreation use would continue within the project area. The No Action alternative would not address parking or public access; trail signs would not be installed and blazing would not occur. The No Action alternative would also provide the most limited opportunities for public information and education.Without significant law enforcement actions, the network of roads, trails and travel corridors previously discussed would continue to receive recurring use, however resource concerns, bridge needs and trail improvements would not be addressed. The Forest Service would likely need to implement and enforce closure orders on those trails not currently in the NFS trail system. Otherwise, it is anticipated that additional incidental trails would be established, potentially in unsuitable locations. The existing network and any unplanned expansions would likely result in the development of additional resource concerns and social impacts. Under the No Action alternative our ability to manage use may be limited to trail closure or law enforcement activity.Under this alternative, common trail issues inherent with use over time, such as the formation of deep gullies, wet areas, and other problems caused by erosion, would not be proactively managed and resource conditions would degrade over time. Resource damage would continue, and may increase because of the lack of recreation infrastructure, trail design and drainage structures. Much as the current non-system trail network has evolved, new trails would likely be established throughout the area without consideration for sensitive plant populations, soils and wildlife concerns, hydrology considerations, weeds and non-native invasive species, FS trail design standards, and other pertinent area specific details. This alternative would limit our ability to proactively address a host of concerns that present themselves in an unmanaged setting including the spread of invasive species, eradication of sensitive plants, and ongoing trespass.

Alternative 2Under the Proposed Action, recreational use would continue in the Moats, but beneficial direct and indirect effects should be visible to all visitors. While there may be some increase in the development scale with the installation of signs and trail structures, the recreation opportunity will remain largely unchanged.

Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction

The Proposed Action would formalize 12.1 miles of trail within the user-created trail network; 11.8 of which would have mountain biking as the designed use and on the remaining 0.3 miles, the Thompson Falls Trail, mountain bike use would be prohibited and hiking would be the designed use. By concentrating use on these trails, it allows managers to focus efforts on a reasonable amount


25

of trail mileage, rather than trying to identify and address impacts dispersed throughout the project area. This in turn allows these formalized trails to be more effectively managed and maintained as part of the larger system of NFS trails. User-created trails that are not part of the NFS trail network are not eligible for federal funding and would not be managed or maintained to any standard. Therefore, once formalized, these trails would receive annual basic maintenance through cooperation with the White Mountain’s chapter of the New England Mountain Biking Association (NEMBA), and would be eligible for federal funds to complete project work to bring these trails to Forest Service standards. These trails would be managed and maintained according to the standards and guidelines outlined in the 2005 Forest Plan and FSH 2309.18.To achieve this standard, improvements would be made such as installing switchbacks in excessively steep areas, constructing bog bridges to mitigate perpetually wet areas, stabilizing banks, improving stream crossings, and re-establishing treadway. These efforts would improve the average trail user’s experience in a number of ways. Regular and recurring maintenance and recon-struction efforts will ensure that trails remain passable over time, and also contribute to the sustainability of the trail by substantially decreasing erosion. Trails managed in this way are typically more enjoyable to ride and are suit-able for a broader range of abilities because obstacles such as loose rocks, deep gullies, and brush and blowdowns are minimized.This alternative would establish 12.1 miles of NFS trail with Mountain Biking as the Designed Use, meaning that these trails are designed for mountain bike use while still being managed for multiple uses. Design features such as switch-backs in excessively steep areas reduce erosion and also create the added benefit of users being able to both ascend and descend a given trail, maximizing loop opportunities within the trail system. Other improvements would include con-structing minor features such as bog bridges to mitigate perpetually wet areas, keeping trail users elevated above muddy or wet segments, and preventing asso-ciated impacts such as trail widening. Bank stabilization and improved stream crossings are also part of this effort, identifying shallow and stable locations to ford streams; this may include the installation of step stones to accommodate trail users that choose not to ford. Still further improvements would include re-establishing the trail tread in areas where the trail is on a side-hill and minor relocations to improve problem areas. Modifications would be accomplished using a phased approach designed to methodically address individual trails.While these modifications ultimately create a more sustainable and enjoyable experience for the average rider, it may detract slightly from the challenge these obstacles present to more advanced riders. However, there is diversity within the 12.1 miles of proposed trail that provides a range of experiences, from easy terrain with minimal obstacles to more challenging and technical climbs and descents, that can accommodate a wide range of abilities while still remaining sustainable.The effect of an improved and formalized trail network with mountain biking as the designed use may increase trail use in the area. However, anecdotal evi-dence would suggest that the existing infrastructure of Forest roads and NFS trails, in addition to the user-created trail network, is used frequently by local residents from abutting housing developments as well as mountain bikers and


26

other trail users from the Mt. Washington Valley and beyond to a progressively lesser extent. Given the type of use this area currently sees, it is anticipated that use will increase moderately.While this alternative seeks to formalize 12.1 miles of trail, it does not include the four trails that make up the remaining 1.8 miles of inventoried user-created trails in the area which results in less available mileage than Alternative 4. These four trails- Bloody Arm Trail, Cathedral Connector, Switchback Hill Trail and Woods Road–will be closed to all uses, and the Thompson Falls trail will be open to foot traffic only (please see Map 2). While the Cathedral Connector provides another access point on the northern end of the project area and creates a loop with the Bloody Arm Trail, it also creates potential for user conflicts by inviting mountain bike traffic, and potentially increased foot traffic, to Diana’s Bath, a site that already sees extremely high visitation during spring, summer, and fall. This alternative would minimize this potential.

Signage

The proposed trail network crisscrosses Forest Service roads, hiking trails, aban-doned town roads, non-system historic logging roads, old railroad grades, faded travelways no longer discernable. Only NFS trails and Forest roads are signed, leaving many unmarked intersections and the potential for confusion. Junctions with these travelways are abundant throughout the proposed trail network and can make navigation of the system quite challenging. Under this alternative all trails will be signed to standard with trail names, distances, and pertinent ref-erences as identified in the WMNF trail sign standards. Once trails are signed, trail users will be able to locate trails and identify the trail on which they are travelling. With this added ease of navigation, trail use by new or infrequent visitors to the Moat area will likely increase.While trail signs will likely increase use of newly designated NFS trails, they will also likely decrease use of non-system trails. In the absence of signage, errant paths, such as the old skid paths and game trails previously mentioned, are further impacted as trail users attempt to find connections to the greater network of user-created trails. However, these explorations are often unsuccess-ful as these paths fade if not altogether disappear. Once NFS trails are signed, this will likely reduce the amount of traffic on these paths which will encourage regeneration and rehabilitation.

Parking Lot and Trailheads

Under the Proposed Action alternative, the Moat Mineral Site Trailhead parking lot would be expanded. Currently the parking lot holds 4 – 6 vehicles and the expansion would increase the capacity to 10 – 15 vehicles. This parking lot is currently not available for winter use and would continue to be a 3-season parking area. This expansion aims to accommodate increased use of the system and address concerns regarding public parking available to access the proposed trail network. Additionally, a larger parking area presents an opportunity for public education by funneling traffic through this expanded trailhead. A kiosk is being constructed at this site on which relevant information and updates can be posted.

Alternative 3The direct and indirect impacts as stated for Alternative 2 can also be applied to Alternative 3. This alternative differs in that it includes winter trail use limita-tions on 5.2 miles of trail during the winter months, making them unavailable for all types of recreation. The closure area would eliminate trail and cross country travel including snow shoeing, skiing, or winter biking, to limit the amount of stress, movement, and energy output of wintering wildlife in the area due to disturbance by humans. Use of these trails and the area would be prohibited during snow cover. Closures would be implemented through education and law enforcement activity. The area would be available for administrative use by the Forest Service to conduct other agency business. This alternative proposes to close winter use on all trails west of, but not including, FR 379 from the junc-tion with FR 380 to the junction with the Red Ridge Trail and east of the Moat Mountain Trail. This would mean that winter trail use, such as snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, would be prohibited on the Moat Mineral Site Trail (currently an NFS trail), High School Loop, Tent Boulder Trail and Way in the Woods Trail as shown in Figure X. Existing use of snowmobile trails/roads in the project area would not be affected.

Alternative 4This alternative begins with a baseline of the proposal that is Alternative 2, but formalizes two additional trails: the Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector. The direct and indirect effects as stated for Alternative 2 can be applied to Alternative 4, in addition to those effects associated with the inclusion of the above mentioned trails.The addition of the Bloody Arm Trail and the Cathedral Connector create further loop opportunities, particularly in the northern end of the project area. On a map, these trails appear redundant with the existing network of snowmobile and hiking trails; however, while there are multiple trails in the northern end of the project area, many of them are snowmobile trails that are very wet during the non-snow season and are not well-suited to mountain bikes (i.e. Hale’s Location Snowmobile Trail). Some have lost their soil over decades of use and resemble a dry river bed with large cobbles that are loose and difficult to ride (i.e. lower portion of Red Ridge Trail), and still others are exceedingly steep and attract few riders (i.e. Red Ridge Link Trail). The inclusion of these two user-created trails aims to maximize the “ride-able” segments of the existing snowmobile and hiking trails by connecting these segments to create loop options on the north end.This alternative is responsive to access concerns and may allow an additional access point and road-side parking along Cathedral Ledge Road. If using this access, adding the Cathedral Connector and the Bloody Arm Trail provides a viable route to connect with the rest of the road and trail network in the center and southern end of the project area as well as a loop opportunity on the north-ern end of the project area. As stated above, the lower portion of Red Ridge Trail and the Hale’s Location Snowmobile Trail are unable to serve that function due to the condition of the trail tread and therefore the Bloody Arm Trail is needed to access the rest of the network for Cathedral Ledge Road to be a viable access and parking area.


28

Table 4. All Resources Comparison.

Alternative Effects on Recreation

Effects on Wildlife

Effects on Soils

Effects on Water

Resources

Effects on Invasive Species

Alternative 1 Greatest Effect – no defined recreation op-portunity

Greatest Effect Greatest Effect Greatest Effect Greatest Effect

Alternative 2 Least Effect –managed recre-ation opportunity provided

Greater Effects than Alternative 3 and less than Alternatives 1 and 4

Least Effect, same as Alterna-tive 3

Least Effect, same as Alterna-tive 3

Least Effect

Alternative 3 Moderate Ef-fect – managed recreation op-portunity pro-vided with winter limitations

Least Effect Same Effect as Alternative 2



Alternative 4 Moderate Effect – Managed rec-reation oppor-tunity provided; user conflicts present due to Diana’s Bath

Greater Effect than Alternatives 2 and 3, and Less Effect than Alternative 1

Greater Effect than Alternatives 2 and 3 and Less Effect than Alternative 1



Cumulative EffectsThe analysis area for cumulative effects to recreation is the 6800-acre Moat Mountain Project Area. The formalization of the Moat Mountain Trail System is not expected to affect the recreation experience elsewhere other than its con-tribution to the recognized mountain bike trail networks that exist locally on state, town, and private lands. The temporal scope for cumulative effects is five years in the past through five years in the future (2005-2015).

Timber Management and Prescribed Fire Activities

Recent timber harvest (Moat Timber Sale) and prescribed burn activity has taken place in the project area. The objective of both of these activities is to promote mixed pine/scrub oak forest in this area. Use was temporarily disrupted on a portion of non-system trails during the last harvest; as NFS trails, efforts will be made to reduce impacts during future timber sales. Skid trails and gated system roads were utilized to haul timber from the recent harvest but remained open to recreational non-motorized travel. System roads were maintained prior to the sale to Level 1 standards, which primarily consisted of maintaining road corridor clearing limits. A small log landing was created adjacent to the road, resulting in a widened area which will be allowed to regenerate over time. Any impacts associated with hauling are expected to recover within 3-5 years.Within the project area there are multiple burn units totaling approximately 120 acres; these units will be burned on an alternating basis on a 3 -5 year rotation.


29

This will result in intermittent trail closures for the duration of the burn. Some of the burn units will utilize the proposed trails as a control line; trails will be raked free of leaves and sticks to contain the burn within the unit boundary. No lasting impacts to the trails are anticipated. Notification will be posted on the web, at public trailheads, and at the site to communicate these events to the public. The establishment of the Fireline Trail is part of the burn plan for this area. It was constructed as a fire break as an added precaution to further protect homes in the area during prescribed burns. The trail character, as it appears to the casual viewer, was altered in this part of the project area due to timber harvesting, resulting in a more open understory. This change will become less evident over time as regeneration continues and effects are anticipated to be relatively unnoticeable after ten years. No further timber harvesting activity is planned within the next five years.

Other Forest Service Management Activities

Forest Service boundary line maintenance, consisting of repainting blazes and property boundary corners, and cutting back brush was conducted in the area. Other changes that have taken place within the project area during the last 5 years include the expansion of the Diana’s Bath parking lot and the resurfacing of the first .7 miles of the Moat Mountain Trail that provides access to Diana’s Bath.

State and Private Activities

A new toilet was constructed by the State of NH on the Cathedral Ledge Road near the popular cliffs frequented by rock and ice climbers within Echo Lake State Park. Further development and home construction continues in the Hale’s Location housing development.Privately published maps of the area currently exist but include only a fraction of the proposed trail network. It is likely that new maps of the area that reflect the new trail network will be published and made available for retail sale to reflect the remainder of trails making up the new total network. There are no plans for maps to be published by the WMNF. The combination of signage and maps would greatly ease navigation in the Moats and therefore will likely increase use. As expressed in the effects for Alternative 2, there are currently many game trails, old skid paths, etc. that contribute to the navigational challenges present in the Moats. Maps will help to reduce further impacts to these travel corridors by distinguishing them from the network of proposed trails; it is anticipated that these paths will see a decrease in use, allowing them to regenerate.


30

3.2 WildlifeAffected EnvironmentThis project proposal is bounded on the west by the Moat Mountain Trail, on the north by Diana’s Bath, on the south by Passaconaway Road and the east by West Side Road. This includes private land (housing developments), and Cathedral State Park as existing travelways enter federal land from these lands and their existence has influence on wildlife of the area. This area was selected because this is where direct and indirect effects would occur from project implementation.The aspect is primarily east and south. To the west of West Side Road lies several residential developments that abut National Forest. The eastern portion of the Project area is relatively flat with sandy soils. The forest type is primarily mixed pine. And area between Cedar Creek and Birch Hill Developments known as 100 Acre Woods has recently been logged with the purpose to restore a mixed pine, especially Pitch Pine and a scrub oak habitat. Prescribed burning is included in this plan.Lucy Brook drains the area on the north, Moat Brook in the central area and Red Eagle Brook the southern portion. In addition there is a cedar swamp located west of Cathedral Ledge. Echo Lake lies on State land to the east. Several beaver wetlands exist within the aforementioned drainages.The northern half has exceptional cliff outcrops, Cathedral Ledge and White Horse Ledge being well-known rock climbing destinations. The climbing routes lie primarily on NH State land however there are several rocky outcrops and cliff faces on federal land.Recreational activities in the area are numerous, probably because of the prox-imity of the residential areas as well as the type of terrain in the area. Hiking, walking, mountain biking, horseback riding, Nordic skiing, snow shoeing, snowmobiling, rock climbing, mineral collecting, hunting and fishing are some of the activities that take place. Existing parking areas are at Diana’s Bath, Moat Mineral site and Echo Lake State Park.The botanical report (project file) indicated the presence of TES plants and NNIS plants in the project area. Habitat appeared suitable for 1 federally listed plant and several Regional Forester’s listed plants (USDA Forest Service 2006).Wildlife in the area includes but is not limited to moose, black bear, white-tailed deer, fox, coyote, fisher, beaver, weasels, and numerous species of birds, amphibians, and reptiles.. White-tailed deer are known to winter in the southern portion of the project area.

EffectsThe Analysis Area for effects on wildlife is the area described under Affected Environment above. This is selected because the actions would occur within this area and actions off National Forest have affected wildlife on National Forest land.The temporal scope for effects is fifteen years in the past and 15 years in the future (1995 to 2025). This was selected because it incorporates a time prior to

the existence of this activity as well as the personal knowledge of the area by the current biologist and allows for speculation on the potential effects into the future.These parameters will be used for all Alternatives.

Alternative 1Under this alternative existing conditions and activities would continue as they currently exist. The existing roads and hiking and snowmobile trails in the project area would continue to be maintained. However, the existing network of user-created, non-system trails (approximately 14.3 miles) would not be main-tained or improved to meet Forest Service standards and use of these trails would continue. The Moat Mineral parking area would not be expanded under this alternative.

Direct Effects

Without significant law enforcement effort, this alternative would continue the resource damage that is currently happening. Trails may get located where small mammals dwell, compacting their burrows or the animals themselves. Birds nesting near the trails may get flushed off their nest resulting in nest failure (Rosenberg et al. 2004). Larger animals would probably not be directly impacted by mountain bikes, however other recreational activities may have direct impacts though the probability is low (Gurtzwiller 1995).

Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would have indirect impacts to wildlife in the area. Considering these travelways are already established, the potential exists for other recreational uses such as hikers, horseback riders, Nordic skiers, snow-shoes, etc.. This encourages year-round use and ultimately has a greater impact on wildlife. Wildlife typically avoids human presence and so would likely run when approached by any human recreating along these travelways. Hikers, bikers, Nordic skiers, snowshoers, snowmobilers, and the illegal motorized activities all cause wildlife to exert energy in order to avoid these activities.No habitat is expected to be altered under this alternative. However, wildlife may not find the area suitable to reside due to recreational activities.Given general trends in recreation use, it is likely that use will continue to grow within the project area as well. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 this use may further increase due to trail improvements, signage, and maps. Most species of wild-life can tolerate an incidental interaction with humans in that they would flee until out of sight of the assumed threatening human. Many species of wildlife cannot tolerate a high number of interactions over time. Individuals of each species have their own thresholds, but multiple interactions often result in the individuals vacating the area where interactions occur. This is total displacement where suitable habitat becomes unsuitable for certain wildlife species. Species generally associated in this category are white-tailed deer, black bear, moose, etc. Total displacement may indirectly impact individuals residing in the area to which they are dispersed (Gurtzwiller 1995).There are wildlife species that seem to gravitate towards areas of human use. Often it is because humans can be associated with a source of food or habitat

that meets some of their needs (Gurtzwiller 1995). Species associated with this category include raccoons, skunks, grey squirrels, etc.There are wildlife species that can fall into both realms. Coyotes, fisher, fox, etc. typically avoid humans however they are known to roam human neighborhoods in search of prey, both wild and domestic.Other species that currently do not reside in the area, but for which habitat is deemed suitable (for example Canada lynx) may continue to be absent because of the amount of human activity in the area. Formalizing trails that allow winter use potentially increases the amount of over-the-snow-routes and therefore may not conserve potential lynx habitat on the WMNF, as recommended in the Canada Lynx Conservation Strategy Assessment (Ruediger et al. 2000). Invasive plant species existing in the Project Area have the potential to spread to new areas within the Project Area as travelways are vectors of invasive plants (botanical report). Invasive plants have the potential to outcompete native flora that wildlife may depend on for forage.The project area would continue to supply a variety of habitat. Species that are not threatened by human presence (birds, rodents, squirrels, raccoons, etc.) would continue to find habitat. Some individuals of these species may be impacted positively and/or negatively from this alternative. This alternative however would not create a viability concern for any species or create an impact enough to lead a species towards proposed federal listing.

Cumulative Effects

The location of this project on the periphery of the WMNF abutting and some-what incorporating adjacent private land means there could be unforeseen actions over the next 15 years.Harvest has taken place within the project area over the past 15 years. The most recent harvest was a thinning in the vicinity of 100 Acre Woods Trail. Prescribed burning is proposed to take place in this area to promote mixed pine regenera-tion along with scrub oak.As recreational use increases the trend would be for those wildlife species that avoid human presence to decline in this area and species such as raccoons to increase.If non-native invasive species(NNIS) becomes an issue, eradication of invasive plants would likely be initiated within the next 15 years. Success or failure of this action may have effects on wildlife species within the area.Other past and present actions in this area include human use such as mountain biking, Nordic skiing, hiking, snowshoeing, horseback riding, hobby mineral collecting, and hunting. Some illegal actions such as ATV and dirt bike use is being attended to by a FS Law Enforcement Officer. Glossy buckthorn is present in the project area and is expected to increase in presence and spread with the existing degree of recreation in the area. This is currently a popular network of roads and trails. Expectations are year-round recreational use would continue under this Alternative.


33

Alternative 2This proposal would formalize 12.1 miles of existing user-created trails within the project area and close others. The Moat Mountain Mineral Site parking area would be expanded by 0.5 acres to handle additional non-winter useage.

Direct Effects

This alternative concentrates, primarily, mountain bike use and its associated impacts onto 12.1 miles of NFS trails and affords the ability to better manage a finite system and to discourage proliferation of more user-created trails. This would eliminate potential effects to species dwelling in those areas. Existing travelways have already directly impacted any species that were residing there when the path was created. Existing NFS trails would be maintained. Individuals may be displaced from a trail during maintenance, but it is doubtful individuals would be physically harmed.Expansion of the existing parking area could eliminate individuals of ground dwelling species if present however, the likelihood is small however.

Indirect Effects

No habitat is expected to be altered under this alternative. While the proposal is to formalize trails with mountain biking as the designed use, it is expected other recreational activities such as horseback riding, Nordic skiing, snowshoe-ing, etc. would occur on these trails. Maps of the area would likely be created for retail sale. Use of these trails is anticipated over time.This alternative proposes to retain the recreational use on designated trails, however there is no mechanism proposed to limit the amount of use on these trails.The expansion of the existing parking area would result in a compacted gravel surface that would not be suitable for any ground-dwelling wildlife species.Invasive plant species existing in the Project Area have the potential to spread to new areas within the Project Area as travelways are vectors of invasive plants (botanical report project file). Invasive plants have the potential to outcompete native flora that wildlife may depend on for forage.Affects of increased recreational use were discussed under Alternative 1 and would be similar with increase use under this alternative. This alternative however may have pockets of habitat distanced from designated trails that certain species could continue to use if not completely reside in.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects under this alternative would be similar to that as described under Alternative 1.

Alternative 3This alternative proposes to formalize the same trails as Alternative 2 but pro-hibits use of the outlying trails (Way-in-the-Woods, Tent Boulder Trail and High School Loop) during winter. The Moat Mountain Mineral Site parking area would be expanded by 0.5 acres to handle additional non-winter use.


34

Direct Effects

This alternative would have similar direct effects as Alternative 2 but would eliminate the potential to impact wildlife dwelling under the snow along the trails banned from winter activity.

Indirect Effects

Indirectly other species would not be displaced along these trails by winter recreational activities. White tailed deer are known to reside under softwoods along these trails during deep snow cover. Suitable lynx habitat would also be retained and currently unsuitable habitat would not lose its connectivity to suit-able habitat. In addition over-the-snow routes would not increase in lynx habitat. This would be most consistent with the Canada Lynx Conservation Strategy Assessment agreed upon by the Forest Service to conserve Canada lynx habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to that discussed under Alternative 1.

Alternative 4This alternative includes two additional trails to be formalized and designated as NFS trails on the WMNF: the Cathedral Connector and Bloody Arm Trail. The Moat Mountain Mineral Site parking area would be expanded by 0.5 acres to handle additional non-winter use.

Direct Effects

This alternative would have similar direct effects as Alternative 2 but would add those effects to the additional trails. The Bloody Arm trail lies near the cedar swamp. The cedar swamp attracts a greater diversity of species because of the diversity of the habitat. Therefore the Bloody Arm Trail may have a higher potential of directly impacting wildlife, especially small mammals.

Indirect Effects

This alternative would have similar indirect effects as Alternative 2 but would add those effects to the additional trails. Similarly to Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative may not conserve potential lynx habitat on the WMNF as recom-mended in the Canada Lynx Conservation Strategy Assessment.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be similar to that discussed under Alternative 1.


35

Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species (TEPS), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Rare Communities

Affected Environment for TEPS, RFSS and Rare Communities

A Biological Evaluation (BE) for Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed (TEP), and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) was completed on April 19, 2010 for all alternatives (BE, Project Planning Record). The process used and the sources examined to determine potential occurrence of TEP or RFSS presence are listed in the BE. During Forest Plan Revision, best available science was used to evaluate TEPS/RFSS species and species viability. Information gath-ered during the species viability analysis was used in updating the WMNF RFSS list (USDA Forest Service 2006b). The BE for this project incorporates by refer-ence information on species viability (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Appendix F, USDA Forest Service 2005d) and TEPS/RFSS species used during Forest Plan revision including the Biological Evaluation of the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005c, Appendix G).Based on a review of all available information, it was the District Biologist’s determination that potential habitat may occur within the Project Area for two Federally Threatened Species (Canada lynx and small whorled pogonia) and eight Regional Forester Sensitive Species (eastern small-footed myotis, northern bog lemming, piled-up sedge, autumn coralroot, white mountain silverling, sweet coltsfoot, Douglas’ knotweed and nodding pogonia).The Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Designation Project details direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the species mentioned above. The entire BE can be found in the Project File. is The information in Table 5 is excerpted from the BE for this project:

Table 5. Effects Determination and Rationale for Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species (TEPS) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS).

Name Status Impacts Under Alternative 1

Impacts Under Alternative 2



Canada Lynx

Federal Sensitive Species

Would not have a direct effect on Canada lynx because they are not currently present in the area.




Small-Whorled Pogonia

Federal Sensitive Species

May have an effect on small-whorled pogonia habitat.

Would not impact small-whorled pogonia habitat.




36





Eastern Small-Foot-ed Mytosis (Bat)

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Would have the highest potential to impact individ-uals. Would not cause an impact to the degree there would be a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Would have lesser potential to impact individ-ual small-footed myotis but to a lesser degree than the No Ac-tion Alternative. Alternative would not cause an impact to the de-gree there would be a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.



Northern Bog Lem-ming


Would have the highest degree of impact. Would not impact northern bog lemmings or their habitat to a degree a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3 have the least degree of impact of the alternatives. Would not impact northern bog lemmings or their habitat to a degree a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3 have the least degree of impact of the alternatives. Would not impact northern bog lemmings or their habitat to a degree a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability would occur.

Impacts are greater than in Alternatives 2 and 3, and less than in Alterna-tive 1. Would not impact northern bog lemmings or their habitat to a degree a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability would occur.

Piled up Sedge


Would not directly impact individual stems of piled-up sedge as it has cur-rently not been observed in the project area. May indirectly impact suitable habitat wherever it may occur on the exposed ledges in the Project Area. Would not impact this spe-cies to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.





37





Autumn Coralroot


May directly impact individual stems of autumn coral-root but would not directly impact this plant. It is unknown whether any of the alternatives would indirectly impact this or-chid. alternative would not impact autumn coral-root to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Would not directly impact this plant. It is unknown whether any of the alter-natives would indirectly impact this orchid. None of the alterna-tives would impact autumn coral-root to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.



White Moun-tain Silver-ling


Would not impact Silverling to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.




Sweet Colts-foot


May impact individuals of this species and/or degrade suitable habitat. Would not impact Sweet coltsfoot to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Would have no impact on this species.



Douglas’ Knotweed


Would not impact Douglas’ knot-weed to the extent it would cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.





38





Nodding Pagonia


May impact individuals of this species but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Would not directly im-pact this orchid but may have a minor impact on suitable habitat but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Would not di-rectly impact this orchid but may have a minor im-pact on suitable habitat but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.



Figure 4 (left). Ledges on Upper Stony Ridge Trail.

Figure 5 (right). Red Ridge and Middle Moat from Upper Stony Ridge Trail.

WMNF photos by Jana Johnson.


39

3.3 Invasive PlantsAffected EnvironmentThe White Mountain National Forest has been working with The New England Wild Flower Society, and other organizations to determine locations of non-native invasive plant species, resulting in a list of invasive species that exist on or near the National Forest. The majority of locations observed have been on the perimeter of the National Forest, primarily along roads, highways and in developed areas such as towns, and residential and recreation areas.Within the project area there are several discrete infestations of multiple invasive species that have been identified since 2001. The species are glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) (USDA 2009, Mattrick 2009, Mattrick 2008). These documented locations and other site-spe-cific field reviews were used to evaluate the likelihood of non-native invasive species (from this point forward referred to as NNIS) spreading into the Project Area and the environmental consequences of their potential establishment.

NNIS Species Known to Occur within the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project Area

Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus)

Glossy buckthorn can grow in the full shade of a forest canopy, as well as in areas of full sun and high soil moisture. The leaves are still green well into fall, making them easily recognizable when most native plants are dormant. There are only a few sites currently known on the WMNF for both species, but infesta-tions of Frangula alnus are some of the largest NNIS infestations on the WMNF. Some private lands within and around the National Forest have infestations of this species.

Morrow’s honeysuckle

(Lonicera morrowii)Morrow’s honeysuckle occurs in woodlands and on the edge of the woods and in shade under a forest canopy. The leaves are still green well into fall, making that an ideal time to treat because they are easily recognized and most native plants are dormant. This is the second most widespread species on the Forest. Many private lands within and around the National Forest have larger infestations.

Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris

arundinacea)This is a highly aggressive, vegetatively spreading perennial grass that invades wetlands, roadsides, and open lands. It is ubiquitous on the WMNF and in New England. It has been widely dispersed due to its use in conservation seed mix. It is suspected to have both native and non-native gene strains.


40

Black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia)Black locust is a highly clonal tree species that is native as far north as south-western Pennsylvania. It spread vegetatively and by dispersing seeds. It is not native to the WMNF and is an invader of poor soils in open habitats such as edges and wildlife clearings. Although it can grow in forested environments it is not as aggressive under shaded conditions. It is currently documented from multiple locations throughout the WMNF.

Direct and Indirect EffectsThe Analysis Area for direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants is the Project Area, because this is where tools and equipment associated with the proposed project actions would be on the ground. These tools and equipment brought to the Project Area from off-site are the most likely entry vectors for NNIS. Newly constructed parking areas, trailheads and trails are also potential entry sites.

Determination of Risk

FSM 2080.44.6 outlines the process to determine the risk of NNIS introduc-tion or spread as part of the NEPA process for proposed actions. Given the implementation of the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines for controlling the introduction or spread of NNIS, and the known NNIS populations in and around the Project Area, the overall risk rating assigned for the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project is “moderate” (USDA-Forest Service 2005e, Project NNIS Risk Assessment 2009).

Alternative 1 Recreation use and management of trails would continue at historic levels. No trail maintenance, improvements, or obliteration would take place. No outreach to the mountain biking community would take place via conservation educa-tion and postings on kiosks at trailhead locations. User defined mountain bike trails would continue to proliferate and increase the risk of the spread of NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. The lack of Forest Service management and maintenance of these trails may allow NNIS to become introduced and well established prior to first discovery, thereby causing resource impacts. Known locations of invasive plants and any newly discovered 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 would continue to persist and potentially spread vegetatively and via seed.

Alternatives 2-3All project activities will implement the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to NNIS. This reduces but does not eliminate the possibility of intro-ducing 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,


41

2006, pp 30-31) require de novo monitoring, as well as follow up monitoring at active control locations. Control and monitoring activities reduce the likelihood of project activities spreading invasive plants and ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction relating to NNIS (USDA Forest Service. 2005a, LRMP, pp 2-11-12). Under the action alternatives, soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities, as well as recreation use have the potential to spread NNIS. This potential is greatest in the vicinity of existing infestations, trailheads, and parking lot locations. NNIS spread and introduction could occur in other areas due to long-distance seed dispersal via vehicles, wildlife and wind.Direct effects are most often associated with propagules or plant parts lodged in vehicle and equipment parts or in tire treads. These direct effects are typi-cally mitigated through the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS (USDA Forest Service. 2005a, LRMP, pp 2-11-12). The most likely locations of these effects include areas of road construction (including parking lots) and trail (snowmobile, bicycle and hiking) construc-tion. For construction activities these effects are the greatest during and for 1-2 years after the activity takes place, when native plant species are just starting to revegetate the sites and decrease dramatically in subsequent years. Given the limited amount of construction activity in the proposed project the probability of direct effects from any of the action alternatives is relatively low.Indirect effects are most often associated with propagules and plant parts being moved by wildlife, wind, or human activity once project activities have ceased. In this project the indirect effects are most likely to result from NNIS propa-gules being transported to the site and dispersed via the mechanical workings of mountain bikes and the treads of bike tires and rider footwear. The transport of propagules in the treads of vehicles to parking areas is also a possibility. Streams and rivers form a connected network throughout the landscape, and thus can also facilitate the spread of both native and non-native species at a large geographical scale. Disturbance in and around riparian areas, would greatly increase the risk of introducing and spreading non-natives to these vulnerable ecological communities. These actions may allow for the introduction of new species infestations into both presently infested or previously un-infested loca-tions. By designating a trail network for mountain bike use, bringing designated trails up to standard and blocking the use of non-network trails the risk of NNIS proliferation will be decreased. If NNIS do become established on NFS trails, they will likely be identified during annual trail maintenance activities and can be quickly eradicated.The effects of the introduction and spread of NNIS could include crowding out of native plant species. This competition can reduce species diversity and abundance of native plants. If infestations occur at undiscovered threatened, endangered or sensitive species locations competition from invasives could lead to a reduction in vigor or loss of individuals or populations. Additionally, impairment of ecosystem function and reduction of preferred food and cover sources for various wildlife species can occur. Effects to recreational opportuni-ties and enjoyment can occur if invasive plants become established along trail corridors. Trails and lesser used roadways can become overrun and impassable if infestations remain uncontrolled.


42

The restrictions on winter use proposed in Alternative 3 will have no tangi-ble effect on NNIS introduction, proliferation or impacts. The NNIS effects in Alternative 3 are identical to those in Alternative 2.

Alternative 4The potential for direct and indirect effects of NNIS in Alternative 4 is similar, but slightly increased from the other action alternatives due to the addition of two trail segments. The Bloody Arm and Cathedral Connector Trails enter the project area from the north and would likely increase mountain bike traffic enter-ing from this direction. These two trails would provide increased opportunity for NNIS introduction into the project area. Furthermore, the Bloody Arm Trail passes through the White Horse Cedar Swamp area which is currently heavily infested with NNIS. Increased traffic through this area could spread existing infestations throughout the project area.

Cumulative EffectsThe Analysis Area for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the lands within the project area, and the adjacent public and private land in those portions of Bartlett, Conway, Hale’s Location and Albany bounded by Route 112 to the south, the Moat Mountain Range to the west, route 16 to the east, and route 302 to the north. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixedwood intermixed with lakes, ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and significant amounts residential develop-ment. The temporal scope for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the past and future ten years (2000 to 2020). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (any area disturbed by new construction will be hardened or re-vegetated making it unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity to these areas, continued mountain bike use of these trails will continually pose a threat of NNIS introduction.) This time frame also allows consideration of the forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society (2001–2004) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap. 3-154-155).There are many known locations of NNIS within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area. There is a greater likelihood of introducing and/or spreading NNIS within this area as a result of activities on private lands than on National Forest lands. The forest-wide NNIS inventory (USDA Forest Service 2009) found that two-thirds of the invasive plant occurrences were found on private land outside the National Forest, and almost half of all occurrences were intentionally planted (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, FEIS, pp 3-154 and 3-155). In New Hampshire, the Department of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets has established a list of regulated and prohibited invasive plant species. These species are not allowed to be sold, propagated, or transported in the State of New Hampshire. This regulation has stopped the continued planting of most invasive plant species currently found on the WMNF, however many previous plantings remain in commercial and residential landscapes.


43

Climate change may have some affects on the distribution and abundance of NNIS in the longer term. A recent literature review conducted by WMNF Resource Specialists included document potential impacts to botanical resources (Mattrick 2009). This literature summary looked at a small, but wide ranging portion of the available literature on the effect of a changing climate on native plants, natural communities, rare plant species, and invasive plant species. In the study of plants and climate change, NNIS are little studied at present and what information can be gathered must be extrapolated from studies in other resource areas or geographic regions. Additional information can be gathered from various sources such as the Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, which maintains an on-line database of NNIS locations throughout the region (IPANE 2009). Although several invasive plant species appear to be spreading north-ward, there does not seem to be a 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.There are moderate levels of NNIS infestation within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area primarily on private lands. A large infestation of glossy buckthorn does occur on National Forest lands within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area. By incorporating the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as continuing the on-going control efforts via the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project, the cumulative effect of imple-menting the Proposed Action or one of the action alternatives incurs a moderate risk of introducing NNIS into the Analysis Area.Cumulative Effects to NNIS Plants (Alt. 1)–Under the No Action Alternative existing infestations outside the National Forest boundary would continue to persist and spread vegetatively and via seed. Seed and propagule dispersal to new locations would occur over time creating additional infestations at cur-rently uninfested locations. It is expected that these NNIS infestations would become source populations for additional infestations within the analysis area both on and off the WMNF. The effects to the National Forest lands from this continued growth and spread of invasives is considered to be moderate based on the continued use and development of non-maintained user defined moun-tain bike trails. 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 known NNIS control activities of any size or scope are known to be occurring on infestations on state and private lands within the analysis area.Nationally, the rate of spread has been estimated at 3% per year (National Invasive Species Council 2001) and at 8-12% per year (USDA FS 1999 Stemming the Invasive Tide), but given the climate and landscape condition of the Forest and surrounding landscape, and the comparably low level of current infestation it is anticipated that the rate of spread for the NNIS in the analysis area would be on the lower end of the national scale. At a rate of spread of 3 % per year, if no control was undertaken on state and private lands, these infestations would increase by roughly 50% in ten years. Even with ongoing control efforts on the WMNF, it is certain that the number of acres infested would likely grow both on and off the National Forest.


44

Since 2007, roughly 10 acres of NNIS control per year has taken place on the WMNF within the analysis area and an unknown (but likely smaller amount) on private lands. It is anticipated that control efforts on the National Forest will increase to roughly 20 acres per year over the next ten years based on new dis-coveries and ongoing control projects in the Analysis Area. There are no known control projects which have or will take place on non-federal lands within the analysis area. It is reasonable to conclude that NNIS would continue to spread throughout the analysis area. The uncontrolled spread of NNIS from sources off the WMNF would allow for an increase in NNIS infestation and a potential decrease in ecological function within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects to NNIS Species (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4)

The greatest potential effect of the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project in regard 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 intro-duction and spread of invasives. These activities include, but are not limited to timber management, wildlife opening maintenance, recreation developments, and road construction both on and off National Forest and residential devel-opment and traditional agriculture on private lands. Information on the NNIS introductions resulting from these past events is not available. However the current distribution of invasives both on and off the National Forest strongly supports this assumption.Any effects of the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project would be additive to the effects of any future activities within the cumulative effects analysis area. Present and on-going projects include the Northeast Swift Integrated Resource Management Project, Moat Thinning Project and series of prescribed burns to promote mixed pine and scrub oak forest. Foreseeable management actions and projects over the next ten years include ongoing wildlife opening mainte-nance, road maintenance, on-going prescribed fire in previously burned oak/pine stands, and on-going maintenance of trails and backcountry campsites, continued use of the area for recreational uses, and on-going NNIS treatment. The same types of activities that may have caused past invasions on private land will likely continue to spread NNIS.Most project activities (parking lot expansion, trail improvements, trail aban-donment) 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 through project activities. Continued and increased rec-reation use of the area in the form of mountain biking and other activities may increase the level and composition of NNIS within the analysis area through introduction of both new NNIS infestations and new NNIS species.The cumulative effects of the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project would be identical under both Alternatives 2 and 3, and nearly so under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 has a slightly greater contribution to cumulative effects due to the inclusion of additional mountain bike trails entering the project area from the north: Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector. Cumulative effects under the action alternatives likely would be measurable, but cannot be accurately quan-tified due to the percentage of private land holdings within the analysis area.


45

3.4 Soils and WatershedAffected EnvironmentThe Moat Mountain Project Area has soils common to the rest of the White Mountain National Forest: moderate to well-drained fine sandy loam or sandy loam on average. The analysis area is a mix of northern hardwood and softwood Ecological Land Types (ELTs).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 Final Environmental Impact Statement (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 communi-ties, or sequences of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in a variety of ways, including volume, weight/unit/area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation (FSH 2509.18). Heavy recreational use areas, such as trails, are places where these measures have declined and the soil has become unproductive. 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.The desired soil conditions are tiered to the Forest Plan Standards and Guides and the Forest Service Soil Quality Standards (SQS) (USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Supplement R9 RO 2509.18-2005-1). Implementation of SQS and rel-evant Best Management Practices (BMPs) to all phases of the project will ensure that long-term soil productivity is maintained in this area. With a recreation trail, the main emphasis is on protecting the soil productivity adjacent to the trail site. Soil erosion may occur along steeper sections of trail during wet periods. This soil erosion can affect soil productivity by loss of organic matter that harbors nutrients and helps maintain soil aeration, it can also lead to stream sedimenta-tion. Some of the soils in the analysis area are rated as having a high surface soil erosion hazard relative to other soils on the Forest (Forest Plan). This rating is for conditions without forest cover or any mitigation measures. However, the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) notes that “research findings and on-the-ground experience for all [soil] hazard classes confirm that accelerated soil erosion due to roads and trails can be reduced — and its effects on streams largely eliminated — by timely application of well-known best management practices.” (FEIS, p 3-29) The State of Maine recently published monitoring data supporting the conclusion that properly applied BMPs will mitigate effects from soil erosion (Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, 2005; Maine Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness, 2001–2003, 2005), and while the results of a similar study in New Hampshire have not yet been published, Maine and New Hampshire soils and BMPs are similar. It is therefore assumed that the effectiveness of these BMPs is also similar. Trails are a concern for soil erosion because they may expose mineral soil (Patric, 1976).


46

Direct and Indirect EffectsThe analysis area for direct and indirect effects on soil productivity is the 6800-acre project area. This area was selected because there will not be any effects outside the project area. The analysis area lies within the Lower Bartlett/North Conway Watershed. The temporal scope for the analysis of direct and indirect effects is the life of the project, because the soil disturbance will occur over that amount of time.

Alternative 1Under this alternative, impacts to soil productivity could extend beyond those that occur in nature. Existing user-created trails already have detrimental erosion and compaction occurring on them. It is expected that users would create new trails when the condition of the old trails deteriorate to the point that they are unpleasant to use, thus increasing the degree of detrimental erosion and com-paction in the analysis area. With continued use of the project area, there would be additional indirect impacts to soil quality from erosion and compaction.Because it does not address existing resource concerns, this alternative has more impact to soils than the Proposed Action.

Alternative 2Trails: Alternative 2 proposes approximately 12.1 miles of user created trails would be designated, and trails improved to Forest Service standards would precede with a breakdown of 11.8 miles of mountain biking trails and 0.3 miles of hiking trails. Formalization of the proposed trails would cover approximately 12.1 miles with a maximum tread width of 5 ft. Recurring use of these trails will result in surface compaction of the soil; as long as this trail exists, soil within the trail tread is detrimentally impacted by compaction. During construction, soil would be compacted, graded or otherwise stabilized by workers for up to 10 feet on either side of the trail. This additional twenty feet of disturbance would be returned to production after construction by following BMPs, and BMPs would also be used to minimize the soil compaction and soil erosion caused during construction. Some of the area disturbed by workers during construction could be rehabilitated by re-planting vegetation to discourage future traffic, and to regain soil productivity, if needed. Field review of this proposal showed there would be at least 12.1 miles of soil disturbance having detrimental results on soil productivity.Some vegetation would have to be removed around the proposed trails during construction to allow room for workers to move around the construction site. This would expose the previously protected soil to rainfall, and the top, organic rich layer of soil could more easily erode away from the site, decreasing soil pro-ductivity. Following Forest Plan direction and BMPs related to surface erosion control at trail sites, timing the construction activities, and controlling trail drain-age should effectively rehabilitate the temporarily disturbed area, preventing soil erosion and protecting the soil adjacent to the construction site.The Moat Mineral Site Trail Head Parking Lot would expand by 0.5 acres and consist of grading and rocking the parking lot and improving the drainage systems. This work would lessen the impacts of disturbance to adjacent soil


47

that could occur after the lot is expanded. The soil under the 0.5acres would be detrimentally compacted as long as the parking lot remains.This alternative has less impact to soils than the No Action alternative.

Alternative 3This alternative has less impact to soils than the No Action alternative but the same amount of impact as Alternative 2. The proposed winter closer of some of the proposed trails does not have an effect on soil productivity in this project.

Alternative 4This alternative has less impact to soils than the No Action alternative but more impact than Alternative 2 and 3 because of the additional trail mileage of 0.9 miles for a total of 13.0 miles.

Table 6. Ground Disturbance, by Alternative.

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4Unpaved parking area (acres) 0/0 0.50 0.50 0.50Hiking trails (miles/ acres)* 0/0 0.3/0.18 0.3/0.18 0.3/0.18Biking trails (miles/acres)* 0/0 11.8/7.2 11.8/7.2 12.7/7.75Total Disturbed Acres 0 7.38 7.38 8.43Total % of Project Area Disturbed 0% 0.11%

of 6800 ac.0.11%

of 6800 ac.0.12%

of 6800 ac.*hiking /biking trail width =5ft=0.61 acres of disturbance/mile

Soil Nutrient Capacity

There will be no effect anticipated to soil nutrient capacity with any of the Alternatives because the amount of saw timber trees is negligible as the trails tend to go between the trees. Also by following BMP’s the soil is not expected to move from its current location lessening the chance of the soil nutrients to move.

Cumulative EffectsThe analysis area for cumulative effects on soil productivity is the approximately 24,778-acre Lower Bartlett/North Conway Watershed area. This scale is not so large that it spatially dilutes the cumulative sum of effects on soil resources, nor is it so small that it fails to identify and consider use and potential use on both National Forest and private lands relative to the proposed project.The temporal scope for cumulative effects on soil productivity is ten years in the past and ten years beyond the Proposed Action. These periods were chosen to consider present effects on soil resources resulting from any past soil disturbing actions, to allow time for the proposed activities to occur and be completed, and to consider any other foreseeable soil disturbing activities. This timeframe allows consideration of multiple uses, and provides enough time for the expected recovery of soils from erosion and compaction resulting from trail building. Evidence of erosion and compaction beyond the expected timeframe would imply that the soil is not recovering as expected, and effects from this and future activities could be additive and cumulative.


48

Although possible, no additional trail building or additional timber harvest is planned on National Forest lands within the cumulative effects analysis area over the next ten years, and no other projects are anticipated within this area during this time frame. The Forest classified roads, recreation trails and per-manent wildlife openings in the cumulative effects analysis area will continue to be maintained and used for public and administrative access.The cumulative effects watershed (Lower Bartlett/North Conway Watershed) totals approximately 24778 acres, with privately-owned lands within it totaling approximately 17978 acres or 72.56% of the watershed. Alternatives 2 and 3 will result in soil disturbance on approximately 7.2 acres, or 0.11 % of the 6800-acre Analysis Area and in Alternative 4 soil disturbance will result in 8.43 acres or 0.12 % of the 6800-Acre analysis area. The Alternatives 2 and 3 will result in an increase of disturbed soils in the watershed to approximately 0.03% of the watershed and Alternative 4 will result in approximately 0.03% of disturbed soils in the watershed.Permanent cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction, severe enough to be detrimental would be present on 7.2 acres in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 8.43 acres in Alternative 4. However, the project is in compliance with the 2005 Forest Plan which allows for the formalization of travel corridors as part of the network of NFS trail.

Alternative 1This Alternative proposes no action. Current trends would continue to produce the most detrimental impacts to soil productivity because of ongoing soil erosion and compaction from unmanaged, user-created trails.

Alternative 2The effects of this alternative would be more detrimental to soil productivity in the beginning of this project because of the improving of the 12.1 miles of trail with this alternative. However, in the long term soil productivity cumula-tive effects would be less than under Alternative 1 because the soil disturbance would stay constant; under Alternative 1, this would be a variable based on unmanaged use.Alternative 1 would be more detrimental to soil productivity than Alternative 2, because with no action the impacts would continue unmanaged. The Proposed Action would confine and manage the impacts based on the most recent Best Management practices.

Alternative 3The effects of this alternative would be more detrimental to soil productivity in the beginning of this project because of the improving of the 12.1 miles of trail with this alternative. However, in the long term soil productivity cumula-tive effects would be less than under Alternative 1 because the soil disturbance would stay constant; under Alternative 1, this would be a variable based on unmanaged use.Alternative 1 would be more detrimental to soil productivity than Alternative 3 but have the same effect as Alternative 2, because with no action the impacts


49

would continue unmanaged. The Proposed Action would confine and manage the impacts based on the most recent Best Management practices

Alternative 4The effects of this alternative would be more detrimental to soil productivity in the beginning of this project because of the improving of the 13.0 miles of trail with this alternative. However, in the long term soil productivity cumula-tive effects would be less than under Alternative 1 because the soil disturbance would stay constant; under Alternative 1, this would be a variable based on unmanaged use.Alternative 1 would be more detrimental to soil productivity than Alternative 4 but Alternative 4 would be more detrimental then Alternatives 2 and 3, because with no action the impacts would continue unmanaged. The Proposed Action would confine and manage the impacts based on the most recent Best Management practices.

Figure 6. View of the Moat Mountain Range from Route 16. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.


50

3.5 Water ResourcesAffected EnvironmentThe Moat Mountain Trail System Project is located in the Lower Bartlett-North Conway Tributaries (of the Saco River) Watershed (HUC 010600020302) and a lower portion of the Swift River (HUC 010600020203) Watershed. Perennial streams in the project area include Lucy Brook, Moat Brook, an unnamed tribu-tary to Moat Brook, and Red Eagle Brook.The State of New Hampshire designates these reaches as Class B. Class B is the second highest quality, considered acceptable for fishing, swimming and other recreational purposes and, after adequate treatment, for use as water supplies. Under New Hampshire antidegradation provisions, all waters of the National Forest are designated as “Outstanding Resource Waters” (ORW). Water quality shall be maintained and protected in surface waters that constitute ORW (NHDES, 1999). Some limited point and nonpoint source discharges may be allowed, provided that they are of limited activity that results in no more than temporary and short-term changes in water quality. Activities may not result at any time in water quality lower than that necessary to protect the existing and designated uses in the ORW. Such temporary and short-term degradation shall only be allowed after all practical means of minimizing such degradation are implemented (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, LRMP, pg 2-30).No streams in the project area are listed on New Hampshire’s 303 (d) list of impaired waters. Surface waters in the Analysis Area are not currently used for public water supply purposes.Recreational trails have the potential to impact water quality through transporta-tion of sediment from disturbed or eroding areas to water bodies. Sedimentation would lead to an increase in turbidity of the water and a change in stream bed materials. Other changes in water quality, such as phosphorus loading, may be tied to sedimentation. Thus, potential for sedimentation is a general indicator of potential impacts to water quality. Evaluation of sedimentation potential involves both the expected level of soil disturbance and the likelihood that disturbed soil will reach water bodies.Trails may also affect streambank stability, particularly in the vicinity of stream crossings or water-based recreational areas. In addition to being a sediment source, unstable banks can be areas of reduced riparian function. The Forest Plan goals for Water Resources (p. 1-18) state “The Forest Service will manage streams at proper functioning condition (PFC) to dissipate stream energy associ-ated with high water flows, thereby decreasing erosion, reducing flood damage, and improving water quality.”Trails and other impervious surfaces can also affect water quantity by increas-ing and channelizing runoff in a watershed. Increased runoff can negatively affect water quality and infrastructure around streams. Based on studies in Maine, watersheds with greater than ten percent impervious area may experi-ence increased runoff and decreased water quality (Morse and Kahl 2003).


51

Direct and Indirect EffectsThe analysis area for direct and indirect effects on water resources includes the 6800-acre project area. This area was chosen because effects from the project would be expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed activi-ties. The time frame for analysis of direct and indirect effects is five years. Most changes related to proposed activities would be expected to take effect soon after construction or maintenance, and five years allows for more gradual adjust-ments in recreational use which could affect water quality and stream stability.

Alternative 1Under the no action alternative, water quality and stream stability would be expected to continue along current trends. The existing roads and hiking and snowmobile trails in the project area would continue to be maintained. However, the existing network of user-created, non-system trails (approximately 13.9 miles) would not be maintained or improved to meet Forest Service standards. Erosion and sedimentation in the vicinity of these trails would be expected to continue. This level of impact is not sufficient to lead to impairment of benefi-cial uses in project area streams, but would leave some stream segments not in Proper Functioning Condition.

Alternative 2Under this alternative, disturbance of soil during trail maintenance and reconstruction may lead to temporary sedimentation, which would likely be localized to areas near stream crossings. The potential for sedimentation under this alternative would be reduced by locating trails away from streams, timing construction during low flows, and implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Soil and Water Conservation Practices (see Soil Resources Report). Best Management Practices have been found to be effective in prevent-ing sedimentation on trails and stream crossings related to forestry (Stafford et al. 1996); the risk for these recreational trails is expected to be lower due to the absence of motorized vehicles. Closing Thompson Falls trail to mountain biking would also reduce an existing source of sediment to the adjacent stream. Within the analysis period, trail improvements would be expected to reduce sedimentation relative to Alternative 1.The number of designated perennial stream crossings would be increased by approximately five crossings. Application of BMPs would be expected to mini-mize sedimentation and bank instability related to construction and use of these crossings. During field surveys, two crossings were identified for relocations to more stable areas, and crossings would be hardened as needed to prevent bank erosion. Since these streams are currently crossed by non-system trails without designated crossings, sedimentation and bank instability would be less than under Alternative 1.Under this alternative, the trail addition and parking lot expansion would lead to approximately 7.38 acres of ground disturbance in this area (see Soil Resource Report and Table 6). Up to 10 feet on either side of the trail may be temporarily disturbed by workers during construction, but could be re-planted and returned to vegetative cover when work is complete. Because this increase is only 0.11% of the project area, the majority of which is undeveloped, impervious cover


52

would not approach the ten percent threshold. Therefore, no increase in runoff is expected.In summary, no significant, negative impacts are expected from Alternative 2.

Alternative 3This alternative would formalize 11.8 miles of NFS trail with mountain biking as the Designated Use and 0.3 miles of trail with hiking as the Designated Use. An existing unpaved parking area would be expanded by approximately 0.5 acres under this alternative. It is the same as Alternative 2 in all respects except that it would place restrictions on winter use on some trails.The effects of Alternative 3 would be expected to be equivalent to Alternative 2. Because winter use occurs when project area streams are likely frozen, the winter closure would not be expected to alter water quality or stream stability. Like Alternative 2, this alternative would not be expected to result in significant negative impacts to water resources.

Alternative 4This alternative would formalize 12.7 miles of NFS trail with mountain biking as the Designed Use and 0.3 miles of trail with hiking as the Designed Use. This includes all trails proposed for inclusion under Alternatives 2 and 3, in addi-tion to the Bloody Arm Trail and the Cathedral Connector. This would provide another access point to the trail system and provide loop opportunities. An existing unpaved parking area would be expanded by approximately 0.5 acres under this alternative. Trail maintenance and improvements to meet Forest Service standards would occur as under the other action alternatives.Trail improvements would be expected to reduce sedimentation relative to Alternative 1. However, the potential for sedimentation would be slightly greater than under Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the longer trail network and the likelihood that additional access would result in higher overall use of the system. This alternative also incorporates two additional stream crossings. The potential for sedimentation under this alternative would be minimized by locating trails away from streams, timing construction during low flows, and implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Soil and Water Conservation Practices (see Soil Resources Report).Under Alternative 4, the permanently disturbed area would increase by 8.43 acres or 0.12% of the project area. This is not a significant increase over Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, and is not expected to result in increased runoff.With appropriate implementation and maintenance, no significant direct or indi-rect effect on water quality or stream stability is expected under Alternative 4.

Cumulative EffectsThe Analysis Area for Cumulative Effects (CEA) includes the watersheds of first and second order streams draining this area. This includes Moat Brook, Lucy Brook and Red Eagle Brook, comprising a 9,928-acre analysis area. Approximately 77 percent of this area is National Forest land. This area was chosen because any effects from the project area would be expected to be diluted upon entering a large water body such as the Saco River. The time frame for analysis of cumulative effects is ten years in the past and ten years beyond the


53

proposed action. This allows consideration of effects on water resources from multiple uses, and allows sufficient time for recovery of disturbed soils put back into productivity.Ongoing activities on the National Forest within the analysis area include hiking, mountain biking, snowmobiling, permanent wildlife opening maintenance, road and trail maintenance, and recreational mineral collection. No additional trail building, timber harvest or other projects are planned in the CEA within the next ten years.The CEA includes several housing developments and associated roads on private land. It also includes a portion of Echo Lake State Park, which has additional hiking and recreational opportunities.

Alternative 1Under the no action alternative, water quality and stream stability would be expected to continue along current trends. Channel instability and sedimenta-tion from non-system trail use would be expected to continue.

Alternatives 2-3Under Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 0.09% of the CEA would be dis-turbed. These activities are not expected to cause a significant change in water quality. Activities such as road and trail maintenance may temporarily disturb soil, but have been found to reduce sedimentation over the long term (NCASI 2000). Therefore, no negative cumulative effect on water quality is expected.These action alternatives will increase the maintained impervious area in the CEA by approximately 7.2 acres. Adding this to the known impervious areas in roads and authorized trails will still result in less than 1% impervious cover from roads and trails in all watersheds. Housing developments near the outlets of each watershed account for some additional impervious cover, but based on recent aerial photography, are still far below the 10% threshold. Therefore, no increase in runoff is expected to result from cumulative activities in this area.Alternatives 2 and 3 will both have less negative effects on water resources than Alternative 1, and may result in a reduction in sedimentation.

Alternative 4Under Alternative 4, approximately 0.12% of the watershed would be disturbed. These activities are not expected to cause a significant change in water quality. Activities such as road and trail maintenance may temporarily disturb soil, but have been found to reduce sedimentation over the long term (NCASI 2000). Therefore, no negative cumulative effect on water quality is expected.This alternative will increase the maintained impervious area in the CEA by approximately 8.43 acres. Adding this to the known impervious areas in roads and authorized trails will still result in less than 1% impervious cover in all watersheds. Therefore, no increase in runoff is expected to result from cumula-tive activities in this area.Alternative 4 will have more negative effects on water resources than Alternatives 2 or 3, but less than Alternative 1. No negative cumulative effect is expected that would go beyond the limited, short-term effects allowable under the Forest Plan.


54

Figure 7. Thompson Falls Trail. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.

Chapter 4. Preparation and Consultation — Team Members and Contacts

The following individuals participated in the development and analysis of the proposed action and the alternatives, as well as project design and preparation of the environmen-tal assessment.

Interdisciplinary TeamDistrict Ranger ...................................................................... Terry Miller, Saco Ranger DistrictWildlife/Fisheries Biologist ................................................Kathy Starke, Saco Ranger DistrictAssistant Ranger/Recreation ......................................... Lauren Oswald, Saco Ranger DistrictTeam Leader/Dispersed Recreation ................................. Jana Johnson, Saco Ranger DistrictSoils Scientist .........................................................................Andy Colter, White Mountain NFHydrologist ......................................................................Sheela Johnson, White Mountain NFBotanist ..............................................................................Chris Mattrick, White Mountain NF

Forest Service Personnel Consulted for Professional AssistanceArcheologist ..........................................................................Terry Fifield, White Mountain NF NEPA Coordinator .....................................................Kori Marchowsky, White Mountain NFHydrology Technician ..........................................................Mark Prout, White Mountain NFDesign/Production/Internet .............................................. Richard Dow, White Mountain NFGIS Assistance .................... Norma Sorgman,White Mountain NF, Mike Maguire, Saco RD

Other Agencies and Organizations ConsultedNew England Mountain Bike Association (White Mountain Chapter) ................ Rob AdairState Historic Preservation Office ................................................................. Elizabeth MuzzeyState of NH, Bureau of Trails ......................... Chris Gamache, Kevin Donavan, Erik NelsonNew Hampshire Fish and Game .......................................................................... Kristine Rines


55

BibliographyNNISBuckley, D.S., T.R. Crow, E.S. Nauertz, and K.E. Shulz. 2002. Influence of skid trails and haul roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in Upper Michingan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 5969:1-12.Cushman, J.H., M. Cooper, R.K. Meentemeyer and S. Benson. 2007. Human activ-ity and the spread of Phytophthora ramorum. In: Proceedings of the Sudden Oak Death Third Science Symposium, March 5-9, Santa Rosa, California (Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-214) USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, pp. 179-180.Ferguson, L., C. Duncan, and K. Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry road mainte-nance and weed management. Tech. Rep. 0371-2811-MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 22pp.Forman, R. T. and R. D. Deblilnger. 2000. The Ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14(1):36-46.Gelbard, J. L. and J Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432.Lonsdale, W. and A. Lane. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in a Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69:277-283.Mattrick, C. 2009. Climate Change and Botanical Resources on the White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report in the project record. Conway, NH.Mattrick, C. 2009. WMNF botanist project review of the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project Area. Unpublished report in the project record. Conway, NH.Mattrick, C. 2008. WMNF botanist project review of the Moat Mountain Bike Trail Project Area. Unpublished report in the project record. Conway, NH.Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S. A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2009. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. URL: http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.National Invasive Species Council (online. 2001. Management plan: meeting the invasive species challenge. Available: http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/mpfinal/pdfParendes, L. and J. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andres Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14(1):64-75.Pickering, C. M., W. Hill, D. Newsome, and Y-F Leung. 2010. Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia


56

and the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management 91:551-562.Pickering, C. M. and A. Mount. 2010. Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global review of unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles and horses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2):239-256Planty-Tabacchi, E. Tabacchi, R. Naiman, C. Deferrari, and H. Décamps. 1996. Conservation Biology 10(2):598-607.Primack, R. 2000. A primer of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. xiii + 319 pp.Saunders, D., R. Hobbs, and C. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of eco-system fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32.Stohlgren, T. J, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, M. Lee, and J. Belnap. 2001. Patterns of plant invasions: a case example in native species hotspots and rare habitats. Biological Invasions 3:37-50.Stohlgren, T. J., K. Bull, Y. Otsuki, C. Villa, and M. Lee. 1998. Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecology 138:113-125.USDA Forest Service. 2009. Project NNIS Risk Assessment. Unpublished docu-ment in project record. Conway, NH.USDA Forest Service. 2009. Terra NNIS Database. WMNF, Campton, NHUSDA Forest Service. 2007. 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment. WMNF. Laconia, NH.USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.USDA Forest Service. 2005b. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Stemming the invasive tide: Forest Service strategy for noxious and nonnative invasive plant management.Watkins, R.Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K.D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411-419.Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington, D.C. 109 pp.

WaterMorse, C. and S. Kahl. 2003. Measuring the Impact of Development on Maine Surface Waters. http://www.umaine.edu/waterresearch/Publications%20To%20Serve/Stream%20 Digest.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2005.National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations. Unpublished draft Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.


57

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1999. State of NewHampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations. Chapter 1700. http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/documents/env-wq1700.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2010.Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry Related Nonpoint Source Pollution in Maine: A Literature Review. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, Misc Report, 399.

WildlifeCollins, S. and H. Brown. 2007. The Growing Challenge of Managing Outdoor Recreation. Journal of Forestry. Oct. pp 371-375DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press, Hanover, NH. 482pp.Erdle, S. Y. and C. S. Hobson. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Natural Heritage Technical Report #00-19. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, VA. 17pp. plus Appendices.Gains,W.; P.Singleton, and R.Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreational routes on wildlife habitat. USFS PNW GTR 586.Gurtzwiller, K.J. 1995. Recreational Distrubance and Wildlife Communities in Wildlife and Recreationists Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp 169-181.Mattrick, Christopher. USFS. 2009. Botanical survey report for Moat Mt. Bike Project. Unpublished. Campton, NH.Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists in Wildlife and Recreationists Coexistence through management and research. Island Press. Washington, D.C. pp 51-69.Rosenberg, K., B.Kott, R.Hames, R. Rohrbaugh, S.Swarthout, J. Lowe. 2004. Effects of recreational development on forest-breeding birds in U.S. National Forests. Cornell Lab or Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Pp20.Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142pp.Schori, A. 2001. Conservation Assessment for silverling, (Paronychia argyo-coma). New England Wildflower Society. Framingham, MA. 51pp/Society For the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF). 1997. Good Forestry in the granite state. Recommended voluntary forest management prac-tices for New Hampshire presented by the New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team. New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, Concord, NH. pp 27-37.


58

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Laconia, NH.USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Forest Plan Revision. Rationale for Development of Wildlife Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. Laconia, New Hampshire. 21pp.USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Appendices. Laconia, NH.USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Eastern regional forester’s sensitive species list and eastern region proposed threatened, or endangered taxa. USDA Forest Service Endangered Species Program, Region 9. Milwaukee, WI.Veilleux JP. 2005. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 28pp.Veilleux JP. 2006. Summary report on research activity focused on the roost-ing ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 17pp.Veilleux JP. 2007. Summary report on research activity focused on the roost-ing ecology and life history of the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii at the Surry Mountain Lake dam, Surry, Cheshire County New Hampshire. Report submitted to USACE. 24pp.http://www.necaveconservancy.org/files/wns_3-30-08.pdfhttp://www.fws.gov/northeast/white_nose.html.http://wildnh.com/Wildlife/Nongame/bats.html


59

GlossaryNon-System trails — Trails that are not part of the National Forest System of trails and are not part of the Forest’s official trail inventory.National Forest System (NFS) trail — A trail that is recognized by, and under the jurisdiction of, the Forest Service.Cross-country travel or use — Any travel between designated trails. It is some-times referred to as off-trail use or bushwhacking.User-created trails — Trails created incidentally by the passage of visitors, which are discernible and not likely to recover naturally within one year. User-created trails are not part of the Forest Trail System and are not maintained by the Forest, nor are they authorized for maintenance by cooperator groups or Forest visitors. Also referred to as incidental trails or non-system trails.Travelways — Discernible routes not likely to recover naturally within one year. These routes were at one time meant for one or more types of four wheel or tracked vehicles. Examples include timber skid routes, temporary roads, and abandoned roads. These do not include Forest System Trails, incidental trails, or classified Forest System roads. Designed use — The intended use that controls the desired geometric design of the trail, and determines the subsequent maintenance parameters for the trail. Mountain Biking — Riding a bicycle designed for off-road use, typically having a smaller and sturdier frame and smaller and wider tires than a standard bicycle.Formalizing — The process through which a user-created trail is analyzed and made a National Forest System trail.


60

Appendix A — Response to CommentsThe Moat Mountain Trail System Project was open for a 30-day public comment period, in accordance with 36 CFR 215.5, from (date) to (date). A total of 55 comments were received. The persons or organizations who commented are listed below, and their specific issues and concerns are identified, along with the Forest Service response, in the pages following.

Commenter Number

Last Name First Name City State

1 Adair Rob N.Conway NH2 Archambault Joanne Jackson NH3 Cavalieri Nancy Chocorua NH4 Curtin Karen Jackson NH5 DeVore David Gray ME6 Durham Brett 7 State of NH,

Bureau of TrailsChris Gamache Concord NH

8 Green Harold Hatfield MA9 Holly Krisztina Venice CA10 Lee Scott Kearsarge NH11 MacMillan Rachel and James N. Conway NH12 Mady Nate 13 Meier Chris N. Conway NH14 Mitchell Muriel Intervale NH15 Adair Rob N. Conway NH16 Schram Matt 17 Woodson Bill Rockport MA18 Palumbo John and Janice 19 Leich Martha N. Conway NH20 Maguire Finn Yarmouth Port MA21 Neville Andrew Cranston RI22 Lesoine Greg Cambridge VT23 Plum Matt Ipswich MA24 Cusick Cary 25 Purcell Mike 26 Allen Jeff Center Conway NH27 Moore Doug Fryeburg ME28 Jansen Doug Pelham NH29 Barley John N.Conway NH30 Burton Paula Sandy Hook CT31 Churchill Paula Intervale NH32 Matz Shiela Hales Location NH


61

Commenter Number

Last Name First Name City State

33 Hall Robert B Hales Location NH34 Qadri Obaid Shrewsbury MA35 Spadaccini Skip Gorham NH36 Sarson Gary Bedford MA37 Chasse Tom 38 Krug Stefanie Greenfield MA39 Siefer Eric 40 Bartlett Sam Leyden MA41 Wehrli Steve Conway NH42 Streeter Dan Newbury MA43 Buck Mark Hanover NH44 Schappach Eric 45 Altemus Jake Slatyfork WV46 Lee Jean 47 duplicate

comment48 duplicate

comment49 Public Jean 50 Masters Andrea 51 Aughton Bill Conway NH52 duplicate

comment53 Winters Mark L. Hale’s Location NH54 Hospers Al N. Conway NH55 Derby Eric N. Conway NH56 Lucy Chet N. Conway NH57 Winters Mark Hales Location NH58 Bell Greg

Comment & Forest Service ResponseRecreationComment 1.01“Keeping these trails open for mountain biking encourages residents, visitors, and families to, likewise be advocates for the White Mountain National Forest without adverse environmental impacts and without cost to the USFS. Mountain biking is a healthy, low-impact sport that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. The Moat Mountain area trails are a great location for this activity, particularly because most hiking trails in the White Mountain National Forest are not well suited for bicycle traffic due to excessive grade.”


62

Response 1.01Formalization of the approved trails validates a substantial system of trails, travelways, and old abandoned roads for mountain bike use that developed under the 1986 Forest Plan which permitted cross-country bike use, and elimi-nates uncertainty over the status of a trail system that has strong support in the local community, in the biking community, and has evolved over time into an excellent partnership between the Forest Service, neighbors and the mountain biking community.The Forest Service agrees that the approved trails are located on sustainable well-drained soils that should be able to be easily maintained for many years with minimal impacts to natural resources in the area. As described in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment and in the Finding of No Significant Impacts segment of this Decision Notice, the trail system will result in no significant adverse impacts to soils, water quality, wildlife, sensitive plants, and other rec-reation activities.Comment 1.04:“I urge you to keep Thompson Falls trail open to cyclists. This short trail is not accessible to hikers by any existing trailhead, so bicycling is the only reasonable means of access. The short sections of the trail that are prone to erosion could easily be rerouted and still allow cyclists to enjoy this beautiful natural feature.”Response 1.04:As discussed in Chapter 2, page 18 of the EA, the grade and soils on which Thompson Falls Trail sits are not well-suited to mountain biking, and there is limited suitable terrain on which to relocate. Riders will be able to visit by parking their bike and taking the short hike to the falls. Hikers currently use this trail to access the falls despite the lack of a traditional trailhead.Comment 2.01:“The addition of the Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector is vital to our trail network, as other trails in the north-west corner of this area (the snowmo-bile trails) are not suitable for mountain biking.”Response 2.01:Hale’s Location Snowmobile Trail accessed from Cathedral Ledge Road can be wet during much of the non-snow season and portions of it are currently not suitable for mountain biking; however, this trail received tread and drainage work in 2008 and is slated for work in 2011 that aims to use fabric and gravel to further stabilize the tread, after which the trail would serve as an ideal con-nector to the mountain bike trail system. The Hale’s Location Snowmobile Trail, once improved, will also offer an opportunity to more fully integrate trails on the National Forest with roads and trails on Echo Lake/Cathedral Ledge State Park. Please also see response 1.02.Comment 13.03“Generally, communities of land users focused on a sport or similar activity are most likely to provide a long-term, reliable and sustaining partner for the management, upkeep and stewardship of public lands.”


63

Response13.03The Forest Service will continue to foster what has become a strong and fruitful partnership with the mountain bike community, more specifically NEMBA, to implement this decision and continue stewardship of public land. We will also continue to examine the potential for new partnerships and volunteer groups interested in public land stewardship.Comment 13.04“Having trails which appropriately accommodate mountain bikers would facili-tate the introduction of a new population of users to the WMNF, and provide some diversity to WMNF recreational offerings through a use which is gener-ally compatible with other existing uses. Moreover, trails which are designed/appropriate for mountain bike use also are much better suited to trail running than the traditional hiking trails of the WMNF, and trail running is another sport which is seeing explosive growth in recent years.”Response 13.04The area hosts a variety of recreational uses including trail running; and while the trail system now has mountain biking as the designed use, with the excep-tion of the Thompson Falls Trail, these trails are multiple-use trails.Comment 17.01“I would recommend that some signs be installed on some of the steeper areas where speed can be gained and maybe some map notes on future map revisions.”Response 17.01The trails will be signed to standard as stated in the Chapter 2 of the EA, page 10, in terms of identifying trails and trail junctions. The Forest Service may produce a map of the area in the future and will consider including symbols or notes to identify difficulty ratings and challenging features. Maps created in the private sector currently exist of the area and will likely be revised pending this decision to include the formalized NFS network – it is possible that this suggestion will be addressed in revised private sector maps.Comment 32.01“I have used the trails both winter and summer for skiing, hiking and biking. The winter offers the biggest challenge for recreation in that there may be snow coverage on the trails yet open water crossings increase the chances of getting lost and also the chances of damaging some of the woodland areas. Better trail signage and bridges through the fragile areas are sorely needed.”Response 32.01Please see Response 17.01. Given that mountain biking is the designed use of these trails, with the exception of Thompson Falls Trail, and no bridging is needed to facilitate or manage this use, bridges will not be installed as part of this project. However, the trails will be blazed –including stream crossings – and banks will be stabilized as needed. It should also be noted here that as part of the selected alternative trails west of FR 379 will be posted closed to winter use due to wildlife considerations as explained in chapters 2 and 3 of the EA, pages 11, 32, 33.


64

Comment 33.02“Will these trails be open to snowmobile traffic in the winter, or just foot travel?”Response 33.02Motorized use is not proposed as part of this project and is prohibited on any of the new trails formalized as part of this project. Within the project area there are existing snowmobile trails – snowmobile use will continue on these trails.Comment 42.01“Concerning the designation of the Thompson Falls Trail as hiking only, I think that the section above the falls is not suitable for bikes, but it would be nice to include bike use below the falls where the existing trail has reasonable grades and no other significant issues. It’s a wonderful place to visit and a shame if you can’t go there for a rest stop and enjoy the falls.”Response 42.01The distance between the trail junction with Lower Stony Ridge Trail and the first steep pitch on the Thompson Falls Trail is less 1/5 of a mile (930’ in length). Given this short distance and that the trail becomes excessively steep before reaching the falls it is not reasonable to promote biking beyond the junction with Lower Stony Ridge Trail. However, all trail users are welcome to walk to the falls. Please see response 1.04.Comment 49.02“Mountain bikes result in catastrophic falls and bone breaks. Mountain bikes almost kill hikers. We don’t want these trails at all.”Response 49.02While there are hazards inherent to mountain biking, the mountain bike trail network associated with this project is in keeping with other mountain bike trail networks locally and regionally. Trail design and layout of the network is done with trail user safety in mind and hazardous obstacles and excessively steep pitches are avoided for purposes of safety and resource concerns. Safely used and with proper trail etiquette, mixed use of these trails by hikers and bikers should pose no safety threat.Comment 50.01“Why the closure of the Switchback Trail in all alternatives?”Response 50.01The Switchback Trail is situated upon loose, gravel-like soil that is highly prone to erosion, especially given its steep grade. In addition to exceeding an ideal grade, the lower portion of the trail has large drainage swales that were installed after the last timber sale in the area to slow erosion. The combination of loose soils, steep grades, and drainage features did not make this a strong candidate for inclusion. Also, there was no significant public interest expressed in retain-ing this trail.Comment 53.02“We would like assurances that these trails would not be opened up to snow-mobilers now or at any future time.”


65

Response 53.02Please see Response 33.02. If there were interest in allowing snowmobile use on these trails in the future, it would have to undergo its own environmental analysis, also subject to public comment, and be addressed in another Decision at that time. There is no such interest, and little likelihood of it in the foresee-able future.Comment 56.01Commenter feels that the “FS has better things to do than provide paths for [mountain bikers] and that there are enough trails already”; that the WMNF should spend time and resources “taking care of the trees”.Response 56.01As described in the EA (Chapter 1, p7), the WMNF has a high volume of trails that are heavily weighted toward hiking and many are unsuited for other rec-reation uses. The over-arching Recreation goal within the Forest Plan states that “The White Mountain National Forest will provide a range of quality rec-reation activities and opportunities.” The establishment of a system of trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use supports this statement by further-ing opportunities for the full range of recreation uses. This project is a modest proposal that is responsive to a segment of recreation users (mountain bikers) who have demonstrated a willingness to share responsibility and partner with the Forest Service in the maintenance of trails.

Parking and AccessComment 7.02/7.03:The State of NH Bureau of Trails is supportive of the mountain bike trail system in the Moat Mountain area, however, there are two potential concerns associ-ated with the trail system. The first is that the parking facilities are currently at maximum capacity and not suitable for the potential increased use, especially in the summer months. The second is that the Forest Service mountain bike trail network connects to Echo Lake State Park; the trails within the park would not support heavy mountain bike use as they currently exist and would require a plan be in place to upgrade existing trails if increased use should occur.Response 7.02/7.03:The Forest Service appreciates the State’s support of the project and would like to continue to work together to identify solutions if concerns should develop over time as a result of the mountain bike trail network. The Cathedral Connector is not an approved trail as part of this decision and therefore increased parking along the Cathedral Ledge Road is not anticipated. While the mountain bike trail network connects to the trails within the State Park, increased use of these trails (such as the White Horse Ledge and Cathedral Ledge Trails) is not antici-pated due to the current layout and condition of the connecting trails that are not well-suited to mountain biking. The State Park trails in the lower elevations and in the more immediate vicinity of Echo Lake are more suitable to mountain biking and currently see mountain bike use. However, because they do not directly connect to the Forest Service mountain bike network, increased use of these trails is not anticipated as a result of this decision.


66

Comment 11.01“We wish to re-emphasize our firm opposition to any and all access points (entry or exit) within the Cedar Creek Homeowner’s association properties as well as the Cedar Creek Condominium properties. If you could assure us that there would be no such entry/exit point(s), we would be happy to support alternative #3 or #4.”Response 11.01As described in the Decision, the portion of the Railroad Grade Trail that con-nects FR 379A to Evergreen Drive, the Woods Road that connects FR 379 to Dandiview Road, and the spur of the Carroll Reed Trail from the junction of the Upper Stony Ridge Trail to Overlook Drive are not included in the approved mountain bike trail network. By removing these spurs from the system, this aims to alleviate unwanted impacts to private landowners from trails on National Forest land. Additionally, the Forest Service will continue to partner with NEMBA on educational efforts to keep trail users informed of private land owner concerns and emphasize the parking area at the end of High Street as the only authorized access to the trail network. If in the future individuals or clubs can provide written permission from all the directly affected landowners on any of these routes, then a NEPA decision to add the portions of these trails on the National Forest to the system may be considered by the District Ranger at that time.Comment 13.02“By implementation of Alternative 4, an access point is created on the north side of the project (with parking), which alleviates the concern for access, and also spreads users by their differing access points. Moreover, by adding corridors available and convenient to mountain bike use, the likelihood that bikers will utilize trails less suited to such use will decrease, including hiking trails around the Diana’s Bath area, and other trails better suited to snowmobile use (Hale’s Location Snowmobile Trail) and hiking (lower Red Ridge Trail). This should further alleviate any potential conflicts of use.”Response 13.02Although the addition of the Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector as described in Alternative 4 would (as stated in your comment) provide some benefits, there are additional considerations and resource concerns as explained in Response 1.02. In addition, as noted in comment 7.02/7.03 above, at this time the State has concerns with increasing use and parking on the State Property in the Cathedral Ledge and Echo Lake areas. The decision to not include the Cathedral Connector at this time does not rule out the possibility that a more suitable location that totally avoids the Diana’s Bath area may not be able to be identified and approved in the future with a supplemental information report (under FSH 1909.15 – Chapter 18) and an EA addendum and decision.Comment 19.01“There needs to be a usable, publicly owned, non conflicting with other users access to the northern end of this trail system. I also think that access to Diana’s Baths from the ledge road will add to both destinations enjoyment as they will


67

be connected for bikers and hikers. A combo hike of Diana’s Baths and around [Echo] lake would be a very doable family hike/walk.”Response 19.01There are currently unresolved issues associated with the Cathedral Connector and Bloody Arm Trail that have led to their omission from the list of approved trails to be formalized as part of this project. However, there may be a point in the future when these trails can be considered for addition to the system if certain conditions are met, as described in the Decision. The Hale’s Location snowmobile trail is slated to be repaired Fall of 2011 after which point it will also serve as a connection from the northern end of the project to the mountain bike trail network.See also response to comments 7.02 & 7.03 above.Comment 53.01:“We have experienced many instances of hikers and mountain bikers parking their vehicles on association roads, private drives and on private property. When challenged, some of these people have responded very disagreeably and uncooperatively and in some cases have continued to park illegally after being advised by homeowners. We also have concerns about cyclists speeding down blind drives on association roads endangering residents and themselves. We would be very interested in knowing what kind of efforts the Forest Service would be willing to take to advise both cyclists and hikers about our private roads and parking restrictions.”Response 53.01Please see Response 11.01 regarding the Carroll Reed Trail spur leading to Overlook Drive and educational efforts in partnership with NEMBA. As dis-cussed previously, the Forest Service has made efforts to not invite use onto private or association property originating from the National Forest. Spur trails exiting NF onto private property are not approved for use unless landowner consent is clearly obtained. Private landowners are encouraged to work with local government and if necessary local law enforcement to resolve any issues of trespass, parking or illegal use of private or association property.

Natural ResourcesComment 1.02:“The Moat Mountain trail network and specifically Bloody Arm Trail and Cathedral Connector are situated on well drained soils with virtually no wet-lands impacts and few potentially erosive conditions. Both of the latter trails are located on former logging skid roads or paths and exhibit no erosion, despite extensive use over more than a decade. [The Bloody Arm Trail has] two minor stream crossings. Both of these small stream crossings have hard gravel bottoms and neither would require any bridge structures. Based on review of the Forest Service’s Scoping Report, review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Carroll County, NH and existing trail grades and drainage, there are no apparent environmental reasons to close these existing trails.”


68

Response 1.02:While some natural resource concerns do exist with the inclusion of the Bloody Arm Trail (the presence of NNIS and the proximity of the White Horse Cedar Swamp) and the Cathedral Connector, there are other social and practical con-siderations that prevent them from being included at this time:1) While the Bloody Arm Trail has minimal resource concerns of its own, the

unresolved access issues associated with it – regarding both the Cathedral Connector and the Moat Mountain Trail–make it unviable.a. The unresolved issues associated with the Cathedral Connector (see

below) have a bearing on the viability of the Bloody Arm Trail. The inclusion of the Bloody Arm Trail is largely dependent on the Cathedral Connector to provide a loop opportunity and an alternate trail to keep mountain bike traffic off of the segment of the Moat Mountain trail from West Side Road to Diana’s Bath–which is currently prohibited and will remain so to avoid further congestion and user conflicts between mountain bikers, hikers and visitors at Diana’s Baths.

b. The Moat Mountain Trail is open to mountain biking beyond Diana’s Bath, however the trail is not one the Forest Service would choose to promote as a mountain bike route due to the current layout and condition of the trail. The grade is suitable and the tread surface is largely stable, but there is a significant stream crossing of an often deep and flowing tributary of Lucy Brook that is only negotiable, other than fording the crossing, by a downed tree spanning the banks. Other than when the water is at its lowest, this is a formidable crossing–on foot, and even more so with a bike–with no immediate relocation options. It is not a suitable location for a bridge as the entire low-lying area floods during times of high water.

2) There are currently unresolved issues to which the Cathedral Connector contributes:a. The formalization of this trail would likely encourage parking associated

with mountain bike use within the State Park along Cathedral Ledge Road. While NH State Parks is supportive of the mountain bike trail system, they have expressed concern of increased parking along the road that already sees a high volume of parking by rock climbers accessing the adjacent cliffs. Please see Response 7.02/7.03.

b. The trail would need to be relocated to mitigate the steep grade and to bring the crossing of Lucy Brook further upstream to completely avoid the Diana’s Bath recreation area and the potential for user-conflicts and congestion.

Comment 49.01“I oppose this project. Mountain bikes tear the mountain apart. ATVs even more so.”


69

Response 49.01The trails proposed as part of this project have been thoroughly evaluated and analyzed by a wide range of resources specialists including a wildlife biolo-gist, hydrologist, soil scientist, botanist, and recreation and trails specialist in an effort to identify issues and potential impacts. The approved trails that are included in the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact do not pose significant resource impacts. The soils found within the project area are sandy, well-drained, and quite stable, as described in section 3.4 of the EA, beginning on page 44. The current layout of the trail system and the additional trail maintenance required as part of this project will further ensure sustainable trails that can withstand the anticipated use. No ATV use is proposed as part of this project.

Additional supportive comments:Comment 2.02:[It] is a great idea to expand the parking lot at the Mineral Site on High Street. This is a convenient access point for the trail network.Comment 6.01:Opening up these trails will give people a place to go to ride that area good legitimate trail system for many types of riders.Comment 7.01:With the popularity of bicycling in the Conway area there is a great need for increased mountain bicycle trails and expanded opportunities within the Forest would be beneficial to many.Comment 9.01Mountain biking provides local economic development, recreational opportuni-ties, and an appreciation for the outdoors.Comment 10.01:“Mountain biking and the trails system allows non mechanized use of our public forest lands with minimal impact. It gives the kids a chance to grow and love our natural resources all while gaining health, strength and respect for nature.”Comment 20.01There is a particular flow and challenge to the Moat Mountain trails that rep-resents what mountain biking is all about.Comment 33.03I am especially glad to see that all alternatives allow for foot travel on the beau-tiful Thompson Falls Trail.

moat mountain trail system projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...moat mountain...

Documents