Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project

Transcription

1 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Visual Resource (Scenery) Report Prepared by: Nicole R. Hill Landscape Architect TEAMS Enterprise Unit for: Seeley Lake Ranger District Lolo National Forest March 16, 2011

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Table of Contents Abstract... 1 Introduction... 2 Regulatory Framework... 2 Methodology for Analysis... 4 Project Description... 5 Affected Environment... 6 Landscape Character... 6 Existing Condition... 6 Project Design Features Unit Layout and Design Slash Treatment and Landings Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Cumulative Effects Conclusion References List of Tables Table 1. Acres of vegetation treatments in each visual quality objective for alternative List of Maps and Photos Photo 1. View of Horseshoe West project area from Highway 83 near Salmon Lake... 7 Photo 2. View of Horseshoe West project area (center of the photo) from Highway 83 south of Seeley Lake... 7 Photo 3. View of Horseshoe West project area from Double Arrow Cabin... 8 Photo 4. View of the project area from Woodworth Road near Big Sky Lake subdivision... 9 Map 1. Horseshoe West project visual quality objectives and sensitive viewpoints Map 2. Horseshoe West project proposed action treatment units, road treatments, and visual quality objectives map i

4

5 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Abstract This analysis describes the existing condition of the scenic resources within the project area and discloses the potential effects of the alternatives on scenic resources for consideration in determining whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Evaluations made in this analysis are based on the amount of changes potentially seen on the landscape from a given viewshed and identified sensitive viewpoints, and the level of acceptable change for the project area. Travel routes and use areas identified as sensitive viewpoints for this project are Highway 83, Double Arrow Cabin, Woodworth Road (County Road 67), Double Arrow subdivision, and Big Sky Lake subdivision. The majority of effects to scenic resources are short term, with long-term benefits to scenic quality. The proposed action would create short-term effects to scenic resources while project activities are taking place, and depending on the treatments proposed in an area, these effects would last for up to one growing season after all project activities are complete. Alternative 2 would improve the stability of scenic resources by reducing fuel loads and would lead the landscape towards the desired landscape character. In the long term, the project area would be naturally appearing with visually preferred settings. No significant issues were identified for the visual resource in the Horseshoe West project. With all of the visual project design features implemented, the activities in the proposed action would meet the identified retention, modification, and maximum modification VQOs. It is anticipated that the proposed activities would meet the assigned VQOs either at project completion or about one growing season after all project activities are complete. Alternative 2 would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for visuals. No negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenic resources are expected in the long term from harvest activities. There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments related to scenic resources from the proposed action. 1

6 Visual Resource (Scenery) Introduction Scenery, just as any other resource, must be cared for and managed for future generations. Visual resources vary by location and existing natural features including vegetation, water features, landform, geology, and human-made elements. All activities experienced by Forest visitors occur in a scenic environment which is defined by the arrangement of the natural character of the landscape along with components of the built environment. The terms visual resources, scenic resources, and scenery are used interchangeably in this analysis. This analysis describes the existing condition of the scenic resources within the project area and discloses the potential effects of the alternatives on scenic resources for consideration in determining whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Regulatory Framework The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means to assure for all Americans, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings. NEPA also requires A systematic and interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts into planning and decision-making which may have an impact on man s environment. To accomplish this, numerous Federal laws require all Federal land management agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in land management planning, resource planning, project design, implementation, and monitoring. Several USDA handbooks have been developed to establish a framework for management of visual resources including, but not limited to: National Forest Landscape Management volume 2, chapter 1, The Visual Management System; Agriculture Handbook 462 (USDA Forest Service 1974) and Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management; Agriculture Handbook 701 (USDA Forest Service 1995). The Lolo National Forest Plan has recognized the importance of visual quality and scenery by providing management direction for visuals. The Forest Plan direction listed below pertains to the project area (USDA Forest Service 1986). Management area 16 is assigned to a small portion of the project area, but no vegetation treatments are proposed there. Forest Plan Direction A. Goals Visual Resources 4. Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems. B. Objectives 1. Resource/Activity Summaries At the present time, approximately 80 percent of the Forest has a relatively natural appearance. Resource management activities are significantly constrained by visual quality objectives in areas adjacent to or readily visible from major highways, roads, trails, campgrounds, and other recreational developments. Other parts of the Forest where visual quality objectives constrain 2

7 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project resource management activities are identified; the Forest Plan continues management that ensures those natural-appearing landscapes. Management Area Direction Management Area 13 (lakes, second order streams and adjoining lands) B. Goals 1. Manage riparian areas to maintain and enhance their value for wildlife, recreation, fishery and aquatic habitat, and water quality. C. Standards 27. Management activities will be designed to meet the inventoried visual quality objective as seen from viewpoints contained on the sensitivity level maps. Both sensitivity level maps and inventory maps are on file. Exceptions may be made when an interdisciplinary team identifies the need to protect other resource values and the resulting VQO is no more than one level below the inventoried visual quality objective. Management Area 16 (suitable for timber management) C. Standards 16. Management practices will follow guidelines for the modification or maximum modification visual quality objective. Modification will normally be assigned to foreground and middleground visible from sensitivity level 2 viewpoints. Background and areas not seen from these viewpoints will be assigned maximum modification. Maps of these viewpoints, guidelines, and distance zones are on file and must be consulted to determine the visual quality objective. Management Area 18 (winter range elevations below 5,000 feet on south-facing slopes) C. Standards 17. Management practices will follow guidelines for the modification visual quality objective. The impacts of management activities will be visually assessed from the nearest viewpoints contained in the sensitivity level maps on file. Management Area 24 (lands with high visual sensitivity) A. Description Management Area 24 consists of lands with high visual sensitivity and which are available for varying degrees of timber management. These lands have a range of physical environments as determined by soil, slope, aspect, elevation, physiographic site, and climatic factors. Habitat groups 1 through 5 with sensitive to nonsensitive soils are represented in these lands which are visible from or adjacent to major roads, trails, communities, and other high use areas. B. Goals 1. Achieve the visual quality objective of retention. C. Standards Visual Quality Practices: 23. Management practices for all resources will follow guidelines for the retention visual quality objective from the viewpoints identified as visually sensitive. Maps of these viewpoints are on file in the supervisor s office and on the ranger districts and will be consulted to visually asses the impacts of management activities. Temporary departure from this visual quality objective may be acceptable under the following conditions: (a) long-term visual values require such an action, or 3

8 Visual Resource (Scenery) (b) essential road access into other management areas is impossible without this temporary departure. Methodology for Analysis In 1986, when the Lolo National Forest Plan was adopted, the visual resource was inventoried and analyzed using the visual management system as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 462 (USDA Forest Service 1974). This system, which was released in 1974, established standards of measurement (i.e., visual quality objectives) for assessing proposed and existing impact to the scenic quality. In 1995, after 20 years of experience with the visual management system and after additional research in the public and private sectors, the Forest Service revised the visual management system and replaced it with the scenery management system. This revised system is described in Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA Forest Service 1995). The scenery management system was used in combination with the visual management system in this analysis because the scenery management system will not fully replace the visual management system on the Lolo National Forest until the Lolo Forest Plan is revised. ArcMap and geographic information system (GIS) data layers were used to analyze the proposed activities in regards to recreation use, sensitive travel corridor locations, potential viewsheds from sensitive travel corridors and viewpoints, and visual quality objectives assigned to the area. The potential impacts to scenic resources from this project were determined based on site visits to the project area and sensitive viewpoints, review of photos of the project area, use and interpretation of GIS data, and review of research and analysis of similar projects. Evaluations made in this analysis are based on the amount of change potentially seen on the landscape from a given viewshed and identified viewpoints and the level of acceptable change for the project area. The Lolo National Forest Plan direction for visual resources and maps on file at the supervisor s office were reviewed to determine the level of acceptable change for this project area. The terms foreground, middleground, and background used in this analysis are distance zones, or divisions of a particular landscape being viewed. The visual management system identifies distance zones as follows: foreground is 0.25 to 0.5 mile from an observer, middleground is from foreground to 3 to 5 miles from the observer, and background is from middleground to infinity (USDA Forest Service 1974). Immediate foreground, within 300 feet of the viewer, is another landscape division identified in the scenery management system (USDA Forest Service 1995). This analysis uses visual quality objectives (VQOs) to determine if the alternatives meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines by comparing the degree of alterations to the existing landscape. The scenery management system, as outlined in Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, is today s best science to achieve high-quality scenery as an outcome of National Forest ecosystem management practices. The Lolo National Forest has completed scenery management system inventories to prepare for Forest Plan revision. During the Forest Plan revision process, scenic integrity objectives will be developed. Scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) describe the level of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape and its valued scenic attributes. Scenic integrity objective definitions are also provided to understand the subtle differences between visual quality objectives and scenic integrity objectives. Visual quality objectives are established in the Lolo National Forest Plan. The visual quality objectives found in the project area include: 4

9 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Retention VQO Human activities are not evident to the casual Forest visitor (USDA Forest Service 1986). Under retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture, which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service 1974). High SIO The valued landscape character appears intact or unaltered. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident (USDA Forest Service 1995). Modification VQO Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in middleground or background (USDA Forest Service1986). Low SIO The valued landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within (USDA Forest Service 1995). Maximum Modification VQO Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background (USDA Forest Service 1986). Very Low SIO The valued landscape character appears heavily altered. Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings within or outside of the landscape being viewed. However deviations must be shaped and blended with natural terrains so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition (USDA Forest Service 1995). The effects analysis will consider how each alternative meets these visual quality objectives from the identified sensitive travel routes and viewpoints. Project Description The Lolo National Forest is proposing commercial and non-commercial vegetation management on 3,149 acres to reduce hazardous fuels, restore vegetative conditions, and improve wildlife habitat on lands acquired from Plum Creek Timber Company in The Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project (Horseshoe West project) proposes to conduct the following activities: Vegetation treatments and hazardous fuels reduction including: improvement cutting and underburning, 914 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, underburning, and hand piling, 151 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, excavator piling, and underburning, 8 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, and excavator piling, 21 acres; masticating, 142 acres; masticating and hand piling, 16 acres; slashing and underburning, 1,389 acres; slashing, hand piling, and underburning, 127 acres; slashing, excavator piling, and underburning, 29 acres; 5

10 Visual Resource (Scenery) ecosystem maintenance burning, 352 acres. About 4.7 miles of handline would be needed to implement the prescribed burning proposals. Utilize about 43.5 miles of existing, undetermined roads to implement the proposed vegetation treatments. Improve about 27 miles of existing, undetermined roads to accommodate haul vehicles including log trucks and chip van trailers for the removed timber. Add 33.2 miles of undetermined roads to the Lolo National Forest transportation system as maintenance levels 2 and 3. Add 10.1 miles of roads to the Lolo National Forest transportation systems and store as maintenance level 1. Decommission about 9.5 miles of undetermined road not needed for future management. Leave a pathway free of debris to allow for continued non-motorized recreational use on approximately 5.2 miles of roads being closed with scarification measures. Conduct ground-based weed spraying along roads prior to and following maintenance, storage, and decommissioning treatments. Herbicides would be applied along 20 feet on both sides of the each road, treating approximately 227 acres. Landings and other areas disturbed by project activities would also be sprayed for weeds. Affected Environment Landscape Character The project area is located in the transition between the Broad Valley Rockies and Columbia Rockies landscape character type subregions. The Broad Valley Rockies character type is an area characterized by widely spaced, round-topped mountains and ridges separated by broad, U- shaped valleys which allow for sweeping panorama views from the valley floor. The mountains of the Columbia Rockies character type are generally rounded from glaciation. The Columbia Rockies Subregion also includes high gradient streams and outstanding mountain lakes (USDA Forest Service ND). Inherently the forest patterns of the project area are characterized by mostly continuous vegetation composed of medium to dense mixed coniferous forests of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Open meadows and wetlands break up the forest canopy throughout the project area. The project area, which is the southern portion of the popular recreation destination area known as the Chain of Lakes, is valued for its scenic attributes and provides views of mountainous landscapes for the visitors to the Seeley Lake area. The scenic attractiveness, or variety class, of the project area is mostly common to the landscape with rounded mountain features and dry forest types, but provides the foreground and middleground views to distinctive landscapes beyond such as the Swan Mountains or foreground and middleground backdrop views to distinctive features such as Salmon Lake or Seeley Lake. Additionally, the vibrant, golden fall colors of western larch trees provide seasonal distinctive scenic attractiveness. Existing Condition The Horseshoe West project is located in Missoula County, Montana, about 3 miles southeast of the community of Seeley Lake on lands acquired from Plum Creek Timber Company in The project area is located east of Highway 83 within the Seeley Swan Wildland Urban Interface adjacent to Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions. The project area is characterized by relatively moderate terrain intersected with moderately sloping drainages. The timber stands are 6

11 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project dominated by immature lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and larch on relatively dry sites. Most of the area is densely stocked with young Douglas-fir and lodgepole from past timber harvest and fire exclusion with some stands infested by mountain pine beetles. The uninterrupted continuity of forest vegetation across the landscape, high stand densities, and recent tree mortality from mountain pine beetles, has resulted in a high priority for fuels reduction treatment. Restoring vegetative conditions would help make the Forest more resistant to the effects of fire, insects, disease, and drought; and more resilient to natural disturbances. Timber harvest and development and use of the road system within the area also introduced noxious weeds that compete with native vegetation and reduce wildlife forage value. Vegetation management, prescribed fire, noxious weed treatments, and road management would improve wildlife habitat. Activities are proposed throughout the project area in MAs 13, 16, 18, and 24, located east of Highway 83, north of Salmon Lake, and between the Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions. The area is accessed by Woodworth Road along the south and Highway 83 and Road from the west until a gate on Road blocks further motorized access. With the exception of short distances on a few roads off Road 46942, other roads within the project area are closed to motorized public access. The Seeley Lake area is highly valued for its high scenic quality with numerous viewpoints used for viewing scenery. The primary viewpoints for the project area are: Highway 83 Woodworth Road (County 67) Double Arrow Cabin Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions Photo 1. View of Horseshoe West project area from Highway 83 near Salmon Lake Photo 2. View of Horseshoe West project area (center of the photo) from Highway 83 south of Seeley Lake 7

12 Visual Resource (Scenery) Highway 83 is the main route to and through Seeley Lake providing access to the numerous recreation sites in the Chain of Lakes area. It is a popular route leading to Glacier National Park as well as part of the Montana Scenic Loop. Most views from the highway are limited to the highway corridor due to dense forested areas. Meadow openings and lakes, such as Salmon Lake, adjacent to the highway allow for longer views of the surrounding mountains. When viewed from Highway 83 coming from the south, much of the project area is screened from view by the steep topography adjacent to Salmon Lake. The portion of the project area viewed from the south is mostly steep, open grass covered slopes with scattered conifer trees. Coming from Seeley Lake along Highway 83, views of the project area are characterized as mostly continuous canopy forest covering rounded, subdued landforms. The project area is visible in foreground and middleground views from Highway 83. Double Arrow Cabin, a lookout tower located south and west of Seeley Lake, is a popular viewing area with stunning views of the Swan and Mission Mountains. The lookout is planned as a future cabin rental with use, popularity, and concern for scenery anticipated to rise at that time. The northeastern portions of the project are seen from Double Arrow Cabin in middleground and background viewing distances for longer durations. Past timber harvest can be seen from all sides of the lookout with the effects varying depending on the intensity of the harvest. Past timber harvest where most overstory trees were removed appear as noticeable openings in the forest canopy while less intensive thinning of trees or older harvest areas appear as slight textural changes in the forest canopy. From this viewpoint the past harvest activities within the project area appear as slight textural changes in the forest canopy. The past activities within the project area are not evident to the casual Forest visitor and appear natural from this viewpoint. Photo 3. View of Horseshoe West project area from Double Arrow Cabin Woodworth Road (County 67) is used for driving for pleasure and viewing scenery and is a primary access for homeowners in the area. The project area is located in the middleground viewing distance from Woodworth Road with many foreground views dominated by activities on private or other ownerships. This is the main viewpoint for the southern portion of the project area. The project area from this viewpoint is characterized by conifer forest covering moderately steep slopes. The project area is located within the wildland urban interface between the Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions, both considered part of the community of Seeley Lake. The project 8

13 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project area and adjacent lands appear as continuous canopy conifer forests on moderate slopes. Project area treatments are within the foreground and middleground viewshed from the subdivisions including treatments immediately adjacent in the immediate foreground of some developments. The existing forest screens much of the project area from view of the subdivisions except where the project area borders private lands. Past harvest activities within the project area are not readily evident in views from the subdivisions. Some beetle mortality, characterized by red needled or gray trees with no needles, is noticeable from the subdivisions. Photo 4. View of the project area from Woodworth Road near Big Sky Lake subdivision Land Use Patterns People are drawn to the Seeley Lake area for its scenic quality and diverse recreation opportunities. These lands are used for driving for pleasure on roads, hunting, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, hiking, dispersed camping, wildlife viewing, fishing, and wood gathering. Highway 83 is a main highway used by people traveling to and from Seeley Lake and by visitors traveling to Glacier National Park. Woodworth Road is used for driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, and providing the primary access for homeowners in this area and access to the southern portion project area. Several intermittently groomed snowmobile routes are located within the project area, including the Double Arrow SO Cutoff and Spring Creek Snow Trails. The past road development within the project area and close proximity to the subdivisions make the area easy to access and popular for walking, hiking, and biking. Past fuels reduction treatment along Highway 83 has varied the appearance of the forest where these activities occur on other ownerships. Areas of past treatment appear more open with opportunities to view further into the forested stand. Untreated areas have dense vegetation with little visual access into the forested stand. Other than varying visual access, past vegetation activities along the highway corridor are not noticeable to the casual Forest visitor. If activities are noticeable, they remain subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Homes, recreation cabins, and developed recreation sites are common in foreground views along this portion of Highway 83. Vegetation treatments have also occurred along Woodworth Road in the foreground view 9

14 Visual Resource (Scenery) which is in other ownerships. These activities, although evident with an open forest appearance, stumps, and slash, open up views of the project area from Woodworth Road. Past timber harvest activities are also noticeable in the middleground viewing distance from Woodworth Road. The majority of the forested areas in the project area was partially harvested by Plum Creek Timber Company, and there are residual trees and tree clumps remaining. The past timber harvest, although noticeable from within the project area, does not dominate the landscape being viewed. When viewed from within the project area, the forest has a younger, open growth appearance with openings in the forest providing views of the surrounding Swan and Mission Ranges, and the wide, U-shaped glacial valley between these mountain ranges. Trees killed by bark beetles, both red-needled and standing trees with no needles, are seen throughout the project area, but the existing beetle mortality does not currently dominate the landscape. The majority of the project area has a slightly altered to natural appearance; past management activities remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Past activities are not apparent to the casual Forest visitor in the viewsheds of Highway 83 and Double Arrow Cabin. Project Design Features Unit Layout and Design Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation in all units. Straight lines and geometric shapes would be minimized to create vegetative shapes that mimic natural patterns. In all units, especially those viewed from Double Arrow Cabin (units 9, 10, 40, and 42), unit edges would be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a shadowing effect in the cut unit. Feathering should be a gradual transition between treated and non-treated areas. o Where the unit is adjacent to denser forest, the percent of thinning within the transition zone would be progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the unit. o Where the unit interfaces with an opening, the percent of thinning within the transition zone would be progressively increased toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, the width of the transition zone would be varied. Pockets of untreated areas would be maintained to provide view diversity. In units viewed from Highway 83 (units 10, 40, and 42) and residences within Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions (units 30, 31, 35, 51, 54, and 55), approximately 15 to 20 percent of the small understory trees would be left in all units for visual variety. This can be accomplished by leaving individual trees as well as leaving trees in clumps. In units adjacent to residences within the Double Arrow subdivision (units 40 and 42), trees or units would be marked in such a way that no long-term, timber-marking paint would be visible from the main viewpoints within the project area. Leave trees in all units would be left in irregular patterns in an effort to mimic the natural vegetation patterns characteristic of the area. In all units adjacent to residences in Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions (units 30, 31, 35, 40, 42, 51, 54, and 55), all stumps would be cut low (less than 6 inches) within 300 feet, or visual sight distance if less than 300 feet, of residences. 10

15 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Map 1. Horseshoe West project visual quality objectives and sensitive viewpoints 11

16 Visual Resource (Scenery) Slash Treatment and Landings To protect the visual quality within scenic corridors and viewsheds, landings would be located beyond the view of residences when possible. Once management activities are complete, slash and debris would be scattered evenly in landings and revegetated. Planting and seeding would be dispersed to mimic existing patterns of the vegetative mosaic (units 40 and 42). If vegetation clearing is needed at landings, edges would be shaped to mimic natural patterns and openings. Environmental Consequences The effects analysis will consider how each alternative meets the visual quality objectives from the identified sensitive travel routes and viewpoints. Effects caused by the no action and proposed action alternatives were also considered in relation to the desired landscape character. Desired landscape character is defined as the appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time (USDA Forest Service 1995). Proposed activities, although they may have some short-term negative impacts, also may begin to move the landscape toward the desired landscape character. Effects that would move the vegetation toward the desired landscape character are beneficial to scenic resources in the long term. These beneficial effects are often realized over a long period of time but lead to the lasting sustainability of valued scenery attributes. Desired landscape character often includes and is linked to preferred visual settings. Gobster (1994) summarizes visually preferred settings as having four common attributes: large trees, smooth, herbaceous ground cover, an open midstory canopy with high visual penetration, and vistas with distant views and high topographic relief. Visual access, or how far one can see into a forest, is also a preferred scenic setting (Ryan 2005). The degree of visual access varies throughout the project area and is dependent on the amount of understory vegetation present in the forest. Lodgepole pine forests usually have dense vegetation, primarily from trees boles, which does not allow very much visual access into the forest. In the long term, the visual resource will have higher scenic quality if visual access is achieved or enhanced. Alternative 1 No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 proposes no action and initiates no human-caused changes to the visual quality of the project area. Alternative 1 would meet the visual quality objectives throughout the project area because it does not create any unnaturally appearing elements of form, line, color, or texture. However, hazardous buildups of vegetative fuels in the forest would continue. High amounts of fuels do not create visually preferred open stands with high visual access and a clear forest floor. In this alternative, high fuel loads would be an additional risk to the stability of the scenic resources in the future. Also, the natural evolution of the vegetative component of the landscape would continue to change the scenic qualities of the area over time. For example, wind storms or snow and ice storms may cause portions of the project area, particularly beetle mortality areas, to blow down or contain areas of broken-topped trees. 12

17 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project If the vegetation in the project area was consumed by fire, the existing landscape character would be lost until trees and understory vegetation reestablish, and scorched timber and shrubs would alter the forested setting, changing the sense of place for homeowners and visitors in the area. In general, natural forest disturbances that result in extensive areas of dead or dying trees (Haider and Hunt 2002; Ribe 1990) such as the destruction of the forest by fire or flooding are perceived negatively (Daniel 2001; Fanariotu and Skuras 2004; Gobster 1994, 1995) (cited in Ryan 2005, page 17). Alternative 2 Proposed Action The proposed action alternative proposes commercial and non-commercial vegetation management that may have an impact on scenic resources. Vegetation treatments are proposed to reduce hazardous fuels, restore vegetative conditions, and improve wildlife habitat on lands acquired from Plum Creek Timber Company in Additionally, this alternative proposes a variety of roads-related activities including temporary road use, road maintenance, and road storage and decommissioning. This section discloses the direct and indirect effects in a general manner and as related to viewsheds from the identified sensitive viewpoints. Visual effects generated by vegetative management activities vary in duration and intensity depending on the treatment prescribed and the logging method used. Direct and Indirect Effects Vegetation treatments and hazardous fuels reduction proposed for this project include: improvement cutting and underburning, 914 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, underburning, and hand piling, 151 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, excavator piling, and underburning, 8 acres; improvement cutting, slashing, and excavator piling, 21 acres; masticating, 142 acres; masticating and hand piling, 16 acres; slashing and underburning, 1,389 acres; slashing, hand piling, and underburning, 127 acres, slashing, excavator piling, and underburning, 29 acres; ecosystem maintenance burning, 352 acres. For more detailed information on the definition of each vegetation treatment, see EA, chapter 2. Short-term visual effects of timber harvesting are often the most noticeable until the growth of grasses, shrubs, and remaining trees begin to soften the effects of harvest operations. Short term for this analysis refers to a 3- to 5-year period after all vegetation treatment and fuels reduction activities in an area are complete. Short-term effects are especially noticeable when the viewer has an up close view of the logging site usually in the foreground viewing distance. Long-term effects, which for this analysis is considered beyond 5 years, can vary by the treatment and the logging method used. 13

18 Visual Resource (Scenery) Map 2. Horseshoe West project proposed action treatment units, road treatments, and visual quality objectives map 14

19 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project Hazardous Fuels Reduction To reduce fuel in the project area, prescribed burning would follow the improvement cutting and other vegetation management treatments. Burning would be conducted in the spring or fall; consuming portions of duff and litter; and downed fuels and understory seedlings, saplings, and flora; while retaining the forest overstory. About 4.7 miles of handline would be needed to implement the prescribed burning proposals. Pile burning would occur at landings to eliminate logging slash created from timber removal operations. Ecosystem maintenance burning would be applied to areas previously aerial sprayed for noxious weeds and may be followed by a second burn at a later time. All proposed burning activities would have short-term effects of burned, blackened vegetation, and charred ground surfaces. Grasses and shrubs would resprout within one growing season after the burn and would no longer be noticed. About 0.2 miles of proposed handline would be located in retention VQO. The proposed handline may be noticeable within the immediate foreground viewing distance from Double Arrow subdivision, but probably would not be visually evident after one growing season. In the long term, burning would increase the diversity of texture, color, vegetative size classes, and distribution across the landscape. In the short and long terms, underburning often creates a smooth, herbaceous ground cover, a preferred visual setting. Hand piling rather than underburning is proposed in some units to reduce fuels after treatment. When adjacent to private property, slashed and natural fuels would be handpiled for a distance of up to 300 feet parallel to the Forest boundary. Pile burning would occur when conditions allow for the safe and effective removal of these fuel accumulations. Hand piling and burning, when debris is fully consumed, is a preferred hazardous fuels treatment in visually sensitive areas such as next to private property (Ryan 2005). Visual effects of burned ground surfaces would be limited to the pile location rather than spread throughout the unit. Handpiles would be noticeable until burned, and the burned areas may be noticeable until grasses resprout. The handpile burned areas would probably not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor after about one growing season because these areas revegetate and the surrounding shrubs, grasses, and forbs would screen most of the burned areas from view. Vegetation Treatment The visual effects of tree removal, such as improvement cutting, can vary depending on the intensity of the treatment. Stumps, slash, and edge effects of newly logged areas or units, depending on the intensity of the treatment, can result in a forest that appears moderately altered in the short term. The contrast between harvest and unharvested areas in the short term is often quite noticeable. Reducing the amount of slash and woody debris after timber harvesting is beneficial for scenic resources; numerous studies have found that the public responds negatively to downed wood, slash, and other debris from timber harvesting and thinning (Arthur 1977; Echelberger 1979; Ruddell et al. 1989) (cited in Ryan 2005, page 45). Western larch and ponderosa pine would be preferred species to retain under all proposed treatments. The retention of western larch would increase visual variety, especially during fall color changes. Improvement cutting is proposed in units throughout the project area and consists of a combination of thinning-from-below and crown thinning to remove the smaller excess tree stocking of merchantable-sized trees (5 inches diameter breast height or larger). Since most stands in the project area were partially harvested in the past, the improvement cutting would most often be a thinning of residual tree clumps which have more open areas between clumps. The preference would be to retain western larch and ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine, in that order. Trees would be whole-tree logged and 15

20 Visual Resource (Scenery) hauled to a landing for processing, reducing the amount of slash seen in the proposed units after harvesting. In foreground views (up to 0.5 mile from the viewer), this type of timber harvest would change the visual access into the forested stand by reducing the number of tree boles. The forest, from this viewing distance, would appear more open with greater visual access into the forest stand. The reduced number of trees would allow visitors to view further distances across the otherwise forested area and more light would reach the forest floor. In middleground views, with the thinning described above, this type of timber harvest may be noticeable as a slight change in the texture of the tree canopy. Whole-tree yarding would reduce the amount of woody debris and slash seen from sensitive viewpoints. The feathering of unit edges described in the visuals project design features would reduce any noticeable edges between treated and nontreated areas when viewed from the middleground distance. Slashing treatments are proposed in units scattered throughout the project area. The cutting of understory vegetation component would open up the stands to a more park-like vegetative mosaic and provide more visual access into forested stands, a preferred visual setting. Understory slashing would mostly be noticeable in foreground views because people would be able to view greater distances across the forested stand. Mastication is proposed in six units throughout the project area. A masticator would be used to chop or shred excess woody vegetation into mulch throughout the unit. When masticating shreds the woody debris into fine mulch, the shredded vegetation would be more easily hidden by new growth of grasses and shrubs and less noticeable to the casual Forest visitor (Ryan 2005). In the masticated units, subsequent follow-up treatments may be required to maintain the treated areas in a semi-open condition. Subsequent follow-up treatments could include hand cutting, piling and burning, or underburning and could be implemented to reduce ladder fuels. Any follow-up treatments may be noticeable while the activity is occurring. The effects to scenery from these follow-up treatments would be the same as what is described in this report for the same treatments. Tree stumps have impacts to visual resources in the short term and would be most noticeable in the immediate foreground view of the Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake subdivisions. Visible tree stumps from timber harvesting are generally disliked by viewers (Daniel and Boster 1976; Ryan 2005). Project design features are in place to reduce the visibility of stumps and minimize their impacts. Stumps would become less visible within one to two growing seasons as grasses, forbs, and shrubs sprout new growth. Vegetation treatments would occur on about 511 acres of retention VQO and on about 2,638 acres of modification VQO (see table 1). Views from Highway 83 The middleground viewshed of Highway 83, when viewed from south of Seeley Lake, is allocated as retention VQO. Most of the foreground and the rest of the middleground viewshed within the project area is allocated as modification VQO. Views of the project area are most prominent for longer durations while traveling along Salmon Lake and when driving south out of Seeley Lake as the lake and meadows adjacent to the highway allow for views of the project area. Some improvement cutting (units 10, 40, and 42), masticating (units 30, 38, and portions of 41), and slashing (units 31, 36, 37, 39, 44, 54, 55, and part of unit 25) may be seen in the middleground of Highway 83 which is allocated as retention VQO. Depending on the viewer s location along Highway 83, this area may also be in the background viewing distance. These proposed activities would appear as slight changes in the tree canopy when viewed from the middleground and background viewing distances. It is anticipated that with the visuals project 16

21 Horseshoe West Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project design features applied to reduce straight lines and geometric shapes of improvement cutting units, these proposed activities would not be evident to the casual Forest visitor after project completion. Table 1. Acres of vegetation treatments in each visual quality objective for alternative 2 Treatment Retention VQO Acres Modification VQO Improvement cutting and underburning Improvement cutting, slashing, underburning and hand piles Improvement cutting, slashing, excavator piling and underburning 8 0 Improvement cutting, slashing, and excavator piling 21 0 Masticating Masticating and hand piles 16 0 Slashing and underburning 263 1,126 Slashing, hand piling, and underburning Slashing, excavator piling, and underburning 29 0 Ecosystem maintenance burning Total Vegetation Treatment by VQO 511 2,638 Note: Any slight discrepancies in totaling acreages are from rounding values in GIS. Ecosystem maintenance burning in unit 1 would be seen in foreground views of Highway 83 next to Salmon Lake. This unit already has an open canopy with high visual penetration and the proposed treatments would maintain this visually preferred setting. This activity would have short-term effects in the foreground viewshed with burned, blackened vegetation and charred ground surfaces. Grasses and shrubs would resprout within one growing season after the burn and would no longer be noticeable. Boles of larger trees may be blackened or charred by the burning activities, but would probably not be evident to Forest visitors traveling along Highway 83. Some improvement cutting (unit 18), masticating (unit 52), and slashing (unit 14) may also be seen in the foreground viewshed of Highway 83, but these activities are mostly screened from view by forested vegetation outside of proposed treatment units. If seen, these treatments would change the texture of the tree canopy slightly, but would not dominate the landscape. Views from Double Arrow Cabin In the northeastern portion of the project area, the background viewshed of Double Arrow Cabin is allocated as retention VQO, while the middleground and remaining background viewshed is allocated modification VQO. Within retention VQO, eight proposed units and portions of seven other units can be seen or have the potential to be seen from Double Arrow Cabin in the background viewing distance for longer durations. Within modification VQO, 10 proposed units and portions of up to 20 other units can be seen or have the potential to be seen from Double Arrow Cabin in the middleground and background viewing distances for longer durations. Proposed activities in these units include improvement cutting, masticating, and slashing, all followed by fuels reduction treatments. Effects of these proposed activities would be similar to those described for Highway 83. Proposed activities in these middleground and background views would continue to have a mostly continuous canopy character with improvement cutting 17

22 Visual Resource (Scenery) treatments providing a slightly more open texture to the forest canopy when viewed from Double Arrow Cabin. Slash treatments and masticating, which are typically most noticeable in foreground views, would not be noticeable from Double Arrow Cabin. Prescribed fire may be noticeable by the occasional tree or group of trees killed during burning activities. Proposed project activities would meet the retention and modification VQOs either at project completion or about one growing season after all project activities are complete. Views from Woodworth Road (County 67) The middleground viewshed of Woodworth Road within the project area is allocated as modification VQO. Three proposed units and portions of up to 12 other units can be seen or have the potential to be seen from Woodworth Road. Treatments potentially seen include: improvement cutting (units 5, 7, 20, and 23), slashing (units 6, 8, 19, 24, 32, 35, 51, and 57), masticating (unit 22), and ecosystem maintenance burn (units 1 and 4). Improvement cutting would open the tree canopy slightly and a slight change in the texture of the tree canopy may be noticeable. Slash treatments, which are typically most noticeable in foreground views, are not anticipated to be noticeable from Woodworth Road. Prescribed fire may be noticeable by the occasional tree or group of trees killed during burning activities. Once all project activities are complete and with the visuals project design features applied, it is anticipated that project activities, if noticeable, would remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed from Woodworth Road. Proposed project activities would meet the modification VQO at project completion. Views from Double Arrow and Big Sky Lake Subdivisions Foreground views from Double Arrow subdivision have been allocated as retention and modification VQO, while foreground views of Big Sky Lake subdivision have been allocated modification VQO. Slashing units 35 and 51 border the private lands of Big Sky Lake subdivision, and slashing units 31, 54, and 55 border the private lands of Double Arrow subdivision. The cutting of understory vegetation component would open up the stands to a more park-like vegetative mosaic and provide more visual access into forested stands, a preferred visual setting. People viewing from the subdivision would be able to view greater distances across the forested stand. Masticating in unit 30 is proposed within the immediate foreground of Double Arrow subdivision. Shredded woody debris may be noticeable for about one growing season when viewed from the immediate foreground of the subdivisions. Other effects of masticating would be similar to those described for winter ground-based logging. Other masticating units would not be visible from the identified sensitive viewpoints. Improvement cutting units 26, 29, 40, 42, 52, and 53 border the Double Arrow subdivision. The forest, as viewed from the subdivision, would appear more open with greater visual access into the forest. People would be able to view further distances across the otherwise forested area and more light would reach the forest floor. These treatments would create visually preferred settings having attributes of larger trees, smooth, herbaceous ground cover, and an open midstory canopy with high visual penetration. Prescribed fire may be noticeable by the occasional tree or group of trees killed during burning activities. Underburning and hand piling and burning would have the short-term effects described in the previous Hazardous Fuels Reduction section for the homeowners bordering these units and slashing units mentioned above. Once all project activities are complete and with the visuals project design features applied, project activities should not be noticeable to the casual Forest visitor as viewed from the 18