CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS

Transcription

1 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS SCENIC QUALITY Jasper Mountain Priest Lake Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forest Description of the Proposed Action Vegetation management, fuel management, road management and watershed improvement activities proposed for this project are depicted in Table 1. Vegetation management activities include commercial thinning, improvement cuts and regeneration harvest (shelterwood and seedtree). These are the same types of activities discussed during the field trip to the project area and at the workshop to develop the proposed action. Fuel treatment associated with timber harvest activities would occur and would include underburning, grapple piling, slash & grapple piling or slash & underburning. Natural fuels/ecosystem burning not associated with timber harvest is also proposed to benefit wildlife habitat. Road management activities are needed to implement the project (e.g. maintenance, reconditioning, reconstruction, temporary road construction). Some roads in the project area that are not needed for project implementation will have restoration work conducted. This restoration road work will reduce sediment contribution to streams (accomplished through road maintenance or reconstruction) or make system roads hydrologically inert if they are no longer needed (decommissioning) or until needed for future use (storage). Some non-national Forest System (NFS)/unclassified roads in the project area that are located on NFS lands will be decommissioned. Upon project completion, closures will be installed for some roads currently closed to public motorized use but that are being used for project implementation. One aquatic organism passage (culvert) was identified for replacement as part of stewardship activities. Replacement would reconnect a small amount of habitat for seasonal fish use by eliminating a barrier. Correct realignment would lower the risk of the culvert plugging and road erosion/washout. Table 1: Summary of Activities and Treatment Size Activity Vegetation Management Commercial Harvest (acres; rounded to nearest whole #) Shelterwood w/ Reserves Seed Tree w/ Reserves Commercial Thin Improvement Cut TOTAL Non-Harvest (acres; rounded to nearest whole #) Natural fuels/ecosystem burning TOTAL Activity/Treatment Size ,

2 Activity Activity/Treatment Size TOTAL COMMERCIAL HARVEST AND NON-HARVEST (acres) 2,037 Reforestation (acres) 1,281 Road Management Activities for Project Implementation (Miles; rounded to nearest tenth) Maintenance 15.7 Reconstruction 22.0 Construction of Temp Roads (Decommission after project completion) 3.4 Reconditioning (Decommission after project completion) 4.0 Reconstruction (Stored after project completion) 10.3 Construction of permanent system road None Watershed Improvement Activities (Restoration) Aquatic organism passage repair (# of culverts) Road Maintenance (miles) Road Reconstruction (miles) Road Storage (miles) Road Decommissioning (miles) Regeneration Harvest and Openings Greater than 40 Acres 1 along Quartz Creek It is desired to trend the forests in the Jasper project area toward early seral tree species (western larch, ponderosa pine and western white pine) that are less susceptible to root disease fungi and thus decrease the amount of tree mortality occurring. To achieve this desired condition a combination of even-aged and two-aged silvicultural systems are being proposed for some stands. Reforestation of these units is required to occur within 5 years of the unit being harvested. Regeneration harvest is the preferred treatment for some stands for the following reasons: The project area is deficit in stands dominated by early seral species, as they were historically. Stands identified for regeneration harvest are dominated by late seral species (grand fir, Douglasfir, western hemlock) that are susceptible to and experiencing root diseases and insects. Stands are older and existing stand structure is breaking apart, not regenerating to early seral species and creating an unacceptable/undesirable fuel load. A shelterwood with reserves regeneration method is proposed for stands with enough resilient early seral species trees to provide a seed source and moderate the microenvironment in the understory. Following successful establishment of regeneration this harvest method will result in a distinct two-aged stand. A seedtree with reserves regeneration method is proposed for stands that only have enough resilient early seral species trees to provide a seed source but there are not enough reserve seed trees to moderate the microenvironment and thus an exposed microenvironment is created in the understory. Following successful establishment of regeneration this harvest method will result in an even-aged stand. It is also desired that regeneration harvests create a variety of patch sizes and stand structures that break up the homogenization and simplification of the current landscape pattern. Increasing the heterogeneity of patch sizes, stand structures and species compositions will increase the resiliency of forest stands to insects and diseases and decrease the risk of very large wildfire. To create a variety of patch sizes some of the proposed regeneration harvest activities would result in openings greater than 40 acres, as depicted in Table 2. These opening sizes would require Regional Forester approval (FSM ). 2

3 Table 2: Openings Greater than 40 Acres Group Unit(s) Treatment Prescription Opening Size (Acres) & 107A Shelterwood & 47 Seedtree & 44A 44 Shelterwood; 44A Seedtree Shelterwood & 16B Seedtree; 15 & , 16, 16B & 116 Shelterwood Seedtree 189 Required Design Features The following design features are required to ensure compliance with the regulatory framework for this resource and/or to reduce the risk of adverse impacts to this resource. A description is provided as to when, where and how the design feature should be applied and/or what conditions would trigger the need to apply the design feature. 1. UNIT MARKING Use cut tree (as opposed to leave tree) marking in visually sensitive areas. Utilize species designation where appropriate to minimize the amount of necessary marking. Anticipated Effectiveness: The goal is to minimize the visibility of tree markings post treatment, and through careful application of marking trees in areas with high foreground concern levels these methods are helpful visually. 2. SHAPE OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS Created openings and treatment units should not be symmetrical in shape. Straight lines and right angles should be avoided. Created openings should resemble the size and shape of those found in the surrounding natural landscape. Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation. Utilize natural breaks in topography and vegetation type to delineate treatment edges. Along roadways, vary unit sizes, widths, shapes and distance from the center line. Anticipated Effectiveness: The goal is natural appearing openings when viewed individually and a natural appearing mosaic when viewed within the broader landscape. Although application of these design measures would greatly lessen the overall visual impact from the management activity, they would not completely conceal the fact that the treatments were carried out mechanically from foreground and middleground viewsheds. 3. EDGES OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS Shape and/or feather edges to avoid a shadowing effect. 3

4 Where the unit interfaces with an opening or is adjacent to denser forest, the percent of thinning will be progressively increased toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, this transition zone should avoid being uniform in size and should vary in width. Soften edges by thinning adjacent to existing unit boundaries, removing taller, older trees and favoring younger ones. This will reduce a vertical wall effect. Treatment boundaries should extend up and over ridgelines to avoid a row of remnant trees along ridge lines that draw attention to created openings and inconsistent with patterns created by fire or other natural disturbances. Avoid widely spaced trees that are silhouetted along the skyline. Anticipated Effectiveness: The goal is a natural appearing transition between treated and untreated vegetation, and through the application of these design measures, especially in single units not adjacent to other treatment units, these methods are highly effective. 4. PRESCRIBED BURNING Protect leave trees and leave islands during prescribed burning operations to minimize severe bole and crown scorch and post-fire mortality. In units 45 and 47 pull slash back from leave trees and construct hand-line or black-line around leave islands if necessary to protect these features. Vary fire intensity and method throughout unit being treated to aid in a more natural appearing opening. Anticipated Effectiveness: The goal is to foster enhanced sprouting vigor so the treated landscape may recover more quickly and limit the impacts to the public of adverse visual effects. If these guidelines are adhered to, adverse visual effects may only last a few months to no more than 1 to 3 years. 5. UNIT-SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA In units 45 and 47, in addition to retaining healthy western white pine and western larch, retain ten percent (approximately 8 to 9 acres) of other conifer species in small patches scattered throughout the units. In unit 47, undulate the lower unit boundaries around the existing drainage features with 50 to 100 foot buffers. In unit 45, incorporate two leave islands along the lower unit boundary to create an undulating, uneven and feathered edge. Anticipated Effectiveness: See discussion regarding these two units under the Cause-Effect section below. Regulatory Framework The proposed action has been reviewed and is determined to be in compliance with the management framework applicable to this resource. The laws, regulations, policies and Forest Plan direction applicable to this project and this resource are as follows: 4

5 Forest Plan direction which pertains to scenic resources in the Jasper Mountain Project are: 1. FW-DC-AR-02. The scenic resources of the IPNF complement the recreation settings and experiences while reflecting healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions. 2. FW-GDL-AR-01. Management activities should be consistent with the mapped scenic integrity objective, see Plan set of documents. The scenic integrity objective is High to Very High for scenic travel routes, including the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail, designated Scenic Byways, and National Recreation Trails. 3. MA6-GDL-AR-05. Management activities should be consistent with the Scenic Integrity Objective of Low to High. Specific direction for scenery management is provided by The Scenery Management System (SMS) found in the Department of Agriculture Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA Forest Service, 1995; PF Doc. VIS-R01). The Scenery Management System is a systematic approach to inventory, analyze, and monitor scenic resources. The system is used in the context of ecosystem management to determine the relative value and importance of scenery, assist in establishing overall resource objectives, and ensure high-quality scenery for future generations. The SMS describes goals for scenic quality in terms of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO s). Common terminology (i.e., landscape character, scenic integrity objectives, visibility, concern levels) used to understand and implement the IPNF Forest Plan s desired scenic integrity of the Jasper Mountain project area is discussed below. Landscape Character The Jasper Mountain Project area s existing landscape character consists of a high amount of scenic diversity which is experienced via mixed coniferous forests typical of both the Canadian and Northern Rocky Mountain ecoregions, meandering creeks and rivers, rolling uplands and hills with high ridges and cool-moist bottomlands with multiple private residences situated throughout the valleys. This bowl-like topography favors high-snowpack and dense forests. The landscape is made up of a diverse mix of color and texture from the soft greens of the lowlands to the course dark greens of the forest as well as scattered patches of brown from natural openings, many caused by insect and disease infestation or by natural fire events. Root diseases have been found throughout the Jasper Mountain project area at various degrees of severity, and mortality is expected to continue. The majority of the openings (not including private home sites) appear to be caused by natural events. Evidence of past management activities are visible, but do not dominate the landscape. Users enjoy scenic vistas into the Jasper Mountain Project area from ATV and horse trails such as the PeeWee and Steep Creek Trails systems and from their private residences. The Jasper Mountain project area is part of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). WUI areas are places where built structures bump up against or intermingle with undeveloped natural areas. WUI areas may be especially vulnerable to wildfire damage, non-native pest infestations, and other natural resource disturbances, and therefore pose special challenges and risks for natural resource managers, planners and the people who reside here. Scenic Integrity Objectives SIOs assigned by the Forest Plan represent the level of integrity (degree of acceptable alteration) of the natural and cultural features of the area, and provide measurable standards for scenery management in conjunction with demands for goods and services from the forest. The SIO is simply the desired outcome for the scenic resources upon completion of an action. Below is a brief description of each: 5

6 Low: Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape character. Mitigation measures are used to repeat the line, form, color and texture of the landscape character. Moderate: Management activities are noticeable but subordinate to the landscape character. Landscape character appears slightly altered. High: Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears intact or unaltered. Very High: Unaltered, intact, only ecological changes visible. The Jasper Mountain project proposes activities in Moderate and High SIOs, as identified by the forest plan. Proposed activities within the Moderate SIO will meet the desired objective of Moderate because management activities in conjunction with associated design measures and careful planning, will be noticeable in the short term and will appear only slightly altered or natural within 5-10 years perhaps even sooner. The landscape character would not be significantly changed in these areas as the management activity would not dominate the landscape character. Activities proposed in High SIO areas have either been dropped due to public comment or will have specific design criteria to ensure the High SIO is maintained, and the existing landscape character appears intact in the near-term. Visibility is discussed in terms of Seen-Areas and Distance Zones and are mapped according to the Concern Levels of 1, 2, or 3 (1 being the most sensitive and 3 being the least) to determine the relative sensitivity of scenes based on their distance from an observer Foreground, Middleground and Background: Foreground (up to 1/2 mile from the viewer), Middleground (up to 4 miles from the foreground), and Background (4 miles from the viewer to the horizon). Together these levels represent what can be seen and the relative importance of aesthetics to the users. Once Concern Levels and their associated Distance Zones for views into the project area are identified, determination can be made as to whether proposed activities meet the forest plan identified concern levels (considering design features and mitigation measures are carried out). According to the Forest Plan, the Jasper Mountain project area is within Foreground 1 and Middleground 1, with only a small portion in the northeast of the project area in Background 1. Where management activities are proposed in Concern Level 1(high sensitivity) and overlap with high-use recreation and/or travel corridors, field reconnaissance and Google Earth graphic simulations were performed by the Forest Landscape Architect in order to analyze potential for negative impacts to scenery as seen from the user. Photos were taken of vistas from sensitive viewsheds during site visits to areas where visitors and recreationists frequent, and then compared to visual simulations performed in Google Earth. Numerous viewpoints were reviewed to determine the short and long term impacts to scenery within the resource area. Cause-Effect Relationship Based on concerns raised during the collaborative process developing this project, several units directly impacting sensitive viewsheds of the PeeWee Trail system and those of some private residences in WUI, were dropped and management prescriptions changed. Timber management units 87, 36, 50, 45 and 47 remain in areas with verified sensitive viewsheds and High SIOs. With the exception of 45 and 47, management prescription for these units is commercial thinning, and would not negatively impact the middleground or background viewsheds, and only temporarily affect the foreground views. The two evenaged regeneration seed-tree cut units 45 and 47 would have a noticeable long-term effect to the scenic quality of the area and subsequently alter the landscape character. However, the SMS requires analysis to consider natural disturbance regimes and long term effects when determining whether an SIO is achieved. 6

7 If the treatment is designed to mimic natural disturbance regimes and the longer term effects to scenery (increased species and age class diversity) are considered, achievement of a high SIO may be feasible. Root diseases are persistent site factors. Whether stands are left untreated, thinned, or have regeneration harvest, the diseases will cause infection and mortality in susceptible tree species present now and in the future and contribute to standing and ground fuels. Levels of recent and current mortality and widespread presence of root disease indicate that stands will continue to degrade without active management. Given the Forest s objectives of reducing root disease impacts, reducing fuels in WUI, and increasing western white pine and western larch, regeneration harvest would be more appropriate in units 45 and 47 which have been determined by the silviculturist to be experiencing increased rates of mortality from insect and disease disturbance. Scoping and field reconnaissance showed all of unit 45 and portions of 47 to be seen in the foreground, middlegound and background of an identified sensitive vista from the popular PeeWee Trail system (see Figure 1). The interdisciplinary team members and decision-makers on the Jasper Mountain project are concerned about the potential loss to the public who use this trail on a regular basis, and have agreed to implement an additional 10% retention of trees in units 45 and 47. This 10% will be in addition to healthy white pine and larch found in said units, which will be retained in patches. Since unit 47 is primarily located on the northeast facing slope directly below FSR 1335, Guinn Creek Road, and has natural drainages along the base of the unit (which receive foot buffers), no more mitigation would be needed in order to meet the SIO of High. Unit 45 is of the most concern from this sensitive viewpoint, therefore specific design features have been formulated to help achieve the SIO of High. These design features have been formulated to emulate the look and feel created by a natural opening on the hillside to the east of unit 45. In order to soften the effects of the treatment, the design features for unit 45 would incorporate two leave islands of trees, and would be laid out in such a manner that the border of the treatment along the base of the hill would have the appearance of an undulating, uneven and feathered edge (see before and after simulations in Figure 2 and 3). Figure 1: Photo taken from said PeeWee trail vista into area proposed for treatment (units 45 and 47) 7

8 Figure 2: Unit 45 with unit 47 seen on the top-left of hillside. Figure 3: Simulation showing implementation of design features Extraordinary Circumstances Following are the resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS: 8

9 1) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species; 2) Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds; 3) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas; 4) Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas; 5) Research natural areas; 6) American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites; and 7) Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. No extraordinary circumstances need to be considered for this resource. Morai Helfen, Landscape Architect March 27,