Scenery Resource Report

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2013 Scenery Resource Report Stafford Fire Salvage and Restoration Project Shasta-Trinity National Forest South Fork Management Unit Township 2N, Range 11 and 12W, Mount Diablo Meridian.. Prepared by: /s/ Stephanie Joyce 08/20/13 Stephanie Joyce Forest Landscape Architect Shasta-Trinity National Forest Date

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 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Project Location and Area Description Existing Condition Visual Management System and the Scenery Management System Desired Condition ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Methodology No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects CONCLUSIONS Conclusions and/or determinations REFERENCES

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Stafford Fire Salvage and Restoration Project is to reduce the risk to the public, forest workers, firefighters, and private property from hazard trees as well as reestablish forest vegetation, provide timber products, substantially reduce fuels hazards, and improve roads within burned areas of the Stafford Fire, which is adjacent to the community of Hayfork, California. The Forest proposes to: Fell hazard trees because standing dead and defective trees, or parts of trees, will fall in the near future and jeopardize public safety and the transportation system. Salvage high mortality concentrations Reforestation in large areas where the seed source has been limited by the fire Reduce fuel loading This report will address possible impacts to the scenic resource by the Stafford Fire Salvage and Restoration Project. Scenery will be analyzed using the Visual Management and Scenery Management Systems according to direction in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Highway 3, a State Scenic Byway and Wildwood Road (County Rd 302) are sensitive for scenery per the LRMP, therefore will be the viewing areas analyzed in this report. 1 The following analysis will address the possible effects to the scenery resource using Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as analysis indicators. The Proposed Action would not meet the required LRMP VQOs in the short term, however would benefit scenery in the long term. The LRMP requires VQOs as seen from Hwy 3 meet Retention in the foreground and Partial Retention in the middleground; the proposed action would meet Partial Retention in the foreground and Modification VQO in the middleground. The proposed action would meet the LRMP required VQOs as seen from Wildwood Road, Partial Retention in the foreground and Modification in the background. The LRMP states, On rare occasions the adopted VQO may not meet management s objectives (i.e. catastrophic events). Any proposed modification to adopted VQOs must go through the NEPA process and be approved by the Forest Supervisor. 2 Even though the proposed action wouldn t meet the LRMP required VQOs in the short term, it would be the best alternative for the scenery resource because research has indicated that the public prefers a forest that is green and reforested. The proposed action would help the scenic views recover from the Stafford Fire by removing the matchstick burned trees, replanting the forest and managing excess fuels. 3 1 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-28, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-27, USDA, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, under Cooperative Agreement, Wildland-Urban Interface Communities; Response to Post-Fire Salvage Logging, Robert L. Ryan and Elisabeth Hamin,

5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION The project area boundary used for this analysis is the perimeter of the Stafford Fire Salvage and Restoration Project that was human caused in September of 2012 on the South Fork Management Unit on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The proposed project activity is located south of the community of Hayfork and west of Wildwood Road (County Rd 302) within Trinity County, California. Legal description includes sections of Township 2N, Range 11W, and 12W, Mount Diablo Meridian. The Stafford Fire burned for two weeks and was finally contained at 4,462 acres; within the fire perimeter a small portion, approximately 596 acres of the fire occurred within the Wells Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). No project activities would occur within the IRA. 1.2 EXISTING CONDITION In order to understand the existing scenic condition and the following analysis, it would be beneficial to understand how scenery is managed on National Forest System lands. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) utilizes the Visual Management System (VMS) to reduce impacts to scenery caused by management activities. VMS incorporates the distance of the project from the viewer, duration of the view, variety class and the sensitivity level of the viewpoint to assess visual impacts. During the Forest planning effort Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) were established for areas seen from travel routes and for management prescription areas. VQOs indicate allowable changes to scenery as a result of management activities. The VQO definitions and the VMS process are outlined below. 4 Visual Quality Objectives (as defined by the Visual Management System): Retention: Management activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. Partial Retention: Management activities may be evident, but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Modification: Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but must follow naturally established form, line, color, and texture characteristics. Maximum Modification: Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but must follow naturally established form, line, color, and texture characteristics and should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background. 4 USDA Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System, Handbook 462,

6 Described below are the Visual Management System components that were used to develop the VQO s for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest: Sensitivity Level: Sensitivity levels are a measure of people s concern for the scenic quality of an area. Travel routes, use areas and water bodies were rated according to the volume of use, duration and national or local importance. Distance Zones: The distance from which a landscape is viewed has an effect on how much detail, pattern, color, line, and texture a viewer sees. To capture this difference, various distance zones are established from sensitive viewing areas: Foreground: The portions of a view between the observer and up to ¼ to ½ mile distant. The surface patterns on objects and visual elements are important in the foreground views. Middleground: The portions of a view between ¼ to ½ mile and three to five miles from the observer, (actual distance depends on actual viewing distances). Background: The view beginning 3 to 5 miles from the observer and as far into the distance as the eye can detect the presence of objects. Variety Class A third component of the scenic environment relates to the degree of variety within a visual landscape (variety class). The more distinctive the variety class the more restrictive the visual quality objective (VQO). For example, if a site has unusual landforms such as water features or distinctive rock outcroppings, the landscape would be classified as a higher variety class. While, if a landscape has no distinctive features and has monotonous vegetation, if would be viewed as a more common landscape, i.e. less visually interesting. 1.3 VISUAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE SCENERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The LRMP incorporated the VMS, however currently the FSM 2380 directs that the Visual Management System is superseded by the Scenery Management System (SMS). The differences between the two systems are summarized by the following: While the essence of the system [VMS] remains essentially intact, still supported by current research, terminology has changed and the system has been expanded to incorporate updated research findings. Conceptually, the SMS differs from the VMS in that: it increases the role of constituents throughout the inventory and planning process; and it borrows from and is integrated with the basic concepts and terminology of Ecosystem Management. The Scenery Management System provides for improved integration of aesthetics with other biological, physical, and social/cultural resources in the planning process. 5 5 Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook, Number 701,

7 Current policy directs that SMS may be used on project by project basis, if the LRMP references the VMS. However when the Forest LRMP is revised it would reference the SMS and be used on all projects thereafter. The analysis for the Stafford Fire Salvage and Restoration Project utilizes the VMS, since the current LRMP references this system. However, this report references scenic resources and scenery versus visual resource because the word scenery appears to communicate the intent of the analysis better. This report will analyze scenery as seen from sensitive viewpoints as defined by the LRMP, VMS and SMS, which are views from Hwy 3 and Wildwood Road. The project area is within the Klamath-Siskiyou Character Type which is typified of a group of mountains with uplifted plateaus and rugged topography and an irregular and transverse drainage pattern and repetitive ridges of similar but rising elevations towards the east that are heavily forested. The project area is comprised of diverse vegetative communities; mixed conifer with variable understory and patches of brush species. The proposed project area is on mountainous terrain adjacent to the community of Hayfork. The VMS studies performed for the LRMP identified the project area as Common- Class B landscape character type which means it was considered generally a monotype of vegetation without outstanding scenic features. 6 The existing scenery ranges from management activities being not visually evident, (Retention VQO) to dominating the landscape, (Modification VQO), as seen from Hwy 3 and Wildwood Road due to roads, power lines and residential areas. The Stafford fire left areas of vegetation ranging black-brown to totally denuded blackened tree boles Stafford Project Area as seen from Hwy 3 6 On file, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters office, VMS Studies, Hayfork District, P. 8-3C, 8-4C, 9-1C, 9-2C. 7

8 Stafford Fire Area as seen from Hwy 3 8

9 Stafford Project as seen from Wildwood Road 1.4 DESIRED CONDITION The Shasta-Trinity Land and Management Plan directs the forest to Maintain a diversity of scenic quality throughout the Forests, particularly along major travel corridors, in popular dispersed recreation 9

10 areas, and in highly developed areas. 7 The project area occurs within the LRMP Management Prescriptions III Roaded Recreation and VI Wildlife Habitat within the Hayfork Management Area (18). The scenery landscape character goal of Management Area 18 would be a forest stand understory that appears more open with less ingrowth particularly in stands on sites where wild fire plays a key role in stand development. 8 Management activities would support scenic views on State Scenic Highway 3. 9 The landscape character goal of Prescription III (Roaded Recreation) is a forest that is designed to meet recreation, visual and ecosystem management objectives. Hardwoods will be managed for sustainability. Timber harvest openings will be dispersed throughout the project area and average 5 acres or less. 10 The primary purpose of Wildlife Habitat Management Areas is to enhance big game, small game, upland game bird and non-game habitat. Vegetation is manipulated to meet wildlife habitat management objectives, and to maintain healthy, vigorous, stands using such tools as silviculture and prescribed fire. Timber management activities will be designed to meet recreation, visual and ecosystem management objectives. 11 The desired future condition for views as seen up to ½ mile from Hwy 3 would be required to meet the Retention VQO (management activities not visually evident) and Partial Retention in the middleground (management activities visually subordinate as seen from ½ mile to 4 miles) per the LRMP. 12 Views as seen up to ½ mile from Wildwood Road would need to meet Partial Retention and Modification ½ mile to 4 miles (management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape). 7 Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-5, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P , Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P , Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-65, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-66, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, P. 4-28,

11 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2.1 METHODOLOGY Bounding Geographic The direct, indirect and cumulative effects geographic bounding area for the scenery resource is the project area boundaries. This large area was selected as the basis for describing the effects because it is defined spatially with specific areas which are sensitive for scenery Temporal The temporal effects timeframes for short term vs. long term for direct, indirect and cumulative effects are based upon professional experience. There are no known references for what constitutes time frames for scenery, since re-vegetation is dependent upon many variables including site productivity and microclimates or if the site is manually replanted. This scenery analysis identifies short term as one to five years post treatment, since at a minimum, grasses, forbs and shrubs would usually grow within this timeframe and reduce impacts to scenery. Long term could be considered longer than 5 years Analysis The analysis methodology utilized to complete this analysis included researching the LRMP direction for management areas, Standards and Guides and the VQO map. Professional knowledge of the Visual Management System, Scenery Management System and 20 years of experience in natural resources were also used. Field visits verified the existing condition and gave a reference point for the desired future condition for scenery. LRMP direction was used as a baseline for analyzing the allowable amount of changes to scenery; this was also integrated with current probable public expectations and balanced with other resource disciplines Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The spatial context for this analysis are foreground views ( upto 1/2 mile) to middleground views (up to 4 miles) as seen from sensitive viewing areas per the LRMP. Only the foreground and middleground views are within the project area. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES Direct, indirect and cumulative effects were analyzed for the proposed action alternative, no action alternative, community protection alternative, and the timber salvage alternative. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action but occur later in time and/or place. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 11

12 2.2.1 Alternative 1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would treat 1,775 acres within the Stafford Fire area through a combination of treatment methods to meet the Purpose and Need. Treatments would be excluded from the Wells Inventoried Roadless Area. Salvage treatments would be excluded from Riparian Reserves, but hazardous fuels reduction to protect infrastructure and planting would occur within Riparian Reserves. The Proposed Action includes an estimated 780 acres of salvage removal of dead and dying trees. Proposed salvage actions would be implemented by helicopter yarding on an estimated 167 acres, cable yarding on an estimated 464 acres, and mechanical skidding on an estimated 149 acres. The desired condition for this area would be a stand with an open understory. Canopy base heights would be eight feet off the forest floor. Hazard trees would be felled. The salvage and fuel reduction areas would be planted with a mix of conifer seedlings, representative of the stand that existed on the site prior to the fire. Existing plantations affected by the fire would have the dead vegetation removed, released from shrubs and reforested to improve stocking. Restoration within natural stands that burned moderate to high severity and not proposed for salvage harvest would also be planted. No other site preparation would occur in these areas. Within existing plantations affected by the fire (and outside of salvage areas), reforestation with conifer species would occur to improve stocking (125 to 200 trees per acre) through site preparation, planting, protection and release on an estimated 129 acres. Treatments would be maintained over time to retain the establishment and growth of planted trees. Within natural stands that burned with high and moderate severity (and not proposed for salvage harvest) 711 acres would be planted. Treatments would be maintained over time to retain the restoration of forest cover. Defensible Fuel Profile Management Zones (DFPMZ) or fuelbreaks would be created within an estimated 600 feet of private lands and 300 feet on each side of Forest Service system roads 31N51 and 31N17. Proposed activities would include felling snags, hand piling fuels and burning piles, plus prescribed burning on an estimated 155 acres. Treatments will be maintained over time to retain the fuels reduction benefits, improve establishment of planted trees and guide the development of the forest toward desired conditions Alternative 2 No Action To meet the intent of 40 CFR (d) a No Action alternative will be analyzed. In this alternative there would not be any hazard tree removal, reforestation efforts, fuel reduction, salvage harvesting or plantation management. 12

13 2.2.3 Alternative 3 Community Protection Alternative The Community Protection Alternative is designed to strategically treat fuels in key areas of the Stafford Fire area to give more options in wildfire suppression. A smaller percentage of the Stafford Fire area is being treated in this alternative than the proposed action but the treatments would be more intensive. This treatment would meet Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan standards and guides. Alternative 3 consists of three Defensible Fuel Profile Management Zones (DFPMZ) totaling 503 acres. Unit 1 is a 108 acre unit buffering the private property on the north side of the Stafford Fire area. Unit two is a 68 acre unit that is a 150 foot buffer on both sides of NFS road 31N17. Unit three established two zones: zone one treats 150 feet on each side along 31N51 over an estimated 84 acres, and zone two treats between 31N51 and 31N51A over an estimated 243 acres. These two zones create a strategic fuelbreak on a north-south running ridge that runs parallel to Wildwood Road. Unit one and two would be shaded fuelbreaks. The initial treatments in unit three would meet the fire behavior objectives in Chapter 1. The fuelbreaks would be characterized by open canopy, no ladder fuels and little to no surface fuels. Unit three would have little to no forest vegetation as the majority of all vegetation was killed by the fire. Unit 4 would treat fuels along Wildwood Road between Hayfork Creek to the west and Wells Inventoried Roadless Area to the east. Maintenance of all fuels treatments would be included in this alternative Alternative 4 Timber Salvage Alternative The Timber Salvage Alternative would harvest approximately 612 acres of salvage removal of dead and dying trees. The salvage treatments would be implemented by cable yarding on an estimated 463 acres and mechanical skidding on an estimated 149 acres. Alternative 4 would not require removal of any fire killed timber where the cost of the removal would exceed the value of the salvaged logs. While no post salvage fuels treatments or reforestation effort is proposed in Alternative 4, the implementation of the project would reduce the fire killed fuel loading by an average of 47 tons per acre on the acres treated. All hazard trees would be felled and removed. No secondary fuels work would be done with this alternative. Limbs and tops from cut hazard trees would be left on the units. 2.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Alternative 1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would include salvage harvesting, fuels reduction, shaded fuelbreaks, plantation treatments and replanting/reforestation actions. Only the salvage harvesting would be noticed from views from Hwy 3 and Wildwood Road due to the contrast in the removed trees/snags from the surrounding area and the size of the units on the billboard like mountainous terrain. The fuel reduction activities would be too small of a scale to be noticed by the casual forest visitor from the project distance as seen from Hwy 3 and Wildwood Road. The shaded fuelbreaks would leave a canopy and thus visually obscure 13

14 fuel reduction activities. Green trees would remain in plantations which would reduce how noticeable removing the dead vegetation would be to the viewer. Initially, replanting and reforestation would also not be visually evident, however would improve scenery in the long term. The fuel reduction activities, proposed actions within the plantations, the shaded fuel breaks and replanting would meet the required LRMP VQOs of Retention (management activities not visually evident), Partial Retention (management activities may be evident, but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape) and Modification (management activity may dominate characteristic landscape, but must use naturally established form, line, color and texture). The analysis below will include only the salvage harvesting treatments since they would be the most prominent visually and affect the VQOs. The proposed project is seen approximately ¼ mile from Hwy 3 to the ridge top. Views from Hwy 3 to ½ mile away are required to meet Retention VQO per the LRMP; views ½ mile to the top of the ridge would need to meet Partial Retention. The foreground and middleground views are on steep topography facing Hwy 3; this acts like a billboard to the viewer, so the proposed salvage units would be highly visible. The proposed harvest would create a contrast between the removed dead vegetation and snags and the vegetated surrounding areas. Green trees and some snags would remain, however the severely burned areas are already visually prominent due to the lack of vegetation which contrasts with the green canopied areas; this would increase the likelihood that the proposed actions would not be subordinate in the landscape. The proposed salvage harvest would meet Partial Retention to Modification for these reasons. Even though the proposed salvage harvests would not initially meet the LRMP required VQO, studies have shown that there is support for salvage logging and reforestation efforts within wildland-urban interface communities for the public concerned with scenic values. In summary, social science research suggests that there is substantial social support for salvage logging in fire-prone communities because it has a number of benefits, such as increased aesthetic beauty, increased safety for recreational forest users, avoidance of waste, reduced fire risk and economic benefits. 13 Another study stated, The topic on which there was virtually complete consensus, and which seemed most important to the public, was the aesthetics of the postfire forest. We heard countless comments from the range of key informants, stakeholders, and the public about the ugliness of the burned over forest; typically, these were phrased as the public agencies should do something about all those dead match sticks on the hillsides. Aesthetics were a primary motivation or reason cited by the public in explaining the need for government agencies to rehabilitate the burn area, whether by cutting down dead trees (salvage logging) and/or planting new trees. Aesthetics also influence participants preference and support for forest restoration projects. There was a much stronger preference among participants for fuel treatments that created more open canopy or shaded fuelbreaks rather than clearing all vegetation. Thus salvage logging that left significant trees was preferred to more extensive clearcuts. The desire to see most of the matchstick trees removed was balanced by the desire to keep an ecologically appropriate level of snags Research white paper, 4.3 Post-wildfire Management, Jonathan Long and Lenya Quinn-Davidson with contributions from Carl Skinner, Susan Charnley, Ken Hubbert, and Marc Meyer, USDA, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, under Cooperative Agreement, Wildland-Urban Interface Communities; Response to Post-Fire Salvage Logging, Robert L. Ryan and Elisabeth Hamin,

15 It is clear that research has indicated that the public prefers a forest that is green and reforested. The proposed action would help the scenic views recover from the Stafford fire by removing the matchstick burned trees, replanting the forest and managing excess fuels. The reforestation would improve the scenic condition long term because planted trees would produce a forest sooner than natural regeneration. 15 The salvage harvesting and fuels management actions would reduce excess fuel loading and in turn reduce the risk from a catastrophic wildfire which would further impact scenic values Alternative 2 No Action There would not be any direct effects to the scenery resource for the No Action Alternative as seen from Hwy 3 and Wildwood Road because the dead trees would look natural and not be the result of management actions. The VMS and SMS only analyze effects to scenery caused by management actions; therefore there would not be any effects. 16 Implementing the No Action Alternative would not directly affect the scenery within the project area, however it would indirectly affect the scenic resource due to the increased chance of a stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire as a result of excess fuel loading which in turn would impact scenery. Withholding reforestation actions would also affect the vegetative character of the area. Reforesting would reduce the amount of itme that it would take to replace the large conifers and therefore not taking action would negatively affect the scenery long term Alternative 3 Community Protection Alternative Direct / Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would be a combination of reducing fuel loads adjacent to private property and NFS Road 31N17 through felling hazard trees, lop and scatter, handpiles and burn, (Units 1 and 2). In addition to these actions, a strategic fuelbreak- Unit 3, would be created by felling hazard trees, lop and scatter, hand/machine pile, burn and plant conifer trees. Unit 4 would fell hazard trees, lop and scatter, hand pile, burn and be utilized for firewood. Unit 1 would be located approximately ¼ to ½ mile from Hwy 3. The proposed actions would be unnoticed from this distance since the majority of the area would retain its canopy cover and in areas without canopy the actions would be too small of scale to be noticed by a casual forest visitor traveling Please see the Silviculture Report in this environmental analysis. 16 USDA, Forest Service Manual 2380, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Landscape Management, , 5/20/03 17 Please see the Fuels and Silviculture Reports in this environmental analysis for more information. 15

16 miles per hour on Hwy 3. The proposed actions would meet the LRMP required VQO of Retention (management activities not visually evident) in the foreground of Hwy 3. Unit 2 would be located approximately ¼ to 1 mile from Hwy 3; the proposed actions would also be unnoticed from this distance, for the same reasons as Unit 1. The proposed actions would meet the LRMP required VQOs of Retention in the foreground to Partial Retention in the middleground. Unit 3 would be located approximately 1 mile from Wildwood Road; the proposed actions would also be unnoticed by the casual forest visitor from this distance due to vegetative screening. Replanting this area would benefit scenery in the long term because it would help to re-vegetate the area and return it to its conifer canopied condition. This alternative would meet the VQO of Modification which would be the appropriate VQO per the LRMP VQO map, VMS and SMS. Unit 4 would include 2 areas with a total of 14 acres adjacent to Wildwood Road. The proposed actions would include felling hazard trees, lop and scatter, hand pile, burn and be utilized for firewood. These areas were extremely affected by the fire, leaving charred, blackened tree boles totally denuded of their canopies. The understory was burned leaving brown vegetation, blackened woody debris and charred ground. The LRMP required VQO in the foreground as seen from Wildwood Road is Partial Retention. The actions proposed in this unit would not meet Partial Retention due to the proximity to the road and the trees and brush that would need to be removed in the immediate foreground; it would meet Modification VQO in the short term. Within 1 to 5 years forbs, grasses and brush species would grow diminishing the effects of the fire and the proposed actions and thus meet the Partial Retention VQO. The proposed unit would benefit the public by removing safety hazards, providing fire wood and benefit scenery by removing the unsightly burned trees and understory Alternative 4 Timber Salvage Alternative The Timber Salvage Alternative would harvest approximately 612 acres of salvage removal of dead and dying tees where it was economically feasible. No fuels treatments or reforestation effort is proposed in this alternative. One unit in this alternative would be approximately ½ mile from Hwy 3; it would not be visually evident to the casual forest visitor due to its distance from the viewer and small scale in within the larger landscape. There would be nine small units as seen 1/2 mile from Hwy 3 to the top of the ridge. These would meet the required Partial Retention VQO due to the distance from the viewer and the scale of the units within the larger landscape. Alternative 3 would meet the required LRMP VQO and Alternative 1 would not because of the difference in the number of units and acreage. Alternative 1, as seen from Hwy 3, would harvest 30 units with approximately acres while Alternative 4 would harvest 12 units with 16

17 approximately 82 acres. Alternative 1 would harvest four times as many acres which would edge the proposed actions more into the Modification VQO, since they would be more visually evident. Proposed actions in the foreground of Wildwood Road would meet Partial Retention VQO due to the vegetative screening and topography. Units located ½ mile to the top of the ridge would meet the required LRMP VQO of Modification (management activities may dominate the landscape) due to the size and number of units. This alternative would meet the required LRMP VQOs, however it would not replant conifers in harvested areas. Replanting would help to restore the conifer canopied forest which would blend with the surrounding areas and meet visitors expectations for scenic views, therefore this would not be the preferred alternative for scenery. 2.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Alternative 1, No Action, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 The cumulative effects of past and foreseeable projects for all alternatives would meet the LRMP required VQOs. 17

18 3. CONCLUSIONS 3.1 CONCLUSIONS AND/OR DETERMINATIONS Alternatives 2 through 4 would meet the required LRMP VQOs in the short term, however they all lack components that would not meet the publics expectations for scenic views in the long term. Alternative 1 would be preferred for the scenic resource because it addresses the burnt matchsticks in the short term and encourages reforestation which would contribute to a scenic green forest. It also manages plantations and reduces fuel loading which would inhibit the spread of future wildfires thereby protecting the future scenic quality of the area. 3.2 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE All alternatives Alternatives 2 and 4 are in compliance with the Forest Plan and all applicable laws, regulations and policies governing visual resources. Alternatives 1 and 3 would be is consistent with the Forest Plan and all applicable laws, regulations and policies governing visual resources when the LRMP VQOs are adjusted for this project only, from Retention in the foreground of Hwy 3 to Partial Retention and Partial Retention in the middle ground to Modification. The following LRMP statement provides for changing the VQOs, On rare occasions the adopted VQO may not meet management s objectives (i.e. catastrophic events). Any proposed modification to adopted VQOs must go through the NEPA process and be approved by the Forest Supervisor. (pg. 4-27) 18

19 4. REFERENCES Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1995 USDA, Forest Service Manual , 5/20/03, Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Landscape Management USDA Forest Service, 1995, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook, Number 701 USDA Forest Service, 1976, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System, California Region Landscape Character Types and Variety Class Criteria USDA Forest Service, 1974, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System, Handbook 462 VMS studies, bound maps for Hayfork District, on file Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters 4.3 Post-wildfire Management, Jonathan Long and Lenya Quinn-Davidson with contributions from Carl Skinner, Susan Charnley, Ken Hubbert, and Marc Meyer, 2013 USDA, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, under Cooperative Agreement, Wildland-Urban Interface Communities; Response to Post-Fire Salvage Logging, Robert L. Ryan and Elisabeth Hamin,