Bottom Canyon Project

Transcription

1 Prepared by: Morai Helfen Landscape Architect for: Coeur d Alene River Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forests April 2015

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

3 Contents Introduction... 1 Project Summary... 1 Scenery Analysis... 1 Resource Indicators and Measures... 2 Methodology... 3 Affected Environment... 8 Existing Condition... 8 Project Information Related to Scenic Quality Design Features Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Alternatives 2 and Monitoring Consistency with the Forest Plan Summary of Environmental Effects References Cited i

4 Tables Table 1. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to scenery Table 2. Resource indicators and measures for the existing scenic quality condition within the project boundary Table 3. Summary of proposed activities under Alternatives 2 and Table 4. Vegetation management activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and Table 5. Effects to scenery in corridors with sensitive viewsheds for Alternatives 2 and Figures Figure 1. Critical viewpoints, high concern level travel corridors and trails for the Bottom Canyon Project Area Figure 2. Proposed vegetative treatments (colored units in center of image) in the Bottom Canyon Project Area, shown in relation to the Deerfoot and Hoodoo Ames projects currently in progress Figure 3. Photo of the Area depicting existing landscape character; in this view, a harvest unit (outside the project area) can be seen in the background Figure 4. Existing Scenic Integrity Objectives in the Area with proposed units overlaid Figure 5. Existing Concern Levels and visibility zones in the Area Figure 6. Proposed units in the Area have amoderate overall SIO Figure 7. Vista from Nicholas Ridge and Trail 69 looking southeast Figure 8. Units crossing or intersecting high concern-level travel corridors along Roads 1511 and Figure 9. Existing landscape from viewpoint at Road 406; proposed timber harvest locations Figure 10. Viewpoint from Trail 802, looking southwest to west Figure 11. Viewpoint from Trail 802, looking north Figure 12. Overview of Trail 802 showing proposed units 12B and 13A and proposed new road construction either crossing or coming into contact with trail ii

5 Introduction Project Summary The Bottom Canyon area of interest is located approximately 10 miles northeast of Coeur d Alene, Idaho within Kootenai County (the legal location is T51N R2W, sections 1-3, 10-12, 13-16, and 25-26; T51N R1W sections 6-9, and 30; T52N R2W sections 35-36; and T52N R1W section 31, Boise Meridian) and in the drainages of Burnt Cabin, Lone Cabin, Lost Mine, George, Bottom, Canyon, Nicholas, Beaver and Cathcart Creeks, all of which drain into Little North Fork of the Coeur d Alene River. The proposes management activities in order to achieve the following objectives: Objective 1 Improve resiliency of the landscape to future disturbances by increasing the quantity and distribution of western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and western red cedar; Objective 2 Contribute to employment and income by providing forest products from National Forest System lands. Objective 3 Improve water quality and aquatic habitats by decreasing erosion and sediment delivery to streams, and replacing aquatic organism passage culverts; The objectives of the project would increase stands of long-living insect and disease-resistant species, including western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and western red cedar; retain old growth components; reduce the amount of less-resilient species such as Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western hemlock; improve stability in resource-based communities through the production of timber; contribute to the accomplishment of timber management goals and to the desired future condition of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest; and improve water quality in the area through minor stream restoration. Planned Proposed activities would be visible in the foreground, middleground and background viewsheds of Fernan Saddle, Burnt Cabin Summit, Hudlow Meadows, Five Finger Saddle; FSR 406, 206, 1587, 1511, 612; Trails #802 and 69. The IPNF Forest Plan (CR-048) identifies the Area as having a Scenery Integrity Objective of Moderate, and is mostly within Concern Level 1 with a small portion in Concern Level 2. Scenery Analysis This report analyzes the visual impacts of proposed management activities to determine whether the activities would meet forest plan guidelines for scenic quality (PF Doc. CR-048). To analyze visual impacts photos were taken of vistas and in 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 impacts to scenery within the project area over the short term (within approximately 5 years of project completion), mid-term (approximately 5-25 years) and long term (25 to 30+ years). The scenic quality analysis utilizes the Scenery Management System (SMS) to analyze the effects to the scenic integrity of the landscape as a result of implementing activities under the, including vegetation management, watershed restoration, fuels treatments, road construction and related activities. The SMS recognizes natural disturbance processes such as fire, insects, and disease, to be part of the natural landscape and play an important role in maintaining healthy, sustainable, and scenic landscapes. These disturbance regimes are evaluated as part of an evolving landscape and can create 1

6 positive changes to the scenic integrity of a landscape. A more diverse mosaic of vegetation, increased species diversity, and diversity of age classes are all potential results of natural disturbance processes that will be compared with positive attributes defined in the desired landscape character descriptions. As stated in the Bottom Canyon Environmental Assessment (Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1), one of the objectives of the project is to increase landscape resiliency which includes diverse vegetation through vegetation management. The SMS also recognizes that without these disturbance processes, the likelihood of catastrophic events is increased and the resulting landscape will likely not meet established desired conditions for vegetation, scenery, or other natural resources. Resource Indicators and Measures The analysis considers the landscape character of the project area, the existing condition (existing scenic integrity), and the objectives for scenery (SIOs) assigned by the Forest Plan. Scenic Integrity Objectives represent the level of integrity (degree of acceptable alteration) to be achieved within the natural and cultural features of the area. Although management activities may alter the scenic integrity of the landscape, proposals must be consistent with the SIOs assigned in the Forest Plan (CR-048). SIOs provide measurable standards for scenery management in conjunction with demands for goods and services from the forest. Scenic resource management is integral to all management areas and implied in all management goals. Scenic analysis considers the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding natural landscape and the SIOs of areas proposed for treatments as assigned under the current Forest Plan. SIOs are a desired level of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physiological and sociological characteristics of an area, and refers to the degree of acceptable alterations of the landscape. Effects to the scenic resources are discussed in general terms and whether or not the proposed activities would meet the prescribed SIOs. Resource indicators and measures are listed below in Table 1 for the. The frame of reference for evaluating the condition of the attributes is contained in the landscape character description. Below is a brief description of each Scenic Integrity Objective. Very High: Landscape character largely intact, with only minute if any deviations. High: Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears intact or unaltered. Moderate: Management activities are noticeable but subordinate to the landscape character. Landscape character appears slightly altered. Low: Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape character. Design features are used to repeat the line, form, color and texture of the landscape character. 2

7 Table 1. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to scenery. Resource Element Scenic Integrity Visibility Scenic Attractiveness Resource Indicator Measure Indicator Source Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) very high, high, moderate or low Seen-Areas and Distance Zones are mapped according to the Concern Levels of 1, 2, or 3 (1 being the highest) to determine the relative sensitivity of scenes based on their distance from an observer and the determination of the relative importance of aesthetics to the public; Visibility is identified as 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). The intrinsic scenic beauty of the project area as Scenic Attractiveness Class A (Distinctive), B (Typical), or C (Indistinctive). Whether SIO s are met, considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures Identify Concern Levels and their Distance Zones for views of the Project area as seen from public use areas, and then determine whether proposed activities meet determined Concern Level (areas with greater sensitivity) considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures Whether proposed activities meet the determined Scenic Attractiveness Class, considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures IPNFs Land Management Plan (2015 Revision) FW-DC-AR-02, FW-GDL- AR-01, MA6-GDL-AR-05; FSM 2380 and Handbook 701 USDA FS HB 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management FSM 2380 and Handbook 701 USDA FS HB 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management FSM 2380 and Handbook 701 USDA FS HB 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management Scenic Class Developed to determine the relative scenic value of lands within a particular Landscape Character; Class A-Distinctive, Class B-Typical, Class C-Indistinctive Whether proposed activities meet the determined Scenic Class FSM 2380 and Handbook 701 USDA FS HB 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management Methodology Models and Information Sources The management of scenic resources is integral to providing quality recreation settings and opportunities, as well as contributing to the quality of life and mental well-being of forest visitors. General direction for scenery management is provided by the Scenery Management System (SMS) found in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 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. Project level analysis was completed in accordance with USDA FS HB 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for scenery management. Terms used to describe particular elements of the SMS are located in the attached document titled SMS Definitions. 3

8 As stated in USDA FS Handbook 701, one factor that determines the importance of scenery, expressed as concern level, is constituent input from all available sources to determine the degree of public importance placed on scenery. Project planning for Bottom Canyon has been a collaborative effort with a high degree of public input. Comment received during project scoping and open house discussions has not revealed a high interest or concern with existing scenery quality, nor have any scenery concerns been raised relative to the proposed action alternatives. The Panhandle Forest Collaborative, a stakeholder group that has participated heavily in project planning, identified a number of resource values of high concern including wildlife, old growth, water quality, forest health and sustainable wood product production. This group of individuals and local community leaders representing state and local government, environmental organizations, motorized and non-motorized recreationists and the timber industry has not identified scenery as a resource of concern during field trips to discuss timber management prescriptions or at any other time. Specific scenic resource management direction is provided by the 2015 Revision of the IPNF Land and Resource Management (Forest) Plan, and is described in terms Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO s). Forest Plan SIO guidelines were based on the Visual Management System described in Agriculture Handbook Number 462, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2 (PF-Doc. PI- R02). The visual management system was revised in 1995, and is now known as the Scenery Management System. Forest Plan direction which pertains to scenic resources in the Bottom Canyon Project area is as follows: 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. To analyze visual impacts photos were taken in popular travel corridors during site visits to areas where proposed treatments would be seen and concern levels were high. Photos were 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. Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The geographic scope of the scenery analysis for the includes areas visible from key locations both within and outside the area of interest. Key visual points of interest (Figure 1) bounding the visual resource area include Fernan Saddle, Burnt Cabin Summit, Hudlow Meadows, Five Finger Saddle; Forest Roads 406, 206, 1587, 1511, 612; Trails 802 and 69. Because the Bottom Canyon Project Area is highly utilized for recreation, it has many sensitive viewsheds. Those of highest concern are at viewpoints along frequently traveled roads where there is high visibility into the project area, trailheads and vistas along popular trails. Direct and indirect effects analysis focuses on the viewshed within which the proposed activities can be seen, and the extent proposed treatment units affect the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) assigned to that piece of ground. The cumulative effects area is similar to that for the direct and indirect effects, except that it takes into account the entire viewshed, as opposed to focusing on the individual units and surrounding area. The temporal scope of the analysis is limited to the years following harvest activities the length of time openings created by regeneration harvest are likely to be evident. 4

9 Figure 1. Critical viewpoints, high concern level travel corridors and trails for the Area. 5

10 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Over the past years, the Area has experienced extensive logging and road building. According to the Forest Service s (FACTS) database for tracking activities on National Forest System lands, approximately 6,500 acres (59%) of the project area has experienced some level of timber harvest. Regeneration harvest (clearcut, shelterwood, overstory removal and liberation cut) during the 1960s and 1970s account for about 60% of this harvest. It is also likely that some amount of additional selection and sanitation/salvage logging has occurred over the past hundred plus years that has not been recorded. A road network was established in the project area to transport timber resources to the mill and have provided access for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. The road network includes over 180 miles of road and results in an 11 mi./sq. mi. watershed road density. Mining and associated activities have also played a role shaping the current condition of the area. Openings created by timber harvest activities from past projects are evident throughout the area of interest. Although some have regenerated to the point where they no longer appear as openings per se, there are still relatively small areas that appear as seed tree harvest units. Presently, the constituents of the Coeur d Alene area who frequent the area utilize the popular motorized loop trails (e.g. trail 802 and 2340) as important connector trails for access to more interior areas of the district. Hunting, driving for pleasure, and mushroom and berry picking are other noteworthy activities in the area. Camping, hiking and other forms of recreation occur on a more limited or isolated basis. Firewood gathering, considered by some as a recreational activity, occurs often in the project area. Currently, within a 1-2 mile range radius of the Area, two vegetation projects are actively being treated. The Deerfoot Project, to the west of the Area, primarily consists of prescribed burns and shelterwood cuts with underburning. The Hoodoo Ames Project to the southeast of the Area involves a second and third entry into 362 acres of National Forest System land. Activities taking place consist of complex mixtures of even-aged regeneration harvests, uneven aged regeneration harvests and thinning in order to achieve a diverse age-class of trees. Other past, present and future activities including prescribed burning, tree planting, public use, road reconstruction and maintenance, trail construction and maintenance, precommercial timber stand improvements, and private land activities would have no significant effect on the visual condition of the area of interest because they do not create large enough man-made openings to alter the inherent landscape character to the degree that it would become a dominate visual element within the viewshed. 6

11 Figure 2. Proposed vegetative treatments (colored units in center of image) in the Area, shown in relation to the Deerfoot and Hoodoo Ames projects currently in progress. 7

12 Affected Environment Existing Condition The Area is within the far western boundary of the Coeur d Alene River Ranger District in Kootenai County, approximately a 10 to 15 minute drive from Coeur d Alene and other population centers in Kootenai County. The project area is easily accessible to visitors from Bonner and Shoshone counties and the Spokane metropolitan area. The project area contains among the most popular and heavily used summer and winter motorized trail routes on the Coeur d Alene River Ranger District. Socio-Economic Condition Currently Kootenai County is experiencing significant growth in population, with an associated increase in home development adjacent to NFS lands. Mining and logging have been important industries in this area since the 1800s. The Coeur d Alene Tribe recognizes this geographic area as part of their aboriginal territory containing sites of religious and cultural significance and natural resources important for tribal use. Landscape Character The existing landscape character of the area is composed of mountainous terrain typical of north Idaho montane forests with generally dense coniferous forest cover primarily comprised of grand fir and western hemlock with underlying shrubs and conifer regeneration. Throughout the area past timber harvest is evident, but tree regeneration is well established. The setting is a landscape of rounded ridgetops, moderately steep tree-cloaked slopes, and moist benches and stream bottoms. Management activities are visible, but widely spaced and generally subordinate to natural landscape features. Second only to past timber harvest, the most evident management feature is the system of roads and trails throughout the area. The project area has a couple of private residences scattered within its northwest section along Forest Road 1587, Canyon Forks Creek Road, and the Area can be viewed mainly from travel corridors along Roads 544, 406, 206, 1511, 1587,and Trails 802 and Figure 3. Photo of the Area depicting existing landscape character; in this view, a harvest unit (outside the project area) can be seen in the background. 8

13 Table 2. Resource indicators and measures for the existing scenic quality condition within the project boundary. 1 Resource Element Scenic Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) - Integrity 1 very high, high, moderate or low Scenic Attractiveness *Visibility Scenic Class Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition (Alternative 1) The intrinsic scenic beauty of the project area as Scenic Attractiveness Class A (Distinctive), B (Typical), or C (Indistinctive). Seen-Areas and Distance Zones are mapped according to the Concern Levels of 1, 2, or 3 (1 being the highest) to determine the relative sensitivity of scenes based on their distance from an observer and the determination of the relative importance of aesthetics to the public; Visibility is identified as 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). Developed to determine the relative scenic value of lands within a particular Landscape Character; Class A-Distinctive, Class B-Typical, Class C-Indistinctive Whether SIO s are met, considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures Whether proposed activities meet the determined Scenic Attractiveness Class, considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures Identify Concern Levels and their Distance Zones for views of project area as seen from sensitive viewsheds, and then determine whether proposed activities meet Concern Level, considering proposed activities, design features, and mitigation measures Whether proposed activities meet the determined Scenic Class Moderate Class B (Typical) Majority of the project area is classified as having a Concern Level of 1 with a small amount in Concern Level 2. Foreground 1 and 3: none Foreground 2: yes Middleground 2 and 3: none Middleground 1: yes Background 2 and 3: none Background 1: yes Class B (Typical) Since Scenic Class and Attractiveness are Typical, the two main indicators used in this analysis are the SIO and Visibility guidelines. 9

14 Scenic Integrity Objective Under the Forest Plan, lands within the Area have been designated predominantly within Management Area (MA) 6 - General Forest Area, and the desired condition for scenery is described in terms of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO s). The project area falls mainly within the SIO levels of Moderate to Low with some areas in the High SIO. All proposed activity for the project is shown in the Moderate to Low SIO. Concern levels and visibility from sensitive corridors help determine if the area analyzed is to be treated as Moderate as Low. Figure 4. Existing Scenic Integrity Objectives in the Area with proposed units overlaid. Visibility and Concern Levels Seen-Areas and Distance Zones (see Scenery Management Definitions document in project filevis- 003) are illustrated on a map (Figure 5) via Concern Levels 1, 2, or 3 (1 being the highest and of most concern) 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). These levels represent what can be seen and the relative importance of aesthetics to the users. According to the Forest Plan, the Area is within Foreground 2, Middleground 1 and Background 1 concern levels. Concern levels for the Bottom Canyon project help determine if the Forest Plan-assigned SIO is to be treated as Moderate or Low. In the case of the Area, the SIO is Moderate. 10

15 Figure 5. Existing Concern Levels and visibility zones in the Area. 11

16 Figure 6. Proposed units in the Area have amoderate overall SIO. 12

17 Project Information Related to Scenic Quality Design Features The following design features would be applied as part of the proposed activities to reduce the visual impact of the harvest areas under Alternatives 2 and 3. For Skyline Yarding: Location of skyline corridors and skid trails would be designed to minimize visual impact and should be designed so that the edges of the unit emulate natural edge patterns with a minimum of geometric lines. Avoid widely spaced trees that are silhouetted along the skyline. Minimize the number of skyline corridors in visually sensitive areas (see Figure 8 and Table 5). Selecting skyline systems with lateral yarding capabilities would be preferred. Screening: Where feasible, in areas with highly utilized recreation corridors, keep trees within a foot buffer to screen harvest activity from public recreating. Slash Treatment: Slash, root wads, and other debris will be removed, burned, chipped or lopped to a height of 2 feet or less in sensitive view sheds. Road, Skid Trail, and Landing Construction: Where feasible, retain screening trees one tree-height below roads and landings (including cable landings) when viewed from below. Avoid creating a straight edge of trees by saving clumps of trees and single trees with varied spacing Where new access roads and skid trails meet a primary travel route, they should intersect at a right angle and, where feasible, curve after the junction to minimize the length of route seen from the primary travel route Shape, Edges and Structure of Individual Units: Edges would be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a shadowing effect in the cut unit. Where the unit interfaces with an opening, the percent of thinning would be progressively increased toward the outside edge of the unit. Where unit interfaces with denser forest the thinning would be decreased toward the outside edge. In addition, this transition zone should avoid being uniform in size and should vary in width. 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; this is especially important along ridgelines silhouetted against the sky. Boundaries for units visible in the foreground of sensitive viewsheds would be shaped and feathered to reduce any unnaturally shaped edges in order to reduce hard edges that appear as man-made features on the landscape. 13

18 Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action Direct and Indirect Effects With no harvest activity planned to occur under Alternative 1 (no-action) there would be no direct or short-term affects to the scenic condition of the area. The openings in forest cover that are visible as a result of past forest management would continue to recover tree growth, and overtime would no longer appear as unnatural openings. Processes affecting forest dynamics would continue, including insect and disease related mortality which would appear as individual and groups of dead trees scattered across the landscape. The SMS requires land managers to consider natural disturbance regimes and long term effects when determining whether an SIO is achieved. It is important to call attention to the fact that a proposed action will always be assessed alongside a no action alternative, often which could result in catastrophic events with negative short term effects to scenery and possibly to many other resources, as well. Delaying harvest in overstocked timber stands could result in an increase in tree mortality and fuel build-up. Continued fuel loading and the overall lack of diversity within the forested vegetation could increase the risk of high intensity wildfires that could kill most of the vegetation in both upland and riparian areas. In the long term, the landscape character could change with the no action alternative because the disturbances could occur across larger landscapes, have greater intensity, resulting in a dramatic change to the appearance and function of the landscape. Cumulative Effects There would be no change in the scenic quality of the area of interest in alternative 1 in the short term, but the risk of wildfire would increase with time. The existing openings would continue to regenerate and within years should no longer appear as openings. The potential for a greater number of non-fire resistant and root disease prone tree species will grow. The potential for wildfire and root-disease mortality would remain, and the growing lack of diversity in tree species would contribute to a greater number and scale of openings caused by large wind, fire and insect-related disturbances. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This area currently meets the Landscape Character Goals, Scenic Integrity Objectives 2015 Revision of the IPNF Land and Resource Management (Forest) Plan Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO s) of Moderate to Low. General 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. 14

19 Summary of Effects There would be no effect on the scenic resource in alternative 1 in the short term but long term the mature Douglas-fir and grand fir in the area would continue to deteriorate due to insect and disease damages, creating an increased amount of dead and dying trees in the area. The natural openings currently found in the area of interest would continue to increase in size and number as more areas experience disease and fire. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Alternatives 2 and 3 share the same proposed activities (listed below in Table 3) with the exception that Alternative 3 proposes additional watershed restoration associated with Road 206, as well as the relocation of Trail 69. For more detailed descriptions of the types of vegetative treatments being proposed, please see Chapter 2 of the EA. Table 3. Summary of proposed activities under Alternatives 2 and 3. Activity Alt.2 and 3 Proposed vegetation management activities Vegetation management activities associated with commercial timber harvest 1 Vegetation treatments 2 (acres) 2,272 Logging systems 3 Ground based (acres) 297 Skyline (acres) 1,261 Fuel treatments associated with commercial timber harvest 3 (acres) 1,558 Reforestation (acres) 1,558 Early stand-tending activities precommercial thinning, weeding and release (acres) 1,558 Road work associated with timber harvest Construction of permanent (system) road (miles) 3.0 Construction of temporary (non-system) road (miles) 2.4 Reconstruction followed by decommissioning after project completion (miles) 0.8 Reconstruction followed by storage after project completion (miles) 15.0 Reconstruction followed by restoration to OHV trail standards after project 6.0 Vegetation management activities not associated with commercial timber harvest Prescribed burning followed by planting (acres) 134 Mastication followed by planting in unharvested retention areas (acres) 112 Precommercial thinning, weeding and release of previously-regenerated stands 13 Proposed watershed restoration activities Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Road decommissioning work 4 Decommissioning of roads closed to public motorized use (miles) Decommissioning of roads open to public motorized use (miles) Construction/reconstruction of roads open to public motorized use 5 (miles) Road storage work 4 (miles) Aquatic Organism Passage repair (number of sites) Proposed vegetation management activities would be the same under either of the action alternatives. 2 Includes an estimated 715 acres of unharvested retention areas associated with the harvest units. 3 Excludes unharvested retention areas. 4 Past watershed restoration work that has occurred in the area included 15 miles of decommissioning and 14 miles of roads put into storage; these miles are not reflected in the table. 5 This represents the decommissioning of the segment of Road 206 in the floodplain (with stream channel restoration activities), and the subsequent construction/reconstruction is the reroute for this segment. 15

20 Alternatives 2 and 3 A full description of Alternatives 2 and 3 are provided in Chapter 2 of the Bottom Canyon EA. Proposed vegetation management activities would be the same under both action alternatives (Table 4). Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose road decommissioning, road storage, Aquatic Organism Passage replacement or improvement, and culvert improvement. Alternative 3 proposes additional watershed restoration associated with Road 206, including road decommissioning, stream channel restoration and floodplain connectivity activities, as well as the relocation of Trail 69 in order to address trail deterioration. The scenic integrity of the project area would be temporarily altered to accommodate road relocation and watershed restoration activities, but the area would recover quickly and soon regain a natural appearance. Table 4. Vegetation management activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3. Activity Alternative 2 and 3 1 (acres) Precommercial Thin 466 Commercial Thin 5 Aggregate Retention (~30% canopy cover retained) 466 Irregular Selection (>40% canopy cover retained) 973 Group Shelterwood (15-25% canopy cover retained) 473 Clearcut with Reserves (~10-20% canopy cover retained) 32 Patch Clearcut (~10-20% canopy cover retained 33 Seedtree Cut (<10% canopy cover retained) 16 Broadcast Burn 126 Total vegetation management associated with commercial harvest 2,590 1 Note that these acres are estimates and do not account for all the unharvested retention within the prescription areas (some of the retention would be located and arranged during the layout of the harvest units as fine scale, site specific features dictate). Direct and Indirect Effects This analysis is mainly concerned with the landscape observed from areas having a high concern level as identified in the Forest Plan, which results in the project area having a SIO of Moderate. A Moderate SIO means management activities may be noticeable but subordinate to the natural character of the landscape. Proposed management actions that have concern from a scenic resource standpoint are evaluated for how they conform to naturally occurring features that exist or could be created by natural events. Many of the proposed management features have short-term visual effects, but would not have long-term effects. Precommercial thinning is a management action that is evident at first, but rarely has a long-term effect on scenic resources. Broadcast burning only units would be evident to an observer in the near-term, but would likely recover more quickly and more closely resemble naturally occurring events within the mid to long term. For instance, immediately after a fire, there are short term effects such as: red needles, burned trunks, snags, and possibly little or no understory vegetation. Depending on the intensity of the fires, these effects are often only last one or two years. As the landscape recovers, the short-term effects diminish and long term changes such as: mosaic of vegetation patterns, snags punctuating the new growth canopies, and variety in colors and textures begin to appear. These changes add interest and diversity to the landscape and the effects to the scenic resources are considered positive by most people. In contrast, cut stumps, roads and residual disturbance from logging systems appear as man-made change in the near, 16

21 mid and sometimes even the long term. Wildfire is a naturally occurring weather event that should be emulated when timber management is performed in sensitive landscapes. Therefore, precommercial thinning and broadcast burning only units would meet the forest plan SIO of Moderate. The proposed activities which are of most concern visually are those with prescribed treatments that would appear as man-made openings taking up more than 50% of the seen-area once harvests are complete, are within the foreground and middleground of concern areas, and would be seen from viewpoints identified as sensitive (see Table 5). The Area has proposed activity in each visibility range and would be seen from viewpoints along key travel corridors. Proposed activities that are blocked from these viewpoints by terrain and vegetation are considered to be in compliance with the SIOs. Aggregate retention, shelterwood and seed tree harvests are classified as even-aged regeneration openings, and would likely appear as man-made openings once harvests are complete. Such activities are proposed in actions common to alternatives 2 and 3. However, the percentage of crown cover and leave trees varies between these regeneration categories, and more reserve trees would likely help the postharvest units appear more like natural openings and help maintain the intactness of the natural landscape aesthetic and character. Residual stands after shelterwood treatment would retain approximately 15-25% canopy cover, irregularly distributed across the units, with openings 10 trees per acre or less. Seed tree harvests would tend to have less than 10 trees per acre arranged as scattered individuals and/or in small groups. Aggregate retention treatment units would retain up to 30% of the original stand as aggregates. Aggregate retention treatment may also retain individual trees as dispersed retention throughout the harvested portions of the new stand. Irregular selection treatments are also proposed in high concern viewsheds. Irregular selection is a combination of patch clearcuts (with and without reserves), shelterwood with reserves, and retention implemented over a year period of time utilizing two to three harvest entries to gradually increase the size of individual openings where feasible to do so (see Chapter 2 of the Bottom Canyon EA for detailed descriptions of each of these treatments). Irregular selection harvests would be a complex mixture of harvested and unharvested areas. The unharvested areas would comprise 40% of the total treatment area and would have 100% canopy cover retention. The harvested areas would cover 60% of the total treatment area and have 0-15% canopy cover retention. Irregular selection units are more difficult to evaluate for effects to scenery due to the wide range of possible treatments within the stand. For the purpose of this report, such treatment units are analyzed as patch clearcuts with some reserves. Sensitive Travel Corridors Scenic-sensitive travel and recreation corridors in the project area consist of Roads 406, 206, 1587, 1511, 612; Trails 802 and 69; Fernan Saddle, Burnt Cabin Summit, Hudlow Meadows and Five Finger Saddle. Proposed activities would be visible from viewsheds in these corridors in the foreground, middleground and background. All proposed actions have the SIO of Moderate, and are mostly within concern level 1 with a small portion in concern level 2. Please refer to Table 5 for details. 17

22 Viewpoints from Road 1511, Spades Connection and Road 1587: At the popular vista Nicholas Ridge, located at the intersection of Trail 69 and Road 1511, Unit 22A (shelterwood with reserves) and Units 22B and 23B (irregular selection) would be seen in the foreground, middleground and background, and would dominate the landscape. However, since the canopy cover would be approximately 30-40% (possibly even more in the irregular selection treatment units) throughout the treated area, the residual openings after management would not appear as unnatural in the mid to long term. The existing landscape character would be altered and noticeable, but the treatments would not ultimately dominate the view as the stand begins to regenerate, and the SIO of Moderate would be met. Forest Roads 1511 and 1587 are both popular travel routes and have multiple viewpoints where proposed units would be seen. The units of most concern would be those that cross or contact concern level 1 travel corridors. Figure 8 shows proposed units which cross or contact such corridors and the treatments assigned to each unit. The prescriptions that would leave the most man-made looking openings are those with 30% or less canopy cover: clearcut with reserves, seedtree cut, and group shelterwood. Therefor the units that fall into these categories as well as intersect the 1511 and 1587 corridors would not meet the SIO of Moderate in the near or mid term, but would in the long term as the area recovers. These units are: 14B, 21A, 17A, 17C-F, 20A and 21A, and make up a total of acres. Viewpoint from Intersection of Roads 406 and 612 On the west side of the Area, north of Fernan Saddle, Roads 612 and 406 intersect. Here Road 406 begins to go north toward Trail 802. Natural-appearing openings can be seen in this viewshed, but they are small and do not dominate the landscape character. This portion of the project area is mapped as concern level 1 in the Forest Plan. From this location, Unit 9G would be seen in the foreground, Units 9C, 10A-B, 26A-B in the middleground and Units 11B, 15A- B, 12A-B in the background. Figure 9 shows the position of the units on the landscape. While shelterwood units (9G, 10A, 11B, 12A-B, 15A) would likely appear as unnatural openings for 1 to 5 years, there would be enough retained canopy cover that the opening would appear natural in the middleground viewing zone in the mid to long term. Since low retention treatment Units 9G and10a are proposed in the foreground and middleground from this viewpoint, the treatment units would dominate the existing view and would not meet the SIO of Moderate in the near or mid term, but would in the long term as the area recovers. Viewpoint from Trail 802, looking southwest Trail 802 is a popular OHV trail and would be substantially impacted in the near term and mid-term by the proposed vegetation management actions under Alternatives 2 and 3. Proposed units can be seen in the background, middleground and foreground looking southwest and west from the trail (Figure 5). The units in the more western view (on the right hand side of the image) would likely recover within the next 5 to 25 years and no longer appear as openings from this view because they have higher retention rates and are located in the background. These units are 8A-B, 9D 1-2, 25A, 25A-AR, 26A, 26B, 9F-G (see Figure 10 for unit prescriptions). Of most concern are the units to the more southwest of the viewshed (on the left side of the image) and how they would contribute to the overall contribution of man-made openings to the landscape character for this high concern level area. These units (3E-IS, 3E-PCC, 3E- GrpS, 3H-G) carry various prescriptions with different retention levels, but in combination with the other proposed units seen from this viewpoint, would create a large area where management would dominate the landscape character in the near and mid-term, and perhaps into the long term time period as well due to multiple entries planned for irregular selection. Proposed activities in this viewshed would not meet the SIO of Moderate in the near or mid term, but would in the long term as the area recovers. 18

23 Looking north from Trail 802, units 16A and 14A (irregular selection with 40% unharvested retention) would be seen in the foreground, middleground and background. These units would appear as large swaths of disturbance drifting down the slope and becoming narrower at the base. This kind of pattern may appear as large fire drifts from this viewpoint, resembling a more natural event post-harvest than the views to the southwest from the trail. Also, the view looking north from the trail contains two geometric harvests from a previous entry. Units 14A and 16A would lessen the impact of these past harvests and help them blend into the surrounding setting. Proposed new roads, NC-02 and NC-03, are seen in the middle ground and background within this same viewshed. Although the roads would be noticeable in the near and mid-term, plans to decommission new temporary roads would lessen the impact to the scenic integrity in the long term. Where units cross or utilize the trail for haul routes or logging landings (Figure 12), the impact to the character of the landscape would be changed from natural to heavily modified, not meeting the SIO for a high concern level trail in the near and midterm. The SIO could be achieved in the long term as the area recovers. 19

24 Figure 7. Vista from Nicholas Ridge and Trail 69 looking southeast. 20

25 Figure 8. Units crossing or intersecting high concern-level travel corridors along Roads 1511 and

26 Figure 9. Existing landscape from viewpoint at Road 406; proposed timber harvest locations. 22

27 Figure 10. Viewpoint from Trail 802, looking southwest to west. 23

28 Figure 11. Viewpoint from Trail 802, looking north. 24

29 Figure 12. Overview of Trail 802 showing proposed units 12B and 13A and proposed new road construction either crossing or coming into contact with trail. 25

30 Table 5. Effects to scenery in corridors with sensitive viewsheds for Alternatives 2 and 3. Effects Treatment Areas Visibility Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO)/Compliance Viewpoint from start of Trail 69, Road 1511, Spades Connection Unit 22A (shelterwood with reserves), and units 22B and 23B (irregular selection), would be seen in the foreground, middleground and background. The canopy cover would be approximately 30-40% throughout the treated area, hence the residual openings after management would not appear as unnatural in the mid to long term. The existing landscape character would be altered and noticeable, but the treatments would not ultimately dominate the view as the stand begins to regenerate; multiple units intersect both concern level 1 travel corridors 1511 and 1587, but those of most concern carry prescriptions with fewer leave trees:14b, 21A, 17A, 17C-F, 20A and 21A. Viewpoint intersection of Roads 406 and 612 Units can be seen in foreground, middleground and background; the most obvious activity would be in foreground and middleground where low retention treatment units 9G and10a are proposed. Viewpoint from trail 802, looking southwest Treatment units dominate view from ridge looking southwest to west from the trail in simulations. Further groundtruthing would be required to determine if units can actually be seen from ridge or if blocked by vegetation. Units 13A, 14A-B, 15B, 16A-B, 17A-F, 18A-B, 19B, 20A, 21A, 23A-B Road segments NC- 01, NC-02, NC-03 Units 9C, 9G, 10A- B, 11B, 12A-B, 15A- B, 26A-B Units 3C, 3E-GPS, 3E-IS, 3H-G, 6A-B, 7C, 8A-B, 9F-G, 9D 1-2, 25A, 25-AR, 26A, 26B Concern Level 2 1, foreground, middleground and background Concern Level 2 1, background Concern Level 2 1, foreground, middleground and background Concern Level 2 1, foreground, middleground and background In compliance with a Moderate SIO except where specified units intersect and/or cross existing sensitive travel corridors (14B, 21A, 17A, 17C-F, 20A and 21A). Here treatments would not meet the SIO in the near to mid term, but would meet SIOs in the long term. In compliance with a Moderate SIO. Other existing roads can be seen in the viewshed as well, and since the new roads will be in the background, they would be subordinate to the landscape character. In compliance with a Moderate SIO in the mid to long term. Units 9G and 10A would not met SIO in the near to mid-term, but would meet SIO in the long term. SIO of Moderate would not be met in near to mid term because treatments dominate views from trail, but would be met in the long term. Future entries will be analyzed for effects to scenery. Trail 802, looking north Units would be seen in the foreground, middle and background and dominate the landscape but would not negatively affect the scenery because of the high tree retention rate and due to how they help lessen the effect of two prior geometric looking harvests. Units could appear as a natural fire event within the mid-term due to size and position on the landscape; proposed road NC-03 and units 12B and 13A will directly impact Trail 802 because they cross the trail tread impacting the trail substantially and not meeting the concern level of high for this corridor Units 12A, 14A, 15B, 16A, 16B Concern Level 2 1, foreground, middleground and background SIO of Moderate would not be met in the near to mid-term, but would be met in the long term. 1 Viewpoint is identified as Concern Level 1 in Forest Plan, but extensive public comment and collaboration did not identify scenery as a high resource concern, warranting reclassification as Concern Level 2. 26