resource effects analysis

Honey Badger Scenery Effects Analysis Prepared by: Douglas Wright, Forest Landscape Architect

For: Coeur d’Alene River Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle National Forest Date: March 2021

Introduction This analysis tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS in its entirety and in particular pages 440-441 and 448-449, which address the scenery analysis. The Forest Plan EIS analysis of potential effects focused on quality of the visitor experience as represented by scenic integrity objectives and the potential influence of various strategies and approaches to management of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, including effects of roads, timber harvest, prescribed fire, and recreation ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013) pages 449-453). The FEIS describes the need for site-specific project analysis to determine Forest Plan compliance and any necessary design criteria or mitigation measures (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015).

The Forest Plan directs that management activities should be consistent with the mapped scenic integrity objective (MA6-GDL-AR-05 and MA7-GDL-AR-05) so that scenic resources complement the recreation settings and experiences while reflecting healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions (FW-DC-AR-02).

This analysis does not revisit the information presented in the Forest Plan and focuses only on potential effects on scenery associated with implementing the proposed activities in the Honey Badger project area. Other information about scenery in the Honey Badger project area is provided in the project files as noted.

Methodology

Issue Indicators and Measures The resource indicator used to measure effects to scenic resources is scenic integrity, measured qualitatively in terms of scenic integrity levels. These levels represent the “degree of intactness and wholeness of the Landscape Character” ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995) p. 7) in relation to both the existing and desired scenic integrity. Furthermore, the use of scenic integrity as an indicator of change facilitates comparison with SIOs (identified as guidelines in the Forest Plan) to determine compliance of the project.

The Forest Plan ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015) p. 124) defines each of the scenic integrity levels as follows:

Very High – Landscape is intact with changes resulting primarily through natural processes and disturbance regimes.

High – Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears unaltered.

Moderate – Management activities are noticeable but are subordinate to the landscape character. The landscape character appears slightly altered.

Low – Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape but are designed to blend with surroundings by repeating line, form, color, and texture of valued landscape character attributes. The landscape appears altered.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5436506.pdf

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3826554.pdf

Honey Badger Scenery Effects Analysis

Scenic integrity objectives within the project area range from high to low. The high level scenic integrity objective level occurs along the eastern portion of the project area, including Spades Mountain and Forest Trails 14 and 802, as well as in the vicinity of Fernan Road, Canfield Mountain, and Hayden Lake. Most of the project area is comprised of the moderate level scenic integrity objective, with a minor amount of low level scenic integrity objective throughout (Figure 1).


Figure 1: Map showing the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trail, rivers, and lakes and scenic integrity objectives (scenic integrity objectives) germane to the Honey Badger project.


Models and Information Sources Management activities such as timber harvesting and road construction/reconstruction can affect scenic resources by creating changes in the form, line, color, or texture in a given viewing area. The degree of visual impacts resulting from these actions depends on the interaction of elements in relation to the viewer, such as the surrounding landscape, slope, aspect, and frequency and duration of the view.

The Scenery Management System as described in Agriculture Handbook No. 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, was adopted by the IPNFs with the Forest Plan. Its’ principles and terminology were used to evaluate the proposed Honey Badger project. The Scenery Management System differs in its approach from previous systems and approaches in that it recognizes the potentially positive visual impact of man-made improvements of historic and/or cultural significance (e.g., cabins, fences, mining structures, etc.). Another important difference is that the Scenery Management System recognizes the dynamic nature of natural systems. As a result, the Scenery Management System does not attach timeframes to meeting scenic integrity objectives. Instead, timeframes for meeting scenic integrity objectives are disclosed in the project scenic resources report (i.e., this report) and the project-specific NEPA document. The Scenery Management System represents the best available science for achieving high quality scenery as an outcome of National Forest management practices.

The IPNF Implementation Guide for Scenery Management: Understanding the how, what, and when of implementation under the 2015 IPNF Forest Plan (DRAFT) provided further direction on the application of the Scenery Management System within the context of the Forest Plan, and includes mapping of necessary Scenery Management System components, including Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes and scenic integrity objectives (mapped at the forestwide scale). This guidebook provides for refining and expanding on forestwide inventory information to ensure the sufficient level of detail necessary in describing both the affected environment and environmental effects.

Information on the existing condition of scenic resources was collected through office work and during field visits during summer 2019 and early 2020. Prior to entering the field, forest plan mapping was reviewed to determine the relevant Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes. The Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Objectives and Scenic Attractiveness mapping were consulted to determine relevant direction for the project area. In addition, project maps were used to identify the potential visibility of the proposed activities and treatments from the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes, which were then visited in the field and photographs taken at a variety of these points. Photographs of broader portions of the project area were also taken where it was difficult to assess or unknown whether treatment units would be visible. Later, information gathered during reconnaissance was used to determine actual seen areas, gauge existing scenic integrity, and analyze the effects of the project.

For analysis, field reconnaissance photographs, together with project contour maps, were used to determine visibility of the proposed activities. To further assist in determining unit/activity visibility, the analysis also used Google Earth Pro web-based software. Project treatment units and roads were imported into Google Earth Pro (as .kmz files) and draped over the three-dimensional model. Units were then viewed from near ground level and/or “street view” from a variety of locations, including those located at or along the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes from which photographs had been taken during field reconnaissance. A select number of photo points became key observation points, which were identified as those locations that offered the greatest visibility of the project from the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes. These key observation points were then used during analysis to determine effects on scenery.


An ArcGIS viewshed analysis was conducted from each of the key observation points to spatially display the visibility of the project area. One of the limitations of this viewshed analysis is that it does not account for vegetation heights in any viewing distance.

For some highly visible proposed units and roads, these three-dimensional model views created in Google Earth Pro were saved as .jpeg files and placed on actual photographs to create rough photographic simulations (using Adobe Photoshop software) depicting the location and shape of the unit(s) on the landscape. This step provides for a more specific understanding of the visibility of a particular unit(s), road(s), or viewshed, as well as to account for any screening vegetation or landform which is not evident in Google Earth Pro. It is not necessary for all viewing positions used in the analysis. A limitation of using Google Earth Pro for determining visibility is that near view screening from adjacent trees cannot be taken into consideration.

Additionally, a review of past projects with similar activities was conducted to more fully understand the effects of various treatment types from a variety of viewing distances, as well as the effects of road construction/reconstruction/maintenance.

Once visibility of proposed treatment units and roads from the key observation points was established as described above, determinations were made regarding the effects of visible activities, the need for project design criteria, and if the scenic integrity objectives would be met under the proposed action.

Spatial and Temporal Contexts For scenic resources, the spatial context of the effects analysis is the project area and includes all areas of harvest, prescribed burning, and other activity units, landings and processing areas (including slash disposal areas), and road construction/reconstruction, and any other areas where ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact scenic resources.

With regard to temporal context for direct and indirect effects to scenic resources, short-term refers to the first 10-year period following completion of implementation of timber harvest, slash disposal, prescribed burning, planting, road construction, and other activities proposed under this project. This period of time is associated with the greatest visible impact to scenic resources resulting from tree removal, ground disturbance, road construction. Short term is also associated with recovery of grasses and shrubs and early growth and regeneration (seedling- to sapling-sized) of the overstory. Medium-term refers to that period between 10 and 30 years following completion of project activities. This period is associated with continuing regeneration of the overstory as it transitions from sapling to immature forest. Long-term refers to the period of time beyond 30 years as the forest vegetation continues to mature.

For purposes of the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context is the visible area within which the effects of the proposed action and the identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are, or are expected to be, visible at the same time. The temporal context for the cumulative effects analysis is the same as the direct and indirect effects analysis.

Affected Environment

Landscape Character Landscape Character is defined as “an overall visual and cultural impression of landscape attributes – the physical appearance and cultural context of a landscape that gives it an identity and ‘sense of place’” ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995), pp. 1-2).


The project area is composed of a range of gentle to moderate/steep mountainous terrain typical of the Coeur d’Alene Geographic Area (described in the Forest Plan, page 80). The project area consists of the primary drainages of Fernan Creek, Nettleton Gulch, Yellowbanks Creek, Mokins Creek, Hayden Creek, and Roush Creek. It also includes Hayden Lake, which is a prominent feature on the landscape and receives heavy recreational use and is the location of many residences and some commercial developments.

The project area forms a natural and substantial backdrop for the communities of Coeur d’Alene, Hayden, and Athol, as well as the recreation activities that occur in the area and on Hayden Lake. Canfield Buttes function as the “backyard” for many people in the area – a place where visitors go to recreate, exercise, relax, and recharge.

Figure 2. View of Canfield Buttes from the Target parking lot at the corner of US Highway 95 and Canfield Avenue in Coeur d’Alene.

The terrain of the project area consists of the major drainages that run primarily east to west. Lowlands surrounding the lake in many cases give way to steeper topography beyond, providing a sense of enclosure to those residences and recreationists on the lake. Ridges are generally rounded and gentle, rising to their highest elevation along the eastern portion of the project. Vegetation in the area is generally finely textured forest cover, with some minor pattern consisting of smaller natural breaks in the cover and areas of more coarsely textured, less dense forest canopy. Rock formations occur on Chilco Mountain and South Chilco Mountain in moderately sized boulder fields, thus offering long distance views of the project area, Hayden Lake, and the Rathdrum Prairie to the west and the Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene drainage and Lake Pend Oreille to the west and north. Other prominent high points in the project area include Canfield Butte, Huckleberry Mountain, Spades Mountain, Badger Mountain, and Bernard Peak.

The area offers a variety of recreation opportunities during all times of the year. A variety of motorized trail and road-based activities opportunities are offered throughout the project area, including some longer distance riding opportunities. Canfield Buttes offer easy access to many residents of the area, boasting a large trail system for motorized and non-motorized users alike (including mountain bike and equestrian users). Hayden Creek is popular as a shooting location and receives heavy use.


Figure 3. View from the west end of Hayden Lake (near Honeysuckle Beach) looking toward the project area. Canfield Buttes is on the right side of the photograph, with Spades Mountain and South Chilco Mountain visible in the distance across the lake (left, center left). The effects of past timber harvest on private land are evident at the base of Canfield Buttes.

Historically, the forest overstory was dominated by ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine, long-lived, fire-resistant species that would occupy a site for possibly hundreds of years. These species were initiated by disturbances such as fire or insects and disease, as well as maintained in mature conditions by these disturbances, while other more shade-tolerant species were killed by periodic fires.

The conditions that existed historically differ from those of today. While current forest conditions may appear natural, they are the result of a variety of human-related activities. The introduction of white pine blister rust, effective fire suppression, and land management activities such as timber harvest, changed the character of more historic forests to be dominated by shade tolerant, less fire-resistant species including Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, and lodgepole pine. These are short-lived, late-seral species that are disease-prone and drought-intolerant. Aspen and other hardwoods were also a component of this area and is in decline, due to changing fire regimes and heavy browsing by ungulates. In addition, forest structure has also changed over time due to effective fire suppression.

From a scenic resources perspective, the difference between the forest that is viewed today and those more historic conditions within the natural range of variability as briefly described above can be subtle (see Forest Health and Resiliency Report for more detailed information about historic conditions). Some of the effects of this change over time include more dense stands of similarly small to moderate diameter trees, or a finer-textured forest canopy that prevents visibility of the ground surface. Other effects include the lack of large diameter trees in open stand conditions where the understory is limited. In addition, this change from historic to current conditions can be seen in the lack of young stands created by fire or other disturbance with their associated patterns, colors, and textures.

Figure 4. View from US Highway 95 at the junction with Bunco Road (near Silverwood Amusement Park). Cedar Mountain is in the center of the photograph. Bernard Peak and Chilco Mountain appear on the left and center left, respectively.

Activities of humans have affected the vegetation, wildlife, recreation activities, and economic conditions of the landscape. As stated above, people use the area to engage in a variety of pursuits that include hunting and fishing, camping (including multiple campgrounds), hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, firewood gathering, and driving for pleasure (both full-sized vehicles, motorcycles, and OHVs).


Scenic Attractiveness Scenic Attractiveness is the “primary indicator of the intrinsic scenic beauty of a landscape and of the positive responses it evokes in people. It helps determine landscapes that are important for scenic beauty, based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of landform, vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and cultural features” (Agriculture Handbook No. 701, pp. 1-14). Scenic Attractiveness is defined as Class A (Distinctive), Class B (Typical), or Class C (Indistinctive). Class A includes areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide unusual, unique, or outstanding scenic quality within the landscape character. Class B (Typical) contains areas in which the natural and cultural features combine to create ordinary or common scenic quality, and Class C (Indistinctive) contains those areas where natural and cultural features (or the lack thereof) combine to provide low scenic quality. It is important to note that the frame of reference for scenic attractiveness is the landscape character description ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995), pp.1-16).

In the vicinity of Hayden Lake, the Scenic Attractiveness is mapped as Class A (Distinctive), with its combination of water, landform, and vegetation features coinciding to result in unique scenery. The remainder of the project area is rated as Class B (Typical) for its uniform, generally closed-canopy forest, broken only occasionally by small openings and rock formations and slight changes in texture.

Landscape Visibility Landscape Visibility addresses “the relative importance and sensitivity of what is seen and perceived in the landscape” ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995) Landscape visibility is affected by a number of factors including context of viewers, duration of view, degree of discernable detail, and number of viewers” ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995): 4-2). In general, the greater the number of people likely to view a landscape, and the longer the duration, the more sensitive the landscape is to modification.

The proximity of the viewer to the particular landscape affects the visibility and sensitivity, as well as the physical characteristics of the landscape. Viewing distances for this analysis are foreground (zero to one-half mile); middleground (one-half mile to four miles); and background (beyond four miles). Of concern are travelways, such as primary highways and trails, as well as primary use areas such as campgrounds, lakes, and rivers. The project area is visible from several Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 viewing platforms that were identified during forest planning (IPNF Implementation Guide for Scenery Management [DRAFT]) (Helfen 2016); these viewing platforms were considered to assess visibility of proposed activities from these locations.

For the purposes of determining effects of the proposed project, the Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trail, rivers, and lakes were identified as key observation points because they offer views of the project area and the effects of treatment. These include: Interstate 90, U.S. Highway 95, Forest Road 268 (Fernan Road), West Canfield Butte, City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Lancaster Road, Spades Mountain, Forest Trail 14, and Forest Trail 802. These are all identified in the Forest Plan as Concern Level 1 routes and sites. Photos of the project area from key observation points are provided in the project file.

Other Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, and rivers and lakes are located in the surrounding area and/or offer views of the project area but are not considered in the analysis. This is because they may offer views of the project area that are similar in nature to those listed above or views from these viewing platforms are obscured by topography. These include the cities of Rathdrum and Post Falls, Idaho, State Highways 53 and 54, English Point Trails, County Roads 205-KO2 (English Point


Road) and 3090-K (Hayden Lake Road), East Canfield Butte, Nettleton Gulch, Little North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, Forest Roads 612, Forest Trails 37, 234, and 6001, and Bunco Parking Area.

Figure 5: Key Observation Points at, on, or along Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes providing views of the Honey Badger Project.


Existing Scenic Integrity Scenic Integrity, as defined by the Scenery Management System (SMS), indicates “the degree of intactness and wholeness of the landscape character … Landscape character with a high degree of integrity has a sense of wholeness, intactness, or being complete” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995) Scenic integrity is stated in degree of deviation from the landscape character as follows (Forest Plan):

Very High: Landscape is intact with changes resulting primarily through natural processes and disturbance regimes.

High: Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape character appears unaltered.

Moderate: Management activities are noticeable but are subordinate to the landscape character. The landscape appears slightly altered.

Low: Management activities are evident and sometimes dominate the landscape but are designed to blend with surroundings by repeating line, form, color, and texture of valued landscape character attributes. The landscape appears altered. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1995)

The project area has been affected by human activities and the impacts resulting from some of those activities are visible on the landscape. Activities within the project area having impacts on scenic resources include wildfire, fire suppression, road construction, timber harvest, energy transmission construction, slash treatments, prescribed burning, tree planting, precommercial thinning, and developed and dispersed recreation sites. Of these, timber harvest, road construction, energy transmission construction, and fire suppression have had the greatest impact on scenic resources.

The effects of past timber harvest and road construction within the project area are visible from some of the key observation points in all viewing distances where form, shape, and color contrasts remain. From the key observation points in the Coeur d’Alene/Hayden area, past harvest on private lands near the base of West Canfield Butte continues to appear reflect color and texture contrasts compared to the surrounding unharvested private and NFS lands. Views from Hayden Lake reveal past harvest on private lands on West Canfield Butte, as well as evident past harvest on NFS lands on Tenderfoot and Deerfoot ridges, where color and texture contrasts remain, as well as on Buckles Mountain and Hollister Mountain, where contrasting effects of shape persist from harvest on both NFS and private lands. In general, however, these contrasts evident from the lake are minimized by time since harvest and viewing distance, with the exception of the harvest on the north aspect of West Canfield Butte. From key observation points located at higher elevations (Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, Spades Mountain) the effects of past timber harvest throughout the visible portions of the project area evident, ranging from limited contrasts to more dramatic contrasts in more recent harvest units. From the key observation points located near Athol (key observation points 7 and 8), past harvest on state, private, and NFS lands has resulted in unnatural appearing shapes and contrasts of color, texture, and form. This is exemplified by harvest on Cedar Mountain as well as the clearing of the energy transmission line corridor crossing the project area near Bernard Peak.

The effects of road construction are generally muted throughout the project area as vegetation and topographic screening obscures these effects. Some color contrasts associated with road construction are evident in the vicinity of Spades Mountain and Tenderfoot and Deerfoot ridges as seen from distant key observation points on the lake and throughout Coeur d’Alene and Hayden. Obvious, even dominant, effects associated with road construction and log skidding operations persist within harvested areas on West Canfield Butte.


Over the last century, a combination of disease and fire suppression has impacted the forest vegetation, and consequently resulted in effects to scenic resources within the project area. As described in the Forest Health and Resiliency Report, the combination of blister rust (and subsequent insect and disease attacks and timber harvest) and fire suppression, have changed forest composition and structure across this landscape. The lack of early-seral species and the existing “homogenization and simplification of the landscape” (see Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement) has resulted in the “homogenization and simplification” of the scenery. This is expressed by the lack of variety in texture, color, and form when compared to the visual condition associated with the natural range of variability, and with the desired condition outlined in the Forest Plan. (See the “Landscape Character” section of this report, and the Forest Health and Resiliency Report.)

The current forest composition is composed of species which thrive in shaded conditions, but that are susceptible to insects and disease. In addition, many of the stands are composed of dense stems that preclude visual penetration into the stand, especially in the foreground viewing distance.

From the key observation points, the project area would meet a Moderate to High scenic integrity level , due to the limited number of visible deviations from the existing landscape character as a result of management activities. Despite this current visual condition, however, the landscape is continuing to move away from the desired condition for both forest vegetation and scenic resources as it is described in the Forest Plan.


Figure 6: Satellite photograph showing visible effects of past harvest and other management activities in the project area and surrounding area.


Effects to Scenery

No Action Alternative No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenic resources would result from selection of the No-Action Alternative, because no activities would be proposed.

Under this alternative, natural processes would carry on as openings in the tree canopy from past management activities continue to recover with tree growth, and over time would fill in manmade openings, obscuring the effects of at least some past activities, including road construction. It is expected that existing unnatural-appearing, hard-edged openings, and exposed road cut and fill slopes would remain evident in the short and medium term.

The existing condition would prevail, and the current trend of declining overstory of western larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine would continue. An increase in the shade tolerant understory of fir species, cedar, and hemlock would likewise continue. This would increase the areas that are dominated by the even, finely textured forest cover, which would be evident in middleground and background viewing distances. In the foreground viewing distance from the surrounding areas, views would more consistently be of medium-size class trees as larger trees are killed, with a dense understory of shade-tolerant species that would limit visual penetration into the stands.

The effects of this alternative include reduced vegetative diversity as larch, western white pine, and ponderosa pine are replaced by shade tolerant species. This loss of vegetative diversity is reflected visually as diminished texture and color contrasts resulting from the crowding of larger trees such as ponderosa pine, changing color of larch needles in the fall season, as well as the texture and seasonal color of aspen and other hardwoods.

This situation would further result in a landscape with reduced diversity and visual variety, from a scenic resources standpoint, as contrast and interest associated with color and texture are reduced in all viewing distances. To some forest visitors, the visual appearance which would result from the no-action alternative in the long term may have aesthetic appeal. However, the no-action alternative results in a reduction of natural diversity in the long term and a loss of color and texture variety. Furthermore, it does not move the project area toward the forest-wide desired condition for scenic resources in which “scenic resources of the IPNF… reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015), p. 34).

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects Associated with Vegetation Management Prescriptions

Clearcut with Reserves This treatment would involve the removal of nearly all of the trees in a unit. In the short term, the treated area would appear very open with only a few trees remaining. Changes from a forested appearance in all viewing distances would result in contrasts in color, texture, and form with surrounding areas. In the foreground viewing distance, the effects would be very noticeable. In the middleground and background viewing distance, effects would be noticeable but may be reduced depending on unit size, shape, and configuration in relation to viewers.


Seedtree with Reserves In the short term, this treatment would result in created openings, with only a few trees per acre remaining (approximately 10 to 20 percent of the trees remaining). Groups of trees, or reserves, would be retained within the stand, but would have limited effect with regard to breaking up the opening. The effects of this treatment would be a noticeable change from the current appearance of the stand. In the foreground viewing distance, especially from viewing locations adjacent to the units, this treatment would be very noticeable. In the middleground and background viewing distances, the effects of this treatment may be noticeable depending on specifics of each unit, including slope and aspect, as well as viewing distance and angle. In general, large openings would result in areas of high contrast depending on the shape of the unit, as well as amount and arrangement of any potential leave trees and the relationship of the unit to surrounding openings or past cutting units. On the other hand, smaller openings would potentially have less of an effect, but this is also dependent on the same factors.

Creation of these openings may produce a line between harvested lands and less intensively harvested or unharvested lands, which may appear obvious in all viewing distances, depending on the areas surrounding the unit.

Beyond the short term, effects would be reduced, as vegetation recovers, especially grasses and other ground cover. In the long term, re-planting as described in the proposed action would result in regeneration of western white pine and western larch.

Figure 7: Example of a seedtree harvest completed in the early to mid 2000s as seen in the foreground viewing distance. This harvest unit is located within the project area.


Shelterwood with Reserves The effects of this treatment would be similar to that described for the seedtree with reserves treatment, except that more trees would be retained. The visual effect of this treatment would be a more open stand with wide spacing between reserve trees and a resulting coarsely-textured canopy in distant views. In some locations within these units, openings would be created but would be broken up by retained trees. In the foreground viewing distance at ground level, this treatment would appear as an open stand with a high degree of visual access, with trees spaced widely. In middleground and background viewing distances, effects of this treatment would be noticeable as a break in the even-textured canopy, especially when viewers are located below the treatment unit, facing the slope. In distant views from above the unit, effects would be limited where the treatment is located on gentle ground; where it is located on steeper ground facing the viewer, effects would be noticeable.

Figure 8: Example of a shelterwood harvest completed in the early to mid 2000s as seen in the middleground viewing distance (approximately 1 mile). This harvest unit is located within the project area.

It is important to note that the silvicultural systems described above (clearcut with reserves, seedtree with reserves, and shelterwood with reserves) incorporate long-term retention of shelter trees, seed trees and other reserved trees (also referred to as “reserves” or green tree retention). These are intended to provide within-stand structure while creating conditions that facilitate the successful establishment of shade-intolerant early seral species, but also have the effect of mimicking the effects of mixed- or high-severity fires.


Aggregated retention and dispersed retention techniques described in the proposed action for use in regeneration harvests have the potential to reduce form, color, line, and texture contrasts resulting from the removal of trees and exposure of existing and newly constructed roads. Trees retained under aggregated and dispersed retention can have the effect of visually “blending” the harvested area with the surrounding unharvested area, breaking up the created opening, retaining some color and texture within the unit, as well as screening the effects of road construction and harvest from view. (See the Forest Health and Resiliency Report for more information on aggregated and dispersed retention in regeneration harvests.)

It is also important to note that snow cover can result in increased visibility of harvested areas as contrasts increase between the white snow and the darker forest cover. The implementation of aggregated and dispersed retention within the proposed regeneration harvests would have a similar effect under snow conditions by blending the unit with the surrounding area and limiting more obvious contrasts.

Commercial Thinning In the short term, this treatment would result in a more open stand, with increased spacing between trees of moderate size. Visual access into the stand in the immediate foreground and foreground viewing distances would be increased, but a forested appearance would remain in all viewing distances. This increased visual access would be a beneficial effect, as this is generally preferred by the viewing public (Ryan 2005). In middleground and background viewing distances, effects would be limited, and may appear as a slight change in texture. In the long term, the reduced canopy cover would allow more sunlight to the ground and allow for the recovery of groundcover grasses and shrubs as the remaining trees increase in size.

Landscape Burn Effects associated with the landscape burn units vary by viewing distance and over time. In the short term, effects would include blackened ground surfaces where grasses and brush are consumed, resulting in blackened, dead shrubs and small trees. Larger tree boles would be blackened and some lower branches may be burned and killed by fire, as well as some trees. In general, immediately following burning, burned areas would result in stark color contrasts with the surrounding unburned areas. It is anticipated that ground vegetation would recover to a limited degree within 1 year. In the short and medium term, burned areas would recover with ground vegetation and shrubs, effectively reducing color contrasts, especially in more open areas of the landscape burn units.

In the foreground viewing distance immediately following burning, changes in color and texture resulting from prescribed burning activities would dominate the viewshed. In the short and medium term, as groundcover vegetation recovers, these effects would be limited.

In the middleground and background viewing distances, effects of prescribed burning in more open areas of the prescribed burning units would persist in the short term, but finer color and texture contrasts would be reduced by viewing distance in the medium and long term. Effects in prescribed burning units located in forested cover areas would not be evident.

The activities associated with the vegetation management prescriptions are intended to move conditions toward those desired conditions for vegetation as described in the forest plan (see the Forest Health and Resiliency Report for more information). As vegetation is a primary element of scenery in the forested environment, these activities will have an impact on the scenery resource, as described generally above and more specifically in the section below. As these harvested areas regenerate, the forest composition and structure will be more resilient and sustainable in the long term. As this occurs, scenery will also begin to move toward the desired conditions described in the forest plan, that “scenic resources of the


IPNF…reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions” ((U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015) p. 34).

Effects Associated with Timber Harvest Units The following is a description of effects to scenic resources specific to activities identified in the Proposed Action. This description of effects is organized by the key observation points with reference to the pertinent Concern Level 1 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes identified in the Landscape Visibility section above.

Key Observation Point 1 (Interstate 90, City of Coeur d’Alene, US Highway 95) From this key observation point, timber harvest unit 200 would be visible on the lower portion of West Canfield Butte in the middleground viewing distance. The view of the project area from this key observation point is similar to views from the interstate in this area and areas of Coeur d’Alene south of the interstate.

In this viewing distance, the effects of harvest in this unit would be evident but remain subordinate to the landscape character as designed.

Harvest has the potential to expose existing road 1562UG with attendant cuts and fills that can contrast with the surrounding colors and textures after harvest. Design criteria intended to obscure the effects of this road, such as retaining screening, recontouring the roads, and minimizing necessary road work, are included in order to meet the Moderate scenic integrity objective in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 2 (City of Coeur d’Alene) From this key observation point, timber harvest unit 200 would be visible on the middle portion of West Canfield Butte in the middleground viewing distance. The view from this key observation point is similar to views from portions of Coeur d’Alene north of I-90 to Hanley Avenue, and east to Atlas Road. This view is representative of views from many locations and roads throughout this area.

In this viewing distance, the effects of regeneration harvest in this unit would be similar to those described under key observation point 1. In comparison to key observation point 1, the effects of harvest would be evident to a larger degree due to the orientation of the unit toward the viewer.

Segments of road 1562UG would be evident following harvest similar to key observation point 1 but to a greater degree.

Design criteria would be similar to those described under key observation point 1; the Moderate scenic integrity objective would be met in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 3 (City of Coeur d’Alene, US Highway 95) This key observation point offers broadest views of the west slope of West Canfield Butte and unit 200 in the middleground viewing distance. This view is representative of viewing positions in Coeur d’Alene and Hayden generally north of Hanley Avenue to Hayden Avenue in the middleground and background viewing distances. Duration of these views is dependent on viewing platform (moving or stationary) but can range from several seconds to minutes or more.

In this viewing distance, the effects of regeneration harvest in this unit would be similar to those described for key observation points 1 and 2, but more evident due to the proximity of the view. The extent of effects of road 1562UG is similar to those key observation points as well, and the design criteria


described above are incorporated to ensure that these effects remain subordinate to the landscape character, meeting the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Figure 9: Photographic simulation of the proposed harvest in unit 200 as seen from key observation point 3. This simulation is intended to the show the location, scale, and changes in color and texture as a result of harvest.

Key Observation Point 4 (City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden) From this key observation point, broad views of the project area are offered. Unit 200 on West Canfield Butte is visible in the near background viewing distance. Harvest units located on steeper south and west aspects would be most visible (in the more distant background viewing distance, approximately 10-15 miles), including those slopes of Yellowbanks Ridge, Spades Mountain, Buckles Mountain, and South Chilco Mountain. This view is similar in substance to those from Interstate 90 near Post Falls, as well as Highway 41 and the Rathdrum Prairie, despite the greater viewing distance from those locations.

From this viewing position, the effects of treatment would be most obvious in unit 200 on West Canfield Butte, like those described above for key observation points 1-3. The effects of various other units across the lake (on/near Yellowbanks Ridge, Spades Mountain, Buckles Mountain, and South Chilco Mountain) would create color and texture contrasts resulting from the created openings, although these contrasts would be somewhat muted due to viewing distance and through project design..

Where harvest in the visible units would expose existing roads and/or new road construction, these effects would limited due to viewing distance, with the exception of the existing road 1562UG on West Canfield Butte. Design criteria for this road are discussed under key observation point 1.

With design criteria incorporated, these effects would blend with the effects of past disturbance and management activities and meet the scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 5 (City of Hayden, US Highway 95) From this key observation point, visibility of the project area is somewhat limited. Timber harvest in unit 200 on West Canfield Butte would be most visible (in the middleground viewing distance), but somewhat reduced by topography. In the background viewing distance, units 180, 191, 192, and 193, located on the ridge extending east from Canfield Buttes, as well as unit 176 located on Yellowbanks Ridge and 163 and 166 on Horse Ridge would also be visible. Similar to key observation point 4, harvest units or portions of timber harvest units on Spades Mountain would be visible. Units located on Buckles Mountain are obscured by buildings in the immediate foreground/foreground.


Effects of treatment would be most obvious in unit 200 on West Canfield Butte, due to proximity to the viewing position. The effects of units 192 and 193 would be minimized due to their orientation perpendicular to the viewer; the effects of harvest in units 176, 180, and 191 would be more obvious, but resulting color and texture contrasts would be muted due to viewing distance and through project design.

New road construction for NC-33 in unit 180 may result in contrasting colors and textures. Similarly, the effects of skidding (ground disturbance, patterns reflecting loss of vegetation) may result. Design criteria intended to obscure the effects of these roads, such as retaining screening, recontouring the roads, etc., are included. Effects of NC-33 would be limited due to its orientation and short visible length. Effects of FR 1562UG would be minimized by viewing distance and the short visible length from this key observation point, as well as design criteria identified for key observation points 1, 2, and 3. Effects of existing roads in the more distant visible units would be minimized as well due to viewing distance.

The scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High would be met in the medium term as seen from this key observation point.

Key Observation Point 6 (City of Hayden, US Highway 95, Lancaster Road) This key observation point offers some of the broadest views of the entire project area as seen from below, without the amount of visual screening (residential/commercial landscape vegetation and building screening) in the foreground viewing distance. Like key observation point 4, this view is similar to views from more distant locations on the Rathdrum Prairie between Rathdrum and Interstate 90. Views are in the background viewing distance, ranging from approximately 5 miles to 10.5 miles.

From this key observation point, a limited portion of unit 200 on West Canfield Butte would be visible due to its proximity to the key observation point. This key observation point offers views similar to key observation point 5 but reveals views of additional units located further up Yellowbanks, Jim, and Mokins Creek drainages, as well as units located on the ridge east of Canfield Butte. Further north, views are afforded of units on Buckles Mountain from this key observation point.

As seen from this key observation point, effects of harvest in unit 200 would be minimized by the limited visibility of the unit. Effects of harvest in units 180, 181, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, and 197 would be most evident, resulting in obvious openings. This effect would be enhanced by their location along the 1562 and 1562A road, as they may appear to blend together (thereby appearing larger) due to their orientation to the viewer and “hang” from the road located at the top of each unit. Extending units above the road in certain locations, and/or retaining trees in the units would help to break the resulting linear contrast. Locating leave trees in groups and clumps in areas where large cut/fill slopes exist would help minimize this effect.

The effects of units 166, 167, 168, 176 and 179 would be similar to those described in the immediate paragraph above, as would effects of units, on either side of Mokins Creek, below Spades Mountain. Further north, effects of treatment in the units located near the top of Buckles Mountain (105, 106, and 112) would be obvious in the background viewing distance. Project design will limit the effect of harvest in these units and meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

The effects of units located further up Yellowbanks Creek would be minimized due to their orientation away from the viewer.

The visual impacts of Forest Roads 1562, 1562A, 1562B, and 1562E along the ridge east of Canfield Butte, as well as roads 1535UB in units 178 and 188, and FRs 1536 and 1536UK in units 166 and 176, and FRs 206 and 406 in units 155, 159, and 167 will be visible and persist through the medium term, but meet the SIO of Moderate in the long term.


Key Observation Point 7 (US Highway 95) From this key observation point, units located on the north end of the project on the mid to upper elevation, north and west facing slopes of Bernard Peak, Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Cedar Mountain would be visible.

Due to the visibility of their combined size, the units located below Bernard Peak would result in a change from the existing condition. This effect would be exacerbated by increased visibility of existing road system, as well as the construction of new roads (segments NC-01, NC-02, and NC-03) in units 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Design criteria intended to obscure the effects of new road construction of NC 01 and 02 would be required in order to meet the scenic integrity objective of High in the medium term. Design criteria intended to minimize the visual impact of construction of NC-03 would be required in order to meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term. The proposed harvest units would be designed to reduce the unnatural appearing corridor clearing, blending it into the newly harvested units.

Harvest units located on Chilco Mountain would be minimized by the gentle slope of the lower portion of the units and the lack of proposed roads in the upper portion of the units. Unit 32 on the lower portion of South Chilco Mountain would result in a change from the finely textured forest condition to a created opening. Trees would be retained in this unit to limited the visibility of NC-13.

Seedtree units located on Cedar Mountain are adjacent to harvested areas on private and state land. The effects of these seedtree treatment units would be obvious and result in a large opening on the upper slopes of the north and west aspects of Cedar Mountain. These units are within the middleground viewing distance, ranging from 2 to 4 miles from the key observation point. New road construction and exposing existing roads in unit 51 would also be obvious and design criteria to minimize the visibility of the effects of road activities is included and will achieve the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Figure 10: Photographic simulation of the proposed harvest in the northern portion of the project area, as seen from key observation point 7. This simulation is intended to the show the location and scale of the proposed harvest units.

Key Observation Point 8 (US Highway 95, State Highway 54) From this key observation point, visibility of the northern portion of the project area is afforded. The upper elevation units located on Bernard Peak would be visible from this key observation point, as would units on the north slope of South Chilco Mountain. Units on the north and west face of Cedar Mountain would be very visible due to their upper elevation location. Many of the lower elevation units or portion of units could be more visible if forested areas in the foreground and near middleground of this key observation point were harvested and/or developed.

Effects of harvest in the units on Bernard Peak would be similar to those described for key observation point 7, but limited to units 1, 3, and 5. These effects would be minimized by the level of retention incorporated into the shelterwood treatment. Effects of the new road construction in these units would be


less than described for key observation point 7 as some of the road segments are screened from view. Design criteria described for key observation point 7 would help reduce the effects of these new road segments as seen from this key observation point.

The effects of harvest in the units located on Chilco Mountain would be similar to those described for key observation point 7.

The effects of harvest in units 31, 32, 35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 213, and 269 on the north and west aspects of South Chilco Mountain would represent a change from the existing condition to a more open stand conditions. This is similar to the change expected following seedtree harvest treatment in the units on Cedar Mountain, where nearly all of the trees would be removed. This would have the effect of extending the harvest completed to the north on the adjacent state land up the entire side of the mountain. Existing roads and new road construction would be evident from this key observation point following harvest. Project design and design criteria would be implemented in these units to ensure natural-appearing harvest units and to limit the effects of the new road construction to meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 9 (Chilco Mountain Trail) Views from this key observation point include timber harvest units or portions of timber harvest units on Cedar Mountain, Buckles Mountain and surrounding area (including above the north and east forks of Hayden Creek), and on Tenderfoot and Deerfoot ridges. Some past harvest areas located on Buckles Mountain are visible as more coarsely textured forest cover; obvious geometric shaped past harvest units are visible on Deerfoot Ridge. In background viewing distance, Canfield Buttes and other ridges are visible primarily as landform with little detail.

Effects of treatment would result in much of the visible area changing from fine textured forest canopy to created openings and more coarsely textured forest cover as viewers look into the project area to the west toward Cedar Mountain over the North Fork of Hayden Creek, toward Buckles Mountain. , as well as south, toward Deerfoot and Tenderfoot ridges and Spades Mountain. In all of these views, the effects of large treatment units (clearcut, seed tree, and shelterwood) would be visible. Project design will help blend the units with the surrounding area, and the effects in distant views would be evident but would remain subordinate to the landscape character.

Harvest in these units would result in the effects of new road construction being exposed to view. This effect is enhanced by the viewer’s location above the proposed activities. In the middleground viewing distance from this key observation point, these effects have the potential to dominate the landscape character. Project design criteria are included for harvest units that result in these effects, requiring that these units be designed to minimize the visibility of these effects through unit design and layout in order to meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 10 (Chilco Mountain Trail) From this key observation point, timber harvest units or portions of timber harvest units in the vicinity of Cedar Mountain, Green Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Chilco Mountain would be visible in the middleground and background viewing distances. Views of the harvest units on Bernard Peak are limited by intervening topography.

The effect of harvest as viewed from this key observation point would be one of moderate to high change from the existing condition. The greatest degree of change would be in those areas of Cedar Mountain and Hayden Creek due to proposed harvest type (seedtree and clearcut) and amount. In closer middleground views, areas of harvest on South Chilco Mountain and Chilco Mountain would be more obvious due to


their close proximity to the viewer. Effects of harvest in units located closer to the valley floor on flatter ground would also be more obvious, depending on size and unit topography – these units would be congruent to a limited degree with the primarily manmade clearings in the surrounding area.

The effects of new road construction would be especially evident below the key observation point in units 24, and 30 (NC 10 and 11). Project design and design criteria intended to limit the effects of this road construction, as well as the effects of new road construction within unit 50 on Cedar Mountain (NC 15), unit 269 on Green Mountain (NC 16), and unit 31 on South Chilco Mountain (NC 13), in order to meet the Moderate scenic integrity objective in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 11 (West Canfield Butte) From this key observation point, views are limited to the northern portion of the project area by forest vegetation and topography. Specifically, this key observation point affords views of the south aspect of Cedar Mountain, Hollister Mountain, Buckles Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Tenderfoot Ridge in the background viewing distance (approximately 6-10 miles).

The effects of harvest as seen from this key observation point would result in created openings and color and texture contrasts that would be minimized by the viewing distance and the limited amount of obvious man-made patterns in this viewshed. Effects of some harvest units as seen from this key observation point would remove existing patterns resulting from past harvest, such as those on Hollister Mountain. Effects of road construction would be visible but remain subordinate to the landscape character meeting the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the short term.

Key Observation Point 12 (West Canfield Butte, South Canfield OHV Trail) From this key observation point, views are limited to portions of the project in the Fernan Creek drainage, specifically units 201, 202, 203, 204, and 305, primarily in the background viewing distance. (Views of the project outside of the Fernan drainage from the general area atop West Canfield Butte are limited due to intervening forest vegetation which is proposed to remain under this project.)

Effects of harvest in these units in this viewshed would be most evident in units 201 and 203, which face the viewer and would result in created openings. Effects of harvest in units 202 and 204 would be limited by the flatter topography of these units and the shelterwood treatment which would expose less ground area to view.

Harvest would expose existing roads within the proposed units, and would persist into the medium term. The effects of new road construction (NC 37 and 38) are not expected to be visible due to commercial thin treatment type and orientation away from the viewer. This would meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Key Observation Points 13 and 16 (Hayden Lake, City of Hayden) From this key observation point, visibility includes areas in the middleground viewing distance such as West Canfield Butte and the ridge extending east from Canfield Buttes (1.5 to 4 miles viewing distance), as well as more distant locations including Yellowbanks Ridge, Horse Ridge, Spades Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Buckles Mountain (approximately 5 to 10 miles).

Effects of harvest as seen from this key observation point would be most obvious for those units in the middleground viewing distance, including units 180, 191, 192, 193, and 194; however, these effects would be tempered by the orientation of the units away from the viewer. In the near background viewing distance, harvest in units 166 and 176 would be evident as an opening but contrasts would be limited through the retention of trees in this shelterwood treatment. In the more distant background, harvest units


located on Spades Mountain would be obvious, as would units on Buckles Mountain and South Chilco Mountain. In all of these units, project design as described in the proposed action would help the effects of these units to mimic the natural disturbance patterns and existing natural-appearing openings. In the case of those units on Spades Mountain, tying into the existing harvest units would help to minimize the current effects of past harvest.

The effects of new road construction on South Chilco Butte would be limited due to viewing distance from this key observation point. Existing roads that would be exposed following harvest, especially in units 166, 176, 191, 192, 193, and 194, would include design criteria intended to limit the visual impact of these roads. The effects of harvest would expose existing roads in the vicinity of Spades Mountain and Buckles Mountain to a limited degree due to increased viewing distance but would meet the scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 14 (Hayden Lake, English Point Trails 80, English Point Road, Lancaster Road, Hayden Lake Road) Panoramic views of the area surrounding Hayden Lake are afforded by this key observation point. Views of the project area stretch from southward views of West Canfield Butte to northward views of Buckles Mountain and Hollister Mountain, including a majority of the Hayden Lake basin. Harvest units or portions of harvest units visible are primarily located in the southern portion of the project, east of Canfield Buttes, as well as in the Yellowbanks, Jim, and Mokins Creek drainages (including Spades Mountain).

Effects of harvest would be most obvious in the units east of Canfield Buttes, as well as those in Yellowbanks Creek drainage due to their proximity and orientation to key observation point and their location on higher elevation, moderately steep slopes. From this key observation point, units 192, 193, 194, 195, and 196 would appear to “hang” from the road above, potentially resulting in an unnatural appearing linear feature in this view. Harvest in unit 191 above the same road would likely accentuate this effect. Project design criteria are included to address and minimize this effect. Effects of harvest in units 166, 176, 180, 181, 185, and 188 would be similarly evident meeting the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Effects of harvest in more distant views of Spades Mountain and Buckles Mountain would result in color and texture contrasts similar to those described for key observation point 13. Past harvest in both areas, evidenced by exposed ground and a much less dense forest canopy, may lend some ease to helping blend the proposed units.

The effects of road activities of new road construction in unit 180 would be evident at the top of the unit. However, these effects would be limited by the relatively short length of road construction visible and gentle topography of the unit. Effects of existing roads would be evident following harvest in the units east of Canfield Buttes and in Yellowbanks Creek drainage, as well as on Spades Mountain and Buckles Mountain. Project design described in the proposed action will ensure scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High would be met from this key observation point in the medium term.

Figure 11: Photographic simulation of the proposed harvest as seen from key observation point 14 on Hayden Lake. Canfield Buttes appear on the right side of the photograph, and Spades Mountain is located on the far left. This simulation is intended to the show the location and scale of the proposed harvest units.


Key Observation Point 15 (Hayden Lake) From this key observation point, visibility of the project is similar to that described for key observation point 14, as it relates to the southern portion of the project surrounding Hayden Lake. This key observation point affords only a limited view of the Spades Mountain area and no view of the northern portions of the project.

Effects of harvest in units visible from this key observation point would be similar to those described for key observation point 14, except that the visible affected areas may be larger due to viewing location. This would be the case with units 166, 181, and 188.

Effects of road activities would be similar to those described for key observation point 14 as well. Project design as described in the proposed action will ensure scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High would be met from this key observation point in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 17 (Spades Mountain, Huckleberry OHV Trail) From this key observation point, views are primarily limited to the Two Forks, Three Forks, and Mokins Creek drainages in the foreground and middleground viewing distances. Some portions of units near West Canfield Butte may be visible following harvest in the background viewing distance.

Effects of harvest would be very obvious in these units due to the clearcut treatment, and these effects would be enhanced by the combined scale of harvested area visible in these drainages. Project design as described in the proposed action would help to minimize these effects.

The effects of new road construction in units 156 and 168 would be very obvious, and the amount and type of harvest would result in existing roads being exposed to view. Project design criteria are included to minimize the visibility of the effects associated with road activities and meet the Moderate scenic integrity objective in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 18 (Spades Mountain, Huckleberry OHV Trail) From this key observation point, units in the Two Forks, Three Forks, and Mokins Creek would be visible, similar to key observation point 17. Visible units also include those on Spades Mountain, Badger Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Buckles Mountain. This key observation point is located on top of Spades Mountain, which is currently forested and does not permit views of the surrounding area.

This key observation point serves as a proxy for Forest Trail 802, which extends from its junction with FR 612 to Badger Mountain along the divide between the Hayden Lake watershed and the Little North Fork Coeur d’Alene River watershed. Visibility of the project area changes along this trail, with most views being restricted by vegetation and/or topography. The trail is located adjacent to several units, and it is anticipated that views from the trail would be more open and provide greater visual access following harvest in units 133, 148, 153, 155, 158, and 160. These are generally located along the divide in the vicinity of Spades Mountain and Badger Mountain.

Effects of harvest in the units adjacent to the trail south of Spades Mountain (155, 158, 160) would be similar to those described for key observation point 17, with the effects of harvest evident in the foreground and middleground viewing distances. In addition, effects of harvest would evident in the units on Tenderfoot Ridge.

Effects of harvest from the trail segment north of Spades Mountain would range from larger areas of harvest evident on Tenderfoot Ridge and Buckles Mountain, to some evidence of harvest in smaller areas near Badger Mountain and extending toward South Chilco Mountain in the foreground and middleground viewing distances. The overall effect as seen in the foreground viewing distance would be one in which


the trees have been removed and the color and texture contrasts associated with the newly created openings creates strong contrasts.

Effects of new road construction would be evident from the trail similar to that described for key observation point 17. In addition, effects of new road construction (segments NC 29 and 30) would be evident in unit 146, 147, and 148 in the foreground and middleground viewing distances. Existing roads would also be exposed following harvest, and temporary roads may also be developed, and these can result in many of the same effects. Project design criteria are included to ensure that these effects are obscured in the foreground viewing distance of the trail or limited in the middleground viewing distance and meet the scenic integrity objectives of Moderate and High in the medium term.

Key Observation Point 19 (Fernan Road, Fernan Road Portal) From this key observation point, views are limited to several units in the Fernan Creek drainage, including units 201, 202, 203, and 204. These units are located along the ridge, adjacent to past harvest units that are regenerating.

Effects of harvest would be limited by the number of units and overall visibility of these units. Units 201, 203, and 204 approach the top of the ridge or go over the top of it, and project design criteria are included to minimize the potential to create an unnatural appearing skyline feature or “mohawk” with the remaining trees.

Existing roads may become evident following harvest, persisting until adequate regeneration occurs. These effects will meet the scenic integrity objective of Moderate in the medium term.

Openings Greater than Forty Acres Many proposed harvest units would result in openings greater than 40 acres in size, as described in the environmental assessment (Sections 4.3 – Proposed Action and 5.2 – Forest Health and Resiliency). These patches would be visible from the identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes as described above.

Openings that exceed 40 acres in size would allow treatment unit boundaries to follow existing vegetation patterns and breaks resulting in a more natural-appearing opening as seen from those viewing positions above the units (i.e., key observation points 9, 10, 12, 17, 18). In contrast, treating smaller units (but the same amount of area) can result in units which appear to “float” on the landscape with contrasts of line and form depending on the needed road network required to access these units. The proposed action includes elements that will help to blend these larger openings and attain a natural appearance through aggregated and dispersed retention. These larger openings would reduce existing insect, disease, and fuels hazards on a larger scale, bringing higher percentages to within the historic range of variability, and move stands toward desired conditions for vegetation described in the forest plan (see Forest Health and Resiliency analysis, PF Doc. VEG-027). Vegetation that is trending toward desired conditions is helping to meet desired conditions for scenic resources as well, which is to “reflect healthy and sustainable ecosystem conditions” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015).

Effects Associated with Stand Treatment Activities Effects associated with stand treatment activities can be perceived negatively by the public. Activities include equipment operation (including various types of felling and log yarding equipment), road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance, temporary road construction, landing construction and use, skid trail construction and use, and slash piling and disposal. The effects of these activities include ground disturbance, stumps, generation of slash, and damaged reserve trees.


Ground disturbance resulting from equipment operation for cutting, yarding, skidding, as well as landing, road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance, and temporary road construction activities can affect scenery by exposing light colored soils and creating noticeable color contrasts which have the potential to be visible in all viewing distances. Line contrasts may also result and be noticeable in all viewing distances. Locating landings and roads to limit visibility from Interstate 90, US Highway 95, the City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, Spades Mountain, Huckleberry OHV Trail, Canfield Buttes, and Fernan Road, and using vegetation and topography as screening would help reduce this effect, as well as minimizing the width of roads and level of brushing (see the Effects Associated with Road Work Activities section below for more information on effects of roads activities).

In general, actions such as recontouring temporary roads and landings, reseeding roads, landings, and slash piles, minimizing cuts and fills associated with temporary construction, and locating these disturbances out of sight from Interstate 90, US Highway 95, the City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, Spades Mountain, Huckleberry OHV Trail, Canfield Buttes, and Fernan Road by utilizing topography and vegetation screening would help to reduce impacts.

Woody debris and slash resulting from harvest activities can have some of the greatest impacts on the visual quality of a viewshed following harvest (Ryan 2005). When slash is mechanically piled and then burned (whether within units or at landings), areas where pile burning occurs would be blackened and some unburned or partially burned materials may remain. In the case of underburning, much of the slash would be consumed, and the ground would be blackened with some slash remaining unburned or partially burned. In both instances, it is expected that groundcover would recover in the short term (usually within 1 to 2 growing seasons), limiting the time that the areas remain blackened. Visibility of these effects are usually limited to the foreground and near middleground viewing distances. These effects can be reduced by locating piles out of view of sensitive viewing positions, including US Highway 95, the City of Coeur d’Alene, Hayden Lake, South Canfield OHV Trail, Chilco Mountain Trail, Spades Mountain, Huckleberry OHV Trail, and Fernan Road. Disposal of slash piles as soon as possible after they are generated reduces the amount of time they are visible to the public. In addition, when burning slash piles in the viewshed of the routes and locations identified above, implementation should ensure 95 percent consumption of the piles, even when this may mean re-piling and re-burning. Scattering slash that has not be consumed by burning is also acceptable.

The effects from operations are most noticeable during the first several years following treatment. In the short term, soil disturbance related to operations may be visible depending on location and screening by remaining vegetation. In the long term, it is expected that many of the impacts associated with project operations would have dissipated, as seen in the foreground viewing distance. Grasses and some shrubs are expected to have recovered, regeneration is expected to have begun, together screening some stumps and downed woody debris left in the unit. Effects of slash piling and disposal would have also dissipated, although some material not consumed may remain.

In all viewing distances, form and shape of proposed units would be critical to avoiding visual impacts associated with creating shapes and patterns which do not borrow from the surrounding natural patterns to the extent possible. This would be of greatest importance in the design and layout of those units which would be visible from the key observation points and design and layout operations would need to be accomplished with these key observation points in mind.


Effects Associated with Road Work Activities Road maintenance activities may increase the visibility of roads depending on viewing distance and vegetation and topographic screening which may obscure color or line contrasts resulting from brushing or improving drainage structures. The majority of these effects would be visible primarily from the road itself, and this would be consistent with forest visitor expectations.

New system road construction has some of the greatest potential to affect scenery, introducing line, color and form contrasts that may be visible in all viewing distances and most viewing positions located above, below, or level with the road. These effects result primarily from the excavation and embankment (cutting and filling) required to construct the road. This ground disturbing activity can create areas where subsoils are exposed that may be a different color than that of the surrounding area soils and/or vegetation. This contrast has the potential to dominate the landscape character by catching and holding viewers’ attention. Line contrasts can also result from road construction, where a break in large or small vegetation can result in a linear feature becoming evident, depending on the width of the road. Line contrasts can be subtle, depending on the vegetation remaining on either side of the road. The effect of line contrasts can be magnified when combined with color contrasts.

The effects of road construction can be visible from all viewing distances and positions, i.e. above, below, and level with the road. When roads are viewed from below or level on gentle topography, the effects of construction are not as noticeable. However, when roads constructed on moderate to steep ground and viewed from positions below or level, the effects of cut and/or fill slopes can be highly noticeable. This is similar to much of the new construction proposed to access units in the northern portion of the project area, on Bernard Peak, Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and Cedar Mountain, as seen from US Highway 95 and in unit 180 as seen from Hayden Lake. Design criteria include careful location and design of the new roads and retaining vegetation to screen the new roads from view, and/or recontouring roads or segments of roads that do not meet the appropriate scenic integrity objective.

These roads and others, when viewed from above from locations such as Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, Spades Mountain, and Huckleberry OHV Trail can have more of a visual impact than when viewed from positions below, as the road surface is likely to be visible. This can add to the effect as the surfacing material may be lighter/darker in color than the surrounding area and/or vegetation. Design criteria are incorporated to minimize the visual impact of new road construction and meet the appropriate scenic integrity objective.

The effects of road reconstruction may be visible due to newly introduced contrasts in color or line due to road widening (increased cuts/fills) or road realignment. These effects are most noticeable when associated with regeneration treatments located on moderate to steep slopes where trees would be harvested from below the road. Depending on the associated harvest type, these roads or sections of the road could persist into the medium term.

Temporary road construction (including cut/fill construction and surfacing) can affect scenic resources by exposing light colored soils and creating noticeable color contrasts which have the potential to be visible in all viewing distances. These effects would be especially evident in regeneration treatment units where openings are created by harvest. In the intermediate treatments where the forest canopy is left intact, temporary roads would be less evident, screened from many viewing positions by remaining vegetation.

Project design criteria are included to minimize the visual impact of these temporary roads by decompacting, scarifying, recontouring, and reseeding and/or slash piling these routes.


Effects Associated with Sustainable Recreation Trails Improvement Activities The effects of construction/reconstruction of non-motorized trails would have minimal impact on scenery. Additional trailheads and/or parking areas have the potential to affect scenery, and therefore would be located and designed in accordance to direction contained in the Forest Service Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG). As designed, these activities would continue to be consistent with forest visitor expectations.

Effects Associated with Water Quality Improvement Activities The effects of these activities, including culvert removal/replacement and aquatic organism passage, would be localized, limited to the immediate foreground viewing distance from the associated roads, and would be consistent with visitor expectation in this roaded setting.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis considers how other present and foreseeable future actions, as well as past actions, would combine with the proposed action to affect scenic resources.

Many past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have occurred, are occurring, or are expected to occur in the cumulative effects area that generally have minimal effects to scenic resources including: road storage, decommissioning, and maintenance; tree planting; public use activities (firewood cutting, driving roads, camping, snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, berry picking); trail construction and maintenance; timber stand improvement; mining activities; private land activities. Effects resulting from these activities are generally localized and would remain subordinate to the landscape character.

Actions that have a greater potential to affect scenic resources include timber harvest (including slash treatments), prescribed burning, road construction, energy transmission line construction and maintenance, and fire suppression.

Road construction has resulted in some color and line contrasts visible from the key observation points and other locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes as well as the surrounding general forest area. These are located on private and state lands on Canfield Buttes and Cedar Mountain that have been recently harvested, but also occur on national forest system lands in the area of Tenderfoot Ridge and Deerfoot Ridge. but these are limited in visibility by screening vegetation, especially when viewed from below. Higher elevation viewpoints such as Chilco Mountain, South Chilco Mountain, and along the Huckleberry OHV Trail some increased visibility of these effects. However, these effects are limited in scale and prevalence and remain subordinate to the landscape character.

Past timber harvest, employing a variety of prescriptions and logging systems, have occurred throughout the cumulative effects area on the National Forest System and other ownerships. Results of these actions are visible in varying degrees from the key observation points and other locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes examined in this analysis. In the middleground and background viewing distances, effects from these actions range from a slightly altered appearance, which is relatively unnoticeable, to a modified appearance that is more noticeable, depending on soils, aspect, vegetative species composition, and state of regeneration. Many of these effects are associated with past timber harvest on private lands, where section lines were followed. In foreground and near middleground viewing distances, effects of past harvest are less subordinate, and may even dominate the viewshed (depending, in part, on how recent the harvest has occurred).

Energy transmission line construction and corridor clearing is visible within the project area. There are two primary powerlines that traverse the northern portion of the project and are visible from a number of


the key observation points and other locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes examined in this analysis. The effects of the northernmost corridor are most evident, and dominate the landscape character in the vicinity of Bernard Peak. The proposed action includes treatment around this corridor, and it is anticipated that the linear of the corridor would be reduced following harvest.

Fire suppression has affected the existing stands as described in the Vegetation Resource Report. Effects of this activity is described in the “Landscape Character” and “Existing Scenic Integrity” sections above.

Overall, the visible effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities represent a scenic integrity level of Low to Moderate, meaning that deviations are visible and range from dominating the viewshed to remaining subordinate to the landscape character. In some cases, the effects are not evident to forest visitors, representing a High scenic integrity level. When considered in combination with the effects of the proposed action, the cumulative effects would meet the scenic integrity objectives identified in the Forest Plan.

Summary of Effects of the Proposed Action Although implementation of the proposed activities would result in short and medium term effects as viewed from the key observation points and other locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes such as Interstate 90, US Highway 95, City of Coeur d’Alene, City of Hayden, Hayden Lake, Chilco Mountain, and South Chilco Mountain, these short term effects would in part be minimized through project design as described in the proposed action and by implementation of specific project design criteria. Long-term effects, with the implementation of project design criteria, would be positive as the effects of road activities become less evident and the forest landscape moves toward desired conditions for scenic resources. In the medium and long term, these effects would be reduced by the recovery of brush and groundcover, as well as tree regeneration, obscuring the effects of harvest operations. Long term effects would be increased variety in tree species (including long-lived, early seral species such as western white pine and larch) consistent with natural patterns and diversity. The overall physical appearance and cultural context of the landscape that gives the project area its identity and ‘sense of place’ would not be changed in the long term by Alternative 2. The overriding image of the area and its surroundings as being spacious and encompassing scenic variety would be maintained.

The visible effects of activities may dominate the viewshed in the short and medium term as described in the analysis until ground vegetation has recovered and harvested stands have regenerated to the point where the effects are either subordinate to the landscape character or are no longer evident. These changes would not be of large enough scale or of long enough duration to influence the existing landscape character. Implementation of the proposed action and specific project design criteria for scenic resources would reduce impacts and over time treated areas would blend with the surrounding area as they move toward desired condition for scenic resources as set forth in the Forest Plan (Cooley et al. 2011).


Summary Comparison of Effects Table 1: Summary comparison of environmental effects to Scenic Integrity.

Indicator No Action Proposed Action Meet Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives

Would not meet scenic integrity objectives in the long term and does not move project area toward Forest Plan desired conditions for scenic resources. Long term reduction in natural diversity and associated form, color, texture, and variety.

Effects of vegetation management treatments would be evident and/or would dominate views from the key observation points and from locations at identified Concern Level 1, 2, and 3 points of interest, routes/roads, trails, rivers, and lakes in the short and medium term. Vegetation management prescriptions would result in long term increase in natural diversity and associated form, color, and texture variety. Landscape burning would have similar effects resulting from introduction of fire into this landscape. Long term beneficial effect when compared to taking no action.


References Cooley, P., G. Dickerson, T. Maffei, and L. Novak. 2011. Scenic resource mitigation menu & design

considerations for vegetation treatments. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

Helfen, M. 2016. IPNF implementation guide for scenery management: Understanding the how, what and when of implementation under 2015 IPNF, forest plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d'Alene, ID.

Ryan, R. L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NC-261, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mt. Shasta, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land management plan: Idaho Panhandle National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Land management plan 2015 revison: Idaho Panhandle National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being

readable by computer assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with any of part of this document, please contact Idaho Panhandle National Forests at 208-765-7223.

resource effects analysis

Documents