United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

July

2017

Scenic Resources Report

Craggy Project

Salmon-Scott Ranger District

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Karl Dietzler

Klamath National Forest Headquarters

1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA. 96097

(530) 841-4487

Non-Discrimination Policy

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.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

i

Table of Contents

Scenic Resources Report.............................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators.................................................................................................................. 4

Measures.................................................................................................................................... 4

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ................................................................ 5

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 6

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................. 8

Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................................. 8

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 8

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives 2 and 3 .................................................................................................................. 9

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................. 9

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................ 11

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 11

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ............................................. 11

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A - Project Area Photographs...................................................................................14

Appendix B – Maps...................................................................................................................17

List of Tables

Table 1: Evaluation Viewpoints and how they are Considered ....................................................................5

Table 2: Scenery Comparison of Effects. ...................................................................................................11

List of Figures

Figure 1: September, 2016: Typical View along Forest Road 46N27, Looking Southeast Across the 

Humbug Drainage. Existing Forest Vegetation Patterns in Foreground and Middleground Views. N 

41° 48’ 32.28”, W 122° 46’ 07.90”, 4,253’ Elevation........................................................................14

Figure 2: September, 2016: Typical view along Forest Road 45N28 (moderate visual sensitivity), looking 

southeast. N 41° X44’ 41.48”, W 122° 42’ 34.35”, 5,140’ Elevation ................................................15

Figure 3: December, 2016: View of the Sense of Place Backdrop from Miner Street in Downtown Yreka.. 

N 41° 43’ 55.60”, W 122° 38’ 16.88”, 2,625’ Elevation. ...................................................................16

Figure 4: Spatial Boundary for Scenic Resources, to Include Ridgelines South and East of the Yreka 

Community. ........................................................................................................................................17

Figure 5: Forest Plan-Designated Visual Quality Objectives for the Project Area.....................................18

Figure 6: Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments in the Project Area. .............................................................19

Figure 7: Downtown Yreka Forest Plan-Designated Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 2 

Proposed Treatments...........................................................................................................................20

Figure 8: Humbug Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Area Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of 

Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments.....................................................................................................21

Figure 9: Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments in the Project Area. .............................................................22
ii

Figure 10: Downtown Yreka Forest Plan-Designated Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 3 

Proposed Treatments...........................................................................................................................23

Figure 11: Humbug Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Area Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of 

Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments.....................................................................................................24
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

1

SCENIC RESOURCES REPORT

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of the Craggy Project alternatives on scenic 

resource values. The project proposes one no-action alternative and two action alternatives. The

two action alternatives have varying combinations of fuel breaks, brush mastication, 

underburning, and thinning with and without forest product removal.

The Forest Service visual resource management system, the Forest Plan visual quality objectives, 

and standards and guides for visual resource management guide the amount, degree, intensity, 

and distribution of management activities needed to achieve desired scenic conditions.

Specifically:

• Forest Service Manual Chapter 2380 (Landscape Management) requires the assessment 

and documentation of project impacts on scenic resource values, and the proposal of 

mitigation measures (project design features) and scenic integrity objectives.

• US Department of Agriculture Handbooks 434, 462 and 559 are components of series of 

handbooks that help define the nationally-established principles and methods of the 

visual resource management system (VRM), and define visual quality objectives used in 

the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 1995 (Forest Plan).

• The Forest Plan visual quality objectives cover every acre of the Klamath National Forest 

(Forest). Per the Forest Plan (1995, as amended, pp. 4-7), general forest-wide 

management direction calls for:

1. Managing visual resources to conserve the natural scenic character of the Forest.

2. Emphasize management of the visual resource seen from communities, high-use 

recreation areas and major roads and trails.

3. Conserve the inherent scenic attractiveness of distinctive landscapes.

4. Rehabilitate areas not currently meeting visual quality objectives.

Because the wild and scenic river corridor of the Klamath River occupies a very small portion of 

the project area (six acres of private ownership at the confluence with Humbug Creek), and is 

located away from project activities, no wild and scenic river report will be included as a part of 

this analysis.

Methodology

This evaluation applies current National Forest Landscape Management methodology in 

conjunction with existing Forest Plan direction. It relies on geospatial information system 

analysis, field observations from sensitive viewpoints, modeling to determine visibility of Project 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

2

activities, and a literature review of public preferences for scenic quality. This evaluation relies 

on the following assumptions:

Assumption 1: The project alternative activities in modification or maximum 

modification visual quality objective areas would typically meet their assigned visual 

quality objectives. Frequently, activities in modification and maximum modification 

are generally not visible from moderate or high sensitivity viewpoints or travel routes 

(roads or trails).

Assumption 2: Public sensitivity is not necessarily related to aesthetic appeal. Visual 

significance may be conferred to broad landscapes or components that would otherwise 

appear unexceptional. Areas having local, regional, or national cultural significance may 

not be aesthetically scenic, yet their visual character is considered important based on 

cultural values. Therefore, baseline descriptions for visual impact analysis does not

measure the aesthetic appeal, but the indicators of sensitivity help infer the importance of 

an affected landscape (Port of Los Angeles, Appendix B., 2011).

Scenic resource analysis follows this general process:

• Qualifying the existing landscape character of the project area. Landscape character is 

based on the existing physical features inherent to the project area. Physical features 

include ecological and cultural (human) processes, function (land use or ecological 

relationships), and structure (feature patterns, such as natural and irregular mosaics of 

agricultural practices, forests, fields, and cultural development). Note that character is not 

necessarily based on aesthetic appeal, regardless of established regulations, plans, or 

policies, such as public sensitivity. (Port of Los Angeles, Appendix B., 2011).

• Literature review of appropriate forest aesthetics and forest science research in order to 

apply broad, transferrable lessons regarding public preferences towards forested 

environment aesthetics.

• Identifying all Forest Plan and post-Forest Plan recommended public recreation sites 

within the project area, as well as identified recreation sites outside of the project area 

with potential views of the proposed alternatives.

• Identifying all Forest Plan and post-Plan recommended high and moderately sensitive 

travel routes (roads and trails) with potential views of proposed alternatives, inside and 

outside the project area boundary. Locations identified in the Forest Plan are those public 

viewing areas most affected by the subject action; meaning they have the greatest 

potential for impact intensity due to proximity to the project, visibility, view duration, or 

other factors. The degree of visual sensitivity is based on a collective function of viewer 

expectations, activity, awareness, values, and goals.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

3

• Completing geospatial information system viewshed analyses from all Forest Plan and 

post Plan identified viewpoints and travel routes to determine proposed project 

alternative visibility.

• Representative views where proposed project alternative will be most noticeable (based 

on proximity, degree, and duration of viewing exposure, as well as views representative 

of the public experience) are selected for detailed analysis.

• Comparing proposed project alternative treatment prescriptions with visual quality 

objective overlay mapping, combined with professional judgment, helps determine the 

amount, degree, intensity, and distribution of visible change (as the change is viewed, 

dependent on the foreground, middleground, and background viewing distance zones); 

this step informs the development of appropriate project design features.

• Develop project design features that meet Forest Plan visual quality objective and visual 

resource management thresholds, in conjunction with meeting additional resource area 

objectives.

Literature Review

According to Ryan (2005) and Islas (2012), peer-reviewed forest aesthetics research reveal 

common patterns in public preferences regarding perceptions of a scenic forest. These 

consistencies range across North American and European forest types. Although the research 

focuses on fuels management, these general patterns also apply to timber management.

According to the research, the public values the following visual characteristics:

• Large mature trees,

• Forests with more open structure; views into the understory are generally considered 

more scenic than those with extremely dense understory,

• The amount of thinning varies by topography and forest type; however, partial clearing of 

up to 50 percent in a dispersed pattern may be visually acceptable in moderately sensitive 

areas, especially with large tree retention,

• Downed wood from timber harvesting and tree thinning has a negative impact on scenic 

beauty. Removing dead wood or chipping onsite can greatly increase scenic rating on 

thinning projects,

• Low-intensity prescribed burning generally improves long-term scenic beauty, but also

may have short-term negative visual impacts, such as tree bole (trunk) scorching and 

burned mosaic patterns along the forest floor and vegetation.

Although the public has common expectations of what they perceive as scenic, the patterns listed 

above are not appropriate for every forest type and ecosystem. Furthermore, according to 

Nassauer (1992) and Gobster (1999), some aspects of forest management may not be visually 

appealing to the public, even though positive short and long-term ecological benefits can be 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

4

achieved. In order to balance the two, as well as meet all Forest Plan visual and ecological 

objectives, project design features are implemented, mitigating effects to forest ecological and 

aesthetic resource objectives, so both are met to a successful degree. Project design features are 

listed in chapter 2 of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement.

Analysis Indicators

Visual Quality Objectives

Proposed landscape treatments are measured against the Forest Plan identified thresholds for 

acceptable visual change. Visual quality objectives, per Agricultural Handbook 462 are defined 

below:

• Retention: Management activities are not visually evident, and may only repeat form, 

line, color, and texture, which are frequently found in the landscape. Changes in their 

qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.

• Partial Retention: Management activities are noticeable, but remain visually subordinate

to the characteristic landscape, and may repeat form, line, color, or texture common in the 

landscape.

• Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may visually dominate the 

original characteristic landscape; however, they must borrow from the naturallyestablished form, line, color, or texture at a level and scale that the visual appearance of 

the activity mimics those natural features occurring within the surrounding area.

• Maximum Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may dominate

the characteristic landscape; however, when viewed in the background zone (three to five

miles), the visual appearance must mimic those natural features within the surrounding 

area or character type. When viewed in foreground or middle ground, the activity may 

not appear to completely borrow from the naturally-established form, line, color, or 

texture.

Measures

Forest Plan inventoried viewpoints and travel routes

Scenic resources are evaluated from Forest Plan-designated sensitive viewpoints, roads, trails, as 

well as recreation points with extended viewing times.

Distance Zones

As part of the measure of visible change from inventoried viewpoints and travel routes, distance 

zones are important divisions of the landscape as viewed by the public. Foreground views 

generally offer more detail at a smaller scale, in terms of textures, patterns, and forms, whereas 

middleground and background viewing distance zones offer less details, frequently at larger 

scales. In terms of project analysis, distance zones are important based on the proximity of 

project activities to the viewer. As defined in the Agricultural Handbook 462:
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

5

• Foreground: The detailed landscape found within 0-0.25 and 0.5 miles from the 

observer.

• Middleground: The landscape located between 0.25 and 0.5 miles to three to five miles 

from the observer.

• Background: The distant landscape located between three to five miles and infinity.

Table 1: Evaluation Viewpoints and how they are Considered

Viewpoint/Road/Trail Visual Sensitivity Level Distance Zone

County Road 7J002 (Hawkinsville) Moderate Foreground, Middleground

County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn)

High (first 1.3 miles – the highsensitivity designation ends 0.4 miles 

west of the junction of Bennett Drive)

Foreground, Middleground 

County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn)

Moderate (8.5 miles to analysis area

boundary at the junction of Deadwood 

Creek Road)

Foreground, Middleground 

Forest Road 45N28 Moderate Foreground, Middleground, 

Background

Forest Road 45N39 Moderate Foreground, Middleground

Humbug OHV Area (and associated trails) Moderate Foreground, Middleground

Yreka (Community) High Middleground, Background

Visual Sensitivity Level:

High: High public use, corresponding with a high level of visual scenery interest.

Moderate: Moderate public use, corresponding with a moderate level of visual scenery interest.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounding includes the entire project area within the boundary for direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects, and also includes the following areas beyond the boundary:

• The community of Yreka, and,

• Portions of County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn Road) affected by a proposed fuelbreak.

Temporal boundaries for scenic resource contrasts (or effects) caused by project activities 

encompass many variables. Here, professional judgment is used to describe the temporal range 

and the more common short and long-term visual evidence that may be seen as a result of the 

collective range of treatments proposed for this Project. Key variables considered here include 

the distance zone. For example, the details of the more immediate effects of forest management 

are more visually apparent in foreground than in middleground and background. In 

middleground and background, overall form (such as shape or mass), textures and line contrasts 

generally become more apparent. For example, thinning treatments that reduce canopy cover 

may create line edges when contrasted against denser forest canopy surrounding the treatment 

boundary and therefore, appear unnatural. Depending on the angle of viewing and the distance 

zone, reduction in the canopy cover may also increase the appearance of coarser textures by 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

6

breaking up the continuity of a potentially denser canopy cover surrounding treatment areas. This 

also may appear unnatural.

Additional variables include how quickly vegetation responds (regrowth) to the collective range 

of treatments. Response depends on the type of vegetation, intensity and type of treatment, 

aspect, elevation, soils, and many other factors. Over time and when viewed as a whole, 

vegetation response generally tends toward a decrease in the visual contrasts (or effects) seen as 

a result of human manipulation. For example, foliage regrowth such as needles or leaves will 

eventually decrease views into the forest understory, while grass and shrub regrowth may 

conceal stumps in some locations. Seasonal leaf and needle litter fall may also visually mask 

ground disturbance and stumps in some locations. Stumps and slash also begin to weather and 

decompose, generally becoming more subdued in color. Decomposition rates depend on 

climactic and biological factors, such as temperature and moisture, as well as the amount and 

type of microbes and soil animals present.

Because of the variation described above, short-term scenery contrasts (effects) may range 

between three and 10 years. Generally, beyond 10 years, the effects of soil and vegetation 

contrasts, slash, and stumps decrease, depending on decomposition rates and vegetation 

response. Long-term effects are also variable, and may range longer than 10 years and up to 45 

years for all distance viewing zones. While some visual effects may be seen beyond 45 years, it 

is assumed here that all proposed treatments in the Project area without intervening treatments 

will appear natural to the public. Note that as required by Forest Plan analysis, these are the 

treatments seen in all viewing distance zones from Level 1 and 2 (high and moderate) visual 

sensitivity roads, the Humbug Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area and associated trails.

Because Visual Quality Objectives cover every acre of the Klamath National Forest, effects 

include all seen areas affected by proposed project alternatives within and outside of the project 

area, regardless of visual sensitivity levels.

Affected Environment

Current Topography, Hydrology, and Vegetation:

Encompassing approximately 29,500 acres, the Craggy Project consists of rugged topography

with elevations ranging from just under 2,000 feet along the Klamath River to approximately 

6,200 feet near McKinley Mountain. The topography is heavily influenced by the ridgeline that

bounds the project area at all cardinal points, except for a break at the confluence of Humbug 

Creek and the Klamath River. Humbug Creek and associated tributaries also influence the 

topography of deeply-incised drainages. Major peaks along the ridgeline include China Peak and 

Vesa Bluffs to the north, Deadwood Baldy Peak, McKinley Mountain, Gunsight Peak, 

Mahogany Point, and Montana Peak to the west and south, and Badger Mountain to the east.

Vegetation is generally dominated by Douglas-fir natural conifer stands, with ponderosa pine, 

white fir, sugar pine, and incense cedar in lesser amounts. Plantations are dominated by 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

7

ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, with lesser amounts of Douglas-fir, sugar pine, white fir, and incense 

cedar.

The eastern ridgeline boundary and east-facing slopes of the project area form the sense of place

backdrop (for background on the multiple meanings of “sense of place” within a forest 

management context, refer to Stedman 2003) for those living within the community of Yreka and 

its immediate surroundings. Throughout the project area, and especially as seen from Yreka, 

slope vegetation patterns, natural and created openings, road lines, and other landscape details 

become more visible under appropriate atmospheric conditions, such as when highlighted by 

sunlight, or by snow events. Conversely, they become less visible during precipitation, or when 

concealed by low cloud cover or fog.

Vegetation patterns are pronounced throughout the project area, and the appearance is either one 

of textures, such as interspersed mixed conifers and brush across the slopes in foreground and 

middleground views, or a dense and continuous conifer, and oak and brush canopy in 

middleground and background views. As seen during field reconnaissance, there is visual 

evidence of oak savanna being out-competed by conifers in some areas. The landscape elements 

of the watershed can be best characterized as heterogeneous, fragmented, patchy, and finelytextured (USDA 1993).

Culture and Disturbance:

A network of Siskiyou County and Forest Service roads traverse the project area, facilitating 

access to the Humbug Off-highway Vehicle area. Evidence of road lines and scattered private 

residences, or other evidence of human habitation are seen in middleground views across the

project area.

Most of the project area lies within the extent of the 1955 Haystack Fire, and much of the postfire area was salvage logged and reforested (refer to the Silviculture Report for more details).

Part of these timber operations resulted in the visual evidence of terrace forestry, as revealed in 

unnatural-appearing vegetation patterns as seen in middleground and background views. In 

foreground views, the terraced slopes are prominent, as are the planted tree rows.

Before Forest Service stewardship, the Humbug landscape was heavily disturbed by mining

activities beginning with hand placer mining in the early 1850s to 1860s. Hydraulic mining 

began in the 1870s and played out during the 1880s. Miners then moved upslope out of drainages 

to mine lode deposits, creating the scattered adits and tailings now seen throughout the watershed 

(Stumpf 1979).

Human-caused and natural fire was the main disturbance mechanism that dominated the 

appearance of vegetation in the Klamath Mountains (Whitaker 1960). Overall, the project area 

was affected by frequent fires of low to mixed severity (Skinner and Taylor 2006, Taylor and 

Skinner 1998). Original vegetation patterns were likely characterized by complex mosaics of 

age, size, and spatial structure (Wills 1991). Early 20th century accounts of pine and mixed 

conifer forests noted similar spatial structure patterns of wide tree spacing, denser tree clumps or 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

8

groupings, small dense patches of seedlings and saplings, non-forested openings, shrub fields 

and meadows (Larson and Churchill 2012).

Overall, past disturbance patterns of fire suppression, mining, logging, and replanting have

altered the project area vegetation from the more irregular, open, and structurally diverse patterns 

ecologically established by the historic fire regimes. The current condition comparatively is a 

much more uniform and dense forest and shrub habitat, with smaller openings. This condition 

trends away from meeting forest ecological health objectives and the Forest Plan standard of 

perpetuating ecologically-established scenery.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would not produce any short- or long-term visual contrasts (e.g., typical effects 

of management from thinning, mastication, creation of fuel breaks, and under burning), or 

directly change the project area’s existing disturbances as viewed from all inventoried 

moderately and highly sensitive travel routes and viewpoints. Visual quality objectives would 

not negatively be affected to the scale or intensity that would detract from its natural or sociallyvalued appearance.

Long-term indirect effects may include gradually decreasing views into the forest understory, or 

decreasing views from open viewpoints as seen from former landing sites, or along line-of-sight

vistas, as seen from road and riparian corridors. Barring any major future natural or cultural 

disturbances, a combination of natural and culturally-created openings along ridgelines, as seen 

in middleground and background views may gradually decrease in size, eventually creating the 

appearance of an unbroken forest canopy. Project area existing visual disturbances that are 

noticeable from all viewing distances may generally reduce over time through revegetation, in 

the absence of future human or natural disturbances.

Additional long-term effects include the general decrease of vegetation structural diversity over 

time, and the density of vegetation would increase through cumulative growth cycles. The effects 

of Alternative 1 will negatively move the analysis area for this indicator further away from what 

is identified as its ecologically-established landscape character. All visual quality objectives will 

not be affected by this alternative.

With increased vegetation density, there will be the potential decline of fire-adapted vegetation, 

as well as the decline of forest ecological resiliency to insects and disease. Within the project 

area and beyond, the probability will increase for future strong landscape visual contrasts created 

by non-ecologically or historically established high-severity wildfire, insect infestation 

outbreaks, or a combination of insect infestation and subsequent tree mortality, followed by 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

9

high-severity wildfire events. These potential events could negatively affect the visual quality 

objectives.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to the effects of the past, current and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described in Appendix C of the Craggy Environmental Impact Statement, will not 

result in measureable cumulative effects on scenery.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes treatments on approximately 36 percent of the project area’s 29,500 acres 

through a combination of fuel breaks, brush mastication, underburning, and thinning with and 

without forest product removal. Alternative 3 proposes treatments on approximately 38 percent

of the project area’s 29,500 acres through a similar combination of fuel breaks, brush 

mastication, underburning, and thinning with and without forest product removal as seen in 

Alternative 2; however, there will be an acreage increase proposed for fuel breaks and thinning 

without removal, and acreage decrease for mastication and thinning with removal. Additionally, 

there will be a decrease in temporary roads for Alternative 3. See chapter 2 for specific details.

For scenic resources, the direct and indirect effects will be the same for Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 3.

Collectively, these treatments will create minor short-term visual contrasts, along with short- and 

long-term scenic resource and ecosystem benefits, and will not negatively affect the visual 

quality objectives to the scale or intensity that would detract from its natural or socially-valued 

appearance. These benefits will visually improve the spatial and structural characteristics of 

scenic resources, as well as increasing insect, disease and fire resiliency of those treated portions 

of the forest. Desired visual characteristics include a more diverse vegetation structure as well as 

a more open forest understory, which are two of the attributes the general public considers 

aesthetically pleasing. These characteristics benefit from the improved forest ecological function

that will be a result of implementing the treatments in Alternative 2 or 3. Increased tree spacing 

will increase resilience to insect and disease outbreaks and wildfire, and the same irregular 

spatial structure will mimic the ecologically-established landscape character historically created 

by a low-mixed severity fire regime.

As previously mentioned in the methodology section of this report, although the short-term 

visual evidence of low-intensity (and the assumption of medium and high-intensity) prescribed 

burning is generally perceived as negative, the short- and long-term ecological benefits outweigh 

these negative short-term visual perceptions.

Foreground view effects: short-term direct and indirect management effects in foreground views 

for all project area visual quality objectives, as seen from Forest Plan inventoried viewpoints, 
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

10

trails, and along designated highly and moderately traveled roads may include: tangible and 

intangible elements associated with active forest management during project implementation, 

such as harvesting activity, noise, dust, and traffic along haul routes. Additional short-term 

effects include the change in vegetation density and spacing during and immediately upon

project completion, cut stumps, tree paint and flagging as seen from project area trails and 

moderately-traveled roads, exposed soils (such as decomposed granite, which tends to have a 

greater visual color contrast than the surrounding terrain), large concentrated slash piles in new 

and existing landings or along trails and moderately traveled roads, skyline corridors and groundbased units, as well as linear evidence of skyline corridors, as expressed through soil disturbance. 

Additional short-term effects from underburning include tree bole (trunk) scorching, mortality of 

small trees, and mosaic burn patterns on the forest floor.

Long-term effects in foreground views for all project area visual quality objectives may include 

cut stump patterns as seen from project area non-designated high and moderately sensitive 

(traveled) roads, tree paint and flagging, exposed soils with greater visual color contrasts than 

surrounding terrain, large concentrated slash piles in new and existing landings or along trails 

and roads, skyline corridors and ground-based units, as well as linear evidence of skyline 

corridors.

Long-term underburning effects will gradually decrease over time, as will the contrast change in 

vegetation massing, as vegetation growth responds to increased sunlight in the gaps.

Short-term effects in middleground and background views for all project area visual quality 

objectives may include: change in vegetation massing (form and texture, when contrasted against 

non-treated stands), exposed soils from landings, and linear evidence (seen in both line and color 

contrast) of skyline corridors or skid roads and existing road alignments exposed by a decrease in 

vegetation.

Long-term effects in middleground and background views for all project area visual quality 

objectives may include change in vegetation massing (form and texture, when compared against 

non-treated stands), linear evidence of skyline corridors or skid roads and existing road 

alignments exposed by a decrease in vegetation.

Project design features will guide the implementation of treatments so the respective visual 

quality objectives will be met within the designated time-frame, especially those foreground 

areas along designated moderate sensitivity roads, trails, and forest plan-designated viewpoints,

and in middleground views as seen from the Yreka community and surrounding area. Overall, 

the quality of the ecologically-established landscape character will be improved through 

Alternative 2 or 3 treatments.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

11

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are described in in the affected environment section of this report. The following are 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered within the project area that have 

bearing on scenic resources and the analysis indicator.

There are no ongoing actions by the Forest Service within the project area, other than current 

ongoing use and maintenance of roads and trails.

The Badger timber harvest plan will treat approximately 48 acres in through a combination of

clearcutting and shelterwood removal with tractor logging. Located along the north slope of 

Badger Mountain, it is expected that there will be strong line visual contrasts associated with this 

project between 10 and 20 years after it is complete, or until the vegetation grows to the extent to 

reduce the contrasts. The public may be able to view these contrasts from California State 

Highway 96 coming eastbound in the western vicinity of the Tree of Heaven Campground, but 

this depends on the actual location of the harvest units. Due to topography, Alternative 2 or 3

treatments for the Craggy Project will not be seen in combination with the Badger timber harvest 

plan treatments. Additionally, with project design features, Alternative 2 and 3 will not induce 

non-natural line or textural visual contrasts, and will not negatively affect the visual quality 

objectives to the scale or intensity that would detract from its natural or socially-valued 

appearance.

Therefore, no cumulative effects in time and space are expected in association with the Badger 

timber harvest plan.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2: Scenery Comparison of Effects.

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Visual Quality 

Objectives

Existing visual disturbances are minor and 

widespread. This alternative meets the 

Forest Plan thresholds for all sensitive 

views. There will be no new visual impacts; 

however there will be increasing future risk 

for ecosystem disturbances, such as highseverity wildfire, and insect outbreaks.

There will be widespread new minor visual 

disturbances within designated viewsheds 

for 1-3 years. 

With project design features, Forest Plan 

visual quality objective thresholds for all 

designated views and road and trail travel 

corridors will be met.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

Alternatives 2 and 3 will comply with relevant law, regulation, and policy. Alternative 1 will 

negatively affect the project area’s existing scenic resources and will continue the trend away 

from vegetation spatial patterns established by a low to mixed severity fire regime, which is not 

consistent with Forest-wide Klamath National Forest Plan Standard 11-4, which gives direction

to “perpetuate the ecologically established landscape character.”
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

12

Literature Cited

Islas, P.V. 2012. A visual perception study in landscapes subject to fires in South East Australia. 

Bosque (Valdivia), 33(3), 19-20.

Larson, A.J., and Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western 

North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for 

designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 

267, 74-92.

Nassauer, J.I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape 

Ecology, 6(4), 239-250.

Port of Los Angeles, Environmental Management Division, Los Angeles Harbor Department. 

2011. Southern California International Gateway Project, Draft Environmental Impact 

Report, Appendix B: Aesthetics Visual Resource Methodology. Los Angeles, 

CA. https://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/SCIG/DEIR/deir_scig.asp.

Ryan, R.L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research on 

aesthetics and fuels management. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station.

Skinner, C.N., and Taylor, A.H. 2006. Southern Cascades Bioregion. Fire in California’s 

Ecosystems, 195-224.

Stedman, R. C. 2003. Sense of Place and Forest Science: Toward a Program of Quantitative 

Research. Forest Science, 49(6), 822-828.

Stumpf, G. 1979. Gold Mining in Siskiyou County, 1850-1900. Yreka, CA: Siskiyou County

Historical Society.

Taylor, A.H., and Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional 

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 111(2-

3), 285-301.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Klamath National Forest, Humbug Landscape Analysis and Design. 

Yreka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Gobster. 1999. An Ecological Aesthetic for 

Forest Landscape Management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), 54-64.

USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 434. 1973. National Forest Landscape 

Management: Volume 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

USDA, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook Number 462. 1974. National Forest Landscape 

Management (Vol. 2, Chapter 1: The Visual Management System). Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

13

USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 559. 1980. National Forest Landscape 

Management: Volume 2, Chapter 5: "Timber." Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office.

USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological 

Monographs, 30(3), 279-338.

Wills, R.D. 1991. Fire history and stand development of Douglas-fir/hardwood forests in 

northern California (Unpublished master’s thesis.)
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

14

Appendix A - Project Area Photographs

Figure 1: September, 2016: Typical View along Forest Road 46N27, Looking Southeast Across the Humbug 

Drainage. Existing Forest Vegetation Patterns in Foreground and Middleground Views. N 41° 48’ 32.28”, W 

122° 46’ 07.90”, 4,253’ Elevation.

In general, effects from vegetation management are seen more easily in foreground views from 

the roadside.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

15

Figure 2: September, 2016: Typical view along Forest Road 45N28 (moderate visual sensitivity), looking 

southeast. N 41° X44’ 41.48”, W 122° 42’ 34.35”, 5,140’ Elevation

The Yreka community is just out of site beyond the left image edge. Existing forest vegetation 

patterns in foreground, middleground, and background views.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

16

Figure 3: December, 2016: View of the Sense of Place Backdrop from Miner Street in Downtown 

Yreka.. N 41° 43’ 55.60”, W 122° 38’ 16.88”, 2,625’ Elevation.

The ridgeline is approximately 3.5 miles away from this point, in the middleground.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

17

Appendix B – Maps

Figure 4: Spatial Boundary for Scenic Resources, to Include Ridgelines South and East of the Yreka Community.

Also indicated are the Forest Plan-designated high and moderate sensitivity travel routes. Yellow indicates those travel routes with 

moderate public interest in scenery, and red indicates those travel routes with high public interest in sensitivity.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

18

Figure 5: Forest Plan-Designated Visual Quality Objectives for the Project Area.

Green transparent polygons (upper right, along the Klamath River) indicate Retention. Transparent blue/green polygons indicate 

Partial Retention. Transparent orange polygons indicate Modification, and transparent red polygons indicate Maximum Modification.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

19

Figure 6: Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments in the Project Area.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

20

Figure 7: Downtown Yreka Forest Plan-Designated Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments.

Light green shaded areas indicate the seen areas from downtown. Note these seen areas are depicted as a “bare earth” visual analysis, 

and do not account for physical objects, such as buildings, structures, and vegetation, that obstruct views.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

21

Figure 8: Humbug Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Area Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments.

Light green shaded areas indicate the seen areas from the Humbug recreation area. Note these seen areas are depicted as a “bare earth” 

visual analysis, and do not account for vegetation obstructing the view.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

22

Figure 9: Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments in the Project Area.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

23

Figure 10: Downtown Yreka Forest Plan-Designated Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments.

Light green shaded areas indicate the seen areas from downtown. Note these seen areas are depicted as a “bare earth” visual analysis, 

and do not account for physical objects, such as buildings, structures, and vegetation, that obstruct views.
Scenery Craggy Vegetation Management

24

Figure 11: Humbug Off-highway Vehicle Recreation Area Viewpoint and Viewshed Analysis of Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments.

Light green shaded areas indicate the seen areas from the Humbug recreation area. Note these seen areas are depicted as a “bare earth” 

visual analysis, and do not account for vegetation obstructing the view.