Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Visual impact planning for timber management in British Columbia Sheppard, Stephen R. J. 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A6_7 S54_5.pdf [ 32.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093714.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093714-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093714-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093714-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093714-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093714-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093714-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093714-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093714.ris

Full Text

VISUAL IMPACT PLANNING FOR TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by STEPHEN RICHARD JOHN SHEPPARD B.A. (Hons.)* University of Oxford, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science in the Department of Forestry We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 1976 (c) Stephen Richard John Sheppard, 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r ee t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co l umb i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 FRONTISPIECE An I l l u s t r a t i o n of the Problem. V i s u a l Impact No.42, south of Golden. - iv -"There w i l l come a time when strange glyphs and giant characters, carved i n the green skin of Earth by blade and mighty machine, stretch over mountain and forest from one world's end to the other. What tale w i l l these runes t e l l of those who wrought them and how they lived?" Anon. - v -ABSTRACT Information i s needed to help f o r e s t managers reduce the v i s u a l impact of timber management where the p u b l i c ' s image of the landscape may be d i s r u p t e d . V i s u a l impact magnitude may be assessed by extent of d e v i a t i o n from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. From a n a l y s i s of 43 v i s u a l impacts i n the Windermere P u b l i c Sustained Y i e l d U n i t (P.S.Y.U.) i n south-eastern B r i t i s h Columbia, and from s e l e c t e d l i t e r a t u r e , the independent and i n t e r a c t i n g v i s u a l e f f e c t s of seventy timber management p r a c t i c e s are i d e n t i f i e d , and r a t e d as i n e v i d e n t , subordinate, or dominant i n comparison w i t h v i s u a l elements of the landscape. The v i s u a l e f f e c t of a given p r a c t i c e i n a given f o r e s t landscape type i s p r e d i c t a b l e w i t h d e t a i l e d knowledge of both, i n most cases. The v i s u a l impact magnitude of a timber: management a c t i v i t y can be p r e d i c t e d from the number of most negative v i s u a l e f f e c t s caused by the combination of management p r a c t i c e s used. P r a c t i c e s i n t r o d u c i n g low v i s u a l e f f e c t s or c a n c e l l i n g those of other p r a c t i c e s are i d e n t i f i e d as landscape design t o o l s . Use of landscape design t o o l s i s g e n e r a l l y compatible w i t h other f o r e s t environmental management aims, though exceptions of l o c a l importance are foreseen. Forest a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia needs to be modified to accommodate v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s on timber management. In a case study i n the Cartwright Lakes/Steamboat Mountain area i n the Windermere P.S.Y.U., the costs of using design t o o l s i n s t e a d of conventional p r a c t i c e s are estimated i n three p o t e n t i a l l o g ging s i t e s . Lower v i s u a l impact magnitudes can be achieved using common logging systems without s i g n i f i c a n t cost i n c r e a s e s , where some timber i s l e f t - v i -between s e t t i n g s i n v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s . Unconventional logging systems can r a i s e or lower costs w i t h or without v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s , but use as design t o o l s may reduce e x t r a costs on land that i s c o s t l y to l o g . With government cut and leave p o l i c y and r e s t r i c t i o n s on logging methods, use of landscape design t o o l s i n hig h p r i o r i t y s i t e s can have n e g l i g i b l e cost i n c r e a s e s , but i t i s not known how w i d e l y the case study c o n d i t i o n s occur elsewhere. A procedure f o r v i s u a l impact planning i s advanced, comprising a n a l y s i s of b i o p h y s i c a l and viewing c o n d i t i o n s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of f o r e s t landscape types and v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s and s e l e c t i o n of design t o o l s to f i t them, d e t a i l e d planning of v i s u a l impacts, and graphic p r e d i c t i o n of the outcome. Continuing research i s needed to s u b s t a n t i a t e the study ::*•.:".., f i n d i n g s , and p r i o r i t i e s are suggested. - v i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS, PAGE FRONTISPIECE i i ABSTRACT v TABLE OF CONTENTS v i i LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES x i LIST OF CASE STUDY PLANS, SKETCHES & FORMS x i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 R a t i o n a l e 1 1.2 Obj e c t i v e s 5 1.3 Hypotheses 7 1.4 D e f i n i t i o n of Study Terms 9 1.5 Study Procedure & L i m i t a t i o n s 27 Chapter I I . TOWARDS IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN TOOLS 30 2.1 S e l e c t i o n of a Study Region . . 30 2.2 A n a l y s i s of V i s u a l E f f e c t s of I n d i v i d u a l P r a c t i c e s .31 2.3 A n a l y s i s of V i s u a l E f f e c t s of Combined P r a c t i c e s • .88 2.4 I m p l i c a t i o n s of Analyses 97 2.5 Recommendations on Use of Selected Design Tools. • .99 Chapter I I I . INTERACTIONS OF VISUAL & OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES. • .109 3.1 Forest P r o t e c t i o n 109 3.2 Stand Regeneration 113 3.3 S o i l & Water P r o t e c t i o n 114 3.4 F i s h & W i l d l i f e Conservation - v i i i -{ P A G E * Chapter I I I . INTERACTIONS OF VISUAL & OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES (Cont'd) 3.5 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis 3 118 3.6 E f f i c i e n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 119 3.7 Economic Harvesting 121 Chapter IV. CASE STUDY OF VISUAL IMPACT PLANNING 133 4.1 Purposes of Case Study 133 4.2 S e l e c t i o n of Case Study Area 134 4.3 Method of A p p r a i s a l of V i s u a l Resources. . . . . . 135 4.4 Forest Landscape Types & V i s u a l O b j e c t i v e s 139 4.5 D e t a i l e d Planning of A l t e r n a t i v e V i s u a l Impacts. . 146 Chapter V. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 201 5.1 A Procedure f o r V i s u a l Impact Planning 201 5.2 Implementation of the V i s u a l Impact P l a n 206 5.3 Beyond the Study - What Next? 208 Chapter VI. CONCLUSION 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY 214 APPENDIX 1. V i s u a l Impact Assessment Form 223 APPENDIX 2. Overlay 4: S i m p l i f i e d Composite of V i s i b l e Area from 3 Highway Landscape C e n t r a l P o i n t s 224 APPENDIX 3. Composite Map of V i s i b l e Area from R e c r e a t i o n a l Roads & Campsites 225 APPENDIX 4. General Determinants Used i n Logging Plans 226 - i x -Page APPENDIX 5. Assumptions Made i n Logging P l a n E v a l u a t i o n 228 APPENDIX 6. Cost C a l c u l a t i o n s of A l t e r n a t i v e Logging Plans i n the Case Study Area 232 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Lis t of Timber Management Practices Considered 37 2. L i s t of Visual Impacts Recorded 40 3. Grouping of Recorded Visual Impacts by Forest Landscape Type 41 4. Visual Effects of Individual Practices i n Different Forest Landscape Types 43 5. Management Activities which Conflict with the Visual Quality Objective 92 6. Soil Disturbance and Slash Accumulations Resulting from Different Types of Logging i n Western North America 115 7. Range of Costs for Various Machines Operating under Different Conditions 127 8. Summary of Cost Evaluations of Impact Sites 196 - x i -LIST OF FIGURES PAGE F r o n t i s p i e c e - An I l l u s t r a t i o n of' the Problem i i 1. Sub-elements of Form . . . . . . . . 11 2. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Distance Zones . . . . . 2 0 3. Impacts w i t h Ground Exposure . . . . . . 22 4. Impacts Seemas Stem Exposure Only . . . . . 2 3 5. D i r e c t and Oblique Viewing . . . . . . 23 6. B a c k - l i g h t i n g and F r o n t - l i g h t i n g . . . . . 25 7. Extra-canopy Viewing . . . . . . . . 32 8. Intra-canopy Viewing . . . . . . . . 32 9. Diagram of V i s u a l E f f e c t A n a l y s i s . . . . . 35 10. Sequence of I d e n t i f y i n g V i s u a l E f f e c t s . . . . 39 11. V i s u a l Impact No. 38, Soles Creek . . . . . 46 12. V i s u a l Impact No. 16, P a l l i s e r R i v e r . . . . 48 13. V i s u a l E f f e c t of H o r i z o n t a l l y Oriented Impact i n D i f f e r e n t V e r t i c a l l y Oriented Forest Landscape Types . . . 49 14. V i s u a l Impact No. 8, Near Lang Lake . . . . . 51 15. V i s u a l Impact No. 8, Near Lang Lake . . . . . 57 16. V i s u a l Impact No. 37, Spillimacheen . . . . . 57 17. C r i t i c a l Viewing Angles f o r C l e a r i n g s on L e v e l Ground . 59 18. C r i t i c a l Viewing Angles f o r C l e a r i n g s on 25% Slopes . . 60 19. C r i t i c a l Viewing Angles f o r C l e a r i n g s on 50% Slopes . . 61 20. C r i t i c a l Viewing Angles f o r C l e a r i n g s on 75% Slopes . . 62 21. V i s u a l Impact No. 17, P a l l i s e r R i v e r . . . . . 66 22. V i s u a l E f f e c t s of Road Spacing . . . . . . 68 23. C r i t i c a l Viewing Angles f o r Road C u t - a n d - f i l l Slopes . 70 24. A e r i a l Photograph of Contour S k i d - t r i a l Lay-out. . . 73 25. V i s u a l E f f e c t s of S k i d - t r a i l Lay-out. . . . . 7 4 26. V i s u a l Impact Nos. 28 ( r i g h t ) and 30 ( l e f t ) , Bugaboo Creek 75 27. V i s u a l E f f e c t of High-lead Downhill-yarding Ruts . . 78 28. V i s u a l Impact No. 41, T.F.L. 14, Spillimacheen R i v e r . 83 29. Diagram of R e l a t i o n s h i p between V i s u a l E f f e c t s and Impact Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . 89 30. Comparison of V i s u a l E f f e c t s i n V i s u a l Impact Nos. 2 (Steamboat Mountain) and 5 (Near B r i s c o ) . . . . 90 - x i i -PAGE 31. Diagram of R e l a t i o n s h i p between V i s u a l E f f e c t s and Impact Magnitude w i t h and without Weightings f o r Primary Dominance 93 32. R e l a t i v e Scale of Openings . . . . . . . 100 33. Indenting C l e a r c u t Edge . . . . . . . 102 34. P a r t i a l Indenting of Cle a r c u t Edge . . . . . 102 35. O r i e n t i n g Patch-cuts . . . . . . . . 104 36. S e l e c t i o n C u t t i n g Beyond C l e a r c u t Edge . . . . 105 37. 'Feathering' Edge S i l h o u e t t e . . . . . . 105 38. C l e a r i n g Edges on the S k y l i n e . . . . . . 107 39. Screening by Seedblock 107 40. Modifying Continuous and Regular L i n e a r C l e a r i n g . . 107 41. Main T r a i l s i n C l e a r c u t s w i t h Indentations . . . 108 42. Road Lay-out i n Oriented C l e a r c u t s . . . . . 124 43. S k i d - t r a i l Lay-out i n Patch-cuts of D i f f e r e n t O r i e n t a t i o n . 129 44. Forest Landscape Types i n the Case Study Area . . . 140 45. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscapes of Cartwright Lakes Plat e a u and Septet Mountains . . . . . . . . 141 46. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscapes of Steamboat Mountain and Benches . . . . . . . . . . 141 47. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscape of Cartwright Lakes Plat e a u . 145 48. L o c a t i o n of Impact S i t e s . . . . . . . 147 49. Oblique View of Impact S i t e 3, Rand Creek . . . . 180 50. A Procedure f o r V i s u a l Impact Planning . . . . 201 - x i i i -LIST OF CASE STUDY PLANS, SKETCHES, AND FORMS PAGE Key for Map Symbols Used in Plans 153 Impact Site 1 — Plan 1A 154 Plan IB 155 Sketch IB 156 Forms IB and 1CI 157 Plan 1CI 158 Sketch 1CI 159 Plan 1CII 160 Sketch 1CII 161 Forms 1CII and ID 162 Plan ID 163 Sketch ID 164 Impact Site 2 — Plan 2A 167 Sketch 2A 168 Plan 2B 169 Sketch 2B 170 Forms 2B and 2C 171 Plan 2C 172 Sketch 2C 173 Plan 2DI 174 Sketch 2DI . * 175 Forms 2DI and 2DII 176 Plan 2DII 177 Sketch 2DII 178 - xiv -Impact Site 3 — Plan 3A . 182 Sketch 3A(DIR) 183 Plan 3B 184 Sketch 3B(DIR) 185 Sketch 3B(0BL) 186 Forms 3B(Direct) and 3B(Oblique) 187 Plan- 3C 188 Sketch 3C(DIR) 189 Sketch 3C(Oblique) 190 Forms 3C(Direct) and 3C(Oblique) 191 Plan 3D 192 Sketch 3D(DIR) 193 Form 3D(Direct) 194 - X V -• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It i s customary to acknowledge those who encouraged the student to battle on with his thesis. Conversely,' i n view of the number of pages which l i e beneath this one, I intend to thank those who helped me constrain the tome and thus prevented i t from becoming a s t i l l more squat irrelevancy. The blame for encouraging me throughout the study must f a l l upon Dr. Dooling and Dr. N e i l l , for whose belief in my work I am never-theless sincerely grateful. I also wish to thank Dr. Dooling for making available both the opportunity and the means for the study. I appreciate deeply the prompt and direct assistance lent me by a l l the people I met while on fieldwork, and in particular by the t^ .f staff of the B.C. Forest Service who supported my study so solidly. To my committee go earnest thanks for their constructive criticism and spirited editing. Finally, I must thank Ramona Herrick for showing me so many of her concise and exemplary reports, David Roberts for whirling me along i n his headlong rush to be gone, and Lois Illingworth for waiting so impatiently for me to be finished. - 1 -Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE. Beauty i s i n the eye of the beholder and the hands of the f o r e s t e r , i n B r i t i s h Columbia at l e a s t . Forest landscapes dominate the scenery seen from highways, c i t i e s , and r e c r e a t i o n areas throughout the Province. N a t i o n a l and P r o v i n c i a l Parks from which timber . •. h a r v e s t i n g i s excluded occupy l e s s than 4.5% of the land area. The f u t u r e of much of the B r i t i s h Columbian landscape i s determined by f o r e s t management d e c i s i o n s . The f o r e s t manager, i n the normal course of h i s operations, unavoidably a l t e r s the landscape. Why need he be concerned w i t h the i consequences of t h i s ? Scenery may be considered a p u b l i c commodity, an i n t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g to a l l those viewing i t and even to some who are not. This perhaps i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n B r i t i s h Columbia, where n e a r l y a l l f o r e s t s are on Crown land managed "to provide the f u l l range of goods and s e r v i c e s which can be derived from them" (B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , 1975a). In Wisconsin, i n the Muench v. State case, 1966, the court stated that "enjoyment of scenic beauty i s a l e g a l r i g h t and i s e n t i t l e d to a l l the p r o t e c t i o n which i s given to f i n a n c i a l r i g h t s " , (McClelland, 1974). Forest operations a l t e r i n g the landscape unfavourably represent a s o c i a l cost and one that i n recent years has aroused p u b l i c h o s t i l i t y , i n the wake of i n c r e a s i n g environmental concern and r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l a n d s . In the U.S.A., controversy over the - 2 -v i s u a l consequences of logging has been documented i n , f o r i n s t a n c e , Wyoming (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1971) and the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l Forest (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1970). In B r i t i s h Columbia, concern has been voiced over landscape changes due to proposed timber h a r v e s t i n g i n the Nahmint watershed (B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , 1975b) and P u r c e l l Mountains (Chambers, 1974). The reason f o r p u b l i c concern i s that logging operations introduce elements that c o n f l i c t w i t h the v i s u a l image* of the ' n a t u r a l ' f o r e s t landscape; "people r e a c t to any perceived change i n the image of an area", (Vaughan, 1973b).. F o r e s t e r s may ask, "Why do people r e a c t so s t r o n g l y against f o r e s t landscape changes and not a g a i n s t a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape changes, si n c e both a c t i v i t i e s are concerned w i t h h a r v e s t i n g a crop?" The answer l i e s i n the r e l a t i v e time s c a l e s of the two a c t i v i t i e s . A g r i c u l t u r e i s a f i r m and o r d e r l y component i n the v i s u a l image i n most places where i t occurs; mankind has l i v e d by i t and alongside i t : . . t h r o u g h o u t i h i s t o r y , and has come to accept the c y c l i c seasonal changes i n the landscape as a n a t u r a l and o r d e r l y element. Timber production, on the other hand, has always been a more remote and e x t r a c t i v e i n d u s t r y , perpetrated i n w i l d s e t t i n g s h i t h e r t o l a r g e l y unseen by the p u b l i c . Now that i t i s seen, i t appears as a d r a s t i c and unexpected a l t e r a t i o n w i t h a r o t a t i o n so long i n r e l a t i o n to a man's l i f e - t i m e that i t appears to be a permanent change. The f a c t that a cut-block w i l l be green i n seven years or mature f o r e s t i n a century i s no c o n s o l a t i o n to the observer whose expected image of that landscape has been d i s r u p t e d . In f a c t , as Newby (1971a) notes, "the p u b l i c i s incensed over both r e a l and imagined d e s t r u c t i o n of landscape i n t e g r i t y " , whether the * For d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s and other terms i n t h i s s e c t i o n , see s e c t i o n 1.4 - 3 -ecosystem i s degraded or not. What t h i s means to the f o r e s t manager i s that 'good management' must a l s o look good. As Twiss (1969) says, " V i s u a l appearances ...... fare, important because l a r g e segments of the p u b l i c judge f o r e s t r y on the b a s i s of what they see", and v i s u a l l y prominent mistakes "' become v i s u a l symbols which r a i s e v a l i d questions as to the c a p a b i l i t y of those who would act as stewards of the f o r e s t environment." Along w i t h educative e f f o r t s to convince B r i t i s h Columbians that f o r e s t r y i s a non-degrading c r o p - c u l t u r e , f o r e s t e r s should modify operations which suggest d e s t r u c t i v e and d r a s t i c con-sequences i n a l t e r i n g the v i s u a l image. There i s a more obvious i n c e n t i v e f o r f o r e s t managers to chart t h i s course. I f timber h a r v e s t i n g could be achieved that was v i s u a l l y . i acceptable to the p u b l i c , the b e l i e f that modern lo g g i n g methods are i n e v i t a b l y u n s i g h t l y and to be excluded from areas of management c o n f l i c t , could be d i s p e l l e d , weakening demand f o r land withdrawals from timber management and promoting p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s i n f o r e s t r y . I t i s argued that the f o r e s t manager, governmental or .; i n d u s t r i a l , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r much of the p u b l i c v i s u a l resource. The c e n t r a l tenet of the t h e s i s i s t h a t , to meet t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a v i s u a l impact should be something that i s planned, p r e d i c t e d , and  implemented, and not j u s t a haphazard consequence of a management a c t i v i t y . Two l i n e s of research have a r i s e n to t r y to provide managers w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n to do t h i s . One attempts to assess p u b l i c p r e f e r -ences f o r n a t u r a l and man-modified scenery, eg. Newby, 1971b, and D a n i e l and Boster, 1975. R e s u l t s have so f a r been i n c o n s i s t e n t and of l i m i t e d usefulness i n decision-making. The second l i n e of research s t u d i e s the e f f e c t s of management a c t i v i t i e s on the landscape and how - 4 -they may be improved by design, according to assumed c r i t e r i a of v i s u a l q u a l i t y . These c r i t e r i a range from s u b j e c t i v e assessments ( C l i f f , 1965) to e s t a b l i s h e d design p r i n c i p l e s used by landscape a r c h i t e c t s (Schultz and Co., 1973).on the premise t h a t the v i s u a l l y - t r a i n e d expert can represent the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n of the p u b l i c , (Jacobs and Way, 1969). This t h e s i s squats f i r m l y i n the second l i n e of study. Yawning gaps i n our knowledge occur i n both areas, but some research e f f o r t should be a p p l i e d to the second, based on i n t e r i m assumptions, u n t i l r e s u l t s are forthcoming from the f i r s t . F o rest managers are faced w i t h day-to-day d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the landscape where p r a c t i c a l advice and inf o r m a t i o n i s s o r e l y needed. Landscape a r c h i t e c t s could f i l l t h i s need, p r o v i d i n g v i s u a l management plans f o r implementation by the f o r e s t manager i n h i s operations. This system developed f i r s t i n the P a c i f i c North-West Region of the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , and has been proposed f o r B r i t i s h Columbia's timber tenures (Becker, 1971).' A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the a b i l i t y of f o r e s t • managers to p l a n v i s u a l impacts themselves could be increased by t r a i n i n g schemes and development of o p e r a t i o n a l guides or manuals. However, compared w i t h s m a l l e r - s c a l e , urban-oriented landscape design, the f o r e s t landscaping process i s embryonic; accepted norms, codes and procedures adapted to timber management have yet to evolve. L i t e r a t u r e , much of i t American, i s a v a i l a b l e on the p r i n c i p l e s of f o r e s t landscape inventory and design, (Murison, 1965, L i t t o n , 1968 and 1974, U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1973 and 1974), and i n B r i t i s h Columbia, B i r c h (1975) has pioneered mapping of landscape s e n s i t i v i t y . There i s much l e s s that i s comprehensive and u s e f u l f o r the planner o n - s i t e on s p e c i f i c management p r a c t i c e s and design techniques to achieve a ...... - 5 -r e q u i r e d v i s u a l end-product. What work has been done focuses on. the foreground of roads and r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s , eg. Rudolf,''(1967). With the exception of p a r t s of U.S. Forest S e r v i c e (1974) V i s u a l Management System (VMS)' and Ontario's Design G u i d e l i n e s (Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources, 1973), l i t t l e i s of d i r e c t use to e i t h e r landscape a r c h i t e c t or f o r e s t manager i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Current B.C. Forest S e r v i c e g u i d e l i n e s (undated, a) and environmental guides f o r logging companies (MacMillan B l o e d e l , 1974, Crown Z e l l e r b a c h , 1972) are vague and incomplete on t h i s s ubject. 1.2 OBJECTIVES. 1.2.1 To Evaluate Timber Management P r a c t i c e s as Landscape Design Tools. In what p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e there i s , a r e c u r r i n g theme i s that c e r t a i n f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e s are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r v i s u a l impacts. The prime example of a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h h i g h impacts i s the c l e a r c u t t i n g controversy that burgeoned i n the U.S.A. from the 1960s to the present day, (Neff, 1966, U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1970, Boster and D a n i e l , 1972, Undi, 1972), although the v i s u a l aspects are hard to separate from other environmentair.and s o c i a l aspects of the argument. Often, however, e i t h e r a s i n g l e p r a c t i c e i s recommended as d e s i r a b l e i n landscape design, eg. s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g (Shafer and Rutherford, 1969) and p a t c h - c u t t i n g ( C l i f f , 1965), or a c e r t a i n e f f e c t of u n s p e c i f i e d p r a c t i c e s i s recommended, eg. " f e a t h e r i n g edges" (Williamson and C u r r i e r , 1971). By e v a l u a t i n g a range of timber management p r a c t i c e s f o r t h e i r a c t u a l and p o t e n t i a l r o l e s i n v i s u a l impacts, those which are h e l p f u l and u n h e l p f u l i n planning to reduce v i s u a l impacts i n v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s can be i d e n t i f i e d . - 6 -1.2.2 To I n d i c a t e I n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h Other Management Objectives of Using  Timber Management P r a c t i c e s as Design Tools. Another theme o f t e n v o i c e d i s that p r a c t i c e s used to achieve landscaping o b j e c t i v e s are compatible w i t h , i f not b e n e f i c i a l t o , other environmental o b j e c t i v e s , a theme epitomised by Crowe (1966): "A healthy landscape, i n balance w i t h i t s e l f and w i t h i n i t s surroundings, i s l i k e l y to look r i g h t , as w e l l as, i n the long term, favouring f o r e s t s .... through sustained f e r t i l i t y and a healthy ecological'.environment." Against t h i s a t t i t u d e must be set the f e a r s and opinions of some i n d u s t -r i a l f o r e s t e r s that v i s u a l management programs c o n s t r a i n the economic v i a b i l i t y of timber h a r v e s t i n g ( r e l a t e d by C a i r d , 1975, Kornelius,"1974). Management o b j e c t i v e s c u r r e n t l y pursued on f o r e s t land are timber p r o d u c t i o n - f o r commercial p r o f i t , p r o t e c t i o n of f o r e s t s , e s t a b l i s h -ment and treatment of f u r t h e r crops on cut-over l a n d , p r o t e c t i o n of s o i l s and water q u a l i t y , conservation of f i s h and w i l d l i f e resources, p r o v i s i o n of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and e f f i c i e n t , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of resource management. The v i s u a l management aim i s considered p a r t of the outdoor r e c r e a t i o n o b j e c t i v e and not to c o n f l i c t w i t h other p a r t s of i t . Information on i n t e r a c t i o n s , p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l or negative, w i t h these management o b j e c t i v e s may i n d i c a t e how e a s i l y a v i s u a l management o b j e c t i v e can be absorbed i n t o f o r e s t management. 1.2.3 To Suggest a Procedure f o r Developing Timber Harvesting Plans to  Meet V i s u a l O b j e c t i v e s . Given i n f o r m a t i o n on the use and consequences of p o t e n t i a l landscape design t o o l s , f o r e s t planners need a p r a c t i c a l procedure f o r a c q u i r i n g and a n a l y s i n g data, i d e n t i f y i n g v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , and des i g n i n g , s e l e c t i n g , and implementing plans to achieve them. 1.2.4 To I d e n t i f y Further Research Needs. The d e f i c i e n c i e s i n knowledge of f o r e s t landscape design - 7 -suggests there w i l l be many research needs w i t h i n and beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . I n d i c a t i n g p r i o r i t i e s i n these would b e n e f i t f o r e s t managers and researchers. 1.3 HYPOTHESES. 1.3.1 Hypothesis 1. To t a c k l e the f i r s t study o b j e c t i v e , the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l timber management p r a c t i c e s must be appraised. Hypothesis 1 s t a t e s that a timber management p r a c t i c e w i t h i n a given f o r e s t landscape type has an  i d e n t i f i a b l e and p r e d i c t a b l e v i s u a l e f f e c t . V i s u a l e f f e c t i s defined as the a l t e r a t i o n of a landscape, i n terms of v i s u a l elements* caused by a p a r t i c u l a r p r a c t i c e , and v a r i e s w i t h the b i o p h y s i c a l character and viewing c o n d i t i o n s which make up the f o r e s t landscape type. The v i s u a l e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e a l s o v a r i e s w i t h four other f a c t o r s whose i n f l u e n c e can, however, be held constant f o r the purpose of t e s t i n g the Hypothesis (see Standard Conditions i n s e c t i o n 1.4). The Hypothesis p o s t u l a t e s that a c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e i n a v a r i e t y of f o r e s t landscape types w i l l d i f f e r not only i n the v i s u a l elements d e s c r i b i n g i t s appearance but consequently a l s o i n the extent of i t s d e v i a t i o n from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape of each type. The same a p p l i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t p r a c t i c e s i n a . p a r t i c u l a r f o r e s t landscape type. .1.3.2 Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 attempts to e x p l a i n the connection between the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of management p r a c t i c e s and the r e s u l t i n g v i s u a l impact magnitude. I t s t a t e s that * For exp l a n a t i o n of terms, see s e c t i o n 1.4. - 8 -the v i s u a l impact .magnitude of a timber management a c t i v i t y v a r i e s  i d e n t i f i a b l y and p r e d i c t a b l y w i t h the combination of v i s u a l e f f e c t s of  p r a c t i c e s used. The v i s u a l impact magnitude may be simply r e l a t e d to the sum of the v i s u a l e f f e c t s or i t may not; whichever i s t r u e , the outcome i s p r e d i c t a b l e . Hypothesis 2 a l s o assumes that the v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s described i n s e c t i o n 1.3.1 are i n standard c o n d i t i o n s . 1.3.3 Hypothesis 3. Whether or not Hypotheses 1 and 2 are accepted, i t i s widely b e l i e v e d t h a t a t l e a s t some h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s can be used to reduce v i s u a l impacts. Hypothesis 3 s t a t e s that timber management p r a c t i c e s used as design t o o l s to reduce v i s u a l impact magnitudes do not increase c o n f l i c t s w i t h other environmental management goals compared w i t h conventional p r a c t i c e s . Conventional p r a c t i c e s are those timber management p r a c t i c e s most commonly employed i n comparable c o n d i t i o n s ~ i n B r i t i s h Columbia, under a l l normal operating c o n s t r a i n t s excluding v i s u a l ones. The Hypothesis p r e d i c t s that v i s u a l impact planning i s compat-i b l e w i t h management o b j e c t i v e s governing the v a r i o u s f o r e s t resources. 1.3.4 Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s that timber management p r a c t i c e s used to reduce v i s u a l impact magnitudes do  not n e c e s s a r i l y increase the monetary cos t s of timber production. I t i s po s t u l a t e d that ways can be found to employ timber management p r a c t i c e s as design t o o l s without s i g n i f i c a n t l y r a i s i n g • operating c o s t s of the logging company, though r e c o g n i s i n g that a t l e a s t some of the p r a c t i c e s so used w i l l unavoidably i n c r e a s e l o g g i n g c o s t s . The Hypothesis seeks to r e f u t e the idea that c o s t s i n e v i t a b l y r i s e w i t h i m p o s i t i o n of new c o n s t r a i n t s , on the b a s i s that v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s demand new planning procedures which may or may not r e s u l t i n higher - .9 -cos t s . Instead, i t p o s t u l a t e s that m o d i f i c a t i o n s to p r a c t i c e s can reduce v i s u a l impact magnitudes w i t h n e g l i g i b l e cost i n c r e a s e s . 1.4 DEFINITION OF STUDY TERMS. This s e c t i o n has not been rel e g a t e d to g l o s s a r y s t a t u s because i t i s e s s e n t i a l to the t h e s i s that the concepts and assumptions contained i n these study terms be grasped. 1.4.1 Landscape. Landscape i s the appearance or v i s u a l character of a land area. 1.4.2 Timber Management P r a c t i c e - ( o r P r a c t i c e ) . A timber management p r a c t i c e i s a re c o g n i s a b l e p a r t of a . f o r e s t r y o p e r a t i o n , comprising the a p p l i c a t i o n of men and equipment i n a p a r t i c u l a r way that a t t a i n s a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e or has a p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t . In most cases, p r a c t i c e s r e f e r r e d to i n the study are logging p r a c t i c e s , but a l s o included are s i l v i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s . A p r a c t i c e i s not synonymous w i t h a logging method or system; f o r i n s t a n c e , 'ground s k i d d i n g ' i s a term that embraces s e v e r a l p r a c t i c e s . 1.4.3 Landscape Design Tool.(or Design T o o l ) . A landscape design t o o l i s one or more than one p r a c t i c e used to help a t t a i n a v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e . 1.4.4 V i s u a l Elements. "Dominance elements are the simplest v i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n p a r t s " which combine and compete i n a l l landscapes or p i c t u r e s (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). To quote from the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e (1973): "Form i s the mass of an object or of a combination of obj e c t s that appears u n i f i e d ; i f seen i n only two dimensions, we c a l l i t ' shape"-'. "Line i s a p o i n t that has been extended. I t i s anything that i s arranged i n a row or sequence. L i n e can make up the s i l h o u e t t e of a form or i t i:. can be considered s e p a r a t e l y " . - 10 -"Colour enables us to d i f f e r e n t i a t e o b j e c t s even though they have i d e n t i c a l form, l i n e , and t e x t u r e . . . . D i s t a n t colours are u s u a l l y muted by a b l u i s h haze caused by dust and moisture. Foreground c o l o u r s are stronger and more dominant." The f o u r t h element, t e x t u r e , i s an aggregate of s m a l l - s c a l e form or surface q u a l i t i e s which, l i k e c o l o u r , v a r i e s w i t h d i s t a n c e ; e.g. l e a f p a t t e r n s dominate at a few f e e t , e n t i r e stands at a few m i l e s . E l a b o r a t i o n of the meaninings of form i s necessary. Threes dimensional (3-D) forms are those which can be seen to have depth, to occupy s t r u c t u r a l space. In c o n d i t i o n s of uniform c o l o u r and t e x t u r e , v a r i e t y i n the landscape i s created only by 3-D forms and the l i n e s forming t h e i r edges, e.g. desert pyramids, or h i l l s completely f o r e s t e d . Two-dimensional forms are e i t h e r the s i l h o u e t t e s of 3-D forms when depth i s not apparent, or patt e r n s l y i n g on the surface of 3-D forms and created by c o n t r a s t i n colour or t e x t u r e . Again, the edges c o n s t i t u t e l i n e . Both types of form can be described i n terms of four sub- . elements. F i g u r e 1 shows these diagrammatically f o r 2-D p a t t e r n s , the forms most commonly as s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i a t i o n s i n f o r e s t canopy. Scale i s a measure of the r e l a t i v e s i z e of the perceived form against other 2-D or 3-D forms i n the f i e l d of view. O r i e n t a t i o n i s the d i r e c t i o n of any exaggeration of one dimension over another, r e l a t i v e to topography and l i n e of s i g h t . Shape s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r s to the general conformation, be i t geometric or r e g u l a r . Edge c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s the nature of edge superimposed on the general shape. These sub-elements i n t e r a c t and merge, but a r e l i a b l e d e s c r i p t i o n of form must consider them a l l . In a d d i t i o n , i n d e s c r i b i n g e i t h e r the form or i t s sub-elements, the edge  d e f i n i t i o n must be considered, a measure of the c o n t r a s t between forms, c o l o u r s , or t e x t u r e s , and ranging from abrupt to d i f f u s e . A l l the \: '.. Figure 1. Sub-elements of Form. 1.1 VARIATIONS IN SCALE 1.2 VARIATIONS IN ORIENTATION 1.3 VARIATIONS IN SHAPE - 12 -examples i n F i g u r e 1 show abrupt edge d e f i n i t i o n . 1.4.5 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Landscape. The v i s u a l q u a l i t y b a s e l i n e i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, u'the n a t u r a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d landscape being viewed. I t v i s u a l l y represents the b a s i c v e g e t a t i v e p a t t e r n s , landforms, rock formations and water forms which are i n view" 4(U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). These.features can be described i n : terms of the v i s u a l elements w i t h reasonable u n i f o r m i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y by anyone understanding the terms form, l i n e , c o l o u r , and t e x t u r e . S i m i l a r l y , the a l t e r a t i o n s of a land-v scape by a management a c t i v i t y can be described i n terms of the v i s u a l elements introduced and the extent to which they emulate or c o n t r a s t w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. In many areas, i d e n t i f y i n g a t r u l y n a t u r a l landscape i s an arduous task. Consequently, there i s a strong case f o r d e f i n i n g charact-e r i s t i c landscape as merely the p r e - e x i s t i n g , e s t a b l i s h e d landscape, w i t h the p r o v i s o that e x i s t i n g a l t e r a t i o n s by man, e.g. a g r i c u l t u r a l c l e a r i n g , form part of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape only i f they do not deviate from the n a t u r a l or former landscape enough to dominate i t , or are g e n e r a l l y accepted as c o n t r i b u t i n g to the area's chara c t e r . The premise i s that time, the h e a l e r , can render gradual a l t e r a t i o n s and t r a d i t i o n a l d e v i a t i o n s acceptable; I t was D u f f i e l d (1970) who pointed out that f o r e s t v i s i t o r s appear to be pleased by v i s u a l c o n t r a s t s i n space but shocked by v i s u a l d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n time. The r e v i s e d d e f i n i t i o n i s used here. 1.4.6 V i s u a l l y Evident. "That which i s apparent to the c a s u a l f o r e s t v i s i t o r " , (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). I t i s assumed that a l t e r a t i o n s v i s u a l l y i n e v i d e n t to the c a s u a l v i s i t o r c o i n c i d e w i t h very small d e v i a t i o n s that repeat form, l i n e , c o lour and t e x t u r e f r e q u e n t l y found i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, i . e . t h a t are s i m i l a r i n s i z e , amount, i n t e n s i t y , d i r e c t i o n , o v e r a l l p a t t e r n , e t c . A l l other a l t e r a t i o n s are evident, without the observer needing to be t o l d that an a c t i v i t y has occurred, though he -s t i l l may not r e a l i z e the cause of the a l t e r a t i o n was not n a t u r a l . 1.4.7 V i s u a l l y Subordinate. This r e f e r s to a l t e r a t i o n s which are evident but do not s i g n i f -i c a n t l y a f f e c t the character of the landscape. For p r a c t i c a l purposes, an a l t e r a t i o n i n a r e a l view or photographic transparency i s v i s u a l l y subordinate to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape when i t fades from s i g h t before stronger n a t u r a l v i s u a l elements on p r o g r e s s i v e l y screwing-up the eyes or unfocusing the s l i d e p r o j e c t o r . 1.4.8 V i s u a l l y Dominant. V i s u a l l y dominant a l t e r a t i o n s are evident but not subordinate, p l a y i n g a pa r t i n s e t t i n g the character of the landscape equal to or greater than the p r e - e x i s t i n g v i s u a l elements. Dominant elements are the l a s t to fade from s i g h t i n unfocused views. Dominant a l t e r a t i o n s must e i t h e r repeat n a t u r a l v i s u a l elements at s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s , i n t e n s i t i e s , e t c . , or introduce new elements, and o f t e n make i t c l e a r to casu a l observers that a management a c t i v i t y has occurred. 1.4.9 V i s u a l Q u a l i t y Standards. A continuum of a l t e r a t i o n s , ranging from i n e v i d e n t to dominant, can be constructed, and on t h i s b a s i s , the V i s u a l Management System (VMS) (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974) i d e n t i f i e s s i x v i s u a l q u a l i t y standards: a) PRESERVATION - v i r t u a l l y no management a c t i v i t i e s or a l t e r a t i o n s . b) RETENTION - management a c t i v i t i e s are not v i s u a l l y evident. c) PARTIAL RETENTION - management a c t i v i t i e s remain v i s u a l l y subordinate to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, both i n changing the q u a l i t i e s of v i s u a l elements emulating n a t u r a l elements, and i n i n t r o d u c i n g - 14 -elements found i n f r e q u e n t l y or not at a l l i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. d) MODIFICATION - management a c t i v i t i e s may v i s u a l l y dominate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape but " a c t i v i t i e s of v e g e t a t i v e and landform a l t e r a t i o n must borrow from n a t u r a l l y - e s t a b l i s h e d form, l i n e , c o l o u r , or t e x t u r e so completely and at such a s c a l e that i t s v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are those of . n a t u r a l occurrences w i t h i n the surrounding area", (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). e) MAXIMUM MODIFICATION - management a c t i v i t i e s may dominate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, but when viewed as background (over 3-5 miles from observer), the v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are those of n a t u r a l occurrences. Over shorter viewing d i s t a n c e s , a l t e r a t i o n s may not borrow from n a t u r a l v i s u a l elements, be out of s c a l e , or co n t a i n incongruent d e t a i l . f ) UNACCEPTABLE MODIFICATION - a c t i v i t i e s d e v i a t e from the v i s u a l elements of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape so e x c e s s i v e l y or at such a s c a l e t h a t they do not appear as n a t u r a l occurrences at any : di s t a n c e . The c r i t e r i o n of appearance as a n a t u r a l occurrence r e q u i r e s s u b j e c t i v e s e l e c t i o n of a threshold i n the range of d e v i a t i o n from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, beyond which a l t e r a t i o n of v i s u a l elements i s excessive or incongruous. The extent of d e v i a t i o n could be measured, e.g. by colour charts as i n the Munsell n o t a t i o n of hue, va l u e , and chroma used i n s o i l - s a m p l i n g ( M i l l a r et a l . , 1965), or by p l o t t i n g the r e l a t i v e areas of surface p a t t e r n s ; however, such measurements would .. e i t h e r be tedious to c o l l e c t or pr e j u d i c e d by a number of v a r i a b l e s such as l i g h t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , season, or e x p e r t i s e of the recorder. The thr e s h o l d value would s t i l l have to be a r b i t r a r i l y determined f o r each element and sub-element, over a wide range of c o n d i t i o n s . - 15 -E m p i r i c a l evidence (Bacon, 1975) i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n f a c t , not only landscape design s t a f f but a l s o other i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s i n land management pr o f e s s i o n s who have been exposed to the VMS concepts, are able to d i s t i n g u i s h between the ca t e g o r i e s w i t h a f a i r degree of unanimity. Howie (1972) suggests a simpler system which may reduce v a r i a b i l i t y due to assessment by untrained personnel: a) NATURAL LANDSCAPE - no a l t e r a t i o n s , or "predominantly n a t u r a l - l o o k i n g and f r e e from any obvious recent m o d i f i c a t i o n by man'-1 (Howie, 1972). b) NEAR NATURAL LANDSCAPE - e s s e n t i a l l y the same as P a r t i a l R etention, " a landscape which, though e x t r a c t i v e l y used, appears to be n a t u r a l and blends w i t h nearby or a d j o i n i n g landscapes'-', (Howie, 1972). c) SUBORDINATED NATURAL LANDSCAPE - "while the v i s u a l p a t t e r n s created by the management a c t i v i t y are not n e c e s s a r i l y n a t u r a l , they do borrow t h e i r e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the n a t u r a l l i n e , c o l o u r , form, and t e x t u r e " , (Howie, 1972). d) DISRUPTED LANDSCAPE - competely dominated by man's a c t i v i t i e s . This ranking, though more l o o s e l y defined than that of the VMS, by v i r t u e of i t s s i m p l i c i t y may be e a s i e r to apply, s a c r i f i c i n g p r e c i s i o n f o r greater r e l i a b i l i t y i n c l a s s i n g a l t e r a t i o n s . The VMS a p p l i e d by t r a i n e d personnel achieves greater p r e c i s i o n w i t h s i m i l a r r e l i a b i l i t y and so provides more inf o r m a t i o n . I t i s thus used as a reference po i n t i n the study. 1.4.10 V i s u a l Image. "A person, when r e c o l l e c t i n g a landscape"type i n h i s mind, forms a mental image of the area .... Every area w i t h i n the environment has a d i s t i n c t v i s u a l image", (Vaughan, 1973a). . 3An image i s composed of a number of complementary landscape elements, from which anything out of context tends to be excluded. "The m a j o r i t y of r e c r e a t i o n - o r i e n t e d people who v i s i t the N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s - 16 -have an image of what they expect to see. Such an image or mental p i c t u r e i s generated by a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n concerning a p a r t i c u l a r area and the person's experience w i t h that or s i m i l a r areas. The image produced represents the k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y , expectedness, romanticism, and emotionalism a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f e a t u r e s w i t h i n the area. Obviously, s e v e r a l images may e x i s t simultaneously, even w i t h i n a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l , and yet a p a r t i c u l a r geographic r e g i o n tends to have an i d e n t i f i a b l e image?, (Newby, c i t e d by U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). 1.4.11 V i s u a l Impact.* The VMS uses ' v i s u a l impact' to mean the d e v i a t i o n from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape: "The v i s u a l impact of management a c t i v i t i e s g e n e r a l l y increases as the v i s u a l elements i n the management a c t i v i t y d e v i a t e from the same elements i n the n a t u r a l landscape", (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). Vaughan (1973b) d e f i n e s i t as "the d i s r u p t i o n to the e x i s t i n g image of the area, caused by the proposed development". There i s no discrepancy between the two d e f i n i t i o n s i f the v i s u a l image of the land--; scape held by people c o i n c i d e s w i t h the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s that make up the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to prove that the two are c o i n c i d e n t . Jacobs and Way (1969) do not even t r y , d e f i n i n g v i s u a l impact without regard to comparisons w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, as "a f u n c t i o n of landscape ab s o r p t i o n and the v i s u a l i n p u t s of land-use a c t i v i t y . I t i s a measure of the degree to which the viewer i s v i s u a l l y aware of developments w i t h i n the landscape". Landscapes of equal complexity, v e g e t a t i o n d e n s i t y , and topographic enclosure would s u s t a i n equal impacts from a given a c t i v i t y under t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , and v i s u a l i n p u t s are d i c t a t e d i n part by the viewer's response, of l i k e to d i s l i k e , to the p a r t i c u l a r land use. To avoid the l u r k i n g monster, s u b j e c t i v i t y , these l a s t f r e -d e f i n i t i o n s should be considered i n the l i g h t of the two d i s t i n c t * Henceforth, the u n q u a l i f i e d term 'impact' r e f e r s only to v i s u a l impact. - 17 -components of a v i s u a l impact, i t s magnitude and importance. These concepts, a l l i e d to Leopold's (1971) environmental impact e v a l u a t i o n procedure, are explained by Deangelis (1974): "Magnitude i s defined .... as the 'degree extensiveness or s c a l e ' of impact w h i l e importance might best be termed the s i g n i f i c a n c e or weight a t t r i b u t e d to the e f f e c t . Thus, i n most cases magnitude can be determined from f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n and importance can be i d e n t i f i e d through s u b j e c t i v e judgements". The concept of d e v i a t i o n s from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape thus r e f e r s to impact magnitude, s i n c e i t r a t e s how d r a s t i c a l l y the appearance of a landscape i s a l t e r e d , r e g a r d l e s s of how much or by whom i t i s seen (unless the viewpoints from which the r a t i n g i s done are chosen to r e f l e c t important views). The concept of the d i s r u p t e d image incorporates notions of impact importance too, but i f i t i s assumed that the image i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, t h i s concept can be endorsed. The d e f i n i t i o n expounded by Jacobs and Way (1969) s t r e s s e s impact importance and i s u n h e l p f u l i n the f o r e s t s e t t i n g , demanding that the viewer's emotional a t t i t u d e towards the land use be known, a f a c t o r which can not s a f e l y be assumed. Impact importance i s t i e d to l o c a t i o n ; s i n c e the v i s u a l image of an area d e r i v e s from the p a r t s of the landscape most commonly viewed, impacts c l o s e to t r a v e l c o r r i d o r s , f o r example, are more important. V i s u a l impact can now be defined f o r study purposes as the t o t a l a l t e r a t i o n of the seen landscape by a management a c t i v i t y , comprising both the magnitude of the a l t e r a t i o n i n comparison w i t h the  v i s u a l elements of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, and the importance of .': the r e s u l t to observers. 1.4.12 P o s i t i v e and Negative V i s u a l Impacts. In f o r e s t landscapes, i n ge n e r a l , the higher the v i s u a l impact, the more negative i t i s . This premise i s a l o g i c a l extension of the need to modify d e s t r u c t i v e and d r a s t i c inroads on the v i s u a l image. I t i s a l s o - 18 -a value judgement made i n assessing h i g h and low impacts as bad and b e t t e r impacts, but one that i s hard to r e f u t e : the one r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g to emerge from s t u d i e s on p e r c e p t i o n i s that people tend to c o r r e l a t e scenic q u a l i t y w i t h perceived naturalness (Wohlwill,1976), which i n North America c o i n c i d e s l a r g e l y w i t h landscapes undisturbed by modern man. "People expect to see a n a t u r a l l y appearing character w i t h i n each general r e g i o n " , (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). Vaughan (1973b), r e f e r r i n g to t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s , agrees that v i s u a l impacts should be minimised,•i.e. "designed i n most instances to produce a n e u t r a l e f f e c t . Any change i s a bad change unless i t s need i s accepted. Bold, p o s i t i v e designs, by d e f i n i t i o n , draw a t t e n t i o n to change". Conversely, F a i r b r o t h e r (1970) recommends that pylons not be "painted a p o l o g e t i c grey, but flambuoyant red" to emphasise t h e i r f u n c t i o n , though only i n landscapes strong enough to absorb the introduced elements; s i m i l a r ideas have been expressed f o r f o r e s t r y a c t i v i t i e s (Simmons, 1965), suggesting that not only extent but a l s o d i r e c t i o n of d e v i a t i o n s must be considered. The key to t h i s question i s landscape type. So f a r , i t has been assumed th a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, as the q u a l i t y b a s e l i n e , i s a l s o the q u a l i t y optimum. This i s not always so. Many researchers (Newby, 197.1a, Zube, 197 3, Leopold, 1969) s t a t e t h a t v i s u a l q u a l i t y i s sub-optimal i n landscapes c o n t a i n i n g l i t t l e v a r i e t y , and that management a c t i v i t i e s may t h e r e f o r e cause p o s i t i v e d e v i a t i o n s by i n c r e a s i n g v i s u a l v a r i e t y . What determines whether a v i s u a l impact i n a monotonous landscape i s p o s i t i v e or negative has not been e s t a b l i s h e d . I t seems though that the dilemma a r i s e s only i n s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s , mainly extensive f l a t t i s h landscapes w i t h unbroken canopy or uniform t r a v e l c o r r i d o r s through them, s i t u a t i o n s which are not considered i n t h i s t h e s i s . - 1 9 -. l _ . 4 j j . 3 _ V i s u a l E f f e c t . A v i s u a l e f f e c t i s that p a r t of a v i s u a l impact a t t r i b u t a b l e to a p a r t i c u l a r timber management p r a c t i c e or combination of p r a c t i c e s . I t c o n t r i b u t e s to the v i s u a l impact magnitude and i s described i n terms of form, l i n e , c o l o u r , and t e x t u r e . 1 . 4 . 1 4 Forest Landscape Type. The f o r e s t landscape type of an area i s determined by: 1 ) BIOPHYSICAL CONDITIONS. Climate, topography, geology and s o i l s , v e g e t a t i o n , and water bodies d i c t a t e :-a) the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape viewed, i n c l u d i n g i t s v i s u a l compexity (Jacobs and Way, 1 9 6 9 ) and edge-related v u l n e r a b i l i t y to impacts ( L i t t o n , 1 9 7 4 , Dooling, 1 9 7 4 ) ; b) the landscape's inherent v u l n e r a b i l i t y to di s t u r b a n c e , due mainly to colour of ground v e g e t a t i o n or m i n e r a l s o i l exposed by an a c t i v i t y , ( c f . L i t t o n ' s "inherent e f f e c t s " , 1 9 7 4 ) ; c) the landscape's c l i m a t i c v u l n e r a b i l i t y , due to aspect and other d i m - : a t i c i n f l u e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d permanently of f r e q u e n t l y w i t h the s i t e , ( c f . L i t t o n ' s "outside i n f l u e n c e s " , 1 9 7 4 ) . 2) VIEWING CONDITIONS. These r e l a t e to b i o p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , i n terms of :-a) VISIBLE AREA - land, water, or v e g e t a t i o n surfaces seen by an observer from a c e r t a i n p o i n t or p o i n t s . b) VIEWING DISTANCE - d i s t a n c e between observer and observed, d i v i d e d i n t o foreground, middleground, and background, on c r i t e r i a shown i n Fi g u r e 2. c) OBSERVER POSITION AND VIEWING ANGLE - observer p o s i t i o n (OP) i s "the e l e v a t i o n of the observer r e l a t i v e to the object he i s viewing", (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1 9 7 3 ) , and can be below ( i n f e r i o r ) , l e v e l w i t h (normal), - 20 -Figure 2. Characteristics of Distance Zones. (reproduced from U.S. Forest Service, 1973.) Foreground Characteristics Middleground Characteristics Background Characteristics Presence—the observer is in it. Maximum discernment of detail—in proportion to time and speed. Scale—observer can feel a size relationship with the elements. Discernment of color— intensity and value seen in maximum contrasts. Discernment of other sensory experiences— sound, smell, and touch are most acute here. Discernment of -wind motion. Aerial perspective absent. Linkage between foreground and background parts of the landscape. Emergence of overall shapes and patterns. Visual simplification of vegetative surfaces into textures. Presence of aerial per-spective—softens color contrasts. Discernment of relation between landscape units. • Simplification—outline shapes, little texture or detail apparent, objects viewed mostly as patterns of light and dark. • Strong discernment of aerial perspective— reduces color distinc-tion, replaces them with values of blue and gray. • Discernment of entire landscape units— drainage patterns, vegetative patterns, landforms. • Individual visual impacts least apparent. Foreground Middleground Background Distance Sight capacity Object viewed Visual characteristics O-i/i-i/o mile detail rock point individual plants & species VvVsr-3-5 miles detail & general entire ridge textures (conifers & hardwoods) 3-5 miles—infinity general—no detail system of ridges patterns (light & dark) - 21 -or above the object ( s u p e r i o r ) . Observer p o s i t i o n r e l a t e d to topo-graphy give s the viewing angle, "the v e r t i c a l angle between the viewer's l i n e - o f - s i g h t and the slope being viewed", (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1973), measured i n the d i r e c t i o n of the l i n e of s i g h t . In g e n e r a l , impact magnitude increases as the viewing angle i n c r e a s e s . With hi g h viewing angle, e.g. w i t h steep s i d e s l o p e s or s u p e r i o r OPs, a c l e a r i n g r e v e a l s the ground surface to view (ground exposure, Figure 3); w i t h low viewing angle, i t does so only i f wide or a l i g n e d towards the observer (Figure 3;4). C l e a r i n g s which r e v e a l only the t r e e - b o l e edge (stem exposure onl y , F i g u r e 4) occur where the viewing angle i s s m a l l , i . e . observer i s c l o s e to the plane of canopy surface. Cleared ground i s completely . screened by the f o r e s t edge on the observer's s i d e of the impact, and impact magnitude i s t h e r e f o r e i n f l u e n c e d by the l e n g t h and number of bare boles and dead branches, :.and t h e i r c o l o u r . The o v e r a l l shape of the c l e a r i n g i s not apparent, and the impact may be d i s c e r n i b l e , i f at a l l , o n l y as a l i n e across the landscape. Stem exposure impacts are common on l e v e l or g e n t l y - s l o p i n g land, and where c l e a r i n g s are narrow and o r i e n t e d at r i g h t angles to the view d i r e c t i o n . Some stem-exposure occurs i n a l l v i s i b l e f o r e s t c l e a r i n g s , except when the observer has a perpendicular a e r i a l view. Ground exposure normally dominates stem exposure, s i n c e i t introduces strong c o n t r a s t i n both form and c o l o u r , and at l a r g e r s c a l e . This may not be so where the area of exposed ground i s s m a l l , where 'green-up' has almost eradicated colour and t e x t u r e c o n t r a s t , where t r e e -boles c o n t r a s t s t r o n g l y i n colour w i t h f o l i a g e , or w i t h foreground views, d) VIEW DIRECTION - the h o r i z o n t a l angle of viewing r e l a t i v e to the slope being viewed, and c l a s s e d as d i r e c t (normal or diagonal to contours) - 22 -F i g u r e 3. Impacts w i t h Ground Exposure. 3.1 OBSERVER'S VIEW R i d g e l i n e Exposed, ground \ Plane of canopy surface Opening I n f e r i o r OP 3.2 LARGE VIEWING ANGLE WITH STEEP SLOPE Sup e r i o r OP mm , Opening 3.3 LARGE VIEWING ANGLE WITH HIGH OP Superior OP 3.4 SMALL VIEWING ANGLE WITH WIDE CLEARING - 23 -F i g u r e 4. Impacts Seen as Stem-exposure Only. 4.1 OBSERVER'S VIEW c l e a r i n g edge 4.2 SMALL VIEWING ANGLE WITH NARROW CLEARING.. F i g u r e 5. View D i r e c t i o n . 5.1 DIRECT VIEWING 5.2 OBLIQUE VIEWING - 24 -or oblique (nearly p a r a l l e l w i t h contours), as i n Figure 5. e) LANDSCAPE COMPOSITIONAL TYPE - L i t t o n (1968) i d e n t i f i e s seven f o r e s t landscape compositions r e l a t i n g s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of v e g e t a t i o n and landforms to the observer's f i e l d of view. Of these, f e a t u r e , enclosed and f o c a l landscapes c o n t a i n a measure of u n i t y or view c o n t r o l which renders them prone to greater impact magnitudes than, f o r example, panoramic landscapes ( L i t t o n , 1974). 1.4.15 Standard Conditions. Four v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e impact magnitude w i t h i n a s i t e , :": .. : o independent of the management p r a c t i c e s used: 1) SEASON. Spring and autumn colour of deciduous t r e e s , and snow-lie i n c l e a r i n g s may emphasise a l t e r a t i o n s i n the landscape. Since these phenomena are long term but of l i m i t e d v a r i a b i l i t y , they should a l l be considered i n assessing v i s u a l e f f e c t s (Hypotheses 1 and 2) as standard c o n d i t i o n s . 2) LIGHTING DIRECTION. Conditions of f r o n t - l i g h t i n g and b a c k - l i g h t i n g u s u a l l y reduce v i s u a l impact magnitude (see Figure 6). S i d e - l i g h t i n g i s u s u a l l y the best f o r e v a l u a t i n g v i s u a l impacts "due to the depth and c l a r i t y of viewing", (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1973), and i s taken as the standard c o n d i t i o n . 3) ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS. Low cl o u d , m i s t , and p r e c i p i t a t i o n a f f e c t impact magnitude te m p o r a r i l y by screening out p a r t s of the landscape or reducing c l a r i t y and c o n t r a s t . Unimpaired v i s i b i l i t y i s taken as standard. 4) AGE OF IMPACT. The extent of screening of v i s u a l scars tends to i n c r e a s e , and the colour and t e x t u r e c o n t r a s t to decrease, w i t h time due to growth and - 25 -Figure 6. B a c k - l i g h t i n g and F r o n t - l i g h t i n g . (reproduced from U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1973.) The direction from which light strikes a surface determines the degree of visual im-pact and dominance. The three basic cate-gories of light direction are (1) backlighting, (2) frontlighting, and (3) sidelighting. Backlighting is usually associated with early or late daylight; frontlighting and side-lighting, with midday. Backlighting—Do not t r y to evaluate domi-nance elements by backlight. The sun is i n your eyes, details are obscure, and top and outside edges are emphasized. The seeming lack of contrast between the characteristic landscape and the proposed activity is mis-leading. Backlighting F rontlighting f - 5093U Frontlighting—Sunlight from the ob-server's back puts most of the landscape in full sunlight. Objects are flattened by lack of shadow, minimizing their third-dimen-sional effect. It is difficult in this light to judge full visual impact. 2 - 26 -succession of o n - s i t e v e g e t a t i o n . The r a t e of t h i s change v a r i e s w i t h s i l v i c u l t u r a l techniques and s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but the appearance of the a c t i v i t y i n the f i r s t two years (e.g. the browns and pale greens of c l e a r c u t s ) i s u s u a l l y the 'most marked and i s taken as standard. These standard c o n d i t i o n s should apply not only i n assessment but a l s o i n design of v i s u a l impacts, because an impact can d i s r u p t the v i s u a l image r e g a r d l e s s of i t s d u r a t i o n and should be planned to meet v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s at i t s maximum magnitude ( b a r r i n g f r e a k c o n d i t i o n s ) . 1.4.16 V i s u a l O b j e c t i v e s . A v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e i s the f i n a l v i s u a l q u a l i t y or extent of landscape a l t e r a t i o n d e s i r e d i n planning v i s u a l impacts. The VMS uses i t s v i s u a l q u a l i t y standards of Retention through to Maximum M o d i f i c a t i o n as v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , which are set f o r an area according to 3 c r i t e r i a : 1) VARIETY CLASS. V a r i e t y w i t h i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape may be :-A. DISTINCTIVE - unusual or outstanding landform f e a t u r e s , v e g e t a t i v e p a t t e r n s , or water forms. B. COMMON - v a r i e t y i n form, l i n e , colour and t e x t u r e , but of a s o r t commonly found i n the area. C. MINIMAL - l i t t l e change i n the v i s u a l elements over a considerable area. 2) SENSITIVITY LEVEL. This i s "a measure of people's concern f o r .... scenic q u a l i t y " , (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). Landscape s e n s i t i v i t y i n d i c a t e s the importance of a view or v i s u a l impact to observers; a v i s u a l impact of c e r t a i n magni-r tude i n a s e n s i t i v e landscape w i l l be higher than one o f " s i m i l a r magnitude i n a l e s s s e n s i t i v e landscape. The VMS i d e n t i f i e s 3 l e v e l s :-(1) land seen from primary or h i g h volume t r a v e l routes and r e c r e a t i o n areas where at l e a s t 25% of f o r e s t v i s i t o r s "have a major concern f o r - 27 -the scenic q u a l i t i e s " (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974), as opposed to employees who apparently do not. (2) land seen from primary areas where l e s s than 25%, or secondary low volume areas where 25-75% of v i s i t o r s have major concern f o r scenery. (3) land unseen, or seen from secondary areas where l e s s than 25% of v i s i t o r s have major concern f o r sce n i c q u a l i t i e s . 3) DISTANCE ZONE. Foreground, middleground, and background d e s i g n a t i o n s are used to subdivide s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s . A m a t r i x combines these c r i t e r i a , so that the v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e of, f o r in s t a n c e , C l a s s A/Level 1/Foreground would be Rete n t i o n , and that of C l a s s B/Level 2/Background would be M o d i f i c a t i o n . V i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , however they are d e r i v e d , should s t i p u l a t e the maximum v i s u a l impact magnitude t h a t i s acceptable c o n s i d e r i n g the impact importance (from landscape s e n s i t i v i t y ) . 1.5 STUDY PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS. In Chapter I I , Hypotheses 1 and 2 are t e s t e d , based on data from e x i s t i n g v i s u a l impacts i n the study r e g i o n , supplemented by the 1 l i t e r a t u r e . The v i s u a l impacts are assessed i n terms of the v i s u a l e f f e c t s r e c o g n i s a b l e , which should c o r r e l a t e w i t h the p r a c t i c e s used i n a l l impacts i n a p a r t i c u l a r f o r e s t landscape type, i f Hypothesis 1 holds t r u e . The extent to which the same combinations of p r a c t i c e s produce the same v i s u a l impact magnitude i n the same f o r e s t landscape type should t e s t Hypothesis 2. I t i s t h e r e f o r e necessary to c l a s s i f y the p r a c t i c e s used, the v i s u a l e f f e c t s caused, the f o r e s t landscape types, s i g n i f i c a n t - 28 -combinations of p r a c t i c e s , and the t o t a l impact magnitude, f o r each v i s u a l impact i n order to make comparisons. I f Hypotheses 1 and 2 are accepted, p r a c t i c e s w i t h p o t e n t i a l as landscape design t o o l s may be i d e n t i f i e d . In Chapter I I I , the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of design t o o l s w i t h other environmental o b j e c t i v e s (Hypothesis':3) i s evaluated w i t h evidence from the l i t e r a t u r e and p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n from i n d i v i d u a l s i nvolved In*:' p r a c t i c a l f o r e s t management. Since p r a c t i c e s have not been used f o r landscape design i n B r i t i s h Columbia to any extent, d i r e c t e f f e c t s on the environment and i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n cannot be measured, only i n f e r r e d . Some data on c o s t s of using such p r a c t i c e s may be obtained from the same sources, but conclusions may be deduced only by developing cost estimates f o r h y p o t h e t i c a l examples of a l t e r n a t i v e v i s u a l end-products. The planning of these a l t e r n a t i v e s i n Chapter IV to t e s t Hypothesis 4 may a l s o be used to provide a working example of v i s u a l impact planning, as p a r t of the o b j e c t i v e of d e r i v i n g a planning procedure. Two c l a s s e s of l i m i t a t i o n s to the study should be mentioned. F i r s t , the study procedure does not y i e l d q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s ; i n view of the p a u c i t y of research i n t o landscape management and the consequent breadth of t h i s study's o b j e c t i v e s , what i s most needed i s a comprehen-sive, conspectus, t o . i n d i c a t e t h e . s a l i e n t techniques of use i n p r a c t i c a l f o r e s t landscape design. Time c o n s t r a i n t s r u l e out experimental use of p r a c t i c e s as design t o o l s on the ground, which would provide d i r e c t evidence f o r t e s t i n g the Hypotheses. Instead, conclusions must be deduced from a v a i l a b l e data which lends i t s e l f to q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , enough to form a base f o r f u t u r e q u a n t i t a t i v e research. The t h r e a t of s u b j e c t i v i t y r e a r i n g i t s loathesome head i s recognised; hence, the t h e s i s uses the reasonably o b j e c t i v e y a r d s t i c k of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape - 29 -as i t s b a s i s i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y assessments, and the f i r s t word i n the t e x t has already made i t s l a s t appearance w i t h i n these pages. Secondly, l i m i t a t i o n s on scope of the study excludes key questions which i d e a l l y should be considered simultaneously. In concentrating upon v i s u a l impact magnitude, the importance to the • observer i s very l a r g e l y ignored and the study of p u b l i c preferences f o r v a r i o u s v i s u a l impacts avoided. P r a c t i c e s of s i g n i f i c a n c e only i n foreground landscapes such as f o r e s t r o a d s i d e s , or i n monotonous landscapes are not considered, although they may exert much'.influence on f o r e s t v i s i t o r s . Those p r a c t i c e s s t u d i e d , i n r e f l e c t i n g the s i t u a t i o n i n the study r e g i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, emphasize some logging methods more than others common elsewhere, and e x t r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s g e n e r a l l y over s i l v i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s which may have considerable p o t e n t i a l i n c o n t r o l l i n g v i s u a l impact magnitudes. L a s t l y , the study makes no attempt to estimate the cost s of v i s u a l impact planning i t s e l f , only the cost s to timber management of implementing the pl a n s , and these on a very small sample of s i t e s . - 30 -Chapter I I TOWARDS IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN TOOLS In the previous chapter, the need to assess e x i s t i n g v i s u a l impacts was noted. I f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e range of h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s and f o r e s t landscape types i s to be recorded, a considerable number of v i s u a l impacts need to be assessed, and p r e f e r a b l y from a v a r i e t y of geographic areas. However, i t was considered u n f e a s i b l e to sample impacts throughout the Province i n a study of t h i s s c a l e ; furthermore, the need to spend time i n i n t e n s i v e planning of v i s u a l impacts suggested that research e f f o r t would be most e f f i c i e n t l y d i r e c t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n . 2.1 SELECTION OF A STUDY REGION The r e g i o n chosen was the Windermere P u b l i c Sustained Y i e l d U n i t (P.S.Y.U.), i n the Nelson Forest D i s t r i c t . * S e l e c t i o n of t h i s r e g i o n i n the East Kootenays sets the study i n the context of I n t e r i o r f o r e s t r y c o n d i t i o n s w i t h rugged topography, mostly w i t h i n the I n t e r i o r Douglas F i r and Subalpine Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine F i r B i o g e o c l i m a t i c Zones ( K r a j i n a , 1965) or Subalpine and Montane Forest Regions (Rowe, 1972), near the periphery of the I n t e r i o r Dry B e l t . The Windermere P.S.Y.U. (over 1000 sq. m i l e s ) contains a l a r g e number and v a r i e t y of v i s u a l impacts but permits convenient access to v a r i o u s p a r t s of the study r e g i o n . A l l the impacts recorded f e l l w i t h i n the P.S.Y.U. or j u s t o u t s i d e i t to the south-east ( P a l l i s e r R i v e r ) or north-west (Kinbasket P.S.Y.U. and Tree Farm Licence 14). Now the Kootenay Resource Management Region. - 31 -2.2 ANALYSIS OF VISUAL EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES 2.2.1 Data Recording For each v i s u a l impact recorded, two s e t s of data were gathered: a) Colour photography - one or more colour photographs, mostly t r a n s p a r e n c i e s , were taken of the impact, u s i n g a 35 mm Asahi Pentax Spotmatic camera w i t h 1:3.5/35 l e n s . b) V i s u a l Impact Assessment (VIA) Form - t h i s was developed to standardise r e c o r d i n g of o n - s i t e i n f o r m a t i o n , covering standard and ephemeral viewing c o n d i t i o n s , v i s u a l elements of the impact, other impact d e t a i l s , obvious h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s used, and p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e v i s u a l end-products of lower impact magnitude. However, use of the Form soon i n d i c a t e d that i t "was s u i t e d only to the f i r s t of two d i s t i n c t viewing types: i ) EXTRA-CANOPY VIEWING - the common s i t u a t i o n of long-distance viewing of the impact (middleground or background), where o f t e n the impact i s seen i n the context of the l a r g e - s c a l e landscape. P e r c e p t i o n tends to be of 2-dimensional p a t t e r n s imposed upon the expanse of the f o r e s t , seen from o u t s i d e the plane of the canopy surface at the impact (Figure 7). Extra-canopy viewing occurs, f o r example, i n s i d e - h i l l impacts seen from across the v a l l e y . i i ) INTRA-CANOPY VIEWING - occurs more l o c a l l y , wherever the observer i s w i t h i n the plane of canopy surface at the impact (Figure 8 ) . Viewing d i s t a n c e v a r i e s according to whether the observer i s standing under v i r t u a l l y complete canopy (foreground viewing o n l y ) , or can see across a l a r g e c l e a r i n g (foreground to middleground v i e w i n g ) . In a l l cases however, the observer i s e i t h e r at the impact s i t e or can see at l e a s t part of i t at short range. U s u a l l y , he perceives the height - 33 -of the surrounding f o r e s t (comparable w i t h L i t t o n ' s (1968) canopied and enclosed landscapes), and foreground d e t a i l ' , over a r e l a t i v e l y small area. Intra-canopy viewing i s common from f o r e s t roads, c l e a r i n g s , r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s , and u t i l i t y c o r r i d o r s . L i t t o n (1973) a l s o makes t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n viewing types: "There are two faces to any k i n d of f o r e s t . . . . . One i s concerned w i t h broad overviews of the landscape; the other i s the landscape from w i t h i n , under the canopy of t r e e s . One helps d e f i n e general r e l a t i o n -s h i p s to the landscape; the other can give more s p e c i f i c ideas about a more l i m i t e d environment." The two viewing types demand d i f f e r e n t approaches to impact assessment. The elements of form (and i t s sub-elements), l i n e , colour and te x t u r e which can so simply d e s c r i b e the extra-canopy s i t u a t i o n , though s t i l l a p p l i c a b l e to the intra-canopy s i t u a t i o n , can not be used so simply to d e s c r i b e the intra-canopy impact magnitude. P a r t i c u l a r l y i n foreground s i t u a t i o n s , other d e s c r i p t i v e f e a t u r e s , e.g. v e g e t a t i o n parameters governing l i g h t p e n e t r a t i o n and v i s u a l p e n e t r a t i o n (Sheppard, 1975) need to be used to record the impact; the r e l a t i o n s h i p of impact to the surrounding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape o f t e n can not be seen, and the use of emotion-tainted a d j e c t i v e s such as 'gloomy', ' l o f t y * ' , and 'secluded', i s hard to avoid. Consequently, the question of p o s i t i v e and negative impacts looms l a r g e . The p i t f a l l s of intra-canopy impact assessment are l e a s t where the impact i s a c l e a r i n g a l l o w i n g views i n t o the middleground, when the extra-canopy c r i t e r i a again become adequate. I t was t h e r e f o r e decided to concentrate upon the extra-canopy viewing s i t u a t i o n but to i n c l u d e i n t r a -canopy impacts as j u s t d e s c r ibed. An example of a completed Form used to assess v i s u a l impact magnitude i s given i n Appendix 1. The Form provides a record independent - 34 -of the photograph, which may l o s e or d i s t o r t i n f o r m a t i o n on the v i s u a l elements and t h e i r r e l a t i v e dominance. The two records were taken from the same viewing p o i n t f o r each impact. In some cases, a rough sketch of part or a l l of the impact was made to c l a r i f y p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s , or p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e v i s u a l end-products. The impact assessment records were cross-referenced by: a) copies of the a c t u a l logging p l a n drawn on 20 chain: 1" Forest Cover maps, on f i l e w i t h the Forest S e r v i c e . This provided i n f o r m a t i o n on dates, l o g g i n g p r a c t i c e s , and s p e c i a l s i t e problems. b) a e r i a l photographs, mostly at 40 chain: 1", where a v a i l a b l e , which provide a l i n k between v i s u a l impact magnitude and the l o g g i n g l a y -out . 2.2.2 A n a l y s i s For each v i s u a l impact, the f o r e s t landscape type i n which i t was recorded was i d e n t i f i e d , the p r a c t i c e s used noted, and t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d v i s u a l e f f e c t s described. The v i s u a l e f f e c t of each p r a c t i c e used i n the impact was compared w i t h the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of that p r a c t i c e elsewhere i n the same f o r e s t landscape type (Figure 9). 1) FOREST LANDSCAPE TYPE V i s u a l impacts were grouped i n t o f o r e s t landscape types (FLTs) according to a number of c r i t e r i a . The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n , f o r slope occupied, was whether or not the m a j o r i t y of i t exceeded approximately 25%. Where slopes are g e n t l e , type of canopy viewing i s a second major p o i n t of d i s t i n c t i o n . Intra-canopy recordings were made only as already described and where extra-canopy viewing was i m p o s s i b l e , and thus, none were made f o r steep slopes which are u s u a l l y more v i s i b l e than gentle ones. O r i e n t a t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, r e f e r r i n g to the o r i e n t a t i o n of \ - 35 -Figure'. 9. Diagram of V i s u a l E f f e c t A n a l y s i s . UNSORTED IMPACT RECORDS group under Forest Landscape Types (using photographs and data on viewing c o n d i t i o n s from VIA forms) IMPACTS IN FLT C note P r a c t i c e s used (from logging p lans, a e r i a l photographs, recon-naissance, etc.) and i d e n t i f y the V i s u a l E f f e c t of each P r a c t i c e (from photographs and data on v i s u a l elements i n VIA forms) 1 1 X X X 1 ! PRACTICE I 1 | x X 1 ,_„,,_„ I I PRACTICE I I r 1 « X * 1 i PRACTICE I I I i i 1 i X 1 1 • PRACTICE IV 1 1 1 1 1 1 X X 1 ! PRACTICE V etc. For example, to f i n d :the v i s u a l e f f e c t of P r a c t i c e I I I i n Forest Landscape Type B, compare the V i s u a l E f f e c t s i d e n t i f i e d i n Impacts c, d, and e, i n the box shown. - 36 -2-D and 3-D forms dominating the landscape, i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t of d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h steeper topography where g u l l i e s , avalanche chutes, and steep r i d g e - l i n e s may introduce strong v e r t i c a l or diagonal elements, i n c o n t r a s t to h o r i z o n t a l elements created by long r i d g e l i n e s , benches, and transverse rock b l u f f s . Minor d i s t i n c t i o n s were made on four other c r i t e r i a . Viewing d i s t a n c e was used to d i s t i n g u i s h between v i s u a l ' impacts recorded from background and those recorded from c l o s e r ; i t was decided not to separate foreground and middleground because many'impacts s t r a d d l e both. The next c r i t e r i o n was whether ground exposure or stem exposure was dominant, though a l l intra-canopy impacts d i s p l a y both types of exposure and thus could not be separated. T h i r d l y , many impacts occur on ground which, when d i s t u r b e d , i . e . m i n e r a l s o i l or rock exposed, produce a colour d i s t i n c t l y p a l e r than the m a t r i x colour of undisturbed ground s u r f a c e , i . e . d u f f , d e b r i s , low v e g e t a t i o n of f o r e s t f l o o r . Ground exposure impacts i n which disturbed, and undisturbed colour did' not c o n t r a s t , i . e . had medium c o l o u r , were separated. L a s t l y , viewing d i r e c t i o n was d i s t i n g u i s h e d f o r the steep slope examples of ground exposure o n l y , s i n c e view d i r e c t i o n b a r e l y a f f e c t s impact magnitude on f l a t t i s h s i t e s or w i t h stem exposure only. 2) TIMBER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Table 1 l i s t s the 70 r e l a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t p r a c t i c e s which were considered, and which cover a l l the normal steps i n the timber production process. The d e f i n i t i o n of p r a c t i c e i s i n t e r p r e t e d to i n c l u d e ways of h a r v e s t i n g that govern p a r t i c u l a r consequences. I t i s p o s s i b l e that p r a c t i c e s which b a r e l y i n f l u e n c e v i s u a l impact magnitude have been omitted; however, t h i s can be seen as h e l p f u l i n con c e n t r a t i n g a t t e n t i o n Table -1. L i s t of'Timbers Management Practices Considered MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY MAJOR PRACTICE TRACTICE NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Cutting Clearcutting ••. and heavy s e l -ection cutting 1 Large scale (over 40 ac,i6 ha) 2 Small scale (below 40 acres) 3 Horizontally oriented 4 V e r t i c a l l y oriented 5 Geometric shaped 6 Irregular or typeline 7 Straight-edged 8 Indented edge 9 Diffuse-edged 10 Abrupt edge silhouette 11 Feathered edge silhouette 12 Leaving stream buffer s t r i p 13 Leaving seedblocks 14 Leaving grouped residuals 15 Leaving scattered residuals (including shelterwqod Linear cutting 16 Aligned towards observer ( s t r i p or ^ Aligned across l i n e of sight 18 Narrow width (under 2 ch,40 fn) right-of-way) 19 Broad width (over.2 chains) 20 Uniform width 21 Variable width P a r t i a l cutt-ing 22 Group s e l e c t i o n 23 Light s e l e c t i o n or thinning 24 Line thinning Road building Road l o c a t i o n 25 Ridgetop - 26 Mid-slope 27 V a l l e y or bench , 2 8 Outside clearcut ' 29 Wide spacing (over.1000 ?,304 m) 30 Narrow spacing • (under 1000') Road con- ' s t r u c t i o n 31 Switchback 32 High c u t - a n d - f i l l (over 10',3ra) 33 Low c u t - a n d - f i l l (under 10') 34 Retaining wall, construction -Yarding Ground skidd-ing, mechan-i c a l 35 Contouryskid-trails 36 Steep s k i d - t r a i l s 37 Switchback t r a i l s 38 High cut-bank (over 3',1 m) 39 Low cut-bank (under 3 1) 40 No t r a i l s 41 Main t r a i l outside clearcut 42 Long distance FMC skidding Horse skidding 43 No t r a i l s High lead cable-yarding 44 Yarding rut creation 45 Long distance yarding. 46 Eco-logger yarding 47 Mini-Alp yarding Skyline cable-yarding 48 Wyssen yarding 49 Washington Skylok yarding 50 Jammer yarding A e r i a l yarding . 51 Helicopter yarding 52 Balloon yarding Landing con-s t r u c t i o n 53 High cut-bank (o v e r l 0 \ 3 m) 54 Low cut-bank (under 10*) 55 Outside clearcut ' Disposal Burning B u r i a l 56 Spotburn 57 P i l e with brush-blade & burn 58 P i l e with d i r t - b l a d e & burn 59 Windrow and burn 60 Broadcast burn 61 Fire-guard construction with d i r t - b l a d e 62 Fire-guard construction by hand 63 Graded 64 Ungraded Post-disposal treatment Leaving waste 65 Standing snags & high stumps 66 Considerable down-timber & slash 67 Lopping/flattening slash Seeding 68 Clearcut grass-seeding ,69 Disturbed ground graso-seed-lng Planting 70 A r t i f i c i a l regeneration - 38 -upon those which may need to be considered i n v i s u a l impact planning. I n p a r t i c u l a r , road drainage p r a c t i c e s have been omitted s i n c e they are v i s i b l e only f r o m t h e road i t s e l f at short range. The same tends to be t r u e of most bridges on f o r e s t roads. 3) VISUAL EFFECTS The v i s u a l elements due s o l e l y to the p r a c t i c e being considered were rated as i n e v i d e n t , subordinate, or dominant, i n r e l a t i o n to the  v i s u a l elements of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. Figure 10 shows the process by which each•practice was evaluated. 2.2.3 D e t a i l s of A n a l y s i s Between J u l y and October, 1975, 43 v i s u a l impacts a r i s i n g from timber h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s were recorded i n the study r e g i o n and are l i s t e d by record number i n Table 2. The c r i t e r i a f o r t h e i r s e l e c t i o n c o n s i s t e d of ease of access, as wide a range of p r a c t i c e s used as p o s s i b l e , s i m i l a r i t y of impact age ( i n standard c o n d i t i o n wherever p o s s i b l e ) and a range of f o r e s t landscape types t y p i c a l of "the study r e g i o n . No account was paid to v i s u a l impact importance i n e i t h e r s e l e c t i o n or r e c o r d i n g of impacts. The impact records were grouped i n t o nine FLTs, as i n Table 3. I t can be seen that c e r t a i n FLTs c o n t a i n r a t h e r few examples f o r r e l i a b l e e v a l u a t i o n and that some p o s s i b l e FLTs go unrepresented. However, t h i s s i t u a t i o n r e f l e c t s the common'occurrence of some f o r e s t landscape types i n the study r e g i o n w h i l e others are r a r e and l e s s t y p i c a l ; a l s o , i t was found t h a t d e l i b e r a t e s e l e c t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r viewing c o n d i t i o n s f o r impact r e c o r d i n g was d i f f i c u l t , because l i m i t e d access and views o f t e n make impacts f u l l y v i s i b l e only i n one set of viewing c o n d i t i o n s . Most stem-exposure impacts were due to growth of - 39 -Fig u r e 10. Sequence of I d e n t i f y i n g V i s u a l E f f e c t s . In a given Impact i n a given Forest Landscape Type: | Does a c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e occur? j NO Not shown i n logg- 1 i n g plans or docu-ments, maps, et c . UNKNOWN Data i n c o n c l u s i v e j l s i t i n the v i s i b l e area?"} NO Screened by topog-raphy or v e g e t a t i o n o f f the s i t e Is i t s V i s u a l E f f e c t evident? NO Introduces no new v i s u a l elements or repeats them c l o s e l y INEVIDENT VISUAL EFFECT - 40 " Table 2. L i s t of V i s u a l Impacts Recorded. Impact Maj or L o c a t i o n Impact Photos. Number. P r a c t i c e . Date. 1 1 Land, c l e a r i n g S. end of Steamboat Mtn. 1963-66 04.12 2 Land c l e a r i n g Lot 12864, Steamboat Mtn. 1963-66 04.13 3 High-rgrading C e n t r a l Steamboat Mtn. cl948-50 07.1 ' 4 High-grading Steamboat Mtn. rid g e - t o p cl948-50 04.14 5,6 Land c l e a r i n g Bugaboo Rd. near B r i s c o 1973-74 03.16-17 7-• Land c l e a r i n g Westside Rd., Lot 350 unknown 03.13 8 Cl e a r c u t TSL A03526 ( B r i s c o ) 1973-75 01.3-5p 9 Cl e a r c u t TSL A04365 (Br i s c o ) 1973-75 10 High-gradingt Stuart Lk. Rd. TSL X76321 1959-63 03.10 11 S k y l i n e logging Templeton Cr. TSL X65341 1956 05.10 12 Haul road Steamboat Mtn. Rd., BCFS. 1973-74 07.1 13 ' Haul road Kinbasket Rd., C.F.I. 1974 06.13 u C l e a r c u t P a l l i s e r R., CP 15 east 1974 06.1 15 Cable logging P a l l i s e r R., CP 15 west 1974 06.2 16 C l e a r c u t s P a l l i s e r R., W. of. CP :15" cl973 06.4 17 C l e a r c u t s P a l l i s e r R., N. of CP E cl974 06.3 18 Cl e a r c u t P a l l i s e r R., CP C cl974 19,20 Cl e a r c u t F o r s t e r Cr.,CP 19 west 1968-71 02.19 21 Cl e a r c u t F o r s t e r Cr. CP 19 east 1972 02.20 22 Cable logging F o r s t e r Cr. CP 3 _ 1971-74 02.18 23 Cl e a r c u t Frances Cr. CP 30 block 1 1973-74 24 Cl e a r c u t Frances Cr. CP 30 block 6 1973-74 01.16p 25,-26 C l e a r c u t Frances Cr. CP 30 block 7 1973-74 27 Land c l e a r i n g Frances Cr., Westside Rd. unknown 01.15p 28,29 C l e a r c u t s Bugaboo Cr. CP 5 south 1970-75 01.10-12 30 C l e a r c u t , burn Bugaboo Cr. CP 5 no r t h cl970-72 01.12p 31 Cl e a r c u t Bugaboo Cr. west s i d e unknown 01.13p 32 Cle a r c u t Bugaboo Cr. CP 4 south 1972-73 33,34 Cl e a r c u t Bugaboo Cr. CP 4 c e n t r a l 1970-72 35,36 Cl e a r c u t Bugaboo Cr. CP 4 no r t h 1972-73 37 S k y l i n e logging S p i l l i m a c h e e n , TSX 94175 1950-52 06.6-7 38 C l e a r c u t s Soles Cr..TSX 94113 no r t h 1965-70 04.3-4 39 Cl e a r c u t . Soles Cr. TSX 94113 south C1970-75 04.6 40 C l e a r c u t s TFL 14 CP 72/403 Comp.7"; 1970-74 02.3 41 C l e a r c u t s TFL 14 E. of Comp.7 1970-75 02.2, .4 42 '•' Cl e a r c u t Kinbasket, AO 4345 1975 06.13 43 Patch cut Steamboat Mtn. N. unknown 07.9 \ - 41 -Table 3. Grouping of Recorded V i s u a l Impacts by Forest Landscape Type. FOREST  LANDSCAPE TYPE CRITERIA SLOPE CANOPY VlES-flNG ORIENTATION OF CHARACT-ERISTIC LANDSCAPE VIEWING ' DISTANCE DISTURBED GROUND COLOUR VIEWING DIRECTION Unsortcd Impact Records Steep to-Moderate Gentle to F l a t Extra-canopy Vertical/Diagonal Background Foreground/Middleground Ground Ground Direct Direct Direct Oblique FOREST FLT l a FLT lb FLT lc FLT Id LANDSCAPE Steep, Steep, Steep, . Steep, TYPES V e r t i c a l , V e r t i c a l , V e r t i c a l , V e r t i c a l , Background Middle- Middle- Middle-ground , ground , ground , Med ium Pale Oblique IHPACT Impact 16 Impact 11 Impact 19 Impact 20 RECORD Impact 17 Impact '14 Impact 21 Impact 22 NUMBER Impact 42 Impact 15 Impact 28 Impact 29 Impact 37 Impact 30 Impact 32 Impact 31 Impact 34 Impact 33 Impact 36 Impact 35 Impact: 38 Impact 39 Horizontal Extra-canopy Intra-canopy Horizontal Middleground Horizontal Middleground Foreground/ Middleground Stem Ground Stem-' Ground Pa l e Pa l e D i r e c t FLT 2a FLT 2b Steep, Steep, Horizontal Horizontal Stem Ground Impact 3 Impact 1 Impact 4 Impact 2 Impact 13 Impact 41 FLT 3a FLT 3b F l a t , F l a t , Stem, Ground, In f e r i o r Superior Impact 7 Impact 5 Impact 12 Impact 40 Impact 25 Impact 43 Pale FLT 4 Intra Impact 6 Impact 8 Impact 9 Impact 10 Impact 18 Impact 23 Impact 24 Impact 26 Impact 27 - 42 -ve g e t a t i o n on the s i t e i n older impacts; the small number of tru e stem-exposure impacts (due to low viewing angle) may r e f l e c t t h e i r going unnoticed by the recorder i n the f i e l d , although t h e i r frequency might be expected to be small given the'rough topography of the study r e g i o n . I t can be seen from Table 2 that the m a j o r i t y of recorded impacts r e s u l t from c l e a r - c u t t i n g , s i n c e 1965, u s i n g conventional ground-s k i d d i n g equipment, which r e f l e c t s the heavy r e l i a n c e i n recent years on a l i m i t e d range of h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s . These p r a c t i c e s are l i k e l y to continue to be a major cause of v i s u a l impacts i n the f u t u r e . Impacts d a t i n g from before 1965 are l i k e l y to have undergone s i g n i f i c a n t v i s u a l changes s i n c e then, which makes comparative assessment of v i s u a l e f f e c t s more d i f f i c u l t , although c o n s t i t u t i n g a v a l u a b l e source of i n f o r m a t i o n on impact d u r a t i o n . Attempts to record a wide v a r i e t y of p r a c t i c e s were r e s t r i c t e d by: i ) the small number of impacts i n which a t y p i c a l p r a c t i c e s had been used. i i ) i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y of s u i t a b l e l o c a t i o n s f o r viewing these impacts, due to impassable or non-existent roads. i i i ) u n s u i t a b l e weather and v i s i b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s , preventing r e l i a b l e assessment at the time of r e c o r d i n g . Consequently, important f i e l d data on c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e s , notably recent s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g s , i s l a c k i n g ; p r a c t i c e s ' c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e as v i s u a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , are assessed from the l i t e r a t u r e to * supplement the f i e l d data. 2.2.4 R e s u l t s The v i s u a l e f f e c t s i d e n t i f i e d are given i n Table 4, showing management p r a c t i c e s a gainst f o r e s t landscape types. An example may c l a r i f y the use of Table 4. The question "What Table 4. IK?ACT RECOSD N U H J E R PRACTICE WUHSER FLT l a Steep, V o r t i c a l , Back-ground 16 17 42 FLT l b Steep, V e r t i c a l , M i d d l e -ground , Med i u a 11 14 15 37 35 , 36 37 ] a •iC _ 41 43 65 170 Li D D D D D D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ FLT l c Steep, V e r t i c a l , Middleground, P a l e 19 21 28 30 31 33 35 38 39 FLT Id Steep, V e r t i c a l , Middleground, O b l i q u e 20 22 29 32 34 36 0 a D D D D D • D. D D D S I I I S D D D D D D D D D D D I I S S I s s I I I I D D D S S D D D D D S D D S D D S D D S S I I I I S S s s ' I I I I I I I I S S S S FLT 2 a Steep, H o r i z o n t a l Stem 3 4 13 I I I I S S D S I S I S D D D I D D I I I I S s s s s D S I D D D D S D S D S S - -S 0 S D D S S S S S S D I I I I I -S - D S S S s s I I s r • s i D D S s I I I I I I s - s s I I I FLT 2b Steep, H o r i z o n t a l , Ground 1 2 41 I I I I T I I I I S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1) "I I D FLT 3a F l a t , Stem, I n f e r i o r 7 12 25 43 FLT 3b F l a t , Ground, Super i o r 5 40 FLT 4 I n t r a 6 8 9 10 18 23 24 26 27 FOREST LANDSCAPE TYPE D D D D I I I D I I I I I I - — - - I I I - I D D UM UM UM M I'M UK X I I UK UM UM UM UM UM UM UM UM I I I I I I I UM MM UM MM M MM . S I I * I - I . l " s s - I D D - - D - — D I I I I I I - I S I I S D s b I D D I I D S S I I I I I I s s D D S D PRACTICE DESCRIPTION .OIMBKK OF PRACTICE  1 Large s c a l e (over 40 ac,16 ha) 2 S m a l l s c a l e (below 40 a c r e s ) 3 H o r i z o n t a l l y o r i e n t e d 4 V e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d 5 Geometric shaped 6 I r r e g u l a r or t y p e l i n e 7 S t r a i g h t - e d g e d 3 Indented edge 9 Diffuse-edged 10 Abrupt edge s i l h o u e t t e 11 'Feathered edge s i l h o u e t t e * 12 L e a v i n g stream b u f f e r s t r i p 13 L e a v i n g secdblocks * 14 Leaving grouped r e s i d u a l s 15 Leaving s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s ( i n c l u d i n g s h e l t e r v o o d 16 A l i g n e d towards observer 17 A l i g n e d across l i n e of s i g h t 18 Narrow width (under 2 ch,40 a) 19 Broad w i d t h (over. 2 c h a i n s ) 20 Uniforrr. width 21 V a r i a b l e width 22 Group s e l e c t i o n 23 L i g h t s e l e c t i o n or t h i n n i n g 24 L i n e t h i n n i n g * S D S D S D S D I I PP. R R PR PR UM S D I I I I D D I M R PR R MM UM I I I I • I I I 25 Ridgetop " ~ 26 Mid-slope 27 V a l l e y or bench 23 O u t s i d e c l e a r c u t 29 Wide spacing (over 1000',304 c) 30 Narrow spacing . (under 1000') 31 Switchback "~ '. ' ; .' 32 High c u t - a n d - f i l l (over 10',3n) 33 Low c u t - a n d - f i l l (under 10') 34 R e t a i n i n g w a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n * 35 Contour s k i d - t r a i l s 36 Steep s k i d - t r a i l s 37 Switchback t r a i l s 38 High cut-bank (over 3',1 n) 39 Low cut-bank (under 3") 40 :.'o t r a i l s 41 Main t r a i l o u t s i d e c l e a r c u t 42 Long d i s t a n c e KMC s k i d d i n g 43 Ho ' t r a i l s ' D D D S D S S S - S S - s D D D - D 44 Yarding r u t c r e a t i o n ' 45 Long d i s t a n c e y a r d i n g 46 Eco-logger y a r d i n g 47 M i n i - A l p y a r d i n g * 48 Vys.ien y a r d i n g 49 Washington Skylok y a r d i n g 50 .la<7imer yordjna; * 51 H e l i c o p t e r y a r d i n g 52 B a l l o o n y a r d i n g * 53 High cut-bank (over 10', 3 n) 54 Low c u t - b a r k (under 10') 55 O u t s i d e c l e a r c u t 56 Spotburn 57 P i l e w i t h brush-blade f. burn 58 P i l e w i t h d i r t - b l a d e I burn 59 Windrow and burn 60 Broadcast burn * 61 F i r e - g u a r d c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h d i r t - b l a d e 62 F i r e - g u a r d r.snstructl o n by hand * 63 Graded * 64 Ungraded 65 Standing snags 6 high stu-pa 66 C o n s i d e r a b l e d o v n - t i n b e r & s l a s h 67 L o p p l n g / f l a t t c n l n g s l a s h I I UM UM UM M M UM UM UM M 68 C l e a r c u t grass-seeding 69 Disturbed ground grass-seed-ing 70 A r t i f i c i a l r e g e n e r a t i o n 1EGEKD : VISUAL EFFECTS - D - P r a c t i c e had Dominant e f f e c t S » P r a c t i c e had-Subordinate e f f e c t I - P r a c t i c e had I n c v i d e n t e f f e c t - " Unknown i f p r a c t i c e o c c u r r e d PRACTICES — * - P r a c t i c e unrecorded i n study re. IMPACT MAGNITUDE -(VMS V i s u a l Qual-i t y Standards) g i o n R « R e t e n t i o n PR - P a r t i a l R e t e n t i o n M » M o d i f i c a t i o n KM - Maximum M o d i f i c a t i o n UM - Unacceptable M o d i f i c a t i o n - 44 -i s the v i s u a l e f f e c t of geometric cut block shape i n v e r t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d landscapes seen o b l i q u e l y ? " i s answered by f o l l o w i n g the l i n e of P r a c t i c e 5 along to the columns under FLT I d ; i n a l l of the f i v e impacts i n which t h i s p r a c t i c e accurred, the v i s u a l e f f e c t was subordinate. S i m i l a r l y , i t can be seen that l e a v i n g s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s ( P r a c t i c e 15) i n the same f o r e s t landscape type (FLT Id) had dominant e f f e c t i n some impact, and subordinate i n others. The Table i s not f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s : c e l l - s i z e i s too small i n many cases. I t i s in s t e a d f o r q u a l i t a t i v e comparison between impacts w i t h i n a f o r e s t landscape type. I f the r e s u l t can be explained s o l e l y as a f u n c t i o n of p r a c t i c e and f o r e s t landscape type, and p a r t i c u -l a r l y i f the reasons f o r v a r i e t y of v i s u a l e f f e c t w i t h i n a f o r e s t l a n d -scape type (as i n the second example above) can be deduced, then i t can be s a i d that i n other f u t u r e impacts i n s i m i l a r f o r e s t landscape types, the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of P r a c t i c e s 1-70 can be p r e d i c t e d . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s i n Table 4, w i t h the aim of deducing general r u l e s governing the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e s i n a v a r i e t y of landscape types. PRACTICES 1-2 - SCALE OF CUTTING. Large s c a l e ( a r b i t r a r i l y defined as exceeding 40 acres, 16 ha) had a dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t i n v i r t u a l l y a l l impacts where i t occurred, i n every FLT. This i s to be expected from the l i t e r a t u r e . Wellburn (1975a) says, "The p u b l i c w i l l no longer t o l e r a t e l a r g e c l e a r c u t s w i t h i n s i g h t of main highways or major communities, and i n these areas small c l e a r openings may be the only a l t e r n a t i v e " . In B r i t i s h Columbia at the moment, c l e a r c u t s of j u s t over 40 acres may - 45 -not be considered as l a r g e i n s c a l e ; present maximum s i z e s f o r c l e a r c u t s i n B.C. Forest S e r v i c e g u i d e l i n e s range from 160 to 200 acres (64 to 80 ha), (Cartwright, 1975; B.C. Forest Service,:1972). However, medium s c a l e cut-blocks may be no b e t t e r than l a r g e ones (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1971), and Berntsen (1973) p o i n t s out that w h i l e "Small c l e a r c u t s have good l i k e l i h o o d of being v i s u a l l y absorbed i n t h e i r surroundings the problem of s i z e i s not r e s o l v e d by simply determining that l a r g e , medium, or small i s good, bad or i n d i f f e r e n t . Under some circumstances, a l a r g e u n i t might w e l l have the best appearance". The important c r i t e r i o n i s not a c t u a l s i z e , but s c a l e r e l a t i v e to the p a t t e r n s found i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. In the study r e g i o n , n a t u r a l form and p a t t e r n tends to be of smaller s c a l e than t y p i c a l c l e a r c u t s i z e . The only examples of l a r g e cut-blocks c r e a t i n g l e s s than dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t occurred i n FLTs w i t h oblique viewing or low viewing angle, i . e . where apparent s c a l e i s s m a l l (see F i g u r e 5) due to l i t t l e or no ground exposure. As Neff (1966) recommends, "Gen e r a l l y , c l e a r c u t t i n g s should be l o c a t e d so that only p o r t i o n s of the u n i t s w i l l be exposed to view." Some small c l e a r c u t s (under 40 acres, 16 ha) producing dominant e f f e c t s of s c a l e d i d occur, which c o n f l i c t s w i t h most of the l i t e r a t u r e f i n d i n g s , e.g. Berntsen (1973), Wellburn (1975a). These instances arose i n FLT l c (Figure 11), and by i n f e r e n c e could do so i n a l l steep-slope landscapes w i t h d i r e c t viewing and ground exposure, i f the s c a l e of c u t t i n g s t i l l markedly exceeds that of n a t u r a l p a t t e r n s . This suggests that s m a l l - s c a l e c u t t i n g , even i f i t s s i z e i s a c c u r a t e l y s p e c i f i e d , c a r r i e d out i n one of these FLTs may not introduce a p r e d i c t a b l e v i s u a l e f f e c t , unless the s c a l e of n a t u r a l forms i s a l s o known. In the i n t r a -- 46 -Figure 11. V i s u a l Impact No.38, Soles Creek. Small c l e a r c u t w i t h dominant e f f e c t of s c a l e . - 47 -canopy FLT, there was a tendency f o r subordinate e f f e c t , because even a s m a l l c l e a r i n g may appear l a r g e i n .terms of human s c a l e and domination of the v i s u a l f i e l d . This a l s o e x p l a i n s the dominant e f f e c t of l a r g e s c a l e i n intra-canopy FLTs, f o r "Viewed from i n s i d e a l a r g e c l e a r c u t , the landscape may be dominated by slash'', (Berntsen, 1973); however, i t appears to c o n f l i c t w i t h C o l v i n ' s (1970) op i n i o n t h a t , "Provided that the areas of c l e a r - f e l l i n g are not too v a s t , and.... the s c a l e i s such as to give the appearance, not of the removal of the f o r e s t but only of c l e a r i n g s w i t h i n the f o r e s t c l e a r - f e l l i n g can give i n t e r e s t greater than that of s e l e c t i v e f e l l i n g . . . . " The problem l i e s i n the confusion between negative and p o s i t i v e v i s u a l e f f e c t s , and as such w i l l not be discussed f u r t h e r . PRACTICES 3-4 -"ORIENTATION OF CUTTING. In FLTs w i t h a v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , a h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n of a cu t - b l o c k gave a dominant e f f e c t -(Figure --12 ).„ w h i l e a v e r t i c a l -o r i e n t a t i o n introduced no evident v i s u a l elements. Exceptions occurred where rugged topography or slopes viewed i n strong p e r s p e c t i v e break the appearance of h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n (Figure 13), or where topography runs d i a g o n a l l y across the v e r t i c a l c u t-block o r i e n t a t i o n , which suggests a more u s e f u l d e f i n i t i o n of v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n would be o r i e n t a t i o n p a r a l l e l to v e r t i c a l / d i a g o n a l elements. I t might be expected that the stronger the v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, e.g. i n s t r o n g l y d i r e c t i o n a l avalanche chutes, the l e s s leeway there i s i n o r i e n t i n g the cut-block to produce an in e v i d e n t e f f e c t of o r i e n t a t i o n , o except i n markedly oblique views. D u f f i e l d (1970) has suggested that cut-blocks should, and C a i r d (1975) that'they c o u l d , be "designed'to.,: simulate avalanche paths. In a l l h o r i z o n t a l l y o r i e n t e d or f l a t t i s h FLTs, - 48 -Figure 12. Visual Impact No.16, Palliser River. Dominant effect of horizontal clearcut in v e r t i c a l l y oriented landscape. - 49 -Figure 13. V i s u a l E f f e c t of H o r i z o n t a l l y Oriented Impact i n D i f f e r e n t  V e r t i c a l l y Oriented Forest Landscape Types. 13.1 DIRECT VIEWING Dominant e f f e c t of o r i e n t a t i o n 13.2 OBLIQUE VIEWING Inevident e f f e c t of o r i e n t a t i o n - 50 -h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n of cut-blocks was i n e v i d e n t ; on steep FLTs so o r i e n t e d , no v e r t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d cut-blocks were recorded, though i t may be p o s t u l a t e d that such impacts, viewed d i r e c t l y would create a dominant e f f e c t i n c o n t r a d i c t i n g landscape form. On f l a t t e r s i t e s w i t h low viewing angle, c l e a r i n g s are perceived as h o r i z o n t a l l y , o r i e n t e d due to p e r s p e c t i v e , and i t can be p r e d i c t e d that any o r i e n t a t i o n of a cut-block w i l l create an i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t . PRACTICES. 5-6 - SHAPE_0F CUTTING. Along w i t h s i z e , cut-block shape i s the subject of much grousing i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Becker's'3(1,97,1) .view i s t y p i c a l : "Shapes of c l e a r - c u t t i n g areas, i n order to be more harmonious w i t h i n the landscape, should be planned to f i t i n w i t h topographic features and so be compatible w i t h the landforms present. Rectangular c l e a r - c u t s never meet these requirements".* In most FLTs w i t h high viewing angle or d i r e c t viewing, geometric shape was dominant. However, where geometric shapes borrow from landscape character, as i n some avalanche chutes or straight-edged escarpments (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1971), they may not be dominant. This a p p l i e s too i n FLTs Id and 3a where oblique viewing or low viewing angle prevents the general shape from being comprehended: the e f f e c t s shown i n Figure 13 would be the same given an i r r e g u l a r shape w i t h that o r i e n t a t i o n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that i n the intra-canopy FLT, n e i t h e r geometric nor i r r e g u l a r c l e a r i n g s introduced negative e f f e c t s of shape, because the o v e r a l l shape i s not p e r c e i v e d , being masked by the m i c r o - r e l i e f of the ground (Figure 14). Exceptions might occur when shadows d i f f e r e n t i a t e f o r e s t edges at corners of the c l e a r i n g , or where the slope being viewed i s steep and concave. * Added emphasis. - 51 -Figure 14. V i s u a l Impact No.8, Near Lang Lake. Square c l e a r c u t w i t h i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t of shape. Dominant e f f e c t of d e b r i s p i l e d by d i r t - b l a d e . - 52 -Cu t t i n g of i r r e g u l a r c l e a r i n g s i s o f t e n c i t e d as v i s u a l l y commendable (e.g. Neff, 1966). However, as Berntsen (1973) p o i n t s out, "This has no c l e a r or simple meaning - shape has to be r e l a t e d i n some s a t i s f a c t o r y way to the land on which* i t occurs". I t i s not, t h e r e f o r e , s u r p r i s i n g that i r r e g u l a r c u t t i n g s d i c t a t e d by t y p e - l i n e or other c r i t e r i a i ntroduce dominant and subordinate e f f e c t s as w e l l as in e v i d e n t ones, by chance, i n FLTs w i t h extra-canopy viewing and'ground exposure. The e f f e c t of an i r r e g u l a r c u t t i n g i s p r e d i c t a b l e only i f the shape of n a t u r a l landscape patt e r n s i s s p e c i f i e d . PRACTICES 7-9 - EDGE CONFIGURATION. The c l e a n s t r a i g h t n e s s of c l e a r i n g edge p a r t l y accounts f o r the common r e v u l s i o n toward the a r t i f i c i a l r e c t a n g u l a r c u t - b l o c k . However, i n the v e r t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d FLTs, s t r a i g h t edges d i d not introduce negative e f f e c t s , due to the prevalence of straight-edged avalanche chutes o r , where these were absent, to obl i q u e views of s t r a i g h t diagonal r i d g e l i n e s (as i n Figure 5). Only i n Impact 17, w i t h l i t t l e s t r a i g h t l i n e i n the landscape viewed d i r e c t l y , d i d s t r a i g h t edges r e g i s t e r a dominant e f f e c t . To p r e d i c t t h i s e f f e c t , FLT l a would have to be s p l i t i n t o landscapes w i t h and without chutes or smooth r i d g e l i n e s . I n h o r i z o n t a l l y - o r i e n t e d or f l a t t e r landscapes, w i t h moderate-high viewing angle, n a t u r a l l i n e i s often'curved, e.g. r o l l i n g r i d g e l i n e s , which may e x p l a i n the subordinate and dominant e f f e c t s found; seen as stem exposure or at low viewing angles, the negative e f f e c t i s l o s t due to the spi k y s i l h o u e t t e of tree-tops -breaking up the strong l i n e of the edge c l o s e s t to the observer, or. to-, p e r s p e c t i v e which exaggerates 'kinks' i n the l a t e r a l edges. In FLTs w i t h intra-canopy viewing, edge s t r a i g h t n e s s tends to be perceived more r e a d i l y than i s t h e " o v e r a l l shape, though subordinate i n some cases and dominant i n o t h e r s , due to another p r a c t i c e (leaving r e s i d u a l s ) which prevents p r e d i c t i o n by FLT and p r a c t i c e only. " S c a l l o p i n g the edges of a c l e a r c u t - i . e . designing the shape of the c l e a r c u t to avoid abrupt l i n e s - may help reduce the negative impact of the c u t t i n g " . So says R i c k a r d et a l (1967), and the Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t i o n a l Resources (1973) agrees that curved edges are more s i m i l a r to nature's. However, i t was pointed out i n Chapter I that edge i n d e n t a t i o n s themselves come i n . d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s and s i z e s ; the range of e f f e c t s of t h i s p r a c t i c e i n FLTs l a - Id i n d i c a t e s that without s p e c i f y i n g the s c a l e of i n d e n t a t i o n s , the e f f e c t i n these landscapes can not be p r e d i c t e d . Edge i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n FLT 2b were i n e v i d e n t because they are, by chance, s i m i l a r i n s c a l e to n a t u r a l edge i n d e n t a t i o n s , although w i t h a l a r g e r sample i n t h i s FLT, subordinate and dominant e f f e c t s might be expected a l s o . In intra-canopy landscapes, however, i n d e n t a t i o n s at most s c a l e s are l i k e l y to avoid negative e f f e c t s of s t r a i g h t edges. In FLT 3a, and by i n f e r e n c e , i n other landscapes w i t h low viewing angle, p r a c t i c e s 7, 8, and 9 a l l have s i m i l a r i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s . However, a d i f f u s e or thinned 'ragged' edge (Orrom, 1967) may reduce negative e f f e c t s and where these occur by chance i n the study r e g i o n , they were i n e v i d e n t . S e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g at the c l e a r c u t edge might produce €bhcsame..effect. I t should be noted though, that t h i s p r a c t i c e was not recorded i n landscapes dominated by abrupt-edged avalanche s l i d e s , save i n the o l d Impact 11; had t h i s been a recent c l e a r c u t , the low c o n t r a s t i n colour and texture created by a d i f f u s e edge may have introduced a subordinate or^ dominant e f f e c t i n r e l a t i o n to the strong c o n t r a s t of the chute. PRACTICES 10-1.1 - EDGE-SILHOUETTE OF CUTTING. The abrupt s t e p - e f f e c t of a c l e a r i n g edge seen i n s i l h o u e t t e does not look n a t u r a l (Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t i o n a l Resources, 1973), i n most cases, and had a dominant e f f e c t wherever i t was recorded i n the study r e g i o n . However, i t i s p o s t u l a t e d t h a t , w i t h background viewing, the e f f e c t would be i n e v i d e n t , due to poor perception of d e t a i l . No edges of gradual i n c r e a s i n g t r e e - h e i g h t were recorded i n s i l h o u e t t e . However, the Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources (1973) recommends t h i s p r a c t i c e up to 50-100' s(15-30. m) back from .the c l e a r i n g v edge, to achieve a smoother, more n a t u r a l appearance, 1-fess- f o r c e f u l l y c o n t r a d i c t i n g the form and l i n e of r i d g e s . PRACTICE 12 - LEAVING STREAM BUFFER-STRIP. For e s t canopy, usu a l l y , form's, the-matrix .within.which the c o l o u r c o n t r a s t from, c l e a r i n g s creates strong forms. Where canopy i s l a r g e l y surrounded by c l e a r c u t ground the r o l e s are reversed. B u f f e r s t r i p s , o f t e n c i t e d as d e s i r a b l e f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes,. (B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , undated a ), may form a strong v i s u a l element i n i s o l a t i o n . In the study r e g i o n , the e f f e c t of t h i s p r a c t i c e v a r i e d not so much by f o r e s t landscape type as defined, as by s c a l e and o r i e n t a t i o n of the leave s t r i p i n r e l a t i o n to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. Thus, the e f f e c t was i n e v i d e n t i n Impact 28 where i t repeated the form of a chute and i n Impact .41 where i t ran p a r a l l e l to topographic o r i e n t a t i o n , but was subordinate i n Impact 42 where i t bore only s l i g h t resemblance to the forms, i n the landscape. I t s v i s u a l e f f e c t i s not p r e d i c t a b l e without s p e c i f y i n g i t s form, i . e . the d e t a i l s of the p r a c t i c e . PRACTICES 13-14. - LEAVING SEED-BLOCKS.AND GROUPED RESIDUALS. Berntsen (1973) advises t h a t , "To break the monotony of l a r g e c l e a r c u t s , t r e e clumps could be l e f t to emphasise l o c a l f e a t u r e s , such as e r r a t i c boulder groups, rock outcrops, and ponds...." Noyes (1971) speaks of a Norwegian roadside c u t - b l o c k where "Within the area harvested - 55 -a s i x - t o - e i g h t - a c r e group of b e a u t i f u l , mature pines was l e f t f o r viewer i n t e r e s t and a e s t h e t i c s " , and a s i m i l a r i f smaller s c a l e example occurs i n the study r e g i o n , where a cohesive , group of mature aspen was l e f t i n s i d e a c l e a r c u t i n Impact 18. Such groups, wherever they occur by chance i n the intra-canopy FLT, r e g i s t e r e d no evident e f f e c t . The p r a c t i c e of l e a v i n g t r e e groups can have i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t i n extra-canopy viewing too, where t h e i r s c a l e or o r i e n t a t i o n mimics the n a t u r a l element of form, as i n stream reserve s t r i p s . In the reeords, they tended to be i n e v i d e n t , perhaps because i n some cases they were l e f t as i n a c c e s s i b l e , a d i r e c t consequence of landform. Nonetheless, i t i s expected that such groups might create subordinate e f f e c t s where l e f t as unmerchantable and not f o r v i s u a l form, i n FLTs exposing ground. D i s c r e t e seed-blocks, which went unrecorded i n the study r e g i o n , but used to be common i n continuous c l e a r c u t s , might be expected to introduce dominant e f f e c t of form, due to t h e i r abrupt edge, s m a l l s c a l e i n r e l a t i o n to c l e a r c u t , unoriented form, and r e g u l a r spacing w i t h i n the cut-block. They too, though, would be in e v i d e n t w i t h stem exposure only, or i f designed f o r v i s u a l form. Thus, i n some f o r e s t landscape types, the v i s u a l e f f e c t of t r e e -groups can not be p r e d i c t e d without knowledge of t h e i r form. PRACTICE 15"-'LEAVING, SCATTERED RESIDUALS. Opinions on the v i s u a l e f f e c t of i s o l a t e d r e s i d u a l s d i f f e r . The Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources (1973) s t a t e s : VSingle trees that were once a par t of f o r e s t stand d e t e r i o r a t e q u i c k l y when exposed to unnatural c o n d i t i o n s . V i s u a l l y , they are only v i a b l e as a pa r t of a l a r g e r group, si n c e they have greater v i s u a l impact w i t h i n l a r g e spaces". Conversely, the U.S For e s t S e r v i c e (1974) notes that "Colour and texture c o n t r a s t i s reduced by l e a v i n g a heavy conc e n t r a t i o n of whips i n the u n i t " . - 56 -The paradox can be explained by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the f o r e s t landscape types i n which the p r a c t i c e occurs. The f i r s t statement r e f e r s to intra-canopy viewing or to s i l h o u e t t e d r e s i d u a l s i n foreground to middleground, when c h a o t i c l i n e and ragged form i s added to the ':. landscape. The p r a c t i c e i n t h i s FLT i n the study r e g i o n had a dominant e f f e c t , except where the r e s i d u a l s were seen against the f o r e s t edge and the e f f e c t was subordinate (Figure 15). Where seen as extra-canopy i n middleground or background, the same p r a c t i c e again" had dominant e f f e c t i n that the ground or v e g e t a t i o n r e t a i n e d strong c o l o u r c o n t r a s t w i t h the surrounding canopy; only where r e s i d u a l s were s u f f i c i e n t l y dense to mask ground c o l o u r to some degree, e.g. Impacts 21, 39, and the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e case, and where viewing angle was low or view d i r e c t i o n o b lique (FLTs Id and 3a) was the colour of ground exposure reduced to subordinate e f f e c t . The d e n s i t y of r e s i d u a l s commonly l e f t i n c l e a r c u t s i n the study r e g i o n i s u s u a l l y inadequate to achieve t h i s r e d u c t i o n . No true examples of a shelterwood cut were recorded. The increased height and f o l i a g e d e n s i t y of mature seed-trees, compared w i t h unmerchantable r e s i d u a l s and advance rege n e r a t i o n , makes i t l i k e l y that l i t t l e or no form, l i n e , or .".colour would be introduced i n FLTs w i t h low viewing angle, oblique viewing, or intra-canopy viewing; a true shelterwood cut exposing ground to view would probably be dominant. PRACTICES 16-17 - ALIGNMENT OF LINEAR CLEARING. Li n e a r c l e a r i n g s a l i g n e d towards the observer'icreate an a x i s : "An a x i s i s dominating, An a x i s i s o f t e n monotonous", (Simonds, 1961). I n a l l f o r e s t landscape types where strong a x i a l l i n e does not occur, l i n e a r c l e a r i n g s so a l i g n e d have dominant e f f e c t (lower r i g h t F i g u r e 16). Figure 16. V i s u a l Impact No.37, Spillimacheen. Dominant e f f e c t of l i n e a r c l e a r i n g a l i g n e d towards observer. - 58 -Ontario's Design G u i d e l i n e s (1973) agree w i t h Crowe (1966) that l i n e a r c l e a r i n g s s t r a i g h t up d i r e c t l y viewed h i l l s i d e s should be avoided i n favour of diagonal alignments. In the study r e g i o n , c l e a r i n g s across the l i n e of s i g h t were i n e v i d e n t , except where viewing angles were high enough to expose ground ( i . e . higher OPs i n FLTs l a and 3b, and by i n f e r e n c e , i n l b , l c , 2a and 2b). The OP and viewing angle t h e r e f o r e , needs to be known before the e f f e c t of a transverse alignment can be p r e d i c t e d . PRACTICES 18-21 -WIDTH OF LINEAR CLEARING. In f a c t , the width of the transverse c l e a r i n g a l s o needs to be known i f the v i s u a l e f f e c t i s to be p r e d i c t e d , w i t h anything more than the narrowest of openings. C l e a r i n g s under 2 chains (40 m) wide were i n -evident i n most of the recorded impacts. Only w i t h a markedly s u p e r i o r OP or' p a r t i c u l a r l y steep slopes d i d a dominant or subordinate e f f e c t occur, dependent on co l o u r of exposed ground. Broader c l e a r i n g s are more g e n e r a l l y v i s i b l e , and u s u a l l y dominant, unless openings of s i m i l a r width already e x i s t i n the landscape, as i n Impact 16. -Figures.17-20 attempt to e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between observer p o s i t i o n , t r e e h e i g h t , and ground exposure of l i n e a r c l e a r i n g s across the l i n e of s i g h t on d i f f e r e n t slopes. For example, w i t h Height Class 3 timber (66' minimum, 20 m) ,-common i n the study r e g i o n : on 50% slo p e s , a 5 ch s(100.m) wide_.opening exposes ground to sup-e r i o r OPsnand inf e r i o r . : OPs with, viewing angle.over 10°; on 25% slo p e s , a 2 ch (40~m)-~opening exposes, ground to superi o r OPs w i t h viewing angle over 28°. As a rule-6f-thumb, a 4-6 chain (80-120 m) wide opening ( i . e . ranging"'.from 4' chains '(80 m) wide on 75%;slopes, . to .6 .chains (120 m) wide on f l a t ground) i n Height Class 3 timber exposes ground at viewing angles 9 6 f t F i g u r e 2 0 . C r t i c a l V i eWing- A n g l e s Clear: ngs on 75% Road Mwadth Lopes. super road l o r C U t ' OP, -bank;. t a l l 2T, i h f eriJoir 3 c h t r e e s i n f e r i o r ±nfrex±or 4ch c l e a r i p OE OP, OP T tearing n. - 63 " greater than 10 9, and a 2 ch (40 m) opening "exposes ground.at viewing angles greater than approximately 25°. Where timber is more than 66' ( -20 m ) t a l l , the angle at which ground i s exposed increases. Conversely, in the same Height Class timber, on f l a t land, a 6.chr (120m) opening exposes stems to superior OPs with viewing angle less than 10°; on 50% slopes, a 2 ch (40m) opening exposes only stems to a l l inferior OPs (i.e. with viewing angle less than 26°). In general, a 2 ch (40m) opeming in Height Class 3 timber exposes only stems at viewing angles less than approximately 25°, and a 4-6 ch (80-120 m) _ opening at-••viewing angles less than 10°'. These factors need to be known for prediction of visual effects of linear clearings; they can be easily calculated from topographic maps knowing the viewing distance, the elevations of observer and impact, and the slope at the impact. Any clearing width separating tree-crowns creates a dominant effect when aligned towards the observer. Most linear clearings in the study region are uniform. Crowe (1966) prefers inflecting the edges of openings such as fire-breaks, in sympathy with landform. However, uniform width was not always dominant in the impacts recorded, because width is commonly insufficient to expose ground with clearings across the line of sight. It is anticipated that irregular width clearings may create a subordinate rather than a dominant effect, where they are aligned towards the observer, reducing the linear axis element, or where they emulate natural linear transverse patterns. However, no single effect of a linear clearing practice i s predictable knowing only the forest landscape type, and not the other clearing practices, although leeway in attaining low negative effects increases with fla t t e r landscapes..and. low_viewing angles. . • • - " PRACTICES 22-24 - PARTIAL CUTTING (other than shelterwood). No true examples of these p r a c t i c e s were found, i n thd study reg i o n . The c l o s e s t approximation was to gr o u p - s e l e c t i o n by h i g h -grading i n the past or by f e l l i n g c o n i f e r s from stands dominated by Populus s p e c i e s , where the e f f e c t was i n e v i d e n t unless ground was exposed at higher-viewing angles. A convincing number of authors contend that p a r t i a l c u t t i n g , by r e t a i n i n g canopy and thus i t s uniform colour and t e x t u r e , i s to be p r e f e r r e d over c l e a r c u t t i n g wherever v i s u a l impacts are to be minimised, ( U.S. Forest Service,. 1970;. Shafer-and Rutherford, 1969; Eyre,\.l965). Personal experience i n Great B r i t a i n and A l b e r t a suggests t h a t l i n e ' t h i n n i n g i n even-age immature stands can create a t e x t u r a l s t r i a t i o n of considerable r e g u l a r i t y ; however, the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e (1974) r e p o r t s success w i t h l i n e a l c l e a r i n g s , 10-12'(3-3.6m) Wide; ..and l a t e r a l d c o r r i d o r s , .for l a r g e t r e e removal'by cable, an a c t i v i t y that remains i n e v i d e n t even w i t h d i r e c t viewing. PRACTICE 25 '-r RTDGF-TOP ;ROADALOCATION. Only one impact recorded contained t h i s p r a c t i c e , but i t would seem to c o r r e l a t e w i t h the f i n d i n g s of the l i t e r a t u r e . "A l i n e a r a l t e r a t i o n , such as a road or powerline, sometimes has the l e a s t v i s u a l impact i f i t c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h i s " l i n e of sharpest c o n t r a s t " r a t h e r than c r o s s i n g i t at an a r b i t r a r y angle", (U.S. Forest Service,1973). Roads along the r i d g e - l i n e or very c l o s e to i t introduce no new elements (Bacon, 1975), and are l i k e l y to be i n v i s i b l e from lower OPs. Only from s u p e r i o r OPs, where the r i d g e - l i n e r e t r e a t s beyond the road s u r f a c e , w i l l a dominant e f f e c t occur; however, l o c a t i o n s c l o s e to s k y l i n e s are e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e to impacts, due to high v i s u a l i n t e r e s t , ( L i t t o n , 1974), so tha t s m a l l divergences from the r i d g e - l i n e l o c a t i o n may have l a r g e negative e f f e c t . - 65 -PRACTICE 2 6 - MID-SLOPE ROAD LOCATION. Mid-slope roads are p o t e n t i a l l y very evident from most OPs, the introduced l i n e b i s e c t i n g a pa r t of the landscape which was formerly continuous or d i v i d e d v e r t i c a l l y by creeks or g u l l i e s . Many mid-slope roads occur i n s i d e c l e a r c u t s i n the study r e g i o n , (FLTs 1 and 2 ) , and had dominant e f f e c t s (Figure 21) save^where OP was very- low and the v i s i b l e area of road disturbance reduced to subordinate e f f e c t . I t can be pos t u l a t e d that i n h o r i z o n t a l l y - o r i e n t e d landscapes w i t h i n f e r i o r OPs g e n e r a l l y , an in e v i d e n t e f f e c t may r e s u l t ; however, t h i s would be dependent on colour of d i s t u r b e d ground. PRACTICE 27^-..BENCH,. OR,VALLE_Y J^OAD\LOCATION. In v i s u a l terms, "the area of l e a s t v u l n e r a b i l i t y i s low i n the landscape" ( L i t t o n 1974), s i n c e , i n s p i t e of the tendency f o r s h o r t e r viewing d i s t a n c e s (increased p e r c e p t i o n of d e t a i l ) the p o t e n t i a l f o r screening i s h i g h e r , the number of viewing p o s i t i o n s i s s m a l l e r , the eye i s l e s s drawn to the lower s l o p e s , and there i s o f t e n evidence of man's a c t i v i t i e s already e s t a b l i s h e d at t h i s e l e v a t i o n . Roads running along the toe of slopes tend to be the l e a s t evident of a l l , whether the l o c a t i o n i s a v a l l e y bottom or a l e v e l bench perched on a slope. Impact records suggest that such road l o c a t i o n s do have i n e v i d e n t v i s u a l e f f e c t s , the exceptions being w i t h s u p e r i o r OPs and w i t h intra-canopy viewing. PRACTICE 28,- -ROAD ^ LOCATION OUTSIDE CUT-BLOCKS. The screening of roads i n right-of-ways through timber accounts f o r t h e i r i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t i n most FLTs r e g a r d l e s s of p o s i t i o n on the h i l l s i d e . The only f a c t o r r a i s i n g the v i s u a l e f f e c t i s markedly s u p e r i o r OP (Impacts 21, 40, and 41), a r e s u l t which can be explained by reference to Figures 18, 19, and 20, assuming a c e n t r a l road l o c a t i o n i n a 66' (20m) - 66 -Figure 21. V i s u a l Impact No.17, P a l l i s e r R i v e r . Dominant e f f e c t of midslope road i n s i d e c u t - b l o c k , seen i n background. - 67 -r i g h t - o f way (the common width f o r haul roads). PRACTICES 29-30 - ROAD SPACING. Road spacing v a r i e s the amount of l i n e and colour introduced to a given area. With a dense spacing, e.g. 500' (152m) on moderate or steep slopes, the v i s u a l e f f e c t i s greater than w i t h 1000' (304m) spacing, not j u s t because of increased area of road disturbance but a l s o because i t imposes a r i g i d p a t t e r n of l i n e w i t h i n a cut-block (Figure 22). With l a r g e c u t - b l o c k s , 250 acres (lOOha) or more, there may be l e s s of an advantage i n lower road d e n s i t y , because the s c a l e of the c l e a r i n g embraces a geometric road p a t t e r n even w i t h 1000' spacing; however, under present c u t - b l o c k s i z e l i m i t s , the reduced road l e n g t h due to greater spacing increases the p o s s i b i l i t y of l i n e being f i t t e d to the landscape. Nonetheless, i f a s i n g l e road tangent across a cut-block w i l l have a dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t , as i n many of the impacts e s p e c i a l l y i n FLT 1, p r e d i c t i n g the e f f e c t of spacing may be of no importance whatsoever s i n c e the e f f e c t does not vary beyond dominant. Only i f the wide spacing would be subordinate i n e f f e c t due to road screening or bench l o c a t i o n , w h i l e a narrower spacing would r e q u i r e a f u r t h e r road which could not be so screened or l o c a t e d , could the e f f e c t be increased. PRACTICE 31 - ROAD SWITCHBACK CONSTRUCTION. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that switchbacks i n s i d e c l e a r c u t s have dominant e f f e c t i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n of colour of road surface wherever ground i s exposed to normal and superi o r OPs. Switchbacks represent s e c t i o n s of road a l i g n e d towards the observer, c r e a t i n g a colour node o f t e n more n o t i c e a b l e than the l i n e created by tangents, even i n back-ground viewing w i t h pale ground colour (Figure 2 l ) • This r e s u l t s from the greater area of d i s t u r b e d surface needed f o r t r u c k s to complete a t u r n of 65' (20m) minimum r a d i u s (75'', -22m i f long t r u c k s ) , (U.S.D..I., - 69 " undated). With low OPs even t h i s area may become i n e v i d e n t ; w i t h higher OPs, medium ground colour may not reduce the e f f e c t due to the l i g h t c o lour of g r a v e l or a c i d i c rock chips used f o r grade c o n s t r u c t i o n . W i t h i n timber, the e f f e c t cannot be p r e d i c t e d without knowing the c l e a r i n g width and viewing angle, and w i t h i n FLT 2b f o r i n s t a n c e , ranged from i n e v i d e n t to dominant. PRACTICES 3*2-33--"* CUTiAND^FiLL-SLOPE1-CONSTRUCTION. Small-scale f o r e s t roads b u i l t w i t h minimum cut and f i l l to flow w i t h the landscape are recommended by U.S. Forest Service (1971), s i n c e , as Adamovich (1971) contends. *The s i z e and l a c k of s t a b i l i t y of s i d e s l o p e s of f o r e s t roads draw the most c r i t i c i s m from the p u b l i c . Large scars on the mountainside combined w i t h f i l l s resembling l a n d s l i d e s are c e r t a i n l y not s i g h t l y " . Where high cut and f i l l slopes occur i n the recorded impacts on steep s l o p e s , the e f f e c t was dominant i n a l l FLTs (FLT 2a by inference) unless: a) screened p a r t l y or completely by t r e e s , (see Figures 18, 19, and .20). b) viewing angle was>very low-(Figure 230 and any-sidecast m a t e r i a l had : • "medium co l o u r . I t might be expected that w i t h medium ground c o l o u r , high cut and f i l l s would be in e v i d e n t i n background and subordinate i n middleground due to r e d u c t i o n i n colour c o n t r a s t , although the l i n e a r element remains. With pale ground colour below the c r i t i c a l viewing angles shown i n Figure 23, moderately steep h i l l s i d e s w i t h l a r g e f i l l - s l o p e s might be expected to create the l a r g e s t negative e f f e c t , w h i l e above these angles, e.g. from normal OPs, the steepest slopes w i t h higher cut-banks are most l i k e l y to have dominant e f f e c t , ( and create a more continuous road s c a r ) . The more convex the slo p e , the l e s s v i s i b l e cuts as i n Figure 23.1 become; although on uniform slopes the viewing angle from which the scar i s screened ! i_ - — r ~ — M i 1 i M ! : i i f. ' . ' t ; i 1 i •l | i ~ 1 i " 1 1 ! M 1 M 1 ! 4 - 7 0 • 4 i i , i : : • .... ! ' 1 ' i • ' ! i ' i i 1 i 1 M M ! I i : ' i i _ iguf — 1 M 1 • ! . 1 i n i I H ! i i M I ' . i j ' • — — - ! 1 1 . L..-.eL j ! . • i ; . * 1 : i ! 2 3 ^ i C r X t i e ^ M I i i M i , ?.les f o r Roa d' Cut-and-f.i i r -Slopes-i i ~'• t -—-T—i-fAd anted f l - o W - A r b r r n m r i rh . j - » i l l ! t-rprrJg't L ,'• — K l f i f V - V . .. ~ "T ' • r~~ M M i 1 i ! | M I : i • 1 ; - i i ; ' i i i , • j i | T + i 2 3_zi:z.Bi lANCH-ROAD O . r 75X StOPE i : ' 1 " T r ;~"r" ~ i I r 1 1 ! M i M ! ! ! 1 ! ' : i ! ' - ' i t z : r ;" • i i ?v i n i \ . i i I i i ! 1 i j -Vri-s i-b-l-e^-f-rora^l-j^ -no r r-ma-t-r h — —-I~ t l i t ! 1 1 I rU£Sj,_i_ana! iiix.ea^Q.r__.u_: s_ap.avfi_z tew- M M i M. i • • : M • : 1 ; ! 1 1 1 j j i n g angi e. M ! ! ' ; ' • ! • i i M : i l i i j , i 1 • M : .  ' 1 1 1 ! ! \ i •. I ' l l i l l ! j • | 1 1 ; : i 1 i ! 1 1 i i , i i . M i l i • • : 1 M M i > t ! : ! 1 : ! i T ' ' 1 ! i i i 1 • ! 1 ]_ l j j i i ! i ! M : ' : M . ! M 1 1 ' • ' t - 1 i M : I t . i i • ! j i ! i ! i : ; i t ' t 1 i '< ! I i i ! M i l i i i 1 ! • j \ 1 j j \ ( . ^  i 1 V s. ! i ! i i i 1 ! ' 1 M M i i M • I : ( ! 1 ! ' i ' ' 1 " ' J- 1 1 i ! i t 1 I 1 ' 1- ! i. 1 1 1 ! : i i i 1 i i i ; M l ! ! ! 1 I 1 i i I t S I M i l i 1 l i t ! ! ! ! i M i ' 1 ! 1 . 1 ' 1 i i 1 1 ! i .1 i M I i ! ' • i i ; Impact v i s - i M M i i V ! ! I i 1 1 M M 1 i 1 i 1 ' i | ' • ! : i ! ! 1 • ! M M M : j i ; ,i-ple from j , 1 ! M M V 1 ! 1 1 1 i v i I ! 1 ! M M ! i -i M ! ; ,f i 1 t j I | • 1 1 i : 1 i ' • - • : 1 • -noxmau. 1 I ! I I ! 1 i S ! ! 1 M M ! - i 1 i ! i M . | ' i i i i M ! M 'i i • i i i \ i [ i I ; . : ! 1 i i 1 1 i l " 1 ! 1 ! ! i i r , M M ! 1 1 I ! ! 1 ! 1 l> 1 ! ! I I M M .^ 1 i ! I 1 t f i 1 ' M ! M M M M ! • . i M i l l ! I 1 , 1 i ; \ i i i ! i < 1 > £\ 1 ! 1 1 I 1 i \ l ! M M M { ^ * * V J 1 I • 1 ! : ! M . 1 ! . • ' ' 1 1  1 : • ! ! i 1 l i i ! i 1 ! i i i •  t 1 i ! i i l ; i C\ ! ^ i l I i i i i^v ! 1 ' • 1 i ! ! N J ' i • r • ! i I M M i ! M M M M j 1 1 i 1 I | 1 1 1 j i • i ' 1 i • '' ! i 1 1 ! 1 i ! i 1 : ! I 1 i H — i ! M - 1 i X ! Im i ! I 1 1 X.*. pact -seen i t r om. • . : ; i i i i ! i .i ! • I i ~T— i— V : i i i 1 i 1 1 J _ 1 1 ! ; ! ! ' 1 ! j I i l l I I I ! ! ; : \ J below j 127 r i I : • ' ' ! 1 M M M 1 ! • i j 1 •' ( t ! • i i -i j _ i i 1 i , ! 1 ! 1 i \* 1 ! i i i i i i i i I 1 ••['•• ! 1 1 | 1 I 1 1 i' i i 1 ! I 1 i 1 . 1 ! I i ! • • 1 1' i i i • i 1 1 : '• I ! • 1 1M M M l M ' ' | ! ' i ; i M i : | | | i .. i i ! M M i i i 1 1 1 i t ! 1 1 1 i 1 11 j l | ! i ! 1 ! : i ! ! i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i I 1 , 1 ' O M i l -; 1 •  i \ . " V I I '• ! '. ! ! • 1 i M M ' M M ' l i t •• i i i i I I I I : i i • I : i i i ' ! I i 1 ! 1 i i 1 I 1 I 1 1 ! i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ! ! 1 • I ! i 1 i 1 • i M . • 1 \ ^ • ! ! ! • 1 1 : X - H — i ! i ; 1 ; 1 ! M i M i M i M M M • i i ! 1 ! 1 i i I 1 i i' 1 i i i -V* l 1 I i > < ! i : I i .  1 ! ! ! ! I I 1 1 i i i T T I I I ! i i 1 1 1 1 11 1 ! ! I i !! I I ! ! M ! | | j | : ; 1 l i M • .M M 1 ! ! | i . 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 ! i ! 1 i 1 ! !-U ! / A - _ M I M _ _ t 1 i ! 1 1 ! ] ! U j M M M M M M • l i t ; l ! M M M 1 M : 1 ' ' M : | 1 . H-; r n I-' i i j t i 1 ! ! . .. . r \ . 1 ! -2: L L i i 1 1 ! i 1 I I U - U I V .SUH'.'i : 1 i 1 • i I ! ; i ; j _ ' M ! ] i i M ! ! • ( l i t i s : , j M 1 .1 ! ! i i i •. i 1 i 1 *i ->! i | i -T-rt— i i 111 « f r o m Mil 1 . v i i i n p r i f i r • *rr*-< ! ^ ! : -impact i i • -J V. i Q f -v-is - r - ; f , i \ i i I i i i i h o r maJJ-Qgs^|--a-n4—f^om: i n f e r i o r OPs ' ! ; ; ! 1 i ! i I D 1 P 1 ; i ! i normal T o m ! >\ i i t • f \ ! j 1 : i t L ' 1 i * ! I 1 t 1 ' • 1 l i I M "* '^i ! . above! 4" . i 1 t . 1 ! 1 1 ; > > t i ( i : • i ! i : i ! • ; M ' I J I I M M j i i 1 ! i i - i i i t • i V*S i ; : _ ' 1 ' ! 1 M . M M ! 1 J ' ! . 1 . i l l ! 1 i i M i ! i l l ! i l l ! i I ! \ > r Jlrnp act-seen - f r o p; i ; 11 i 1 i I 1 1 ! ! i 1 i ! 1 i 1 1 I I ! 1 I ; i 1 I i i below 4" .... i i I i i I : i 1 i 1 ! i i i i M ' l I t f 1 i i * i 1 ! - r f r T 1 l 1 I i I 1 i i ~^ 1 ! i ! 1 ! ' • i i, M I M : M M 1 i ; i M M ! ' 1 1 i i 1 : ! ! I 1 ! 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i i i i i i 1 1 I 1 i M M M 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! i 1 1 [ 1 i 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I | j I i • i i ' i M 1 M 1 1 j i 1 i : 1 i ! i i [ 1 • \ j M M M < i M i i . i l i i : i i i ; 1 I ! 1 i i t i i l • : M ! • i l l I i i 1 i l l ! M l ! ! < i i • i ; ! I M < i ' ! -^v.' 1 l l ' 1 ' I I . I i * ! ! • 1 1 1 i ! 1 1 ' i i : i j j i j i j i 1 1 | 1 i i i i i i i i I i ! 1 ! I I i 1 ! i • 1 1 i i i I -1 M ! 1 i 1 1 ' ! 1 1 1 • i . 1 ; i ; ; ! : j i ! l i 1 • i ; J 1 1 1 1 ..-.•! i 1 i '. ! . i. 1 1 ; ( i ' i t ! 1 1 1 1 1 i i '( i i ! 1 i i i 1 ' ! ! i i 1 1 i I I i i i ! I t t i ! M ! 1 i 1 ! 1 1 1 : M * 1 M i • ! ! H - H -. i 1 t I 1 1 i M i l l ' ! : I i ! I M M i t i 1 ! i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I i 1 1 j j ' l i i • ' i 1 1 ' 1 1 ! ' . t i l l  ) ! 1 i M I I ' i i 1 I 1 ! ' i 1 - ! i i i 1 -1 1 i 1 ' i 1 1 i i 1 i 1 ' : ; t I | ! i 1 1 1 I ' l l ] i i ? ' 11 1 1 ! i ~ T ~ " R T 1 i u !L> rvA i M 1 M i ' M M i ! I TrrrvM- •><"/ c I 1 U U i M 1 M M ! ' • 1 1 ! • ' 1 ! I i 1 1 1 1 -• ! 1 ! 1 1 1 ! i ; i i I I I i I ! M i i ! I i I I I I 1 • i i | i ' 1 i | • '• : | i M ' ' ' 1 I 1 i i ' i ! ; i I i i i i 1 • : ' 1 i ' 1 i i I r t i l l M 1 j I i i i l 1 1 I i y.isirbie^-f~r6m -all-superrter— and jnormal j . 1 i I ! • j i LJ_^_ilmpla.Qt . . ! M J.-L.-I If. ViS-i f ' \ > 1 r NL 1 i i _| ]—L ! . U E S . | | 1 ' -i ! ' I | . ! i ' ! ., ! J i ; 1 : i ! , . " — - J — _(Impact seen from below 6" . . 1 ' t ! ; x u x t _ x —.... normal O P A , ; ' ; M i i ' i !!!!!!!! i ! M • 1 I I I ! 1 1 ' i i • i i « \ u ~ — — .— ~ i M M • i i • ~1 . :•• •. L _ | M.; M • ' . ; ! ! -U4-I-: 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 ! M M 1 1 i ! i ! ! t 1 1 i 1 • - 1 h > — ^ . M l ! ! r———Sca-lH-= -11" ,: 1 0 ' (3m) ; : i i i ! i 1 1 I  I 1  ! • ! [ i l l - 1 Z = = - — - = T T - ; —.—: ; — : — : — ! — 1 , 1 1 - ; ; 1 j l - i u M M M M i i i i " : ' '1 M •"" ; i : i i i n i l Abov aid : ! I iagr.ams._a - 4 - i ! 1 1 1 1 ! ssuma. no v. JZ _ L . . . L . M _ itative.....scre - P ing.,. e.g... ins d.de--cLear ' | [ }-— i i : i i j . . . . : _ . T  j . _ j . •II' • I ' ! ; i 1 M _i—..-. - j - f - ; -—;-f~ M i . : M - M .„„_,. ; j . ; , ; ) _.M. - i - r -~T- • —} — - H -- 1 t o p o g r a p h i c a l l y i s t i n y , the s i t u a t i o n i s f a i r l y common i n steep-sided narrow v a l l e y s where access i s l i m i t e d to the 'V' shaped v a l l e y bottom. Outside c u t - b l o c k s , the v i s u a l e f f e c t i s unpredictable without knowing the right-of-way width. Low cut and f i l l slopes may s t i l l be enough to create dominant e f f e c t s where OP i s su p e r i o r or near normal. PRACTICE 34.,- . RETAINING',.WALL CONSTRUCTION. No examples of t h i s p r a c t i c e were recorded i n the study region. The U.S. Forest Service (1974) r e p o r t s that "Corten s t e e l " b i n w a l l s used i n s t e a d of f i l l slopes "repeat the colours i n the n a t u r a l surroundings as w e l l as a l l o w i n g v e g e t a t i o n to remain c l o s e to the toe of the road". The e f f e c t of such p r a c t i c e s could therefore be p r e d i c t e d knowing the colours of the new w a l l , the weathered w a l l , and the di s t u r b e d ground surface i t r e p l a c e s . PRACTICES 35-371JrV SKIDr-TRAIL LAY-OUT. I f i s commonly heard among the logging f r a t e r n i t y that much of the o p p o s i t i o n to steep-slope t r a c t o r - l o g g i n g based on h i g h l y v i s i b l e s k i d - t r a i l scars and e r o s i o n could be e l i m i n a t e d by c o n t r o l l e d s k i d - ' t r a i l l ay-out (Larsen, 1975). C o n t r o l l e d lay-out u s u a l l y r e f e r s to s k i d -t r a i l s a l i g n e d c l o s e to the contour, which leads to a dominant h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n of introduced colour and l i n e . This produced only subordinate e f f e c t s i n background impacts and those w i t h medium ground colou r . Within FLT l c , the e f f e c t v a r i e d from i n e v i d e n t w i t h low OPs to dominant w i t h s u p e r i o r OPs. This dependency on OP can a l s o be p r e d i c t e d f o r h o r i z o n t a l l y -o r i e n t e d landscapes, though no dominant e f f e c t s were recorded f o r o b l i q u e l y viewed impacts, a l l of which were viewed from i n f e r i o r OPs. Contour s k i d t r a i l s produce a steep cut-bank, which creates a minimal area of exposed face when v e r t i c a l , but a long term v i s u a l effect. Compared with steep skid t r a i l s , cut-bank height is no lower, the length of cut-bank i s greatly increased (because t r a i l s must zig-zag to lose height with maximum grade of 30%), and the number of switch-backs-rises. Figure 24 shows an aerial photographicf contour.- lay-out .and Figure 25 attempts to portray ground views of this, impact as i t might be seen.with either contour, ^ parallel feitrails or fan-shaped 'climbers'. With steep t r a i l lay-out, cut-bank height is reduced, impact duration may be lessened by faster revegetation, and the area of disturbed ground is less. However, unlike the contour t r a i l s whose low cut-banks and surface are hidden with low OPs, steep t r a i l s remain visible with low OPs and oblique viewing, since they are aligned down the slope facing the observer. Thus, in a l l steep FLTs, regardless of OP and viewing directions, the visual effect i s dominant, given pale ground colour. Switchbacks tend to have dominant effect much as in steep t r a i l s or road switchbacks, except where seen as background or obliquely, or in landscapes with medium ground colour, when subordinate effect can be expected. The situation i s not, however, as predictable as i t seems. In Impact '28, occurring in a forest landscape type with pale ground colour, the visual effect of contour skid-trails on steep slopes was lower than expected, and lower than'in-adjoining Impact 30 (Figure 26), because the practice in the former was carried out in winter over the snow, which prevented the tractors from disturbing extensively the pale podsolic s o i l beneath the duff and organic matter horizons. Thus, where s o i l profiles exhibit marked colour changes, the season i n which the practice occurred needs to be considered. - 73 -Figure 24- A e r i a l Photograph of Contour S k i d - t r a i l Lay-out. Spillimacheen R i v e r , T.F.L. 14, courtesy of Crestbrook Forest I n d u s t r i e s , 1975. Scale - 20 chain : 1", (1 : 15,840) - 74 -F i g u r e 25- V i s u a l E f f e c t s of S k i d - t r a i l Lay-out. 25.1 CONTOUR LAY-OUT, NORMAL OP - 75 -Figure 26. Visual Impact Nos.28 (right) and 30 ( l e f t ) . Bugaboo Creek. Subordinate visual effects of contour skid-trails on right, dominant effects on l e f t . - 76 -PRACTICES 38-39 - SKID-TRAIL CUT-BANK CONSTRUCTION. As i n the road cut-bank s i t u a t i o n , high cut-banks on steeper slopes are dominant except at low viewing angles (Figure 25.1 arid 25.2). This e x p l a i n s the v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n FLTs recorded. Low. cut-banks tended to be subordinate or i n e v i d e n t depending on t h i s same f a c t o r , since t h e i r height i n r e l a t i o n to t r a i l width i s l e s s than that f o r road cut-banks and width. PRACTICES '40-42 - OTHER.. SKID-TRAIL-vPRACTICES. Iii' FLTs w i t h slopes below 30%, the use of r u b b e r - t i r e d skidders without bull-dozed s k i d - t r a i l s , had i n e v i d e n t v i s u a l e f f e c t i n every case recorded. Only i f skidders repeatedly f o l l o w the same route up steeper breaks i s s o i l exposed. The use of main t r a i l s through leave timber i s r a r e i n the study region. Only where s e l e c t i v e logging has been c a r r i e d out or where r e s i d u a l s were l e f t i n t h i c k groups could i t s e f f e c t be evaluated. In the l a t t e r case, (Impacts 21 and .39), the e f f e c t was subordinate, because high viewing angle or wide c l e a r i n g p a r t l y exposed the d i s t u r b e d ground. With lower OP or narrower c l e a r i n g , i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t might be expected due to v e g e t a t i v e screening. Use of the FMC 200 BG low-ground pressure tracked skidder was recorded only once i n the study r e g i o n . Used f o r long d i s t a n c e s k i d d i n g or forwarding at high speed, i t r e q u i r e s that stumps be b u l l -dozed on i t s t r a i l s , which accounts f o r i t s subordinate e f f e c t i n the f l a t f o r e s t landscape type viewed from above. However, the machine i s capable of s k i d d i n g on slopes up to 50% without t r a i l s or i n snow on steeper s i d e - s l o p e s than t r a c t o r s , reducing the cut-bank c o n s t r u c t i o n , at l e a s t on more moderate slopes (Pommier, 1975). From lower viewing angles therefore, effects are lower than with conventional skidding. In addition, the negative effects of road within the clearing can be eliminated. PRACTICE 43 - HORSE SKIDDING. Horse skidding was-recorded definitely only once in the impacts evaluated, and has not occurred in the study region since 1963. Direct evaluation i s not therefore possible. However, i t is expected that even in new impacts, the use of narrow relatively undisturbed skid-trails : . through timber (U.S.D.I., undated) or no t r a i l s in clearcuts would have inevident effect. PRACTICES 44-47 - HIGH- LEAD CABLE-YARDING. In coastal British Columbia, high lead logging can be seen to produce ve r t i c a l l y oriented yarding roads fanning out from landings (Figure 27). In the study region, the longer-distance yarders that usually create these ruts are not used, so i t was impossible to assess their effects directly. The only high lead shows recorded were those of the Rosedale Eco-logger, a short yarding machine (600', 182m maximum) that was not seen to create yarding ruts. In foreground viewing though, a subordinate visual effect was caused by orientation of slash and down-timber in the direction of yarding; in middleground, the effect was inevident, with no s o i l disturbance vi s i b l e . However, in both cases recorded, the clearcut- area' logged by the Eco-logger was small. In large clearcuts, the visual effect of narrow road-spacing (under 1000', 304m) might be expected. With long distance yarders, much wider road-spacing (2500', 760m) is possible, and theoretically, many clearcuts of 100 acres (40 ha) or so,'on sloping ground, could be logged by them from one road concealed at the lower edge. Figure 27. V i s u a l E f f e c t of High-lead D o w n h i l l - y a r d i n g Ruts. (From P e t e r s , 1972.) - 7 9 -However, the l a r g e r h i g h lead machines r e q u i r e l a r g e r roads and la n d i n g s , and when unscreened, as Wellburn (1975a) says, t h e i r "wide roads and messy landings have not always produced the d e s i r e d a e s t h e t i c or environmental r e s u l t s " . In a d d i t i o n , high lead spars prevent the l e a v i n g of s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s , which may increase down-timber l e f t and the c o l o u r / t e x t u r e c o n t r a s t of the c l e a r c u t i n some c o n d i t i o n s ; r e s i d u a l groups may be l e f t on the road between s e t t i n g s where d e f l e c t i o n i s poorest. Another system which was not evaluated i s the M i n i - A l p , a s m a l l tractor-mounted spar, i n use elsewhere i n the Kootenays. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that i t s e f f e c t s would be s i m i l a r to the Eco-logger s i n c e i t yards s i m i l a r d i s t a n c e s , but a l s o that i t s m o b i l i t y would a l l o w i t to l o g corners i n a c c e s s i b l e to other s k i d d i n g methods and to l o g by s e l e c t i o n , a p p l i c a t -ions of use i n reducing v i s u a l e f f e c t s . PRACTICES 48-50 - SKYLINE CABLE YARDING. Sk y l i n e s can yard timber from t h i n n i n g s (Barton, 1974) and from c l e a r c u t s (Hay, 1972) w i t h minimal v i s u a l e f f e c t s , according to the l i t e r a t u r e . The long d i s t a n c e c a p a b i l i t y of machines such as the Wyssen system (up to 4,500', 1,370m, s i n g l e span), reduces road l e n g t h w i t h i n a cu t - b l o c k to a s i n g l e bottom-edge road, and lends i t s e l f to v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d c l e a r c u t s up to 400' (120m) wide. The system produces l i t t l e or n o - v i s u a l e f f e c t from ground disturbance. A Wyssen system was used i n the e a r l y 1950s i n the study r e g i o n ; i n both cases recorded (e.g. Figure 16, upper l e f t ) , though the e f f e c t of v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d c u t t i n g , remains, any tr a c e s of the d i r e c t e f f e c t of the yarding are of course gone. The system could indeed mimic avalanche chutes p r e c i s e l y , or could leave dense r e s i d u a l s given s u f f i c i e n t d e f l e c t i o n , as was done i n both the recorded impacts. - 80 -A system such as the Washington Sky-lok yarding crane i s more s p e c i f i c a l l y s u i t e d to h o r i z o n t a l l y o r i e n t e d openings, s i n c e i t yards up to 1000' (304m) and needs a t a i l - h o l d v e h i c l e , the whole system moving p r o g r e s s i v e l y along the s l o p e . ( W a e l t i , 1975). Besides the l a n d i n g road which needs to be 16' (4.8m) wide and may increase v i s u a l e f f e c t by r a i s i n g cut-bank h e i g h t , a p a r a l l e l road f o r the mobile t a i l -hold i s necessary, though of low c l a s s and 10' (3m) width. The v i s u a l e f f e c t of t h i s road at the top of a c l e a r c u t would depend on the viewing angle and height of cut and f i l l s l o p e s , u s u a l l y minimal on s e r v i c e roads. Smaller systems such as 'Idaho' jammers avoid the v i s u a l e f f e c t of s k i d - t r a i l s and probably yarding r u t s , but r e q u i r e a c l o s e road-spacing of about 600' (182m) (Wellburn, 1975a). However, the road can be the minimum width necessary f o r logging t r u c k s , which may create only subordinate e f f e c t s w i t h medium ground colour or i n f e r i o r OPs. PRACTICES 51-52 - AERIAL YARDING. No instances of these p r a c t i c e s were recorded. H e l i c o p t e r s can remove timber from an area without road c o n s t r u c t i o n as long as choker-men have access (Stevens and C l a r k e , 1974). The v i s u a l e f f e c t of t h i s p r a c t i c e i s t o t a l l y i n e v i d e n t , 0 w i t h l i t t l e ground disturbance. I t i s very adaptable, w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n i n p a r t i a l c u t t i n g and logging i n a c c e s s i b l e corners f o r v i s u a l purposes. B a l l o o n - l o g g i n g a l s o avoids the e f f e c t s of mid-slope roads and yarding r u t s , but can create other e f f e c t s . The l a r g e s c a l e fan-shaped c l e a r c u t , of up to 5,000' (1520m) r a d i u s , an i n e v i t a b l e consequence of : . the present p r a c t i c e ( u n l i k e s m a l l experimental b a l l o o n s ) , would create a dominant e f f e c t . However, Peters (1973) r e p o r t s that i n an operation i n A l a s k a , a considerable number of 20 year o l d s a p l i n g s , which would be - 8 1 -knocked down by conventional systems, were l e f t : the d e n s i t y of these r e s i d u a l s would have to be known f o r the e f f e c t to be p r e d i c t e d . PRACTICES 53-55 - LANDING' 'CONSTRUCTION. Large l a n d i n g s , as required by various logging systems, or landings on steep s l o p e s , having high cut-banks and mounds of d e b r i s , introduce nodes of c o l o u r ; they had dominant e f f e c t i n FLTs w i t h pale ground colour and e i t h e r normal/superior OPs or intra-canopy viewing. With i n f e r i o r OPs, e f f e c t was subordinate or i n e v i d e n t w i t h medium ground c o l o u r , s i n c e the height: width r a t i o of d i s t u r b e d ground i s small compared w i t h road-cuts. Landings w i t h low cut-banks or none at a l l a l s o had dominant e f f e c t w i t h s u p e r i o r OP or intra-canopy viewing, unless grown over or of very clean low p r o f l i e ' ( I m p a c t 18). From i n f e r i o r OPs however, they were i n e v i d e n t . I t i s expected that landings l a r g e l y surrounded by timber would be i n e v i d e n t except w i t h ground exposure at high viewing angles. PRACTICES 56-59"—-PILING-AND-BURNING. Most impacts i n the study region underwent s l a s h d i s p o s a l by spote-burning, a p r a c t i c e which was i n e v i d e n t i n a l l extra-canopy f o r e s t landscape types. In FLT 4, the e f f e c t of the burning i t s e l f was subordinate, due to l i g h t accumulations of blackened d e b r i s being v i s i b l e , but the e f f e c t of p i l i n g , i n f l u e n c i n g the amount of d i r t and unburnt s l a s h l e f t , was dominant where a d i r t - b l a d e was used (Figure 14) and subordinate w i t h : a brush-blade. The former p r a c t i c e tends to leave a c h a o t i c appearance of form and l i n e . The Wyoming Forest Study Team (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1971), considered t h i s e f f e c t can be reduced by windrowing d e b r i s i n t o o r d e r l y p i l e s p r i o r to burning. Recorded i n Impact 42, ( F r o n t i s p i e c e ) ; s e e n as background, the dark h o r i z o n t a l l i n e s of t h i s ' p r a c t i c e were subordinate; - 82 _ i t seems l i k e l y t hat at s h o r t e r viewing d i s t a n c e s , the e f f e c t may be dominant, at l e a s t a t h i g h viewing angles, though temporary. PRACTICES 60-62- --BROADCAST'BURNING. No recent broadcast burns were evaluated. I t i s p o s t u l a t e d that i n middleground and background viewing, the blackening of stumps and snags and reddening of dead f o l i a g e w i l l b a r e l y i n f l u e n c e the o v e r a l l brownish colour of recent c l e a r c u t s , but that i n foreground and i n t r a -canopy viewing, these colour c o n t r a s t s seen i n d e t a i l may be dominant. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of bulldozed f i r e - g u a r d s around c l e a r c u t s to be broadcast burnt has p o t e n t i a l l y greater v i s u a l e f f e c t . With supe r i o r OP and pale ground c o l o u r , the e f f e c t was-domihant (Figure 28),,the geometric l i n e s emphasising the abrupt cut-block edge and d e v i a t i n g markedly from a l l n a t u r a l l i n e a r elements i n the landscape. Seen from i n f e r i o r OPs, however, (Impact 20) the e f f e c t was i n e v i d e n t presumably because no s e c t i o n s of f i r e g u a r d were a l i g n e d toward the observer. I t i s expected that the v i s u a l e f f e c t i s comparable w i t h that of steep s k i d -t r a i l s , save t h a t d u r a t i o n may not be extended by s o i l compaction. Much lower.?visual e f f e c t s may be expected w i t h hand-dug f i r e g u a r d s , which c l e a r a s t r i p down to m i n e r a l s o i l only 2'(60cm) wide with.the. resti-of the guard merely c l e a r e d of d e b r i s ( Fahnestock, 1976); t h i s would be i n e v i d e n t except where a l i g n e d p e r f e c t l y toward the observer, when i t may be sub-o r d i n a t e or dominant depending on ground colour and viewing d i s t a n c e . PRACTICES 63-64.L-:.BURTAL .OF DEBRIS. This p r a c t i c e i s only evident i n foreground or intra-canopy landscapes. Incomplete or ungraded b u r i a l creates a dominant e f f e c t of d i s t u r b e d e a r t h and c h a o t i c form, w h i l e a smoothly graded b u r i a l may be subordinate due to s o i l c o l o u r , and i n e v i d e n t as soon as vegetated. - 83 -Figure 28. Visual Impact No.41, T.F.L. 14. Spillimacheen River. Dominant effect of bull-dozed fire-guards in lower middleground. - 84 -PRACTICES 65-67 - LEAVING WASTE. Leaving many snags or high stumps i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d to by f o r e s t e r s as "untidy". The v i s u a l e f f e c t , though, was evident only i n the intra-canopy FLT where i t was dominant, due to introduced l i n e and form of the exposed dead timber at c l o s e range, d e s p i t e the Impacts d a t i n g from the Intermediate U t i l i s a t i o n era. T y p i c a l concentrations of snags and h i g h stumps are i n e v i d e n t at longer viewing d i s t a n c e s . Down timber and s l a s h were a l s o only evident i n p a r t s of impacts seen as foreground, save f o r Impact 22. where o r i e n t e d s l a s h from c a b l e -logging created a t e x t u r a l subordinate e f f e c t i n the nearer middleground. In background, t h i s p r a c t i c e i s always i n e v i d e n t . In foreground, i t i s dominant when unscreened by r e v e g e t a t i o n , i n t r o d u c i n g l i n e and/or colour to the ground surface. As Berntsen (1973) comments, "The u n s i g h t l i n e s s of f o l i a g e , l i mbs, t r e e tops, r o o t s , and stumps f r e q u e n t l y c o n t r i b u t e s t o , or becomes i t s e l f , an :,item of c o n f l i c t w i t h the p u b l i c " . Lopping or f l a t t e n i n g the s l a s h c l o s e to the ground, as p r a c t i c e d i n the past and more r e c e n t l y i n the Bugaboo c l e a r c u t s , had i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t where recorded though i t might be expected that i n foreground views (unrecorded) the e f f e c t may remain subordinate. Noyes (1971) considers the p r a c t i c e a great improvement, since the s l a s h " r o t s more r e a d i l y , i s compacted by snow and i c e , and i n the growing season, i s soon screened by l e s s e r v e g e t a t i o n which develops the f i r s t year or so". PRACTICES 68-70 -.POST-DISPOSAL TREATMENT. Seeding openings w i t h grass can create an i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t ( U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974), but only where openings of s i m i l a r colour e x i s t n a t u r a l l y . In the study r e g i o n , away from avalanche chutes and pasture, c l e a r i n g s i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape are grey or brownish; - 85 -thus, c l e a r c u t s seeded to a grazing grass mix r e t a i n e d a dominant e f f e c t by changing colour from brown to pale green which s t i l l c o n t r a s t s h i g h l y w i t h f o r e s t canopy. In intra-canopy landscapes, though, where pine grass can be seen under more open canopy, the e f f e c t was i n e v i d e n t . Eldredge (1975). suggests grass-seeding of landings., road cut and f i l l s l o p e s , and f i r e - g u a r d s as a means to reduce strong colour co n t r a s t of d i s t u r b e d pale ground. Where t h i s was done i n the study r e g i o n the small areas i n v o l v e d (mainly landings) created an i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from a n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n . No a r t i f i c i a l r egeneration was c a r r i e d out on the Impacts recorded. Eyre (1965), Rudolf (1967), and Eldredge . (1975) propose t r e e p l a n t i n g .as. a; f a s t means, of ^ s c reening roads^ arid cut or burnt areas. The time taken f o r 'green^up' varies,/ from 3-7 years, or longer i f n a t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n i s u n s u c c e s s f u l too, before canopy c l o s e s and ground exposure i s ended. The colour of young c o n i f e r s may a l s o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y p a l e r than surrounding canopy, r e t a i n i n g a subordinate e f f e c t . Large s c a l e p l a n t i n g may create dominant negative e f f e c t s w i t h r e g u l a r i t y of l i n e s p lanted perpendicular to the road ( S a l t e r , 1972), or where t e r r a c i n g f o r machine p l a n t i n g produces a j a r r i n g 'stadium' e f f e c t f o r at l e a s t 5 years (as i n - t h e ; B i t t e r r o p t N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1970). The. ef f ecto.ofoirregul'ar •planting" on n a t u r a l slopes can be p r e d i c t e d , •though the time taken to achieve the e f f e c t may not. 2.215 DiscuaSibii of Hypothesis 1. In g e n e r a l , each p r a c t i c e recorded i n the study region has an i d e n t i f i a b l e e f f e c t w i t h i n a c e r t a i n f o r e s t landscape type, (where i d e n t i f i a b l e e f f e c t i n c l u d e s the category of i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t ) . However, i n s e v e r a l cases, one p r a c t i c e i n one FLT had more than one e f f e c t i d e n t i f i a b l e . This can be a t t r i b u t e d to two f a c t o r s : - 86 -a) imprecise d e f i n i t i o n of the FLTs - most notably, i t was found that w i t h p r a c t i c e s i n v o l v i n g ground disturbance on a h o r i z o n t a l plane, e.g. surfaces of roads, t r a i l s , and land i n g s , observer p o s i t i o n was of paramount importance. With p r a c t i c e s i n v o l v i n g high v e r t i c a l planes, e.g. cut-banks or narrow c l e a r i n g s , viewing angle needs to be s p e c i f i e d . For some p r a c t i c e s i n some FLTs, the ground c o l o u r ' i s : of r s i g h i f i c a h c e - i ' w h i l e the n a t u r a l - o r i e n t a t i o n 'in-the landscape i s not. For othe r s , the reverse i s true . Thus, the degree to which the FLT must be s p e c i f i e d v a r i e s w i t h the p r a c t i c e . T h i s , then, i s a c r i t i c i s m of the method of t e s t i n g , which does not i n v a l i d a t e the Hypothesis i t s e l f . Given the f o r e s t landscape type, adequately d e f i n e d , the e f f e c t of the p r a c t i c e may be p r e d i c t e d . b) arbitrary„def i n i t i o n ^ o f the. p r a c t i c e s t-: i n several, i n s t a n c e s , . though the v i s u a l e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e could be i d e n t i f i e d , explained and p r e d i c t e d w i t h i n a FLT, t h i s was p o s s i b l e only by assuming c e r t a i n other p r a c t i c e s occurred simultaneously. With p r a c t i c e s defined as they have been, t h i s would r e j e c t the hypothesis that v a r i a t i o n i n FLT i s s u f f i c i e n t to p r e d i c t v i s u a l e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e ; however, the somewhat a r b i t r a r y nature of the d e f i n i t i o n s and the attempt to d i v i d e a major p r a c t i c e such as c l e a r c u t t i n g i n t o p a r t s that each a f f e c t one v i s u a l c r i t e r i o n , make i t more p l a u s i b l e that the p r a c t i c e s as defined are not v i a b l e as p r e d i c t a b l e u n i t s . Thus, f o r some practicescC.g. l i n e a r c l e a r i n g , Hypothesis- 1 i s c o r r e c t ; only i f the p r a c t i c e s are red e f i n e d as combinations of the o r i g i n a l l y - d efined p r a c t i c e s . On the other hand, the f a c t that i n some f o r e s t landscape types, each p r a c t i c e does have an independent ?;visual e f f e c t , suggests the - 87 -o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s are workable. The c o r o l l a r y to Hypothesis 1, that the e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e v a r i e s w i t h f o r e s t landscape type, i s borne out by the f a c t that v i r t u a l l y none of the p r a c t i c e s had the same e f f e c t i n a l l FLTs i n which they occurred. L i m i t a t i o n s on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s must be noted. The e f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e s unrecorded i n the study r e g i o n can be surmised, and t h e i r v a r i a t i o n w i t h f o r e s t landscape type i n d i c a t e d , but had more impacts w i t h i n a FLT been recorded, i t i s p o s s i b l e that v a r i a t i o n i n the e f f e c t of a recorded p r a c t i c e may have increased. The i n c l u s i o n of impacts up to 25 years o l d and of p o s s i b l y s u b j e c t i v e intra-canopy assessment of p r a c t i c e s such as s c a l e of c u t t i n g , makes evidence r e l a t e d to these suspect, though the former case may account f o r some of the v a r i a t i o n i n . e f f e c t w i t h i n FLTs. Furthermore, although i t was attempted to record v i s u a l impacts i n good v i s i b i l i t y and s i d e - l i g h t i n g , i t was not p o s s i b l e 'always., to record, impacts in- tsj;milar ephemeral viewing c o n d i t i o n s and hence, assessment of co l o u r and l i n e elements p a r t i c u l a r l y may have v a r i e d s l i g h t l y . L a s t l y , the e f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e s seen i n winter-time were not assessed, and so maximum e f f e c t of c l e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s e s p e c i a l l y went unrecorded. Many of these are, however, p r e d i c t a b l e assuming higher colour c o n t r a s t , and i n many cases the p r a c t i c e s create dominant e f f e c t i n summer anyway. I n some p r a c t i c e s w i t h i n e v i d e n t or subordinate e f f e c t s i n summer, such as p a r t i a l c u t t i n g , the e f f e c t w i t h snow-lie cannot e a s i l y be p r e d i c t e d , and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the e f f e c t from f i e l d r ecording i s necessary f i r s t . - 88 -2.3 ANALYSIS OF VISUAL EFFECTS OF COMBINED PRACTICES 2.3.1 Method of A n a l y s i s The procedure f o r t e s t i n g the second hypothesis, that v i s u a l impact magnitude can be p r e d i c t e d from the combination of i t s v i s u a l e f f e c t s , i s simply to compare these combinations i n each impact w i t h the impact magnitude as assessed on the VIA Form at the s i t e , i n terms of the VMS standards. I f a simple r e l a t i o n s h i p o b t a i n s , the more dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t s , the higher i s the impact magnitude, si n c e the l a t t e r i s defined as the t o t a l d e v i a t i o n from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l a n d -scape and the former represent s p e c i f i c d e v i a t i o n s . I f the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not simple, i . e . e f f e c t s are not a d d i t i v e , the e x p l a n a t i o n could l i e i n some e f f e c t s i n t e r a c t i n g p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y . I f t h i s occurs, i t i s necessary to analyse s p e c i f i c combina-t i o n s of p r a c t i c e s . In s e c t i o n 2.2, i t was noted t h a t , w i t h some p r a c t i c e s , i t i s impossible to d i s t i n g u i s h i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t s , so these combinations are worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s i n c e they imply a c a n c e l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between p r a c t i c e s . 2.3.2 R e s u l t s of A n a l y s i s The r e l a t i o n s h i p between v i s u a l q u a l i t y standard and number of p r a c t i c e s w i t h most negative v i s u a l e f f e c t s , ( t o t a l l e d from columns i n Table 4 ) , i s presented s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n Figure 29'. For example, impacts assessed as meeting M o d i f i c a t i o n standard ranged from having a minimum of 7 subordinate e f f e c t s (no dominant e f f e c t s ) to having a maximum of 3 dominant e f f e c t s . Although the general r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c l e a r , i t can be seen th a t overlap occurs e s p e c i a l l y between M o d i f i c a t i o n , Maximum M o d i f i c -a t i o n , and Unacceptable M o d i f i c a t i o n . F i gure 30.1 shows an impact which c l e a r l y f a l l s i n t o a P a r t i a l R e t ention category and has 3 subordinate e f f e c t s , w h i l e the impact i n F i gure 30.2 meeting Maximum M o d i f i c a t i o n , has - 89 -Figure 29. Diagram of Relationship between Visual E f f e c t s and Impact Magnitude. Number of Most Negative Visual Effects per Impact Visual Impact Magnit-ude (U.S.F.S. quality standards). Inevident Subordinate Dominant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.. 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8... RETENTION (R) * — IV< PARTIAL RETENTION (PR) MODIFICATION (M) MAXIMUM MODIFICATION H . (MM) UNACCEPTABLE MODIFICAT-ION (UM) 1 j. - 90 -Figure 30. Comparison of Visual Effects in Visual Impact Nos.2 (Steamboat  Mountain) and 5 (Near Brisco). 30.1 Subordinate effects of small scale, midslope road inside clearcut, and road outside clearcut. 30.2 Dominant effects of large scale, colour contrast with scattered residuals, and midslope road in clearcut. - 91 -3 dominant e f f e c t s and could thus f a l l i n t o any of 3 q u a l i t y standards under Figure 29. So f a r , i t has been assumed t h a t a l l dominant e f f e c t s are of e q u a l . s i g n i f i c a n c e . Evidence that c e r t a i n dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t s are of primary dominance i n c o n t r i b u t i n g to impact magnitude can be construed from the frequency w i t h which these e f f e c t s , where they occur, are mentioned s p e c i f i c a l l y and f i r s t i n the VIA Forms, and a l s o , more c o n v i n c i n g l y , from the order i n which dominant e f f e c t s fade from view as the view becomes unfocused. The e f f e c t s which stand out as most n o t i c e a b l e landscape d e v i a t i o n s w i t h i n impacts comprise: i ) dominant e f f e c t s of s c a l e j - o r i e n t a t i o n , and 'shape, of-.clearcuts:-in . extra-canopy viewing. ( p r a c t i c e s .1-6) ' i i ) dominant e f f e c t s of pale coloured road switchbacks and h i g h cut and f i l l slopes seen w i t h high viewing angle ( p r a c t i c e s 31 and 32). i i i ) dominant e f f e c t s of low road cut and f i l l s l o p e s , f i r e g u a r d s and high s k i d - t r a i l cut-banks and switchbacks, w i t h pale ground c o l o u r , seen w i t h high viewing angle i n middleground ( p r a c t i c e s 33, 37, 38, and 61). I t can be seen that these e f f e c t s introduce the maximal v i s u a l c o n t r a s t , colour c o n t r a s t r e i n f o r c i n g a strong element of form or l i n e . They correspond c l o s e l y w i t h the "dominant d e v i a t i o n s " i n logging impacts, l i s t e d by Eldredge (1975) as r e q u i r i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n the Wynoochee Recrea t i o n Area, repeated i n Table 5. I f the numerical r e l a t i o n s h i p , as i n F i g u r e 29, i s to be used, a weighting of these p r a c t i c e s would be necessary. A s s i g n i n g an a r b i t r a r y value of 2 ' to each of the p r a c t i c e s o c c u r r i n g i n the c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d above does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the progression as shown i n F i g u r e 31, but the degree of overlap of the MM standard w i t h the M o d i f i c a t i o n standard i s reduced, w h i l e the range of b l e 5<. MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVE (Reproduced from Eldredge, 1975) Dominate Deviations o f : 1. Form: Cutting pattern shapes are unnatural Lack of visual linkage among cutting patterns or with landscape features — Scale of cutting units viewed from short distances Shape of landings and side casting of bench cut material 2. Lines Sharp edge contrasts Road cut and f i l l slopes Ridge top tree boles — Shore line of lake 3 . Color: — , Contrast between cut and uncut areas Contrast between exposed s o i l and vegetation Contrast between exposed s o i l and lake - 93 -Figure 31. Diagram of Relationship between Visual Effects and  Impact Magnitude with and without Weightings for  Primary Dominance. Number of Most Negative Visual Effects per Impact Visual Impact Magnit-ude (U.S.F.S. quality standards). Inevident Subordinate Dominant 12,3 4 5 6 7 8.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8... RETENTION (R) 1 i n i t i a l PARTIAL RETENTION (PR) . | weighted MODIFICATION (M) | \ \ | i n i t i a l t 1' W1 1 1 weighted MAXIMUM MODIFICATION H—1 i n i t i a l (MM) 1 tweighted UNACCEPTABLE MODIFICAT- i n i t i a l 1 ION (UM) - 94 -both MM and UM standards i s increased. In gene r a l , and without s p e c i f y i n g l i m i t s a r b i t r a r i l y , i t appears p o s s i b l e to say that w i t h i n a given f o r e s t landscape type, combinations i n c l u d i n g p r a c t i c e s w i t h i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s only are l i k e l y to achieve a Retention standard, w i t h some subordinate e f f e c t s a P a r t i a l Retention standard, with'one or two dominant e f f e c t s a M o d i f i c a t i o n standard, w i t h a few dominant e f f e c t s a Maximum M o d i f i c a -t i o n standard, and w i t h more an Unacceptable M o d i f i c a t i o n Standard.. However, appearances can be deceptive.' The general r e l a t i o n s h i p holds only where v i s u a l e f f e c t s are independent. With p r a c t i c e s having i n t e r a c t i n g e f f e c t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e that those w i t h a negative e f f e c t i n i s o l a t i o n can be c a n c e l l e d out by others w i t h lower e f f e c t , and so y i e l d a lower impact magnitude than might be expected from the general r e l a t i o n s h i p . The common f a c t o r i n cases of i n t e r a c t i n g e f f e c t s i s v e g e t a t i v e screening. Circumspection of s e c t i o n 2.2.4 r e v e a l s that the c a n c e l l i n g e f f e c t of screening occurs only i n c e r t a i n FLTs, and not i n o t h e r s , so that two p r a c t i c e s may "int e r a c t i n one landscape and not i n another. The f o l l o w i n g instances of a combined e f f e c t from two or more p r a c t i c e s may be i d e n t i f i e d , f a l l i n g i n t o two major s i t u a t i o n s : 1) SCREENING WITHIN CUT-BLOCKS In FLTs w i t h steep slopes or high viewing angle, the e f f e c t s of mid-slope roads, road switchbacks and cut and f i l l s l o p e s , s k i d - t r a i l cut-banks and switchbacks, and lan d i n g s , can be c a n c e l l e d by the sub-o r d i n a t e or i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s of grouped r e s i d u a l t r e e s or the dominant to i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s of b u f f e r s t r i p s and seed-blocks. The combined e f f e c t can be p r e d i c t e d knowing the d e t a i l s of form of the screening - 95 -timber and the completeness of the screening, which can be c a l c u l a t e d from.extent of the leave timber and viewing angle. In FLTs w i t h background viewing or low viewing angle, dominant or subordinate e f f e c t s of low cut and f i l l s l o pes, s k i d - t r a i l s , and landings w i t h low cut-banks can be moderated to subordinate or i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s r e s p e c t i v e l y by l e a v i n g s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s , even though the dominant e f f e c t of ground exposure and/or high road-cuts may remain (Impact 17). In FLTs w i t h low viewing angle, oblique viewing or intra-canopy v i e w i n g , dominant and subordinate e f f e c t s of the s c a l e and o r i e n t a t i o n of c u t t i n g and of grass seeding can be c a n c e l l e d or moderated by the in e v i d e n t e f f e c t of grouped r e s i d u a l s or other leave-timber screening out ground exposure. Again, the combined e f f e c t can be p r e d i c t e d knowing the extent of the c a n c e l l i n g p r a c t i c e . In FLTs w i t h steep slopes or high viewing angle, the dominant or subordinate e f f e c t of l a r g e s c a l e or poor o r i e n t a t i o n can be moderated to subordinate or i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t by l e a v i n g groups of t r e e s , i f the s c a l e and o r i e n t a t i o n of these i s approximately s p e c i f i e d . 2) SCREENING OUTSIDE CUT-BLOCKS The p r a c t i c e s defined f o r l i n e a r c u t t i n g have been noted as i n t e r a c t i n g . In extra-canopy FLTs w i t h high viewing angle, the subordinate to dominant e f f e c t of uniform w i d t h (due to ground exposure) i s c a n c e l l e d by alignment across the l i n e of s i g h t and narrow width; w i t h lower viewing angle, the e f f e c t of the same p r a c t i c e and of broad width i s c a n c e l l e d by a transverse alignment, the stem exposure r e s u l t i n g i n an in e v i d e n t combined e f f e c t . I n a d d i t i o n , any dominant e f f e c t s of road - 96 -surface or cut and f i l l are c a n c e l l e d too. I r r e g u l a r c l e a r i n g width may moderate negative e f f e c t s of ground exposure i n broad transverse . c l e a r i n g s i n low viewing angle FLTs and i n narrow transverse c l e a r i n g s a t higher viewing angles. With c l e a r i n g alignment' c l o s e to the d i r e c t i o n of l i n e of s i g h t , narrow width may ca n c e l the dominant ground exposure e f f e c t . A l l these combined e f f e c t s can be p r e d i c t e d by techniques used i n Figures 17-20, as long as the i n f l u e n c e of a l l i n t e r a c t i n g p r a c t i c e s i s known. A l l examples above are of an a s s e r t i v e nature, where the e f f e c t of one p r a c t i c e negates that of another. One instance of mutual c a n c e l l a -t i o n can be c i t e d : i n intra-canopy FLTs, s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s and s t r a i g h t -edged c l e a r c u t , both producing dominant e f f e c t s i n d i v i d u a l l y , combine to cr e a t e a subordinate e f f e c t , (as i n Figure 15 , a r a r e example of two b l a c k s making a white) where the harsh l i n e s of t r e e s i l h o u e t t e s and f o r e s t edge are d i s s i p a t e d . 2.3.3 D i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis 2 Proof of the second Hypothesis r e s t s upon the r e l i a b i l i t y and independence of the impact magnitude assessed i n the f i e l d and the cumulative v i s u a l e f f e c t s analysed from impact r e c o r d i n g data. The success w i t h which the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e has used the VMS standards may be used to support the r e l i a b i l i t y of the f i r s t ; the a n a l y s i s of each p r a c t i c e one at a time by the method shown i n Figure 10 and the use of other data ( i n c l u d i n g a e r i a l photographs f o r comparison of a l t e r a t i o n s caused and a l t e r a t i o n s seen), should ensure the independence of the second. Given the l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t e d i n 2.2.5 which apply here too, no evidence was found to suggest that v i s u a l impact magnitude ( i n standard c o n d i t i o n s ) v a r i e d w i t h anything besides f o r e s t " landscape type and the combination of p r a c t i c e s used. In each f o r e s t landscape type, the impact magnitude i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the combination of p r a c t i c e s . - 9 7 -The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p r e d i c t a b l e assumes that the number of most negative e f f e c t s i s the s o l e c r i t e r i o n of impact magnitude; no attempt i s made to r a t e an a c t i v i t y of 10 sub-or d i n a t e e f f e c t s against one w i t h 1 dominant and s e v e r a l i n e v i d e n t e f f e c t s , f o r example. By d e f i n i t i o n , however, impact magnitudes r e f l e c t the most negative e f f e c t s and not i n e v i d e n t ones. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n assumes that d i f f e r e n c e s between dominant and subordinate e f f e c t s are d i s t i n c t . . . The d e f i n i t i o n s of p r a c t i c e s may a l s o permit some double-counting of e f f e c t s , e.g. where mid-slope roads and high cut-banks are both c r e d i t e d w i t h dominant e f f e c t . 2.4 IMPLICATIONS OF ANALYSES . The main i m p l i c a t i o n to be drawn from the f i n d i n g s on Hypothesis 1 i s that s p e c i f y i n g a c e r t a i n p r a c t i c e without i n c l u d i n g the d e t a i l of i t s execution i s i n some cases t o t a l l y inadequate to p r e d i c t i t s v i s u a l e f f e c t . Given d e t a i l of v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n p r a c t i c e s , i n most cases, the v i s u a l impact magnitude can be p r e d i c t e d q u i t e r e l i a b l y from the number of p r a c t i c e s independently c r e a t i n g the most negative e f f e c t s (with a weighting f a c t o r f o r primary dominance). In the l i m i t e d s i t u a t i o n s i n which p r a c t i c e s i n t e r a c t to produce a combined e f f e c t , the v i s u a l impact magnitude must be p r e d i c t e d from the number of most negative e f f e c t s , created by independent p r a c t i c e s and by combinations of p r a c t i c e s . Therefore, i n theory, a f o r e s t manager can p r e d i c t the v i s u a l impact of a proposed a c t i v i t y shown i n a p l a n , by the f o l l o w i n g steps: i ) i d e n t i f y FLT. i i ) check p r a c t i c e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n v i s u a l e f f e c t s i n that FLT. i i i ) i f no i n t e r a c t i o n , count the number of p r a c t i c e s w i t h most negative - 98 -e f f e c t s , e.g. p r a c t i c e a) dominant, p r a c t i c e b) subordinate, p r a c t i c e c) dominant, p r a c t i c e d) i n e v i d e n t , gives 2 dominant e f f e c t s and an approximate M o d i f i c a t i o n magnitude, i v ) i f there i s i n t e r a c t i o n , e.g. between'(a), ( c ) , and (d) y i e l d i n g a combined e f f e c t that i s subordinate, the number of most negative e f f e c t s i s 2 subordinate, ( i . e . 1 combined e f f e c t , 1 independent) g i v i n g an approximate P a r t i a l Retention magnitude. A l l the manager would need i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the f o r e s t landscape types w i t h i n h i s region and a chart along the l i n e s of Table 4, l i s t i n g the normal i n d i v i d u a l and combined v i s u a l e f f e c t s of each p r a c t i c e i n d i f f e r e n t FLTs. However, such a chart would be tedious both to c o n s t r u c t and to use, s i n c e to be at a l l r e l i a b l e the d e t a i l needed to s p e c i f y FLTs and p r a c t i c e s would be con s i d e r a b l e and a l s o v a r i a b l e between p r a c t i c e s . Instead, i t seems more e f f i c i e n t to group approximate p r a c t i c e s under broad FLTs and then r e f e r to more s p e c i f i c FLTs as necessary f o r those p r a c t i c e s i n f l u e n c e d by them. This approach i s used i n a manual format f o r the B.C. Forest Service,' (Sheppard, 1976). A planner can thus not only assess proposed p r a c t i c e s , but a l s o s e l e c t management p r a c t i c e s w i t h lower v i s u a l e f f e c t s or w i t h a c a n c e l l i n g v i s u a l e f f e c t , i n order to reduce v i s u a l impact magnitude. The v a l u e of the weighting system f o r primary dominance l i e s a l s o i n i t s emphasis on those v i s u a l e f f e c t s which need most m o d i f i c a t i o n . P r a c t i c e s should be d i r e c t e d to reducing dominant v i s u a l e f f e c t s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r , perceived s c a l e , shape and o r i e n t a t i o n of openings should correspond z c l o s e l y to the same v i s u a l elements of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, and hig h l i n e a r c o n t r a s t should be avoided; To achieve t h i s , i . e . to ca n c e l or avoid the dominant e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e , i t i s ' n o t always necessary - 99 -to screen or s u b s t i t u t e the p r a c t i c e throughout the impact s i t e ; m o d i f i -c a t i o n of p r a c t i c e s i n c r i t i c a l p a r t s of the s i t e may be enough to reduce the e f f e c t s to subordinate, which f o r many s i t u a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia would be a s i g n i f i c a n t advance. On a broader s c a l e , i t should be recognised that p r a c t i c e s used as design t o o l s are e f f e c t i v e only i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . There i s no p o i n t , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n t a k i n g t r o u b l e to p l a n a c l e a r c u t to emulate n a t u r a l p a t t e r n s i f the viewing c o n d i t i o n s are such t h a t the impact would look much the same whatever i t s shape, e.g. i n c l e a r c u t s w i t h stem exposure. Amongst the d e s i r a b l e p r a c t i c e s which produce i n e v i d e n t or c a n c e l l i n g v i s u a l e f f e c t s are some th a t a r i s e by accident or do not occur i n conventional l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s . Where the e f f e c t s of these are to be d e l i b e r a t e l y sought, the means of ac h i e v i n g them may not be obvious; the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n suggests ways of usin g some of these design t o o l s , based upon the f i n d i n g s i n s e c t i o n 2.2. 2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ON USE OF SELECTED DESIGN TOOLS 2.5.1 Scale of C u t t i n g In steep FLTs, i f the only d e f i n i t e n a t u r a l openings are rock b l u f f s w i t h a v i s i b l e surface area (not n e c e s s a r i l y the area shown i n pla n on maps or a e r i a l photographs) of 5 acres (2 ha), a c l e a r c u t , at s i m i l a r viewing d i s t a n c e , of more than perhaps 3 or 4 times t h i s acreage would be out of s c a l e regardless of i t s o r i e n t a t i o n (Figure 32). I f the n a t u r a l openings or patterns have no v e r t i c a l rock f a c e s , e.g. burns, meadows, deciduous canopy,'then c l e a r c u t s of more than 3 or 4 times t h e i r acreage in'^plan might create a negative e f f e c t by s c a l e alone. This i s not to say that the negative e f f e c t of s c a l e outweighs that of poor - 100 -32. R e l a t i v e Scale of Openings. 32.1 IN PLAN Rock bluffs (2 ac. in plan) (0.8 ha) Cut-block (20 ac.) (8 ha) Rock bluffs (5 ac. i n s u r f a c e area) (2 ha) 32.2 OBSERVER's VIEW - 101 -o r i e n t a t i o n and that there i s no p o i n t o r i e n t i n g a c l e a r c u t that i s out of s c a l e w i t h n a t u r a l p a t t e r n s . I t i s conceivable too that c l e a r c u t s may be under-sized i n r e l a t i o n to comparable v a r i a t i o n s i n colour and t e x t u r e of n a t u r a l p a t t e r n s where these are l a r g e i n s c a l e or continuous. 2.5.2 Clearcut O r i e n t a t i o n and Edge C o n f i g u r a t i o n In steep landscapes, i r r e g u l a r ' n a t u r a l ' boundaries are not  adequate i n themselves, and need to be o r i e n t e d , v e r t i c a l l y or d i a g o n a l l y w i t h g u l l i e s and avalanche chutes, or h o r i z o n t a l l y w i t h c l i f f s and out-crops. Where s t r a i g h t edges do not occur i n the n a t u r a l landscape, c u t t i n g boundaries should be indented at a s c a l e that i s not dwarfed by t o t a l c l e a r c u t s c a l e ( i . e . about 1/10 c l e a r c u t width or more, see Figure 33), unless n a t u r a l edge in d e n t a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r . - In FLTs w i t h low viewing angle, p a r t i a l i n d e n t i n g of c l e a r c u t edge can reduce the harsh l i n e a r e f f e c t of long s t r a i g h t i s h s e c t i o n s of edge a l i g n e d towards the observer. Indenting edges across the l i n e of s i g h t i s u n l i k e l y to have much e f f e c t due to p e r s p e c t i v e f o r e s h o r t e n i n g ; (where viewing angles are so low as to screen a l l c l e a r e d ground, i n d e n t i n g anywhere has l i t t l e v a l u e ) . Figure 34 shows the p r a c t i c e a p p l i e d to the r e g u l a r c l e a r c u t s i t u a t i o n , but i t a p p l i e s a l s o to any edge(s) so a l i g n e d . The i n d e n t a t i o n s need to be at l e a s t 1/10 c l e a r i n g width deep (1 ch minimum, 20 m), as a r u l e of thumb. 2.5.3 O r i e n t a t i o n of PatchSGutt-Lng Small s i z e i s not adequate i n i t s e l f as a v i s u a l c r i t e r i o n . Patches can o f t e n be o r i e n t e d more e a s i l y than l a r g e c l e a r c u t s , since many landscapes l a c k i n g l a r g e n a t u r a l patterns have small openings to which patch-cuts can be r e l a t e d . In h o r i z o n t a l l y - o r i e n t e d or g e n t l y -s l o p i n g FLTs, o r i e n t a t i o n of patch-cuts across the l i n e of s i g h t or along -102 Figure .33. Indenting Clearcut Edge. 33.1 NORMAL CLEARCUT ;3S2 LARGE INDENTATIONS AO ch. wide (800m) Indentations 5 ch. deep Negative effect , 10 ch. wide (100x200m) Neutralised effect '34.3 UNMODIFIED VIEW '34.4 MODIFIED VIEW - 103 -the contours reduces the apparent s c a l e of c l e a r i n g and may even screen out a l l views of c l e a r e d ground (Figure 35) at lower viewing angles, w h i l e conforming to topographic form. 2.5.4 Edge D i f f u s i o n S e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g beyond c l e a r c u t edge, progressing from heavy to l i g h t outward from the c l e a r c u t boundary, d i f f u s e s the abrupt edge (Figure 36). The depth of c u t t i n g beyond the boundary should be i r r e g u l a r , v a r y i n g from aaminimum of 1 ch (20 m) or 1/10 the c l e a r c u t width (whichever i s l a r g e r ) to as wide as p o s s i b l e , i n sympathy w i t h n a t u r a l form. This p r a c t i c e i s most e f f e c t i v e where edges are n a t u r a l l y d i f f u s e ; i t w i l l not n e u t r a l i z e the e f f e c t of l a r g e r geometric or unoriented c l e a r c u t s . 2.5.5 Edge S i l h o u e t t e s S e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g on c r i t e r i a of tree h e i g h t , not d e n s i t y , can reduce the e f f e c t of a notch or s i n g l e c l e a r c u t edge running over a r i d g e - l i n e and a l i g n e d towards the observer; i t can a l s o s o f t e n the abrupt edge of stem exposure a l l along a c l e a r c u t edge. Tree height should increase g r a d u a l l y t:o»vtwar.dr(from-.ithel.:cl-ear;ingifedg^ i(<£i:gur;e"'37) over a distance at l e a s t as great as tree height and p r e f e r a b l y more. On steep sl o p e s , s e l e c t i o n logging f o r t h i s and other v i s u a l purposes could be achieved by the M i n i - A l p system. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , edges can be a l i g n e d d i a g o n a l l y across the r i d g e to provide a smoother o u t l i n e (Figure 38). 2.5.6 Leaving Seed-blocks and Grouped Residuals Seed-blocks can be used to screen negative v i s u a l e f f e c t s , break up c l e a r c u t s c a l e and provide o r i e n t a t i o n to c l e a r c u t form. They w i l l not achieve t h i s i f l e f t as re g u l a r l y - s p a c e d c i r c u l a r patches covering an - 104 --105 -Figure 36".'. Selection Cutting Beyond Clearcut Edge. 36•1 VIEW OF CLEARCUT 36,2 VIEW OF MODIFIED CLEARCUT Open 36.3 EDGE IN PLAN Figure .37. f e a t h e r i n g ' Edge S i l h o u e t t e . A A A A / V ] Abrupt 'Feathered' distance edge . greater than tree height l o o ° o ^ o Open \0 o Small trees ° O i o ° O Oo O o \ ° o O oQ ° q/o Q <s 'O Med ium/sma11 trees A l l sizes 37.1 OBSERVER'S VIEW .37.2 IN PLAN - 106 -i n s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the c l e a r c u t . I f placed j u s t downslope from road s c a r s , l a n d i n g s , etc (commencing a t r e e - l e n g t h d o w n h i l l from scar) they can conceal the dominant negative e f f e c t s from most OPs (see Figure 39); i f there i s more than one seed-block per c l e a r c u t , they should d i f f e r i n shape and s i z e , though i n a l l cases repeat the o r i e n t a -t i o n found i n landscape p a t t e r n . Such blo c k s need not be more than a few t r e e s deep to e f f e c t screening, though they may need to be wider to provide o r i e n t a t i o n i n c l e a r c u t form. With low viewing angles, such blocks may screen most of the c l e a r i n g , w i t h minimal acreage i f long, narrow blocks are o r i e n t e d across the l i n e of s i g h t , screening negative e f f e c t s considerable d i s t a n c e s away, e.g. 4 ch (80 m) w i t h 25% slope and normal OP, more w i t h f l a t t e r s i t e s or lower OPs. Grouped r e s i d u a l s can be used i n the same ways, but are more s u i t a b l e f o r landscapes w i t h n a t u r a l l y d i f f u s e edges to p a t t e r n s . 2.5.7 L i n e a r C l e a r i n g s With l i n e a r c l e a r i n g s wide enough to expose ground to viewing, vary c l e a r i n g width as much as p o s s i b l e , w i t h i n d e n t a t i o n s o r i e n t e d to n a t u r a l form and patterns and at l e a s t as deep as i n i t i a l c l e a r i n g w i d t h , reduce l i n e a r e f f e c t , (Figure 40). Where c l e a r i n g s expose only a narrow s t r i p of ground, e.g. 2 ch (40 m) wide c l e a r i n g s w i t h viewing angle under 25°, reduce width i f not continuously then at l e a s t at i r r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s to break the l i n e a r e f f e c t and create a s e r i e s of o r i e n t e d narrow openings. 2.5.8 Midslope Roads Insi d e c l e a r c u t s and i n right-of-ways exposing ground, the road scar can be lessened by reducing road width and modifying h o r i z o n t a l alignment, f i t t i n g the road as c l o s e to the contour as p o s s i b l e w i t h - 107 F i g u r e r.1 Raring Edges on the S k y l i n e . mrffifu 39.1 EDGES ALIGNED TOWARD OBSERVER• 38'. 2 EDGES SLANTED OVER SKYLINE F i g u r e 39. Screening by Seedbloc Scar screened from these OPs Seedblock 40.1 UNMODIFIED 40.2 MODIFIED - 108 -t r a n s i t i o n curves. V i s u a l l y dominant rock-cuts can be sprayed w i t h coloured asphalt emulsion to reduce colour c o n t r a s t u n t i l the rock weathers (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). 2.5.9 Main S k i d T r a i l s Where s k i d t r a i l s converge to f o l l o w a s i n g l e main t r a i l through standing t r e e s , the t r a i l i s screened from view and al l o w s greater f l e x i b i l i t y i n c l e a r c u t edge conformation, making p o s s i b l e e x t r a c t i o n from corners and deep i n d e n t a t i o n s cut o f f from s u i t a b l e landings i n the body of the c l e a r c u t , without very long or very steep s k i d t r a i l s (Figure 41). F i g u r e 41. Main T r a i l s i n C l e a r c u t s w i t h I n d e n t a t i o n s . 41.2 ORIENTED CUT-BLOCK - 109 -Chapter I I I INTERACTIONS OF VISUAL AND OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES I f s e l e c t i o n of design t o o l s i s to have a comprehensive b a s i s f o r decision-making, the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e i r use for- other management goals must be evaluated. 3.1 FOREST PROTECTION. 3.1.1 Wind Damage. Alexander (1975) i d e n t i f i e s r i d g e t o p s and steeper slopes as being of higher windthrow r i s k than lower and f l a t t e r s i t e s , which suggests that l o c a t i o n of openings on grounds of v i s u a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y i s compatible w i t h p r o t e c t i o n o b j e c t i v e s i n t h i s case. Gratowski (1956) found that there was no c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n between amount of windthrow and e i t h e r s i z e of c l e a r c u t ( s c a l e ) or l e n g t h of perimeter (which increases w i t h i r r e g u l a r edge c o n f i g u r a t i o n ) ; the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s are topographic l o c a t i o n , s o i l depth and drainage, and t r e e species and c o n d i t i o n , a l l of which form p a t t e r n s on the land surface which may or may not c o i n c i d e w i t h v i s u a l l y d e s i r a b l e p a t t e r n s . However, c r i t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s between landscape design and wind damage are l i k e l y to a r i s e i n c u t t i n g boundary l o c a t i o n only on the edges perpendicular to p r e v a i l i n g wind d i r e c t i o n , on the downwind s i d e of the c l e a r c u t , i . e . the edge most v u l n e r a b l e to windthrow, (Gratowski, 1956); 'V'-shaped or egg-shaped i n d e n t a t i o n s i n t h i s edge are l i k e l y to funnel wind fl o w and can cause considerable damage up to 300' (90 m) i n t o the stand beyond. I s o l a t e d groups of t r e e s , l e s s than 200' (60 m) wide may - no -s u f f e r extensive l o s s e s i f windfirm borders are not s e l e c t e d , due to wind p e n e t r a t i o n (Gratowski, 1956). Stream b u f f e r - s t r i p s are p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to damage because of h i g h water t a b l e s l i m i t i n g root depth. However, unless landscape o r i e n t a t i o n c a l l s f o r long narrow s t r i p s across p r e v a i l i n g wind d i r e c t i o n , grouped r e s i d u a l s and seed-blocks l e f t f o r v i s u a l purposes should be l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e than s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s , although again depending on sp e c i e s , age of t r e e s , and s o i l c o n d i t i o n s , (Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources, 1973). The same authors a l s o contend that t h i n n i n g newly exposed edges reduces s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to windthrow, an a s s e r t i o n which, i f c o r r e c t , provides a u s e f u l argument f o r p r a c t i c e s f e a t h e r i n g edge s i l h o u e t t e or d i f f u s i n g edge d e f i n i t i o n f o r v i s u a l reasons. Heavy s e l e c t i o n cuts which a l l o w moving a i r to penetrate below the canopy are a l s o prone to windthrow where crown and root systems are not wind r e s i s t a n t or well-developed (Troup, 1928). Schmidt et a l (1973) note t h a t " W i n d f a l l i s common a f t e r any ki n d of i n i t i a l p a r t i a l c u t t i n g r i n f s p r u c e -f i r f o r e s t s , and i s f r e q u e n t l y heavy i f the e n t i r e stand i s opened up. However, r e g a r d l e s s of how stands are cut, w i n d f a l l i s greater on some topographic l o c a t i o n s than others". On the other hand, l i g h t s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g and t h i n n i n g which does not al l o w wind p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o the stand and causes l e a s t a l t e r a t i o n to the canopied landscape, should s u s t a i n l i t t l e damage. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , impossible to g e n e r a l i s e on the i n t e r a c t i o n s between these two o b j e c t i v e s . Some p r a c t i c e s used as design t o o l s w i l l reduce r i s k of windthrow, others w i l l i n c r e a s e i t ; n e v e r t h e l e s s , i t must be s a i d that use of design t o o l s w i l l i n e v i t a b l y increase l o s s e s to ?-windthrow i n l i m i t e d s i t u a t i o n s ; S u n l e s s steps are^taken to prevent, t h i s . - Ill -3.1.2 F i r e Hazard V i s u a l management, i n p l a c i n g more r e s t r i c t i o n s on c l e a r c u t t i n g than on other c u t t i n g systems, tends to make the r e d u c t i o n of f i r e hazard a more d i f f i c u l t task. Slash burning i n c l e a r c u t s i s s i m p l e s t , but complicated by markedly i r r e g u l a r boundaries or v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n : because of the tendency f o r f i r e s to run s t r a i g h t u p - h i l l , "cut-blocks placed v e r t i c a l l y on the h i l l s i d e f o r long-distance yarders present more of a f i r e hazard than cut-blocks placed h o r i z o n t a l l y on the s i d e - h i l l f o r s h o r t - d i s t a n c e y arders", (Wellburn, 1975), though the U.S.D.I. Forest Engineering Handbook (undated)* recommends that side-boundaries of s e t t i n g s run at r i g h t - a n g l e s to the contour s i n c e , " f i r e s .... are e a s i e r to c o n t r o l than where the c u t t i n g l i n e angles across the contour". The same source r e l a t e s i n c r e a s i n g c l e a r c u t s c a l e to i n c r e a s i n g s l a s h f i r e i n t e n s i t i e s and c o n t r o l d i f f i c u l t i e s , and advises smaller openings i n h i g h - r i s k areas such as cut-blocks used by the p u b l i c , a l l of which seems to lend support to use of design t o o l s . In s e l e c t i o n f e l l i n g , s l a s h d i s p o s a l presents problems unless logs are skidded as f u l l t r e e s ( i n c r e a s i n g s i t e damage), u t i l i z a t i o n i s very c l o s e , species w i t h lowest s l a s h per volume of timber are c u t , or trees such as lodgepole pine are cut at the o l d immature stage before the s l a s h per u n i t of timber volume r i s e s markedly at m a t u r i t y , (Hlady, 1975). The lower temperatures under canopy due to shading may o f f s e t these problems. In high r i s k areas, deferment of c u t t i n g may c o n s t i t u t e the greatest hazard, i n a l l o w i n g f u e l to accumulate. Conversely, where c l e a r c u t t i n g i s permitted w i t h i n t e n s i v e clean-up f o r v i s u a l purposes hazard i s l e a s t . The use of cable systems increases hazard through f i r e s i n i t i a t e d by l i n e f r i c t i o n (Wellburn, 1975), w i t h the p o s s i b l e exception of the - 112-Wyssen system when the machine i s at the top of the slope. In a d d i t i o n , f i r e s may be harder to f i g h t than on t r a c t o r - l o g g e d areas, due to absence of s k i d - t r a i l s . Where ground s k i d d i n g through main t r a i l s i s done, assuming the timber comprises unmerchantable r e s i d u a l s , more s l a s h has to be t r e a t e d . .3.1.3 Insect and Disease Damage Where timber residues are tr e a t e d to reduce v i s u a l e f f e c t s , e.g. by burning, b u r y i n g , or crushi n g , i n s e c t hazard i s reduced f o r some tree species (Berntsen, 1973). However, the l e a v i n g of snags and mature t r e e s , or the avoidance of broadcast burning due to the v i s u a l e f f e c t of f i r e g u a r d s , may c o n f l i c t w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n o b j e c t i v e . Alexander (1975) notes that i n o l d growth lodgepole pine stands h e a v i l y i n f e s t e d w i t h dwarf m i s t l e t o e (over 70% of trees a f f e c t e d ) , p a r t i a l c u t t i n g i s l i k e l y to i n t e n s i f y the damage, w h i l e w i t h stands s u s c e p t i b l e to or i n f e s t e d by mountain pine b e e t l e , c l e a r c u t t i n g of a l l trees i s adv i s a b l e . S e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g or no c u t t i n g i n the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n invokes the r i s k of an outbreak destro y i n g most of the merchantable stand. In o l d growth I n t e r i o r Douglas f i r , p a r t i a l c u t t i n g may reduce l o s s e s from D o u g l a s - f i r b e e t l e a t t a c k , but be u n s u i t a b l e i n severe western budworm outbreaks (Wellner and Ryker, 1973). I n t e r a c t i o n s between t h i s p r o t e c t i o n o b j e c t i v e and v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s t h e r e f o r e are v a r i a b l e . 3.1.4 Harvesting Damage The question of increased l o g g i n g damage due to. use of design t o o l s ^ c e n t r e s ''on1 the;increased use "of " p a r t i a l ' c u t t i n g . "--Wellburn (1975b) has^Ome'nti-ioned damage s u f f e r e d by young growth i n ha r v e s t i n g t w o - s t o r i e d stands i n the U.S.A. and Cook (1969) r e l a t e s that r u b b e r - t i r e d skidders were p r o h i b i t e d from a timber s a l e i n Green Mountain N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , Vermont, because of the u n s i g h t l y d e s t r u c t i o n caused. - 113 -Brace and Stewart (1973) i n an experimental shelterwood c u t , found that damage from wheeled skidders was l i m i t e d to 20% of r e s i d u a l s w i t h c a r e f u l t r a i n i n g , /.planning, and s u p e r v i s i o n and was judged to have no appreciable e f f e c t on y i e l d and q u a l i t y of sawlogs i n the next 20-30 years. Alexander (1975) o u t l i n e s f e l l i n g and s l a s h d i s p o s a l methods to minimise damage i n p a r t i a l l y - c u t lodgepole pine stands; use of mechanical f e l l e r - b u n c h e r s and w i n t e r - l o g g i n g when t r e e cambial l a y e r s are dormant i n t h i n - b a r k s p e c i e s , can a l s o reduce damage. Where timber i s l e f t w i t h i n a s e t t i n g i n the f i r s t pass as clumps, yarding i n the second pass to re-used landings may damage regener a t i o n , unless main t r a i l s are used i n one or other of the passes, or the leave area i s l a i d out to abut on to the l a n d i n g . 3.2 STAND REGENERATION. Reduction of c l e a r c u t s c a l e , increased edge i n d e n t a t i o n , and r e t e n t i o n of seed-tree groups favour n a t u r a l regeneration: wind can dis p e r s e some seeds, e.g. lodgepole pine from non-serotinous cones, up to 200' (60 m) i n t o an opening (Berntsen, 1973), and i n higher e l e v a t i o n Engelmann spruce-subalpine f i r stands where regeneration i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t , Schmidt et a l (1973) recommend small openings where c l e a r -c u t t i n g i s necessary f o r p r o t e c t i o n purposes. Most timber stands can be regenerated by some means besides c l e a r c u t t i n g . Where s k y l i n e or a e r i a l yarding systems are used, the pa u c i t y of m i n e r a l s o i l exposure (Ruth, 1967; Bockheim et a l , 1975) may make i t necessary to s c a r i f y afterwards, and n a t u r a l - r e g e n e r a t i o n may be slower g e n e r a l l y w i t h such systems. Measures to cle a n up s l a s h i n t e n s i v e l y may expose seedlings to an unfavourably harsh microclimate (Berntsen, 1973) or to increased browsing damage from species such as e l k (Swanson, 1970). -114 -Such e f f e c t s would however, be l i m i t e d i n the area i n v o l v e d i f i n c u r r e d f o r v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s . Stand treatment c a r r i e d out simultaneously w i t h use of p a r t i a l c u t t i n g as a design t o o l may lead to higher y i e l d s , due to removal of c u l l trees-and r e l e a s e of suppressed t r e e s : Bruce and Stewart (1973) p r e d i c t sawlog y i e l d gains of 3,200 fbm'/acre f o r 20 years a f t e r treatment of two-story misted stands i n Ontario. In g e n e r a l , s i l v i c u l t u r a l aims, appear compatible w i t h v i s u a l aims. 3.3 SOIL AND WATER PROTECTION. A dominant i s s u e i n the i n t e r a c t i o n of v i s u a l and s o i l con-s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s i s the choice of logging system. Table -6, reproduced from Bunnell and Eastman (1976), summarizes v a r i o u s f i n d i n g s on the extent of ground disturbance w i t h d i f f e r e n t systems; of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are the f i g u r e s on exposure of m i n e r a l s o i l , which i s that most l i k e l y to cause high colour c o n t r a s t . Higher estimates of s o i l disturbance due to ground s k i d d i n g have been made; speaking of Mt.Hood N a t i o n a l Forest i n Oregon, Ross (197 4) says "Cat and rubber t i r e skidders i n the past have t y p i c a l l y damaged between 15-55% of the t o t a l area i n s i d e timber s a l e s . By damage we mean a 25% increase i n bulk d e n s i t y of s o i l s or r e d u c t i o n of l a r g e pore space to below 15% " Ground s k i d d i n g w i t h the FMC 200 machine i n wet unstable s o i l s produced l e s s than 4% of area damaged, measured i n the same s t u d i e s . However, Wellburn (1975a)obelieyes that conventional s k i d d i n g without b u l l d o z e r s -or over the snow minimises s o i l d isturbance; only bulldozed s k i d - t r a i l s d i s t u r b : s o i l s t a b i l i t y and water q u a l i t y s e v e r e l y , e f f e c t s , which can be minimized by avoiding steep grades and b u i l d i n g narrow t r a i l s , thus reducing v i s u a l e f f e c t s too. I t i s not c e r t a i n that contour lay-outs reduce e r o s i o n g e n e r a l l y , s i n c e deeper cuts and i n - s l o p e d t r a i l s may Table 6. S o i l disturbance and slash accumulations r e s u l t i n g from d i f f e r e n t types of logging i n western North America, (derived from Bockheim et al.,1975). (reproduced from Bunnell and Eastman, 1976.) TYPE OF DISTURBANCE Type of Logging Horse (1) Jammer (1) Tractor (1,2,3,5) High-lead (2,3,4,5) Skyline (4) Helicopter (5) Forest , ., f l o o r Shallow Deep Compacted T o t a l 6 9 31 10 13 13 11 2 2 25 6 12 15 50 32 36 Mineral ^ s o i l exposed 12 15 37 20 Amount of S l a s h 1 17 30 15 14 23 45 as % of an area parentheses enclose source of data: (1) Garrison and Rummell (1951) (2) Wooldridge (1960) (3) Dyrness (1965) (4) Ruth (1967) (5) Bockheim et al. (1975) Number of areas examined f o r horse = 2, jammer = 3, t r a c t o r = 22, high-lead = 19, s k y l i n e = 4, h e l i c o p t e r = 1 - 116 -concentrate f l o w and create wash-outs. With hi g h lead y a r d i n g , increased yarding d i s t a n c e increases s o i l disturbance due to greater number of turns per yarding-road, and to trench-digging by logs at low ground clearance p o i n t s ; d o w n h i l l yarding may move s o i l d o w n h i l l and funnel r u n - o f f (Wellburn, 1975a). Most damage to water q u a l i t y a r i s e s w i t h sedimentation from road c o n s t r u c t i o n . Reduction i n damage i s best achieved by i n c r e a s i n g yarding d i s t a n c e s , c a r e f u l planning of road and s e t t i n g l a y - o u t s to reduce road l e n g t h , and b u i l d i n g narrow, low-speed temporary roads c l c l o s e r to the contour (Hanson, 1974; Wellburn, 1975a), aims thoroughly compatible w i t h v i s u a l management o b j e c t i v e s . S i g n i f i c a n t e r o s i o n and p o s s i b l e sedimentation may occur w i t h increased surface f l o w i n l a r g e c l e a r c u t s but probably a l s o i n v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d ones. Removal of s l a s h may aggravate t h i s s i t u a t i o n , w h i l e s l a s h evenly d i s t r i b u t e d and cut to l i e c l o s e to the ground may a s s i s t i n e r o s i o n c o n t r o l (Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources, 1973). In terms of water y i e l d from snow-melt, Berntsen (1973) c i t e s research by Hoover (1969) suggesting that "a round or patch-shaped opening, about 5 to 8 times t r e e height i n diameter, i s the most e f f e c t i v e f o r trapping snow", making 5-12 ch (100-240m) c l e a r i n g s i d e a l . P a r t i a l cut c o n i f e r o u s stands cause the l e a s t r u n - o f f and sedimentation of a l l c u t t i n g systems due to r e t e n t i o n of canopy, l e a f l i t t e r , and r o o t s (Troup, 1928). Where v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d openings extend to upper s l o p e s , there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y of increased avalanche hazard and attendant l o s s of water q u a l i t y where roads and landings have been constructed i n the path. M a r t i n e l l i (1975) views w i t h concern "any attempt to cut timber i n steep t e r r a i n i n a manner t h a t t l o o k s l i k e an avalanche path". However, s l i d e hazard may not be increased unless logging occurs w i t h i n 100'(30m) or so of p o t e n t i a l s t a r t i n g zones, i . e . d r i f t areas, b l u f f s or changes of s l o p e , r i d g e t o p s , or slopes over 3 5 ° , w i t h 2'.(60cm)+ snow-depth (Schaerer 1975); c u t t i n g that l i n k s w i t h the sides or bottom of an e x i s t i n g chute does not normally increase the hazard or extent of the s l i d e , as long as new s t a r t i n g p o i n t s are not created. 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Considerable work has been done on the e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s on w i l d l i f e ; of p a r t i c u l a r relevance here are the p r a c t i c e s of s c a l e and shape of c u t t i n g and of access c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n f l u e n c i n g the resources needed by w i l d l i f e , e.g. energy, n u t r i e n t s , s h e l t e r , and escape cover (Bunnell and Eastman^ 1976). The l a s t mentioned authors conclude from a review of v a r i o u s s t u d i e s on deer that "openings should not be more than 90 to 100 m. along any a x i s i f deer h a b i t a t i s a s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n " , and Alexander (1975) says s m a l l openings, four to f i v e times t r e e - h e i g h t across, provide the food cover, and edge requirements of w i l d l i f e g e n e r a l l y , at the same time as being v i s u a l l y l e a s t evident. However, T e l f e r (1973) suggests 100 hectares as a maximum s i z e of opening f o r moose h a b i t a t management. Grazing ungulates such as Rocky Mountain e l k v respond more p o s i t i v e l y to c l e a r c u t s than to p a r t i a l cuts (Edigerton, 1972, c i t e d by Bunnell and Eastman, 1976), as long as they provide an i r r e g u l a r ecotone, w h i l e only s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g i s f u l l y compatible w i t h woodland cari b o u populations (Freddy, 1974), h o l e - n e s t i n g b i r d s p e c i e s , and f i s h species v u l n e r a b l e to sedimentation from streamside logging. Thinning without s i g n i f i c a n t canopy removal i s u n l i k e l y to increase forage production f o r browse sp e c i e s . Leave timber i s u s e f u l to w i l d l i f e as escape cover - 118 -beside avalanche chutes (Harmesworth, 1975) or as movement c o r r i d o r s along r i d g e s ( N e i l , 1974), but may be more damagingto f i s h populations than p a r t i a l c u t t i n g i f prone to windthrow along streams. L i v e r e s i d u a l s "provide food ( p r i m a r i l y browse and l i c h e n s ) , s h e l t e r , escape cover and h a b i t a t i o n f o r many species and t h e r e f o r e should be g e n e r a l l y b e n e f i c i a l . " to w i l d l i f e " , (Bunnell and Eastman, 1976). -• S o i l d isturbance due to ground-skidding may cause l o s s of w i l d -l i f e h a b i t a t , (though some disturbance has a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on many species i n i n i t i a t i n g e a r l i e r s e r a i s t a g e s ) , and h i g h cut-banks of roads or t r a i l s can ob s t r u c t ungulate movement. Wide or i r r e g u l a r right-of-way c l e a r i n g may increase forage p r o d u c t i o n ' f o r ungulates and thus lead to increased road k i l l and hunting m o r t a l i t y . Bunnell and Eastman (1976) p r e d i c t that anything but l i g h t s l a s h accumulations would a f f e c t many species a d v e r s e l y , r e s t r i c t i n g m o b i l i t y and a v a i l a b i l i t y of p l a n t growth, though p r o v i d i n g cover f o r small animals and b i r d s . In g e n e r a l , t h e r e f o r e , w i l d l i f e management o b j e c t i v e s appear to be compatible w i t h v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , although s p e c i f i c exceptions e x i s t . F i s h e r y management i s a f f e c t e d b y " f o r e s t r y mostly through sedimentation of streams and t h e r e f o r e the mainly p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h s o i l p r o t e c t i o n apply. 3.5 DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS 3 In most cases where p r a c t i c e s are employed as design t o o l s , the e f f e c t s on the resources of f i s h and w i l d l i f e , s o i l s and hydrology, are not i n c o n f l i c t . Lowering v i s u a l damage to the environment, by reducing s c a l e of c u t t i n g , d e f e r r i n g ' o r reducing canopy removal, and reducing ground disturbance lowers the l e v e l of damage to the b i o p h y s i c a l resources. I t a l s o can be complementary to s i l v i c u l t u r a l aims, although u n t i l i n t e n s i v e management a b i l i t y i s developed, some damage - 119 -by logging p r a c t i c e s to r e s i d u a l trees and by windthrow must be expected. In a d d i t i o n , some problems i n f o r e s t p r o t e c t i o n can be foreseen, such as r e t e n t i o n of o l d mature and/or merchantable timber s u s c e p t i b l e to i n s e c t damage, or c l e a r c u t shape and o r i e n t a t i o n complicating s l a s h burning procedures (although t h i s i s l e s s of a problem i n areas such as t h i s where broadcast burning i s not the r u l e ) . S t r i c t l y speaking, the Hypothesis i s not c o r r e c t , s i n c e exceptions to i t do occur. However, given the l i m i t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n and acreage of s i t e s on which landscaping i s necessary, the t o t a l consequences, both p o s i t i v e and negative, can be expected to be minor. Therefore, i n g e n e r a l , i t can be s a i d that the environmental impact of timber h a r v e s t i n g i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased.by use of p r a c t i c e s to reduce v i s u a l impact magnitude, and i n c e r t a i n cases may be decreased to a s l i g h t extent, though w i t h i n s p e c i f i c s i t e s , instances of c o n f l i c t between v i s u a l and other o b j e c t i v e s may o c c a s i o n a l l y be unavoidable. Nevertheless, i t i s l i k e l y that c o n f l i c t s could be r e s o l v e d once experience i n use of design t o o l s had been gained, e s p e c i a l l y as some of them, £e.;g. windthrow from p a r t i a l c u t t i n g , are bound to occur anyway (and be solved) w i t h more i n t e n s i v e management. 3,6 EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION Concern has been expressed that ever i f h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s could meet v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , they may be constrained by i n f l e x i b i l i t y i n Government a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . For example, i n the study region i n the past, unmerchantable r e s i d u a l s have been ordered cut down and disposed of when the operator would have skidded round them, l e a v i n g them under an o p t i o n clause i n d i a m e t e r - l i m i t s a l e s (Lautrup, 1975). The B.C. Forest Service has tended/to i n s i s t upon c u t t i n g up to the cut-block boundary shown on - 120 -logging p l a n s , which threatens the success of .practices such as s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g at c l e a r c u t edges or running a s t r a i g h t - l i n e boundary on the ground but c u t t i n g along timber-type where the s c a l e of i n d e n t a t i o n i s reasonable; the Forest S e r v i c e f o r c e s the c u t t i n g of such tr e e s l e f t i n s i d e the planned boundary, unless i t i s shown that t h e i r c u t t i n g would be uneconomic or harmful to other resources (Cartwright, 1975) . I n s i s t e n c e upon complete d i s p o s a l of s l a s h may prevent the economic use of design t o o l s covering even small areas, such as main s k i d - t r a i l s through immature r e s i d u a l groups. Implementation of a landscape program would t h e r e f o r e c a l l f o r considerable changes i n Government a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n - c o n t r a c t . Clauses s p e c i f y i n g p r a c t i c e s such as brush-blade p i l i n g of d e b r i s would be r e q u i r e d , and a l s o more involvement i n marking boundaries. Precedents do e x i s t : Cook (1968) has drawn up a number of c o n t r a c t clauses s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r v i s u a l purposes, and the U.S. Forest Service produces a wad of clauses from which r e l e v a n t examples can be s e l e c t e d f o r a given p r o j e c t . The B.C. Forest S e r v i c e has c a r r i e d out t r e e marking f o r seed-trees, streamside timber, and weed trees i n Christmas-tree p l o t s , and d e s p i t e the demands on time and money, could do more on the l i m i t e d areas that comprise v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s , e.g. i n determining edge appearance of c l e a r c u t s . This then i s the one i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h r a m i f i c a t i o n s out of p r o p o r t i o n to the land area i n v o l v e d . Much greater f l e x i b i l i t y i n government approval procedures i s necessary to f a c i l i t a t e v i s u a l impact p l a n n i n g , which represents a new category of c o n s t r a i n t s weighing not so h e a v i l y on the company planner as on the agency a d m i n i s t r a t o r . More time and e f f o r t spent i n s u p e r v i s i n g operations on the ground w i l l be necessary. Even more i m p o r t a n t l y , the range of s k i l l s necessary f o r competence i n - 121 -p l a n n i n g , approval, l a y i n g - o u t , and s u p e r v i s i n g operations i n v i s u a l l y -s e n s i t i v e s i t e s must be extended; these s k i l l s w i l l be necessary to some extent i n the Ranger D i s t r i c t s t a f f and Regional approval s t a f f , besides any s t a f f s p e c i a l i s i n g i n forest-landscape design. I t should be noted that t h i s management i n t e r a c t i o n along w i t h the other i n t e r a c t i o n s , may have to be reassessed whenever the Province s h i f t s to a p o l i c y of v i s u a l impact planning on a wider b a s i s than i n l i m i t e d t o p - p r i o r i t y areas only. 3.7 ECONOMIC HARVESTING I t i s recognised that the increased costs of logging under v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s may not be e a s i l y i s o l a t e d , s i n c e the t o t a l cost may be i n c u r r e d j o i n t l y w i t h other management areas. For s i m p l i c i t y ' s sake, i n f o r m a t i o n on cost comparisons i s reviewed on the assumption that the p r a c t i c e s concerned would not be used were i t not f o r the landscaping o b j e c t i v e . The t h e s i s l i e s beyond the realm of systems a n a l y s i s , and does n o t . t r y t o i s o l a t e c o s t s - o f each p r a c t i c e . A l l that can be done i s to i n d i c a t e the general sources of cost v a r i a t i o n which apply to v i s u a l l y -constrained timber h a r v e s t i n g and whether or not these support Hypothesis 4. Streeby (1970) has attempted to i d e n t i f y the costs of a "scenic management" program. Applying L i t t o n ' s (1968) landscape c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to a highway c o r r i d o r , he mapped the v i s i b l e area i n t o c a t e g o r i e s , to each of which were t i e d v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s on management a c t i v i t i e s ; these ranged from no roads and no--harvesting i n the d i r e c t foreground, through p a r t i a l c u t t i n g and screened roads i n the middleground, to no v i s u a l r e s t r i c t i o n s i n background. The t o t a l area subject to r e s t r i c t i o n s was about 57% of v i s i b l e area though a more u s e f u l f i g u r e would be the percentage of a l l f o r e s t land w i t h i n the 16 m i l e l o n g , 5 m i l e wide - 122 -study area s u b j e c t to r e s t r i c t i o n s , and which from Streeby's map, appears to be roughly 25%. In f a c t , the l a c k of r e s t r i c t i o n s i n back-ground i n most landscapes would be unwise, s i n c e , as noted i n Chapter I I , , e f f e c t s of primary dominance may occur i n background. I t seems more l i k e l y that at l e a s t some r e s t r i c t i o n s should apply to approximately 50% of the t o t a l c o r r i d o r (or over 52,000 a c r e s ) , although t h i s f r a c t i o n w i l l vary widely w i t h landscape type. Streeby does not, however, r e l a t e costs to each category of r e s t r i c t i o n s . Other w r i t e r s have o u t l i n e d costs which could be i n c o r p o r a t e d , but what are u r g e n t l y needed are the cost v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n a logging s i t e , s i n c e p r i o r i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia are l i k e l y to be proposed cut-blocks on a s p e c i f i c h i l l - s i d e or watershed, not to whole t r a c t s of land. Streeby does, however, suggest a general breakdown of the costs of v i s u a l impact r e d u c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the value of timber foregone, increased h a r v e s t i n g costs due to r e s t r i c t i o n s on logging methods, e x t r a costs of l o c a t i n g developments i n more c o s t l y p l a c e s , and increased a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and managerial costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the landscaping program. This i m p l i e s that there w i l l be, i n comparison w i t h conventional h a r v e s t i n g , a reduced timber volume (with or without reduced expenditure) and higher cost r a t e s f o r planning a p h y s i c a l e x t r a c t i o n . Three types of cost v a r i a t i o n can there f o r e be i d e n t i f i e d : 1) REDUCED VOLUME, REDUCED EXPENDITURE. I f an area i s t o t a l l y s e t aside from development, the cost i s the stumpage foregone by the Crown and the p r o f i t margin foregone by the log g i n g company,-siSince a p r i n c i p a l aim-: of v i s u a l impact planning i s to permit logging i n v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l areas, t h i s cost w i l l not be discussed f u r t h e r . - 123 -2) ALTERED VOLUME,-SAME RATE OF EXPENDITURE The t o t a l cost of logging development may remain s i m i l a r , but the volume of timber produced from i t i s reduced, i n c r e a s i n g logging c o s t s / c u n i t i n foregoing some immediate revenue to company and Crown by deferment of c u t t i n g . Rickard et a l (1967), modelling the r e l a t i o n s h i p of costs to v a r i o u s h a r v e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s i n landscape management of old-growth Douglas f i r , found that c l e a r - c u t t i n g , the method which maximises the e x t r a c t e d volume, " Y i e l d s the highest present stumpage values f o r a l l model stands. This r e s u l t i s most strong i n f l u e n c e d by the f a c t that there i s no w a i t i n g time f o r the i n i t i a l y i e l d - which i s a l s o the e n t i r e net volume of the stand - and, hence, no i n t e r e s t or discount c o s t " . Higher costs of t h i s type may be engendered by design t o o l s i n v o l v i n g l e a v i n g of timber, i n two ways: a) Timber between s e t t i n g s - reducing cut-block s c a l e by reducing the number of s e t t i n g s w i t h i n i t , l o c a t i n g landings to leave b l o c k s and groups ofi trees beyond optimal yarding distance w i t h i n the c u t - b l o c k , and c r e a t i n g i n d e n t a t i o n s the s i z e of a s e t t i n g , a l l increase the length of road necessary f o r a given timber volume i n the f i r s t pass. With good pl a n n i n g , much of the f i r s t pass access may be used again i n the second, but w i t h a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n cost of up to h a l f the 1 c o n s t r u c t i o n cost (Wellburn, 1975b; B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , undated?, b) or moor more, with-replacement of c u l v e r t s , wash-outs, and b r i d g e s , depend-in g on the time i n t e r v a l . Such cost increases have been noted as a r e s u l t of B.C. Forest Service p o l i c y r e q u i r i n g cut and leave h a r v e s t -ing i n s t e a d of continuous c l e a r - c u t t i n g (Benskin, 1975), but would be i n c u r r e d anyway as maintenance costs i n i n t e n s i v e stand management, and p a r t l y o f f s e t ? b y lower-regeneration c o s t s . Cost increases due to roadjllength may occur w i t h s i m i l a r c l e a r c u t volume but a d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n , (Figure 42). A l t e r n a t i v e 42.2 i s cheapest - 124 -F i g u r e 42. Road Lay-out i n Oriented C l e a r c u t s 42.1 VERTICAL ORIENTATION High i n i t i a l road c o s t ; l i t t l e f u r -t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r 2nd pass. C l e a r c u t N a t u r a l opening Haul road 42.2 HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION Low i n i t i a l c o s t ; f u r t h e r c o n s t r u c t -i o n necessary f o r 2nd pass. 42,3 VERTICAL ORIENTATION High i n i t i a l c o s t ; f u r t h e r c o n s t r u c t -i o n necessary f o r 2nd pass. ^2 m i l e (800 m) - 125 -i n the short run and most acceptable w i t h current planning h o r i z o n s , but s i t u a t i o n 42.1 should y i e l d higher stumpage payments l a t e r due to lower road c o s t s ; 42.3, though d e f e r r i n g no timber loggable from constructed access, i s most c o s t l y because road c o s t s / m i l e increase p r o h i b i t i v e l y w i t h switchbacks l e s s than 1/2 mile (80 m) apart on 60% + slopes (Rualt, 1975). Other logging costs i . e . f e l l i n g , bucking, y a r d i n g , l a n d i n g -c o n s t r u c t i o n , loading and d i s p o s a l , should not vary w i t h use of these design t o o l s , under uniform c o n d i t i o n s , s i n c e they are p r o p o r t i o n a l to the timber volume c l e a r c u t . b) Timber w i t h i n s e t t i n g s - Retention of merchantable timber w i t h i n optimal yarding d i s t a n c e of landings by p a r t i a l c u t t i n g or l e a v i n g t r e e groups might be expected to increase road and landing c o s t s / c u n i t , s i n c e these are f i x e d i n r e l a t i o n to a given area; i n a d d i t i o n , there are the costs of road and l a n d i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , and of doubled setting-up time, s i n c e each l a n d i n g i s used at l e a s t twice to recover the i n i t i a l volume of an even-aged stand. With s e l e c t i o n logging by c a b l e , Wellburn (1975a) p o i n t s out that costs a l s o r i s e w i t h l o s s of e f f i c i e n c y i n changing ski d - r o a d s , so that i f each change takes an e x t r a 15 minutes, yarding costs w i l l i n crease by approximately 10% i n low volume/acre stands. I t i s p o s s i b l e too that f e l l i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y may decrease s l i g h t l y due to greater complexity and hazard. R i c k a r d et a l (1967) i n t h e i r model assume a $2 per thousand board f e e t increase i n logging cost w i t h shelterwood c u t t i n g over c l e a r c u t t i n g , and $4 w i t h p a r t i a l c u t t i n g to convert to shade-t o l e r a n t s p e c i e s , which they admit may be an underestimate, and would be o f f s e t by lower r e f o r e s t a t i o n c o s t s . Costs may be expected to increase where right-of-way c l e a r i n g widths i n merchantable timber are minimised, - 126 -reducing the revenue o f f s e t t i n g road c o n s t r u c t i o n . However, Adamovich (1971) p o i n t s out "The l o s s i n right-of-way timber w i l l r e t u r n i n improved logging when s e t t i n g s along the road do not have to s t a r t beyond the already c l e a r e d 'dead l a n d " 1 , and the grubbing c o s t , estimated at up to 30% of t o t a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s , would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. D i s p o s a l costs f a l l w h i l e revenue remains the same i f widths are narrowed i n immature timber, g i v i n g an i r r e g u l a r width d i c t a t e d i n pa r t by merchantable timber l i m i t s . With s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g at c l e a r c u t edges w i t h i n or near maximum ya r d i n g d i s t a n c e , costs may f a l l i f a system a k i n to high-grading i s permitted. Lower l a n d i n g and road-costs per c u n i t would r e s u l t from long-distance cable-yarding of ground-skidding: Crestbrook Forest I n d u s t r i e s (1974) estimate a $0.50/cunit road cost saving w i t h t t h e FMC 200BG skidder used as a forwarder. 3) ALTERED RATE OF EXPENDITURE, UNRELATED TO VOLUME. A p r i n c i p a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to such co s t s would be d i f f e r e n t yarding systems. Use of cable yarding to avoid the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of ground-skidding would almost c e r t a i n l y r a i s e d i r e c t yarding c o s t s . Table 7, repeated from Wellburn (1975a), i n d i c a t e s the range of those increases estimated f o r c o n d i t i o n s i n the Nelson Forest D i s t r i c t of B r i t i s h Columbia, and due to lower p r o d u c t i v i t y per man and higher running c o s t s ; e.g. operating costs f o r the Eco-logger are estimated at 175% of average ground-skidding c o s t s (Swann, 1975), i n pa r t due to small timber and need f o r r ehandling at the l a n d i n g . Conversely, Larsen (1975) r e p o r t s d i r e c t y a r d i n g c o s t s f o r a Washington Sky-lok used i n the Arrow Lakes of $9.00/ c u n i t . A l s o , cable systems may be able to e x t r a c t timber i n a c c e s s i b l e to t r a c t o r s , i n c r e a s i n g t o t a l revenue: Wellburn (1975a) c i t e s an example i n the Vipond Creek area where t r a c t o r s could l o g 50 acres((20ha) and a Table 7r. Range of costs f o r various machines operating under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . ({Reproduced from Wellburn, 1975a) Cost per day Direct yarding cost Moving, landing, spur road costs Poor chance Logging chance Poor chance Good chance Small logs Good chance Fixed costs Total cost Large logs Machine type Poor Good Poor chance Good chance 120 days 200 days 120 days 200 days Short season Long season 20 cunlts/acrc 50 omits/acre pes/day pes/day cunits/day cunlts/day J/day $/day J7day $/day i/c u n i t $/cunit S/cunit $/cunit Skiddcr D-6 tr a c t o r Wooden-boom j aimer Long-boom shovel crime 50-foot s t e e l spur 70-foot stool Yarding crane 228 254 7.60 10. 60 •5.20 b. 90 Mi) 150 200 1.to 293 .'H.'.>2 31. 16 10.03 10.-3 3.30 1.32 2. 13 Smal1 logs Large logs Short season Long season Low volume High volume t/cunit 10.90 15.92 3(.. I: 37. 32 J/'cunit 6.52 9.03 11.60 Cost Variations 3. Log s i z e on cable-logging systems' volume V3rded i s d i r e c t l y related to net log s i r e . On ground-skidding systems this factor has less effect because more chokers can be used. In Nelson d i s t r i c t pure volume may range from 20 cubic feet to 40 cubic feet. Defect i n the Logging cost elements are affected by local conditions as follows: timber reduces the net piece s i z e . 1. Crew performance, supervision, weather conditions, machine a v a i l a b i l i t y - these factors have a major effect on cost and prod u c t i v i t y . Basic data assume average conditions. Logging chance - effects the number of logs skidded per. day - includes a combination of landing conditions, yarding distance, deflection and t e r r a i n . In properly engineered settings these factors can ef f e c t the pieces yarded by 25*. Operating days per year - d i r e c t l y e f f e c t the fixed cost. In the Nelson d i s t r operating season varies from 120 to 200 days. Volume per acre - the volume per acre effects the cost of preparing landings, b u i l d i n g spur roads and moving equipment. The volume per acre i n the Nelson d i s t r i c t varies fron 20 to 50 cunits per acre. - 128 -mobile yarding crane 150 acres (60ha), r e s u l t i n g i n costs of $16.65/cunit and $15.25/cunit " r e s p e c t i v e l y . -Although a e r i a l y a rding systems o f f e r the same cost advantages as cable systems of reduced road l e n g t h and increased a c c e s s i b i l i t y of ';:*; timber, t h e i r higher operating c o s t s prompt t h e i r d i s m i s s a l as a general p r a c t i c a l design t o o l . Another new advance, on the other hand, the FMC 200 BG ground-skidder, may compare favourably w i t h conventional systems, with-a gross s k i d d i n g cost f o r an 8 hour day of $5-6/cunit (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974, quoted by Crestbrook Forest I n d u s t r i e s , 1974). Combined w i t h the road cost saving of long s k i d d i n g , use of such machines might achieve lower v i s u a l impact magnitudes at costs equal to or lower than conventional ground-skidding. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t might avoid increased costs of ground-skidding on steep slopes where v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n and small s c a l e of c l e a r c u t s make yarding from d i r e c t l y above the l a n d i n g very d i f f i -c u l t , demanding many switchbacks, short s t r a i g h t s e c t i o n s , and l a r g e t o t a l t r a i l l e n g t h w i t h contour lay-out (Figure 43). A second group of design t o o l s which may a f f e c t costs adversely comprise what i s o f t e n termed 'cosmetic' landscaping, and r e l a t e mostly to foreground viewing. r:The cost i n c r e a s e o f t e n depends on whether the p r a c t i c e i s c a r r i e d out simultaneously w i t h other h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s or afterwards. In a B.C. Forest S e r v i c e p r o j e c t i n the Bugaboo drainage, logging s l a s h (known to have provoked adverse comment from one P.Trudeau) was p i l e d and burned, and s k i d t r a i l s and landings seeded to grass; t o t a l cost was $0.97/ acEet'($0.39/ha), of which $0.26/acre ($0.10/ha), equipment moving and s u p e r v i s i o n c o s t s , would have been saved had the work been done at the time of lo g g i n g (B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). S i m i l a r l y , costs of p r a c t i c e s of s n a g - c u t t i n g , s l a s h l o p p i n g , l a n d i n g grading, e t c . , would be minimal i f - 129 -Fi g u r e 43. S k i d - t r a i l Lay-out i n Patch-cuts of D i f f e r e n t O r i e n t a t i o n . 43.1 UNORIENTED, STEEP- '43.2 UNORIENTED, CONTOUR SKID-TRAILS. SKID-TRAILS. 43.4 VERTICAL ORIENTATION, STEEP AND CONTOUR SKID-TRAILS,. ( E i t h e r short steep t r a i l s or long contour t r a i l s w i t h many switchbacks and short s t r a i g h t s e c t i o n s . ) - 130 -t done during the o p e r a t i o n , although the minimum might s t i l l be h i g h i n o l d -growth stands. Despite the problems of d i s p o s a l and t r e e - s c a r r i n g w i t h p a r t i a l c u t t i n g , Brace and Stewart (1973), i n an Ontario shelterwood p r o j e c t to preserve "amenity v a l u e s " , concluded that " e f f i c i e n t operators can make a p r o f i t i n stands such as those logged at today's logging c o s t s and market p r i c e s . ( P r o f i t averaged about 10.5%)". They consider that t r a i n e d crews "can operate w i t h only a 20% r e d u c t i o n i n logging production compared to p a r t i a l c u t t i n g operations w i t h no r e s t r i c t i o n s on logging damage." McDonald and Whiteley (1972) i n C a l i f o r n i a found that 22% of merchantable volume i n roadside stands could be removed at a cost double that of normal s i n g l e t r e e s e l e c t i o n . c u t t i n g , due to c a r e f u l s i t i n g of h a r v e s t i n g and d i s p o s a l a c t i v i t i e s to be i n v i s i b l e . However, these costs can not be t r a n s l a t e d to an extra-canopy viewing s i t u a i o n , where the a c t i v i t y i s u s u a l l y i n e v i d e n t anyway. Design t o o l s i n v o l v i n g road c o n s t r u c t i o n may not r a i s e costs severely. Hanson (1974) agrees w i t h Adamovich (1971) who says " f o r e s t roads i n B.C. are g e n e r a l l y wider than necessary", and "keeping width to a pre-s c r i b e d optimum geometric standard would mean a d e f i n i t e saving", as w e l l as reducing the area of d i s t u r b e d ground and cut-bank height. He continues, "Roads designed w i t h t r a n s i t i o n curves could f i t much b e t t e r to the topo-graphy than those w i t h c i r c u l a r curves. Savings i n c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s would o f f s e t the higher costs of design, which i n the case of computerized c a l c u l a t i o n would h a r d l y be measurable". C o n s t r u c t i o n of r e t a i n i n g w a l l s w i t h sacked s o i l cement or wired rock gabions i s inexpensive, though a p p l i c a t i o n of coloured asphalt emulsions to raw rock cuts (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974) i s probably c o s t l y over extensive areas. L a s t l y , the costs of marking out and s u p e r v i s i o n both by logging - 131 -companies and B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , would increase w i t h use of design t o o l s i n g eneral. In p a r t i c u l a r , marking out v a r i a b l e width right-of-ways (Adamovich, 1971) and i r r e g u l a r or o r i e n t e d cut-block boundaries would incr e a s e : marking an i r r e g u l a r c l e a r c u t boundary can take 2-3 times as long as a geometric one, a s i g n i f i c a n t cost but one th a t companies already absorb i n t y p e - l i n e marking (Pommier, 1975). R i c k a r d et a l (1967) assume adminis-t r a t i v e c o s t s to be $4 and $2 per 1000 board f e e t r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r p a r t i a l c u t t i n g and c l e a r c u t t i n g , "because of increased time and care i n designing boundaries of c u t t i n g u n i t s and marking i n d i v i d u a l t r e e s f o r removal". Comparing p a r t i a l c u t t i n g c o s t s under v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s t o those without, Brace and Stewart (1973) estimate "a doubling of planning, t r a i n i n g , and s u p e r v i s i o n c o s t s " . Associated w i t h e f f i c i e n c y of logging are the working c o n d i t i o n s of labour, some aspects of which may be i n f l u e n c e d by design t o o l s . Safety hazard may be increased f o r f a l l e r s i n p a r t i a l c u t t i n g or f o r chokermen;in h e l i c o p t e r y a r d i n g , f o r example, w h i l e i t may decrease w i t h cable-yarding i n s t e a d of t r a c t o r - l o g g i n g on steep slopes (Sandstrom, 1976; Wellburn, (1975a), or w i t h s k i d d i n g to landings i n reserve s t r i p s where there i s no chance of escape l o g s - h i t t i n g the l a n d i n g (Pommier, 1975). Becker (1971) suggests use of some design t o o l s may reduce the v i s u a l monotony i n the working environment and thus lower the accident t a t e . The evidence so f a r i s th a t although most design t o o l s c o n s i d -ered would tend to r a i s e c o s t s , some may not r a i s e them much, e.g. l e a v i n g unmerchantable r e s i d u a l s , modifying road alignment. Others may even c o n s t i t u t e a saving, d i r e c t l y , e.g. FMC s k i d d i n g , or i n d i r e c t l y , e.g. small s c a l e c l e a r c u t s a v o i d i n g regeneration c o s t s . What i s i n i t i a l l y more c o s t l y may increase r e t u r n s l a t e r , e.g. improved y i e l d from t r e a t e d stands. Some costs may be p o s i t i v e or negative depending on q u a l i t y of timber taken or - 132 -l e f t , e.g. i n c l e a r c u t o r i e n t a t i o n i n ge n t l e topography, alignment of c l e a r i n g edges, or use of main s k i d - t r a i l s . At t h i s stage, a d e f i n i t e statement on costs a s s o c i a t e d w i t h timber management under v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s cannot be made, p a r t l y because what appear to be e x t r a c o s t s may be avoided by pre-planning, w i t h a l l management c o n s t r a i n t s considered from the f i r s t . As Brace and Stewart (1973) i n t i m a t e , " c o s t s i n c u r r e d during l o g g i n g , to f a c i l i t a t e other uses, may make lo g g i n g uneconomical". A measure of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s e f f e c t may be gained only by a n a l y s i n g costs of a c t u a l a l t e r n a t i v e s , p r e f e r a b l y i n a r e a l s i t u a t i o n which can be test e d i n p r a c t i c e , but f a i l i n g t h i s , i n cost estimates f o r po s t u l a t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s based on assumptions, as i n Chapter IV. - 133 -Chapter TV CASE STUDY OF VISUAL-IMPACT PLANNING 4.1 PURPOSES OF CASE STUDY I t i s argued that f o r e s t planners, w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n provided so f a r , could s e l e c t h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s as landscape design t o o l s i n the knowledge of t h e i r e f f e c t s on other resources and could p r e d i c t the r e s u l t i n g v i s u a l end-product. The planning of h y p o t h e t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s i n a case study i s of use i n three ways: a) to i n d i c a t e whether the v i s u a l impact magnitude p r e d i c t e d from the combination of h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s used c o i n c i d e s w i t h that estimated from a graphic p r e d i c t i o n of the logging a c t i v i t y . Though by no means an o b j e c t i v e t e s t , t h i s procedure should r e v e a l any major d i s -p a r i t i e s and provide a reasonably accurate v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of various impact magnitudes. b) to compare the l i k e l y costs of v a r i o u s v i s u a l a l t e r n a t i v e s , i n order to t e s t Hypothesis 4. c) to suggest a procedure f o r planning v i s u a l impacts g e n e r a l l y and then f o r designing v i s u a l impacts i n d e t a i l by means of graphic p r e d i c t i o n . Since planning must have o b j e c t i v e s and an i n f o r m a t i o n base, a p p r a i s a l of the v i s u a l resources, i . e . the f o r e s t landscape types,and landscape s e n s i t i v i t y , of the case study area i s e s s e n t i a l . - 134 -4.2 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY AREA A case study area of approximately 65 square mil e s (170 sq. km) was chosen w i t h i n the Windermere P.S.Y.U., comprising the Cartwright Lakes Integrated Use Planning Area and an adjacent 30 square miles (77 sq. km) on the eastern slopes of Steamboat Mountain; the whole l i e s upon the west s i d e of the Columbia R i v e r v a l l e y i n the Rocky Mountain Trench. The area has s e v e r a l advantages f o r a case study of t h i s type: 1) I t has high p r i o r i t y f o r logging s i n c e i t i s ^ p a r t of the l i m i t e d area i n the Windermere P.S.Y.U. s u i t a b l e f o r w i n t e r l o g g i n g and i s a high-hazard Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak area, c a r r y i n g mature lodgepole pine stands. I t i s not, t h e r e f o r e , an area whose v i s u a l problems can be solved by e x c l u s i o n from the allowable annual cut; p a r t s of the area are c u r r e n t l y held or under a p p l i c a t i o n under Timber Sale Harvesting Licences. 2) I t contains a h i g h - p r i o r i t y r e c r e a t i o n planning area, o f f e r i n g " r e g i o n a l l y uniqaewater-based r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s " (B.C. Parks Branch, 1973). Parts of the Cartwright Lakes Plateau are h e a v i l y viewed by v i s i t o r s ever short d i s t a n c e s from r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s , roads, and l a k e s . 3) I t contains land of considerable s c e n i c importance viewed over longer d i s t a n c e s from Highway 95, a route c a r r y i n g s i g n i f i c a n t t o u r i s t volumes between Radium Hotsprings, Golden, and s e v e r a l of the Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l Parks. 4) I t has few evident v i s u a l impacts, a l l o w i n g maximum f l e x i b i l i t y i n v i s u a l impact planning "from s c r a t c h " . 5) V a r i e t y of timber-type and topography allows a v a r i e t y of f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s to be p o s t u l a t e d i n management a l t e r n a t i v e s , i n landscapes r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of - s o u t h e a s t e r n " B r i t i s h Columbia. - 135 -4.3 METHOD OF APPRAISAL OF VISUAL RESOURCES 4.3.1 B i o p h y s i c a l Conditions In a p p r a i s i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscapes of the case study area and t h e i r inherent and c l i m a t i c v u l n e r a b i l i t y to disturbance, data found to be most u s e f u l came from ground photographs, 20 chain: 1" (1:15,840). orthographic photographs* and topographic maps. From these sources, a w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n t i e d to ground photographs was developedj (see s e c t i o n 4.4). 4.3.2 Viewing Conditions V i s i b i l i t y mapping records the area of the landscape seen by people from c e r t a i n p o i n t s w i t h i n i t . In the case study area, two methods of recording were used, both based upon p r i n c i p a l access ro u t e s . F i r s t , the v i s i b l e area from Highway 95 was p l o t t e d at a s c a l e of 1:50,000 (4/5 m i l e : 1"). Three landscape c o n t r o l p o i n t s (LCPs) ( L i t t o n , 1973) were s e l e c t e d to represent the major views from the Highway opposite the study area (Appendix 2). L i t t o n e x p l a i n s the purpose of t h i s technique: "....a set of viewing s t a t i o n s along the highways and roads of a N a t i o n a l Forest provides a v i s u a l sampling of that Forest. The landscape seen would .... represent a s i g n i f i c a n t image most r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c . I d e a l l y , the LCPs should overlap w i t h one another so the comprehensiveness of a continuous v i s u a l c o r r i d o r i s developed. I t i s a l s o d e s i r a b l e f o r LCPs to give d i f f e r e n t views of the same landscape segment...." Three LCPs, spaced 5-9 m i l e s (8-14 km) apart, were s u f f i c i e n t to achieve extensive overlap of v i s i b l e area on Steamboat Mountain. Each LCP was s e l e c t e d to a f f o r d an unbroken panoramic view of the eastern p a r t of the study area, as seen by t r a v e l l e r s on the Highway. The view from each LCP was photographed and p l o t t e d on a f i e l d o v erlay (Overlays 1, * A e r i a l photo-mosaics correc t e d f o r d i s t o r t i o n f o r use as maps. - 136 -2, and 3 ) , using plane t a b l e and a l i d a d e at the s i t e . The v i s i b l e area was d i v i d e d by eye i n t o areas of p o t e n t i a l ground exposure (PGE) w i t h moderate to high angle of viewing. ( 10°), defined as areas i n which any c l e a r i n g about 5 chains (100 m) or more wide would expose ground to viewing, and areas of p o t e n t i a l stem exposure (PSE) w i t h low angle of viewing ( 10°), i n which most c l e a r i n g s would not expose ground to viewing and would expose only t r e e stems ( r e f e r to Figures 17-20). Though t h i s i s not a p r e c i s e recording method, i t i s much l e s s time-consuming than c a l c u l a t i n g from topographic, i n f o r m a t i o n , and gives a rough i d e a of r e l a t i v e v u l n e r a b i l i t y to impacts. C a l c u l a t i o n s can be used as spot-checks. The three separate p l o t s were then combined on to one s i m p l i f i e d composite overlay (Overlay 4, Appendix 2 ) , r e c o r d i n g both t o t a l v i s i b l e area and those p a r t s of i t l i k e l y to s u s t a i n the&most v i s i b l e impacts. Where an area of PSE v i s i b l e from one LCP over-lapped an area of PGE v i s i b l e from another, the area was designated as PGE. Second, the v i s i b l e area from the f o r e s t roads on the P l a t e a u , p r i n c i p a l l y the Cartwright Lakes Loop Road, used by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s e n t e r i n g and w i t h i n the Lakes area, was p l o t t e d , again at 1:50,000 on a f i e l d o v erlay (Overlay 5). The LCP approach was not used here s i n c e a few such p o i n t s would not have represented the v a r i e t y of views obtai n a b l e . The v i s i b l e area or sight-zone had already been p l o t t e d continuously from roads and s h o r e l i n e (McKinnon, 1975); t h i s record was checked and r e v i s e d to i n c l u d e areas v i s i b l e from v i s t a p o i n t s , at 1:50,000,.(Overlay 6)'•.'. Appendix >3 represents a composite of s e q u e n t i a l views from the road c o r r i d o r , and - s t a t i c views ; from "the 'campsites and lakes.' In a d d i t i o n to what i s seen, how the landscape i s seen i s important. As noted above, impacts and views d i f f e r w i t h observer - 137 -p o s i t i o n , canopy viewing, d i s t a n c e , and d i r e c t i o n of viewing. These need to be taken i n t o account f o r s p e c i f i c s i t e s . But not a l l can be shown r e a d i l y cn a map using c o r r i d o r v i s i b i l i t y mapping. Distance and view d i r e c t i o n were p l o t t e d on f i e l d o verlays of LCP views, however. C e r t a i n ephemeral viewing c o n d i t i o n s which need to be noted i n c l u d e : a) l i g h t i n g d i r e c t i o n - l i g h t i n g reduces the p o t e n t i a l magnitude of v i s u a l impacts on Steamboat Mountain f o r Highway t r a v e l l e r s moving south during afternoon and evening ( b a c k - l i g h t i n g ) , and on the Septet slopes for. r e c r e a t i o n i s t s l o o k i n g west i n e a r l y morning ( f r o n t - l i g h t i n g ) and l a t e afternoon ( b a c k - l i g h t i n g ) . However, at some time of day, u s u a l l y c o i n c i d i n g w i t h peak day-use by r e c r e a t i o n -i s t s , each p a r t of the v i s i b l e area i s seen c l e a r l y . V i s i b l e area mapping was thus done i n s i d e - l i g h t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , before noon. b) atmospheric c o n d i t i o n s - low cloud, m i s t , and p r e c i p i t a t i o n occur most commonly i n winter and a f f e c t the mountains the most. In the wet season, poor atmospheric v i s i b i l i t y and b a c k - l i g h t i n g may combine to obscure p o t e n t i a l impacts on Steamboat Mountain and Septet Mountains continuously f o r considerable p e r i o d s . However, the landscape was evaluated i n t y p i c a l summer c o n d i t i o n s of b r i g h t l i g h t i n g and c l e a r v i s i b i l i t y . c) season - f i e l d w o r k c o n s t r a i n t s d i c t a t e d summertime assessment, i n the season i n which most t o u r i s t s see the area. Snow-lie may be expected to have a major i n f l u e n c e on the Septet slopes ( a l p i n e and avalanche a r e a s ) , but a l s o on the b l u f f s of Steamboat Mountain. Deciduous autumnal e f f e c t s were recorded and occurred mostly i n lower e l e v a t i o n second-growth stands on Steamboat Mountain and the Lakes P l a t e a u , though a l s o at the bottom of avalanche s l i d e s . - 1 3 8 -4.3.3 S e n s i t i v i t y Landscape s e n s i t i v i t y i n d i c a t e s how important i s the view to the observer, i e . the importance of v i s u a l impacts. Much has been i m p l i e d already on the s e n s i t i v i t y of the case study landscapes, witnessed by the choice of area and of l o c a t i o n s f o r mapping v i s i b i l i t y , i e . the v i s i b l e area from t r a v e l r o u t e s , water bodies, and r e c r e a t i o n use-areas of primary importance (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974). Under the VMS a p p r a i s a l methods, the v i s i b l e area would be rated as Le v e l 1, Highest S e n s i t i v i t y , at a l l viewing d i s t a n c e s . S p e c i f i c views of l o c a l l y higher s e n s i t i v i t y are re c o g n i s a b l e , however, and i n c l u d e f o c a l views and v i s t a s from roads and the v i s i b l e area from lakes and campsites, (see Appendix 3). The time spent viewing i s important here: " i f the observer spends 5 minutes or more at a s t a t i o n a r y viewpoint, he recognises not only major c o n t r a s t s i n the scene, but a l s o secondary or more s u b t l e c o n t r a s t s " , (US'Forest S e r v i c e , 1973). Campsites and f i s h i n g lakes w i t h sustained viewing are therefore the most s e n s i t i v e viewpoints. Mobile viewpoints are l e s s s e n s i t i v e > because views may be observed only f l e e t i n g l y , preventing the d r i v e r from f o c u s i n g on a s i n g l e view. As d r i v i n g speed.increases, the cone of v i s i o n w i t h i n .which he can focus h i s a t t e n t i o n diminishes (Shaver et a l , 1973, Dooling, 1974); a t 25 m.p.h. (40 km.p.h.), a common top-speed on the Lakes Loop Road, a t t e n t i o n i s focused i n a wide cone of v i s i o n (100°) a l l o w i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n of foreground d e t a i l s and l a t e r a l views; at 60 m.p.h. (96 km.p.h.) on Highway 95, a t t e n t i o n i s focused i n a cone of v i s i o n of about 40°, l a r g e l y towards middleground or background. S e n s i t i v i t y of impacts on Steamboat Mountain to Highway t r a v e l l e r s i s th e r e f o r e not g r e a t l y reduced compared to that of impacts cl o s e to Loop Road t r a v e l l e r s , as long as the impacts are i n s i d e the cone of v i s i o n of the t r a v e l l e r s . - 139 -4.4 FOREST LANDSCAPE TYPES AND VISUAL OBJECTIVES The f o l l o w i n g f o r e s t landscape types i d e n t i f i e d f o r the case study area* represent combinations of b i o p h y s i c a l and viewing c o n d i t i o n s , to which v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s based on p r e d i c t e d impact importance are t i e d . 4.4.1 F L T i - Lakes P l a t e a u and Steamboat Benches, seen from Highway 95 The Cartwright Lakes P l a t e a u f o r the most p a r t g e n t l y s l o p i n g , r i s e s from the Columbia R i v e r f l o o d p l a i n at 2,600' (790 m) to the foot of the Septet Mountains at 4,000' (1216 m) ; i t extends south i n the benches and steeper breaks below Steamboat Mountain (Figure 44). Lodge-pole pine and Douglas f i r stands dominate the v e g e t a t i o n , w i t h some Engelmann spruce on the higher p a r t s of the p l a t e a u and aspen on d i s t u r b e d s i t e s . S o i l s are medium to pale i n colo u r . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s of low, small s c a l e landforms, (middleground, Figure 45), g e n e r a l l y covered by dark green canopy, and dominated by the texture of v e g e t a t i o n . Contrast i s provided by steep k n o l l s , where form i s l o c a l l y dominant, and some open canopy due to burns and past l o g g i n g . Small a g r i c u l t u r a l c l e a r i n g s occur near the f l o o d p l a i n , which, w i t h the benches (Figure 46 lower middleground), r e i n f o r c e the strong h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a -t i o n of the landscape; the breaks c o n t a i n small rock faces l e s s than 5 chain (100 m) wide of medium colour c o n t r a s t . Viewing c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e extra-canopy v i e w i n g ; approximately normal observer p o s i t i o n ; middleground;c£direct and oblique viewing, l a r g e areas of p o t e n t i a l stem exposure (PSE). Timber h a r v e s t i n g should be planned to minimise d i s r u p t i o n s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape as perceived by the Highway t r a v e l l e r ; i t -These FLTs are not to be confused w i t h f o r e s t landscape types 1-4 i d e n t i f i e d f o r impacts w i t h i n the l a r g e r study r e g i o n , i e . the Windermere P.SvY.U., i n Chapter I I . f N : V ^ H ^ v i " ^ fe.'i - Steamboat Slopes. Ifcl V X ^ ' ^ T T ^ Forest Landscape Types in-the Case Study Area. Scale - 1" : 2 miles. ^ >V<JV > (1 : 125, 000) '/i^ <4,5 . ^VjV; ' ' ' ; - . \ \ Y\ . (IV : 125,000) ^ H l M .>^;V;' ' ;-, \ \ U FL-T | h ! j ^ ^ f - 141 -Figure 45. Characteristic Landscapes of Cartwright Lakes Plateau  and Septet Mountains. (View west from LCP 3). Figure 46. Characteristic Landscapes of Steamboat Mountain and Benches. (View south-west from LCP 2). - 142 -should t h e r e f o r e borrow from e x i s t i n g landscape character i n i t s appearance, (approximately to M o d i f i c a t i o n standard). Apparent s c a l e of c l e a r i n g s should be s m a l l (though a c t u a l s c a l e on benches could be l a r g e ) ; form of impacts should be o r i e n t e d h o r i z o n t a l l y ; introduced h o r i z o n t a l l i n e s would be acceptable as long as they do not introduce markedly pale c o l o u r s ; v e r t i c a l form or l i n e d i s r u p t i n g the o r i e n t a t i o n of topography would be unacceptable; t e x t u r a l and colour c o n t r a s t on s m a l l areas would be acceptable. A " n i b b l i n g " e f f e c t of c l e a r i n g s o c c u r r i n g i n sequence from present a g r i c u l t u r a l c l e a r i n g s would be a d v i s a b l e , (U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1971). Impacts would be most n o t i c e a b l e on k n o l l s and breaks c l o s e s t to Highway. 4.4.2 F L T i i - Upper Steamboat Mountain, Seen from Highway 95 The east f a c i n g upper slopes of Steamboat Mountain r i s e from the benches to 6,000' (1,824 m) at the northern summit. Slopes exceed 70% at both ends of the r i d g e , w i t h more gently s l o p i n g country (30%+) i n between. S o i l s are a pale sandy c o l o u r . Douglas f i r and lodgepole pine are commonest, w i t h some Engelmann spruce at higher e l e v a t i o n s and densely s c a t t e r e d aspen on o l d d i s t u r b e d s i t e s . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s dominated by form: Steamboat Mountain i s long and r e l a t i v e l y low, the g e n t l y - s l o p i n g s k y - l i n e c r e a t i n g a dominant h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n . (Figure 46, upper middleground). -At a smaller s c a l e , form i s manifested i n the numerous rock-faces of medium co l o u r c o n t r a s t ; a few of these are q u i t e l a r g e and wider than 10 chain (200 m). The p a t t e r n of rock faces r e i n f o r c e s the h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n . Deciduous canopy, where concentrated, forms s m a l l patches of low colour c o n t r a s t , w i t h high c o n t r a s t i n autumn. Some diagonal elements introduced by g u l l i e s and r i d g e s i n oblique viewing. Viewing c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e extra-canopy viewing; s l i g h t l y i n f e r i o r observer - 143 -p o s i t i o n s , m i d d l e g r o u n d . ( d i r e c t l y viewed) and background ( o b l i q u e l y viewed); v i r t u a l l y a l l p o t e n t i a l ground exposure (PGE). V i s u a l impact planning f o r t h i s type would have a s i m i l a r objec-t i v e to i , but i t would be harder to achieve. A c t u a l s c a l e of impacts should be s m a l l , 10-30 acres (4-12 ha); i n t r o d u c t i o n of pale and/or continuous l i n e would be unacceptable, as would evident areas of exposed mineral s o i l ; impact form should emulate l a r g e r rock face s , and merge w i t h s m a l l e r ones. 4.4.3 FLT i i i - Slopes of Septet Range Seen from Lakes and Loop Road The slopes of the Septet Mountains (Figure 44) r i s e from the Lakes Plat e a u to 8,000' (2,432 m). S o i l s are s i m i l a r to those on the P l a t e a u , but slope (average 40-50%) renders them l e s s s t a b l e , w i t h more exposed rock. Several avalanche chutes w i t h brush v e g e t a t i o n run to the P l a t e a u edge. A l p i n e v e g e t a t i o n occurs on the r i d g e - t o p s , Engelmann spruce and subalpine f i r on the upper s l o p e s , and lodgepole pine and Douglas f i r below t h a t . c T h e r e h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape c o n s i s t s of the t r i a n g u l a r forms of the mountainsides w i t h a p a t t e r n of narrow pale green chutes, 2-8 chains wide (40-160 m), d i s s e c t i n g an otherwise uniform dark green surface (Figure 45, background). The o r i e n t a t i o n of landscape p a t t e r n i s across the contour, v e r t i c a l l y i n d i r e c t views of g u l l i e s and chutes, d i a g o n a l l y i n oblique views of g u l l i e s , chutes and r i d g e l i n e s . A burn n o r t h of Rand Creek forms a l a r g e c l e a r i n g w i t h v e r t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d edge i r r e g u l a r i t i e s and a d i f f u s e edge. Viewing c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e extra-canopy viewing; i n f e r i o r observer p o s i t i o n s ; middleground and background; d i r e c t and oblique view-i n g ; l a r g e l y p o t e n t i a l ground exposure, w i t h p o t e n t i a l stem exposure i n extreme oblique views. - 144 -V i s u a l impact planning would again aim at minimising impacts, though perhaps to the greater extent of ensuring they remain subordinate to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape by repeating form, l i n e , colour and te x t u r e of landscape more c l o s e l y (approaching P a r t i a l R e t e n t i o n ) . Such an aim i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate f o r views from v i s t a s and campsites. I t would be d i f f i c u l t to achieve due to o r i e n t a t i o n of landscape and area of p o t e n t i a l ground exposure. C l e a r i n g s g e n e r a l l y should be 10-15 chains (200 - 300 m) wide and o r i e n t e d across the contour w i t h no i n t r o d u c t i o n of h o r i z o n t a l l i n e above the toe of the slope. However, w i t h views from the North end of the P l a t e a u which expose the burned areas, l a r g e r c l e a r i n g s o r i e n t e d across the contours and w i t h l e s s abrupt colour and te x t u r e c o n t r a s t s at the edge could repeat the v i s u a l elements of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. 4.4.4 FLT i v - Lakes Plat e a u Seen from Lakes and Roads* The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i s much as described f o r FLT i , except that stronger colour and t e x t u r a l c o n t r a s t against f o r e s t canopy i s seen s p o r a d i c a l l y i n the lake surfaces and slough v e g e t a t i o n through-out the Pl a t e a u , (Figure 47). Viewing c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e extra-canopy viewing; normal and s l i g h t l y s u p e r i o r observer p o s i t i o n s ; foreground and middleground, l a r g e l y p o t e n t i a l stem exposure. In many views, scenery of consi d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t i s a l s o v i s i b l e , i e . the Lakes or Septet, Steamboat, and Rocky Mountains. V i s u a l impact planning should aim at preventing changes i n the landscape from dominating such views. The sm a l l v i s i b l e area and low angles of viewing make t h i s aim f a r e a s i e r to achieve than i n FLT i i i . A c t u a l c l e a r i n g s i z e can be l a r g e , as long as apparent s c a l e of ground exposure i s s m a l l and o r i e n t e d Only extra-canopy viewing i s considered here. - 145 -Figure 47. Characteristic Landscape of Cartwright Lakes Plateau. (View west from Dunbar Lake camp-site). - 146 -h o r i z o n t a l l y , and colour c o n t r a s t i s moderate. D i f f u s e edges between forms would help reduce c o n t r a s t s i n form and.texture where e x i s t i n g c l e a r i n g s set no precedent f o r abrupt edges. As i n FLT i , v e r t i c a l elements are unacceptable. 4.4.5 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r S e l e c t i o n of Design Tools LFT i resembles f o r e s t landscape types 3a and 3b i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter I I f o r v i s u a l impacts on g e n t l y - s l o p i n g land i n the study region. The v i s u a l e f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e s i d e n t i f i e d i n these impacts should be considered i n s e l e c t i n g design t o o l s f o r FLT i , and a l s o f o r FLT i v , which i s s i m i l a r . There a r e , however, d i f f e r e n c e s to be taken i n t o account, notably the prevalence of foregrounds i n FLT i v which may be modified by l o g g i n g , r e q u i r i n g more a t t e n t i o n to the d e t a i l of v i s u a l e f f e c t s . For FLT i i , v i s u a l e f f e c t s i d e n t i f i e d under f o r e s t landscape type 2b i n Chapter I I ( f o r impacts i n steep h o r i z o n t a l l y - o r i e n t e d landscapes w i t h ground exposure) should be considered, though greater viewing d i s t a n c e s should be borne i n mind. FLT i i i resembles f o r e s t landscape types l a , l c , and Id i n the study r e g i o n , covering v i s u a l e f f e c t s i n v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d landscapes w i t h pale ground c o l o u r , seen i n background or middleground ( d i r e c t l y and o b l i q u e l y ) . v 4.5 DETAILED PLANNING OF ALTERNATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS 4.5.1 S e l e c t i o n of Impact S i t e s Three s i t e s (Figure 48) were s e l e c t e d from the case study area as h y p o t h e t i c a l impact areas, to represent the f o r e s t landscape'types i / i v , i i , and i i i . They were s e l e c t e d as p l a u s i b l e l o g ging chances w i t h high v i s i b i l i } t y c . , 2 - b y : "V- - 147 -•V-1V-'^':./-. •• Impact S i t e 3. F i g u r e 4B . L o c a t i o n of Impac "| Viewing d i r e c t i o n f o r impact assessment..'.: ectxon ,,..;:::;;v rf^V y.. ^ < f ^ t-r ^ Scale - 1' 2 miles. (1 :.125,000) - 148 -a) i d e n t i f y i n g mature timber (age c l a s s 7 + g e n e r a l l y , 5 + f o r lodgepole pine-dominated stands) on 1974 20 c h : l " (1:15,840) f o r e s t i nventory maps; b) t r a n s f e r r i n g loggable acreages of above to an overlay at s c a l e 1:50,000, (Overlay 7). c) superimposing t h i s on v i s i b i l i t y o v e r l a y s 4 and 6 (Appendices 2 and 3) to mark contentious areas i n the d i f f e r e n t FLTs. d) i d e n t i f y i n g p a r t i c u l a r loggable u n i t s , as might be covered by i n d i v i d u a l small c u t t i n g permits, to cover a range of logging p o s s i b i l i t i e s . e) checking by f i e l d reconnaissance, reference to 20 c h : l " orthophotos where a v a i l a b l e , and personal communication w i t h c o n s u l t a n t personnel a l s o r e c o n n o i t r i n g the area. No attempt was made to cuuise the impact areas thoroughly, due to r e s t r i c t i o n s of time and e x p e r t i s e . The impacts p r e d i c t e d are h y p o t h e t i c a l , and intended to i l l u s t r a t e the planning of one aspect of h a r v e s t i n g ; any a c t u a l l o g g i n g development would r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d planning of a l l aspects of h a r v e s t i n g . 4.5.2 D e t a i l e d Planning Method A l t e r n a t i v e l o g ging plans were developed and evaluated f o r each impact s i t e as s e l f - c o n t a i n e d l o g g i n g chances, though r e c o g n i s i n g the need to p l a n access and boundaries on a wider b a s i s . A l t e r n a t i v e plans c o n s i s t e d of: PLAN A. No impacts, i e . c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape as i t was recorded, and mature timber acreage l e f t untouched. PLAN B. "Conventional h a r v e s t i n g " , as the impact area would be logged i f i t were a normal area to be harvested by a company c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g elsewhere i n the PSYU, under a l l u s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s but not - 149 -v i s u a l ones. This forms a benchmark by which the other a l t e r n a t i v e s may be judged i n terms of costs and v i s u a l impact magnitude. PLAN C,D,E, e t c . P o s s i b l e h a r v e s t i n g plans i n c l u d i n g d i f f e r e n t combina-t i o n s of p r a c t i c e s as design t o o l s f o r the p a r t i c u l a r f o r e s t l a n d -scape type. The data base f o r each impact s i t e was, f o r P l a n s , a 20 chain (1:15,840) inventory map of the impact s i t e , to which was added contours, p l a n i m e t r i c d e t a i l s , and % slop e , and f o r sketches, f i e l d sketches of the impact s i t e from one or more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e viewpoints. L i t t o n (1973) suggests that p e r s p e c t i v e sketches be prepared f o r s p e c i f i c p a r t s of a panorama "as a base f o r more p r e c i s e or f i n e r -grained s t u d i e s of p o s s i b l e changes and a l t e r n a t i v e s , " and h i s team used p e n c i l sketches to p r e d i c t p o s s i b l e v i s u a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n alterna-'. t i v e s on c l e a r c u t s i n the Teton N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , Wyoming. P e n c i l was used i n the case study area a l s o , s i n c e i t i s the e a s i e s t medium to use i n the f i e l d and has most f l e x i b i l i t y i n d e p i c t i n g t o n a l v a r i a t i o n s and gradations. Photographs were taken as an adjunct i n p r e d i c t i n g colour v a r i a t i o n s , but f o r 'before and a f t e r ' depections of a l t e r n a t i v e s , drawings appear to be more u s e f u l than photographs si n c e the a l t e r e d and unal t e r e d can be presented i n e x a c t l y the same medium without the need f o r p a i n s t a k i n g touching-up of f i l m . With supplementary i n f o r m a t i o n from v i s i b i l i t y maps and a e r i a l and ground photographs, data from maps and sketches was exchanged, so th a t b l o c k s of mature timber shown on the Plan were marked on the sketch, and v i s i b l e areas of p o t e n t i a l ground and stem exposure d e l i n e a t e d on the Plan. Orthographic a e r i a l photographs w i t h contour overlays were found to be very h e l p f u l i n t h i s process, forming a v i s u a l mid-point between - 150 -p e r s p e c t i v e views of surface features and the plan view of topographic maps. I n v t h e i r absence, i t was found to be e s s e n t i a l to use sketch, f o r e s t cover map, topographic map, and v i s i b i l i t y o v e r l a y ( p r e f e r a b l y c o r r e c t l y a l i g n e d on a plane t a b l e f o r s i g h t i n g purposes), simultaneously  and i n the f i e l d at the viewing p o i n t . Only i n t h i s way can d i s t o r t i o n s due to p e r s p e c t i v e i n ground views (foreshortening) be a c c u r a t e l y t r a n s -l a t e d to appearances on maps, which i s c r u c i a l f o r r e l i a b l e impact p r e d i c t i o n . Once the raw m a t e r i a l f o r planning had been e s t a b l i s h e d (Plan A ) , Plan B was developed, i t s l i k e l y appearance i n standard viewing c o n d i t i o n s p r o j e c t e d on to the drawing, i t s . p r e d i c t e d v i s u a l impact assessed on. Forms using the same c r i t e r i a as the V i s u a l ImpactAssessment £ormssinnGhapter TIvGandtitsIcostsdestimated. P l a n C was developed by simultaneous mapping and graphic p r o j e c t i o n , and i t s v i s u a l impact and c o s t s assessed. In some cases where a 2nd pass was f e a s i b l e , t h i s too was evaluated as i n the f i r s t pass, and termed C H . S i m i l a r l y , a l t e r n a -t i v e s D and E were planned and evaluated. Appendix 4 sets out the general determinants used i n developing the logging p l a n s , (derived from c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h logging company and Forest Service personnel i n the area; Wellburn, 1975a; and USDI Bureau of Land Management, undated). Appendix 5 s t a t e s the assumptions made i n e s t a b l i s h i n g timber volumes and logging costs from a v a i l a b l e data, and i s derived from the same sources as Appendix 4. In p a r t i c u l a r , the procedure f o r c o s t i n g i s based on t h a t used by Wellburn (1975a) f o r d i r e c t comparisons between logging systems, comprising road and yarding costs expressed per c u n i t harvested, s i n c e these costs have been noted as the probable major source - 151 -of v a r i a t i o n due to v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s . Costs of f e l l i n g , bucking, l o a d -i n g and s l a s h d i s p o s a l were not included i n the cost comparisons si n c e i t i s assumed that t h e i r c o s t s / c u n i t would not be much a f f e c t e d by the a l t e r a t i o n s i n . h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s proposed. The i n t e n t was to keep the comparisons as simple and d i r e c t as could be. I t i s p o s s i b l e that f a l l i n g and s l a s h d i s p o s a l costs might not be completely independent of c e r t a i n of the h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s employed, e . g . . s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g , main t r a i l c o n s t r u c t i o n through l e a v e - s t r i p s ; however these costs comprise a sm a l l f r a c t i o n of the on-to-truck c o s t , and t h e i r v a r i a t i o n s would have n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t on the t o t a l comparisons i n the examples used. Where s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t s , negative or p o s i t i v e , may be i n c u r r e d but do not appear i n the comparisons, they have been noted under Hidden Costs. Appendix 6 sets out the cost c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r each impact s i t e . For comparison i n the summary, the combined cost of both lo g g i n g passes, where these were taken, was c a l c u l a t e d , assuming equal cost r a t e s and no discount r a t e at both times. This allows comparison of operations on an equal or s i m i l a r t o t a l volume b a s i s as w e l l as a per c u n i t b a s i s . While i t i s considered that the cost assumptions r e f l e c t the true s i t u a t i o n , i t i s recognised that more complete data might b r i n g to l i g h t some d i s p a r i t i e s . There i s no reason why new assumptions based on such data could not be s u b s t i t u t e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s as set out i n the Appendices, to give a more accurate p i c t u r e . Nonetheless, i t i s f e l t that the analyses as they stand are adequate to i n d i c a t e the broad and l i k e l y consequences of h a r v e s t i n g under v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s . 4.5.3 D e t a i l e d Planning Examples 1) IMPACT SITE 1 This s i t e represents an example of impacts i n Forest Landscape - 152 -Types i and i v i n the study area. The drawings p o r t r a y the area seen l o o k i n g west from a primary viewing s i t e , the campsite on the eastern shore of Dunbar Lake. Plan 1A shows the v i s i b l e area from t h i s p o i n t . The s i t e l i e s a t t o : l%imilesx.(0.. 4-2.4km),_.distanee in- a--panoramic landscape of the Septet Mountains, and the r i d g e on the s i t e stands at a f o c a l p o i n t i n the view, formed by the converging l i n e s of the Dunbar Creek v a l l e y - s i d e s behind; i t i s t h e r e f o r e a very v u l n e r a b l e p a r t of the landscape, (see Figure 47 f o r e x i s t i n g appearance). Plan IB i s based on an a c t u a l t e n t a t i v e c u t t i n g p l a n submitted by Revelstoke Sawmill (Radium) L t d . , November 1975.. The p r a c t i c e s used on the v i s i b l e p a r t s of t h i s p l a n , i n a f o r e s t landscape type intermediate between FLTs 3a and 3b i n Chapter I I are p r e d i c t e d to have two primary dominant e f f e c t s ( l a r g e s c a l e w i t h moderate viewing angle, and unscreened low road c u t - a n d - f i l l slopes) and s e v e r a l dominant e f f e c t s (eg. abrupt edge s i l h o u e t t e , s c a t t e r e d r e s i d u a l s , midslope road i n c l e a r c u t , low l a n d i n g cut-bank). This suggests an impact magnitude of Unacceptable M o d i f i c a t i o n (UM) standard, w i t h which the assessment of Sketch IB on Form IB concurs. Plan 1CI attempts to reduce impact magnitude mainly by reducing apparent s c a l e w h i l e r e t a i n i n g h o r i z o n t a l o r i e n t a t i o n , and screening much of the road cut-bank. P r a c t i c e s are p r e d i c t e d to have one dominant e f f e c t , l e a v i n g few r e s i d u a l s , i n s u f f i c i e n t to mask colour c o n t r a s t , and an impact magnitude of M o d i f i c a t i o n (M) standard. Form 1CI a l s o p r e d i c t s a M o d i f i c a t i o n standard from Sketch 1CI. An example of a second pass p r e d i c t i o n i s included ( 1 C I I ) , and a f o r e c a s t of M o d i f i c a t i o n standard obtained by both methods; t h i s i s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of the need to take i n t o account the f u t u r e v i s u a l impacts t h a t ' . w i l l r e s u l t from - 153 -Key f o r Map Symbols Used i n Impact S i t e Plans. . R i d g e - l i n e . _v,_- Break of slope ( d r o p - o f f ) . Rock face or outcrop. D i r e c t i o n of v i e w i n g , as i n Sketches. Area v i s i b l e as ground exposure from the s e l e c t e d viewpoint ( i n P l a n A o n l y ) . Area v i s i b l e as stem exposure from the s e l e c t e d viewpoint ( i n P l a n A o n l y ) . Blocks of merchantable timber forming the Impact S i t e . -Blocks of unmerchantable or m a r g i n a l l y merchantable timber i n the Impact S i t e . • Blocks of immature (regrowing) timber. Timber to be c l e a r c u t . I Timber t o be p a r t i a l l y - c u t . Logging road ( e x i s t i n g or proposed i n Plans) Road proposed but cost not borne by the Impact S i t e . — Landing. — S k i d - t r a i l , o r y a r d i n g road. L;.!049£ : \ N x P/3£0-P'y^ \ + PlfVats — .?<PIS Jxv,l • A t . .A- W x 4 i f)0(74) ! J \ / \ A ' / " i - 155 -FORM IB VISUAL IMPACT PREDICTION LOCATION: Impact area 1, Dunbar Lake DATE: Summer TIME: Noon LIGHTING: Moderate, Bide OBSERVER VISIBILITY: Good LOCATION: Dunbar Lake campsite Loop Road EXPOSURE: Ground/Stem VIEW DIRECTION: West DISTANCE:3/4-1 mi (mg) OBSERVER POSITION: SLOPE: . Mostly 0-25Z ASPECT: NE ELEVATION: Ov e r a l l shape of clearcut i s not v i s i b l e , but the scale completely dominates the view, occupying most of the v i s i b l e h i l l side, and bearing no r e l a t i o n to natural patterns. At a smaller scale, the form of i n d i v i d u a l trees on the ridge-top creates a ragged untidy s i l h o u e t t e . The uninterrupted scar of the top spur road i s dominant. Although oriented with topography, i t i s too harsh and p r e c i s e . The upper edge of the clearcut also forms a strong l i n e where the r i d g e - l i n e i t s e l f i s contrasted by the dark trees j u s t beyond i t s l i p , which overemphasises the ridge i t s e l f . Some l i n e i n debris. Strong colour contrast generally i . e . pale green of grass and medium brown versus dark canopy around. Also, sandy-grey of landings and cut and f i l l g i v i n g l o c a l l y high contrast. TEXTURE: Strong texture contrast with canopy; wit h i n the c l e a r c u t , the debris, snags and residuals form the texture. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD : UM IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL . ALTERNATIVES: Reduce scale of opening. Retain canopy and prevent or reduce ground exposure. Reduce continuity of road scar or eliminate. Maintain ridgeton i n canopy. REMARKS: Screening of middle spur roads and landings i s dependent on the f g tree-tops; l a t e r c l e a r i n g at the E edge of Block a may expose parts of the road. o Normal 4000' FORM & SCALE: LINE: COLOUR: FORM 1CI Viewing conditions as i n IB Small-scale apparent openings exposing ground, oriented -p a r a l l e l to r i d g e - l i n e . Most of the wide lower c l e a r i n g i s screened, and the upper edges mimic rock b l u f f openings on the slopes beyond as they would be seen at a distance of 3/4 . mile. V i r t u a l l y a l l the road scar i s screened, and the r i d g e - l i h e edge i s l o s t . However, a-greater length of cut-block edge i s exposed, the l i n e a r e f f e c t of which i s broken up by small-scale indentations and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s (c. 3-4 cb wide). As i n B. As i n B, save that the e f f e c t of snags and debris i s reduced because of the dominance .of canopy texture over most of the area. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: M IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: 1) Leave more r e s i d u a l s generally, to reduce colour contrast. , • 2) Leave selected clumps of residuals to mask remaining v i s i b l e sections of road, and interrupt the l i n e a r cut-block edge. ' NB. Selective f e l l i n g beyond cut-block edge would be l e s s e f f e c t i v e here, since the n a t u r a l patterns tend to have abrupt edges. REMARKS: This improvement i n v i s u a l impact i s made possible simply by d e f e r r i n g from logging a l l the timber i n the c r i t i c a l areas a t once, and instead moving the leave area from an area of low v i s u a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to one of high s i g n i f i c a n c e . FORM & SCALE: LINE: COLOUR: TEXTURE: - 158 -LAO 4 9 b W * A \. 640-G i PI F Vers \ v \ \A J i; \ V KB4PM \ PIF$*<& ( V Q A^ /J FPIA.220-M Hi ~N5PI?K [ Veisy K W32^jJp'^ «y)pd> J/320PK ^ IF Vol A i £ N 9 ^ 4 ^ A />/*?/-<? i ~ /\^J^><_. . ^  - X Reserve 71, I J_^f\ / A 5 ^ XG •. (C\ ^  M - ~ . £ / _ - - 4 ^ . . . pi 220-M y/\ 631-M ^s-. .0.31-G ,V ^>A. C ^ A r k B 4 5" \pm.0\ v l>A^-v J^ -«/ A \^  i 7 I.P//" 63/-M A V' ' FS A%'V^^ f V iFVets \ \ U°<A-'VA Plan IC rr. / \ Pts3.?0 i' 32U;",'i > A^-JF Vats P->/oA-o FORM 1CII Viewing conditions as i n IB ' FORM: Small scale openings, oriented p a r a l l e l to r i d g e l l n e , emulating natural rock openings. LINE: 1 Less of upper road scar i s screened, but cut-banks and f i l l slopes have had time to weather and revegetate (not steep), reducing colour contrast and continuity. COLOUR: Brownish-green of new clearcut p a r t l y absorbed i n the dark green/light green pattern already there, formed by the nature and immature canopy. New landing screened by a r e s i d u a l block of trees, also screening part of the road. TEXTURE: As i n B U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: M IMPACT DATE: 1 year a f t e r 2nd pass, 10-15 years a f t e r 1st pass. FORM ID Viewing conditions as i n IB, except stem exposure only. Form not dominant; no sharp forms introduced. No dominant l i n e introduced; more tree boles exposed, v i s i b l e at t h i s distance, but not very evident. No dominant colour change; very small patches of ground v i s i b l e through trees. Dominant - l e s s even appearance than untouched canopy; i n d i v i d u a l trees and groups more apparent than i n surrounding canopy, g i v i n g a more ragged texture. • . U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: PR IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years ..• VISUAL' ' ALTERNATIVES: Even l i g h t e r s e l e c t i o n - c u t , to reduce t e x t u r a l change and eliminate r i s k of ground exposure and colour change; e s p e c i a l l y near ridge-top where a ragged s i l h o u e t t e i s p o s s i b l e . REMARKS: NB. I t i s very hard to pre d i c t accurately the appearance of the s e l e c t i o n cut - unless uniform f e l l i n g i s done, there w i l l be areas where most trees,are cut and where Host are l e f t , according to diameter l i m i t - the l o c a t i o n of these can not be predicted i n d e t a i l without an intensive reconnaissance before hand. FORM: LINE: COLOUR: TEXTURE: o o - 165 -the•planning of the v i s u a l impact i n the f i r s t pass, much as planning of f u t u r e road and lan d i n g l a y - o u t s i s necessary f o r economically v i a b l e long term h a r v e s t i n g . P l a n ID i s an example of s e l e c t i o n c u t t i n g to r e t a i n canopy on the v i s i b l e area, w i t h subordinate e f f e c t s of road switchbacks and t e x t u r a l change of the cut g i v i n g a P a r t i a l Retention (PR) standard, again supported by Form ID, though i t i s acknowledged that i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i c t g r a p h i c a l l y the appearance of a s e l e c t i o n cut than a c l e a r c u t , because the extent and p r o b a b i l i t y of openings i s unknown. On the b a s i s of these p r e d i c t i o n s , i t i s considered t h a t , because of the extreme s e n s i t i v i t y of the view, no logging c r e a t i n g an impact more severe than a l t e r n a t i v e ID should be planned. This means e i t h e r light-medium, f a i r l y uniform s e l e c t i o n l o g ging over the v i s i b l e p a r t s of the h i l l s i d e , or r e s e r v a t i o n of the h i l l s i d e from l o g g i n g . I f the same view was i n a l e s s s e n s i t i v e l o c a t i o n , e.g. w i t h no l a k e , camp-site or major viewpoint, an impact an impact such as a l t e r n a t i v e s IC ( I and I I ) would be acceptable. 2) IMPACT SITE 2. This s i t e , on Steamboat Mountain west of Luxor, i s an example of impacts i n Forest Landscape Types i and i i . I t i s seen as extra-canopy from Highway 95, and the drawings p o r t r a y the view from LCP 1, over a di s t a n c e of 4% to 6% m i l e s (7.2-10.4km). The upper part of the s i t e i s an important segment of the r i d g e c l o s e to the s k y l i n e , seen from most p o i n t s between LCPs 1 and 2. The s i t e contains a p o t e n t i a l cable logging o p portunity, according to topographic and f o r e s t inventory i n f o r m a t i o n , though reconnaissance i n d i c a t e d p a r t s of i t were s p a r s e l y stocked. Since other cable logging o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the study area were s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d , t h i s s i t e was evaluated w i t h the assumption that the - 166 -inventory data i s c o r r e c t . P l a n 2B employs conventional ground-skidding on the upper p a r t , f o r the sake of comparison w i t h other p r a c t i c e s , though i t i s un-l i k e l y the B.C. Forest S e r v i c e would permit i t on such steep slopes (up to 80%) under present p o l i c y . An impact magnitude of UM i s i n e v i t - "• able due to three primary dominant e f f e c t s ( s c a l e , road switchback, and c u t - a n d - f i l l ) , as shown i n Sketch 2B. P l a n 2C exchanges ground-skidding f o r cable-yarding on the upper slope, the lower part remaining c o n v e n t i o n a l l y logged, but the primary dominance p r a c t i c e s remain, and the absence of s k i d - t r a i l s does not a l t e r the UM standard. P l a n 2DI reduces the s c a l e of the upper p a r t to mimic rock b l u f f s nearby, and reduces the apparent s c a l e of the lower p a r t , i n add-^ i t i o n to screening some of the mid-slope road and switchbacks. Dominant e f f e c t s p r e d i c t a b l e from the P l a n i n c l u d e h i g h road c u t - a n d - f i l l (prim-a r y ) , h i g h l a n d i n g cut-banks, and l e a v i n g too few r e s i d u a l s to mask ground colour i n the lower p a r t , suggesting Maximum M o d i f i c a t i o n . Form 2DI p r e d i c t s a lower impact magnitude because of the s p e c i a l case of the road i n Block d i n t r o d u c i n g l i n e d i s c o n t i n u o u s l y and c o i n c i d e n t w i t h an opening edge s i m i l a r to n a t u r a l edges. Another example of second pass appearance i s given i n Sketch 2DII. P r e d i c t i o n by p r a c t i c e s used suggests an M standard, because the primary dominance e f f e c t s of cut-banks and switchbacks are expected to be moderated by weathering to a l e s s pale c o l o u r i n g . Graphic p r e d i c t i o n r a i s e s the problem of whether to assess the whole impact, i e . f i r s t and second passes, or j u s t the new impact and t r e a t the o l d as part of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. Given the d e f i n i t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - 167 -- 163 -- 169 -- 170 -FORM 2B VISUAL IMPACT PREDICTION LOCATION: Impact area 2, West of Luxor DATE: Summer TIME: Morning LIGHTING: Moderate, side OBSERVER VISIBILITY: Good LOCATION: LCP1, Highway 95 EXPOSURE: Ground & stem VIEW DIRECTION: WNW DISTANCE:4^-6 mi., (Bg) OBSERVER POSITION: Inferior SLOPE: Upper, 65-80%, lower 0-40% ASPECT: NE ELEVATION: 4000* Blocks a/b: horizontally oriented, edges aligned and indented in sympathy with ridgelines and rock bluffs. Scale is out of context with existing openings. Block d:- orientation is fair, edges aligned parallel with ridge-lines and rock bluffs, though N. end i s rather geometric and few indentations mimic lower edges of rock bluffs. Scale is excessive and a dominant negative visual effect; very poorly related to other openings, and dominating the topographic form. Block d: effect of roads, landings, and skid trails is very strong due to high pale cut-banks and fill-slopes, creating a rigidly geometric and dense network of diagonal lines contrasting with the sparse and irregular lines in the landscape formed by ridges, gullies and bluff edges. Block a: line introduced here also, but less continuous, with • lower cut banks, and with road oriented to bench ridgelines. Colour of exposed ground, though darker than the rock bluffs reinforces form of clearcuts. Colour of cut-banks is dominant in creating the visual scars. Advance regeneration in a and b may reduce area and intensity of colour contrast. TEXTURE: Canopy texture almost lost at this distance. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: UM' IMPACT. DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: Reduce scale of clearcuts. Indent edges of block d further, linking with natural openings. Eliminate skid trails. Screen road cuts and landings. FORM: LINE: COLOUR: REMARKS: The clearcut areas of P.S.E. contribute very l i t t l e to the over-. a l l impact. FORM 2C Viewing conditions as in 2B Block a/b as in 2B • . Block c/d: scale even more excessive than B in relation to existing openings. Quite well oriented, with no edge regularity, and following horizontal and diagonal orientations of topography; small patches of timber between landings are too small to disrupt scale. . Block a/b: as in 2B Block d: line of midslope road scars (high cut-banks, pale ground colour) is dominant, exposing more, area of cut than road in B. However, the regular geometric effect of skid-trails i s lost, with yarding trails introducing no significant line merely locally paler colouring. Block d: a slightly more uiliform brownish colour due to scarcity of residuals. As large an area of pale disturbed ground visible as in B, due to more landings and road length. TEXTURE:. As for 2B ". ' -U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: UM IMPACT . DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: Reduce scale of clearcuts. Screen road-cuts or eliminate REMARKS: In this situation merely substituting cable-logging for ground skidding does not significantly reduce the visual impact because the negative effect of the more road and landings . necessary offsets the elimination of skid-trails. . FORM: LINE: COLOUR: - 173 -Sketch 2D I . FORM 2DI Viewing conditions as in 2B FORM: Blocks a/b: horizontally oriented, edges aligned with ridge lines and rock bluffs, partly indented at the lateral edges'. Total scale s t i l l rather large, but edges diffused by residuals within clearcut. Blocks.b/c: inevident, no ground exposure at a l l . Block d: horizontally oriented, similar in 6hape to rock bluffs scale not excessive (3-4 times surface area of rock bluffs); edges irregular on lower side, emulating and joining rock bluff openings in some places. LINE: Evident in pale road scar in the lower cut-block in d, but coinciding with upper cut-block edge, and partly screened by residual groups. Introduced line of road in Block a is partly • • screened by grouped and scattered residuals, and a leave strip near the KW landing. Ho extensive pale line visible in Block a Most switchbacks screened by .leave timber.. COLOUR: Colour of exposed ground is darker' than rock bluffs and lower in contrast with canopy than the natural openings. Block a, . with more residuals and advance regeneration forms s t i l l less contrast. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: K . • • ' • . . IMPACT . DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL . ' . ALTERNATIVES: Further indentation' at a small scale (e.g. 2 x 2ch) along bottom edge of upper cut-block in Block d, to emulate smaller rock bluff openings. Further reduction in scale of Blocks a/b by patch-cutting. Use of more edge indentations and seed-blocks instead of scattered residuals in Blocks a/b, more closely emulating rock-bluff edges, though diffuse patterns do exist in deciduous canopy and old logging impacts N & S of this site. FORM 2DII Viewing conditions as i n 2B ' FORM:' Block b: virtually no ground exposure, no form contrast. ; ' Block c: apparent scale small (less than surface area of natural openings), horizontal orientation. Block d: horizontally oriented edges repeat the character of . natural edges, save perhaps on the south side where cut-block boundaries are curved. Scale not excessive. LINE: Line of old upper spur road exposed, but not.as strong an -: effect as in C, due to weathering of cut and f i l l slopes and revegetation of road surface. Lower spur road partly screened ' b y regeneration below i t and less dominant than in C because of weathering and again i t s coinciding with a vegetation boundary. • '. . . , COLOUR: As in DI, though road-scars and unrehabilitated landings in Block d are less pale and contrasting.Regeneration in 1st pass cut-blocks now medium green; cutting in' Block b introduces low key colour contrast of stem exposure only. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: M IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years x—t. years after 2nd pass, 10-15 years after 1st pass. VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: Use of. more small scale indentations along southern end of cut-block in d, at the same time as simplifying the overall . . shape. Sketch 2D I I . - 179 -landscape, the f i r s t pass impact would.have" to meet P a r t i a l Retention standard or lower f o r i t to be considered as p a r t of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape, and i n any case, where the o l d and the new are adjacent, the combined s c a l e may lead to a higher impact magnitude than the p a r t s s e p a r a t e l y . I t was thus decided to assess the whole impact,,though t a k i n g i n t o account that the impact of the f i r s t pass may have changed i n c o lour and t e x t u r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y and may c o n t r a s t more w i t h the new impact than w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. Graphic p r e d i c t i o n of 2DII f o r e c a s t s an M standard on t h i s b a s i s . Of the three a l t e r n a t i v e P l a n s , only 2D i s acceptable. The slopes i n Block d are such that the pale road and s k i d - t r a i l s c a r s , combined w i t h the l a r g e s c a l e and colour c o n t r a s t of ground exposure, of Plans 2B and 2C would c r e a t e a major eyesore, to both s t a t i o n a r y and moving observers on the Highway. I f cable-yarding of s m a l l o r i e n t e d patches i n Block d i s not f e a s i b l e i n p r a c t i c e , (as may w e l l be the c case on economic grounds), that p a r t of the area should be reserved from l o g g i n g . In logging Blocks a and b alone, the treatment shown i n 2D i s p r e f e r a b l e to a l t e r n a t i v e 2B, and p r a c t i c e s reducing apparent c u t - b l o c k s c a l e s t i l l f u r t h e r would be yet more p r e f e r a b l e . However, t h i s l o c a t i o n i s l e s s s e n s i t i v e than Block d, and the small leave areas and t r e e groups l e f t w i t h i n s e t t i n g s would seem a reasonable compromise. 3)' IMPACT SITE 3. The impact s i t e a t Rand Creek i s an example of planning i n Forest Landscape Type i i i , w i t h steep slopes and v e r t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . The (Dir) sketches show the view from the Lakes Loop Road at Lang Lake, d i r e c t l y i n the f o c a l view of v i s i t o r s t r a v e l l i n g west, over a d i s t a n c e of 2%-3 m i l e s (4-4.8km). The s i t e i s a l s o seen o b l i q u e l y from v i s t a s on the Driftwood Road 3% m i l e s (5.6km) to.the n o r t h , (Figure 49). This - 180 -Figure 49. Oblique View of Impact S i t e 3, Rand Creek. (View south from Driftwood Road). - 181 -allows comparison of s e l e c t e d graphic p r e d i c t i o n s from two p o i n t s . The v i s i b l e area mapped i n P l a n 3A i s that seen from the d i r e c t viewpoint. P l a n 3B produces a c l a s s i c r e c t a n g u l a r c l e a r c u t , (though f o l l o w i n g t y p e l i n e s ) , on uniform timbered slopes between avalanche chutes, w i t h switchback roads and t r a c t o r - s k i d d i n g . Both p r e d i c t i o n methods give a UM standard from both viewpoints. P l a n 3C seeks to reduce s c a l e and introduce v e r t i c a l o r -i e n t a t i o n , as w e l l as screening road switchbacks and much of the road and l a n d i n g cut-banks. P r a c t i c e s i n s t i t u t i n g dominant e f f e c t s comprise s k i d - t r a i l switchbacks and high cut-banks (primary), and high landing and road cuts where unscreened, suggesting an MM standard i n d i r e c t v iewing; i n ob l i q u e viewing (comparable to FLT Id i n Chapter I I ) , one e f f e c t of primary dominance (high road c u t - a n d - f i l l ) would give Mod-i f i c a t i o n standard.! These p r e d i c t i o n s concur w i t h those of Forms 3C (D i f ) and 3C(0bl). P l a n 3D i s an attempt to j u s t i f y an increased s c a l e of c u t t -ing (though s t i l l smaller than 3B),. by e l i m i n a t i n g the road scars w i t h the help of long-distance s k i d d i n g . The dominant e f f e c t s are of s c a l e and h i g h t r a i l cut-banks (primary), again suggesting an MM standard i n d i r e c t v i ewing, w i t h which Form 3D agrees.' No graphic p r e d i c t i o n from the o b l i q u e viewpoint was c a r r i e d out f o r t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e . Impacts exceeding those of a l t e r n a t i v e s C or D are unaccept-a b l e , due to the scenic importance of the Septet Mountains. C i s per-/, haps p r e f e r a b l e to D i n that the s c a l e of openings conforms more to that of n a t u r a l p a t t e r n s , c r e a t i n g a more n a t u r a l appearance when view-ed as background. I f a campsite or major s t a t i c viewpoint at Lang Lake were to present an important view of the area, a smaller impact (such :. - 183 -> FORM 3B (Direct) VISUAL IMPACT PREDICTION LOCATION: Impact Area 3, Rand Creek DATE: Summer TIME: Morning LIGHTING: Moderate, side OBSERVER VISIBILITY: Good LOCATION: Land Lake p u l l o f f , Loop Road EXPOSURE: PGE dominant VIEW DIRECTION: SW DISTANCE:. 2.8 mi (mg) OBSERVER POSITION: In f e r i o r SLOPE: 10 to 50Z ASPECT: NE ELEVATION: 4000-5500* Blocks a/b: Square, very large scale i n proportion to mountain-side, unrelated to size and shape of chute, though related to draw to the South and to Rand Cr. i n the N where Block b appears smaller scale and closer to the' orientation of topo-graphy. Block c: Smaller scale, more i r r e g u l a r l y shaped, but v i s u a l l y unlinked to anything, no orientation up or across the slope. Road pattern almost f u l l y v i s i b l e , due to cut-banks and f i l l , and road surface at switchbacks. Forms harsh pale l i n e across slope unrelated i n di r e c t i o n and continuity to other l i n e s i n landscape, i . e . small forested ridge l i n e s , steep draws. Skid-t r a i l s not too evident (lower cut banks) but focusing the eye on landings. On timber generally a brownish green, a mixture of duff and debris with l i g h t green of invading shrubs and grasses, and dark green of residual trees. Uniformly coloured, save for high colour contrast of road and landing s o i l disturbance, a pale sandy-grey colour. TEXTURE: Residuals i n s u f f i c i e n t to bring texture close to forest canopy. U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: UM IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: Reduce scale of opening i n Blocks a/b. Improve orientation of openings. Reduce continuity of road scar, or eliminate. Introduce textural change only as dominant impact, retaining more canopy to disguise form, colour and l i n e of cut-blocks. FORM: LINE: COLOUR: FORM 3B (Oblique) VISUAL IMPACT PREDICTION LOCATION: Impact Area 3, Rand Creek DATE: Summer TIME: Morning LIGHTING: Moderate side OBSERVER VISIBILITY: Good LOCATION: Driftwood Creek road, e x i s t i n g v i s t a above Creek EXPOSURE: PGE 4 PSE VIEW DIRECTION: South DISTANCE: 3.6 m (mg) OBSERVER POSITION: Normal SLOPE: 10 to 50% ASPECT: NE ELEVATION 4000-5500' FORM: Block a: S t i l l looks square and large i n scale, though l a t e r a l edges follow diagonal orientation of landscape. ' Block c: Large scale, horizontal/diagonal orientation unlinked to avalanche chutes. LINE: Road pattern f u l l y v i s i b l e , with cut and f i l l and switchbacks forming harsh pale l i n e transversely across the slope, cutt i n g across other natural l i n e s . COLOUR: As i n 3B (Dir.) TEXTURE: As i n 3B (Dir.) U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: UM IMPACT DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: As i n 3B (Dir.) Link cut-block c with right-hand avalanche chute. - 189 -Sketch 3C (OBL). FORM 3C (Dir) Viewing conditions as i n 3B FORM: - General scale of openings s i m i l a r to natural openings, but wider,'vertical, and diagonal "orientation i n sympathy with that of chute, and edge conformation more influenced by topographic features than B. S t i l l deviates from c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape i n the elevation of openings and occurrence of openings beyond '- draws and g u l l i e s . LINE: Short sections of spur roads f u l l y v i s i b l e * but continuity broken. The southern switchback, most noticeable section, i s screened along with the landing. Northern spur road represents dominant l i n e impact contradicting the canopy pattern oriented v e r t i c a l l y . Skid t r a i l s more noticeable i n upper edges of openings due to switchbacks within confined openings and steeper grades i n places. COLOUR: As for B, with less pale road scars v i s i b l e . Landings, being close to seed source, may regenerate and change colour sooner. TEXTURE: As f o r B - . • ,.'. •;'-:V.. '.'Z U.S. QUALITY .... :' STANDARD: MM v:/, >': IMPACT . • ' ' DATE: 1-2 years VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: Narrow the clearings s t i l l , f u r t h e r , to approximatejiatural widths more C l o s e l y . - - . . ,y-;FORM 3C (Oblique) . VISUAL IMPACT PREDICTION Viewing conditions as i n 3B (Dir) FORM: LINE: Small i n scale, comparable i n width to ex i s t i n g openings, save perhaps i n Block c which i s wider. Diagonal orientation i n sympathy with chutes. Tree island i n Block c somewhat regular and rounded i n shape, and'shape elsewhere not borrow-ing completely from natural patterns. Edge conformation as i n chutes. Portions of spur road f u l l y v i s i b l e , with harsh l i n e of cut-banks p a r t i c u l a r l y noticeable on northern'road. No switch-backs exposed. Some s k i d - t r a i l s evident i n upper Block c. COLOUR: As i n 3B (Dir.) some pale landings v i s i b l e TEXTURE: As i n 3B (Dir.) U.S. QUALITY STANDARD: M IMPACT DATE: • 1-2 years VISUAL U.TERNATIVES: Reshape upper cut-block edges s l i g h t l y to emulate diagonal natural openings. ; Lengthen res i d u a l group i n Block c. Screen more of northern road by other r e s i d u a l groups. • Eliminate road scar by long distance skidding. - 193 -FORM 3D ( D i r ) Viewing c o n d i t i o n s as i n 3B - 1 9 4 -C l e a r c u t edges f o l l o w o r i e n t a t i o n - o f topography, p a r a l l e l to g u l l i e s , break of s l o p e s , and chute-edges. O v e r a l l d i a g o n a l p a t t e r n s c a l e of openings c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r . t h a n n a t u r a l openings, but sm a l l e r than B. 0 Edge conformation l e s s i r r e g u l a r than C. More i n accord w i t h s i m p l i c i t y of n a t u r a l openings. I n e v i d e n t ; only road s e c t i o n f u l l y v i s i b l e i s that c r o s s i n g below the chute, vrhich c o n t r a d i c t s the edge p a t t e r n . No steep road c u t s however. T r a i l s l e s s n o t i c e a b l e than i n B and C, w i t h few cuts save on main t r a i l s , again d i a g o n a l . As f o r B. wiLh even l e s s cut-bank c o n t r i b u t i n g c o l o u r c o n t r a s t s . Colour w i l l approach t h a t of chute i n i t s v a l u e and c o n t i n u i t y as canopy c l o s e s over. TEXTURE:. As f o r B. U.S. QUALITY . STANDARD: MM . • . ' VISUAL ALTERNATIVES: 1) Leave more complete r e s e r v e s t r i p s , t o reduce s c a l e of opening and break i t s l a t e r a l c o n t i n u i t y . 2) Leave area below chute timbered to screen spur road there and thus i n t r o d u c e v i r t u a l l y no l i n e to the landscape. 3) D i f f u s e the edges by s e l e c t i v e c u t t i n g f o r r e s i d u a l s ; i f done i n s i d e , not beyond c u t - b l o c k s , might reduce s c a l e , and co l o u r edge emphasis, b r i n g i n g to M standard even though no d i f f u s e edges i n n a t u r a l landscape. FORM: LINE: COLOUR: REMARKS: NB. Scale of edge i n d e n t a t i o n s - i r r e g u l a r i t i e s 4 ch wide and 2 ch deep have l i t t l e e f f e c t . Most aire at l e a s t 5-6 ch wide and 4 ch deep. - 195 -as long-distance cable-yarding i n narrow patches to mimic avalanche chutes c l o s e l y , or s e l e c t i o n logging of g e n t l e r slopes to preserve canopy c l o s u r e , ) would be necessary. In the absence of r e l a t i v e l y soph-i s t i c a t e d l o g g i n g p r a c t i c e s , the a l t e r n a t i v e would be to reserve the upper slopes of Impact S i t e 3 from timber h a r v e s t i n g . The lower impact magnitude from the Driftwood Creek Road would probably be acceptable even w i t h a more s e n s i t i v e viewpoint, due to the ob l i q u e viewing d i r -e c t i o n . 4.5.4 D i s c u s s i o n of R e s u l t s and Hypothesis 4. Table 8 summarizes the cost comparisons of the impact ex-amples. In Impact S i t e - ' l , the combined cost of f i r s t and second passes was 34<: per c u n i t higher i n the conventional a l t e r n a t i v e than i n t h a t i n c l u d i n g o r i e n t e d s m a l l s c a l e e c u t t i n g on the r i d g e . T h i s was due mostly to r e s e r v a t i o n of the timber on the steep r i d g e t o p which would r e q u i r e t r a i l b u l l d o z i n g , though i t i s l i k e l y that without the v i s u a l a n a l y s i s that accompanies v i s u a l impact planning, the second pass cuttr: in g near the Lake would not take p l a c e . The a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h s e l e c t i o n logging cost over $1 per c u n i t more than the co n v e n t i o n a l , because of reduced volume per s e t t i n g i n c r e a s i n g road and landing c o s t s and i n -creased cost of s k i d - t r a i l l a y - o u t , though the l a t t e r has p o s s i b l y been over-emphasised i n that t r a i l s are not necessary i n the c l e a r c u t area. However, comparing f i r s t passes on l y , the cost d i f f e r e n c e s between IB and ID was only 56c per c u n i t ; a second pass f o r a l t e r n a t i v e D was not evaluated due to the d i f f i c u l t y of es t i m a t i n g timber volume ( w i t h i n • " r u s e f u l l i m i t s ) due to the unknowns of stand treatment. In I m p a c f i S i t e 2, the conventional a l t e r n a t i v e was cheapest - 196 -TABLE 8. Summary of Cost Evaluations of Impact Sites. (For calculations, see Appendix 6.) Costs (Dollars/cunit) Timber Difference Loggable Impact - Volume Direct Compared to Leave.* Site Harvesting Pla n (Cunits) Road Landing Skidding Total Conventional (Acres) l: B Conventional I 6183 3.89 0.45 7.00 11.34 +0.53 39 II 1053 0.76 0.44 6.50 7.70 -3.11 0 Comb. 7236 3.55 0.45 6.93 10.81 0 1. C Oriented Patch-cut I 6089 3.78 0.40 6.50 10.68 -0.13 29 II 848 1.95 0.55 6.50' 9.00 -1.81 8 Comb. 6937 3.56 0.42 6.50 10.47 e-0.34 8 L D Selection Cut 6003 3.93 0.47 7.50 11.90 +1.09 -2. B Conventional 7710 3.63 0.42 8.00 12.05 127. 2 C Cable-logging 7981 4.21 0.93 12.37(av) 17.51 +5.46 119 2 D Cable/Patch-cut I 7917 4.17 0.81 I0.36(av) 15.34 +3.29 109 II 3819 2.32 0.42 9.33(av) 12.07 +0.02 18 Comb. 11736 3.57 0.68 10.02 14.28 +2.23 18 3 B Conventional Ground- 6716 3.28 0.45 7.50 11.23 • 0 skid & Clearcut 3 C Smaller, Oriented I 5991 3.94 0.56 7.50 12.00 +0.77 40 Clearcut II 1179 4.62 0.66 7.50 12.78 +1.55 3 Comb. 7170 4.05 0.58 7.50 12.13 +0.90 3 3 D FMC Ground-skid I 6124 2.11 0.24 6.11 8.46 -2.77 27.5 & Oriented Clearcu : II 809 2.30 0.41 6.11 8.82 -2.41 3.5 Comb. 6933 2.13 0.26 6.11 8.50 -2.73 3.5 FMC Ground-skid with 6716 1.92 0.22 6.11 8.25 -2.98 0 Clearcut as in 3B (approx)(approx) (approx) (approx) NB. I and II refer to f i r s t and second passes in a logging plan. Comb, refers to the total costs of both passes. * Loggable leave is timber which could be logged from f i i s t pass access by the logging method used in the fir s t pass. - 197 -of a l l , but u n l i k e l y to be acceptable under B.C. Forest S e r v i c e p o l i c y . The a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h c a b l e - l o g g i n g but no v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s . . _ cost $5.46 per c u n i t more than the conv e n t i o n a l , w h i l e the same w i t h reduced cut-block s c a l e , o r i e n t e d c u t - b l o c k s , and p a r t l y screened roads (2D) cost $3.29 per c u n i t more than the conventional i n the f i r s t pass, a l l w i t h s i m i l a r timber volumes. A l t e r n a t i v e 2D th e r e f o r e repres-ents a saving i n comparison w i t h the most l i k e l y a l t e r n a t i v e , due to a smaller p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l yarding c o s t s a r i s i n g from the expensive c a b l e - y a r d i n g operation. In Impact S i t e 3, the a l t e r n a t i v e i n c l u d i n g ground-skidding w i t h i n s mall s c a l e , v e r t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d c l e a r c u t s , was 90c per c u n i t more expensive than the conventional a l t e r n a t i v e , because of a two phase h a r v e s t i n g a c t i v i t y i n s t e a d of one, r a i s i n g i n i t i a l road and l a n d -ing costs per c u n i t and demanding r e h a b i l i t a t i o n expenditure too. Tent-a t i v e conclusions on the use of long - s k i d d i n g to cut road costs i n d i c a t e that the a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s cost s l i g h t l y more (25c per c u n i t ) than that without, but the f l e x i b i l i t y of the FMC's usage reduces the cost increase ascribed to v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s , compared to that i n conventional a l t e r n a t i v e s . I t does seem l i k e l y that new cost-saving ':c technology such as t h i s w i l l a l l o w the use of design t o o l s at costs s i g -n i f i c a n t l y lower than w i t h conventional p r a c t i c e s . In summary, the impact examples r e v e a l s e v e r a l instances of s i m i l a r or reduced co s t s per c u n i t of a l t e r n a t i v e s w i t h reduced v i s u a l impact magnitude, i n support of Hypothesis 4. Except f o r the cases of cable-yarding and long-distance ground-skidding, the range of v a r i a t i o n between cost a l t e r n a t i v e s i s not d i s s i m i l a r to that normally experienced i n the study r e g i o n by companies using' d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t o r s i n -- 198 -d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s on comparable s i t e s . Cost d i f f e r e n c e s compared w i t h conventional c o s t s ranged from -$2.73/cunit to +$2.23/cunit, the extremes at both ends being due to use of unconventional logging systems; i n the case of the more c o s t l y systems, t h e i r use as design t o o l s may represent a saving i n the short term compared w i t h t h e i r use to meet other o b j e c t i v e s only, e.g. s o i l p r o t e c t i o n w i t h cable systems. Those plans i n the case study which employed common logging systems ( c l e a r c u t t i n g and ground-skidding) modified as design t o o l s had smaller cost v a r i a t i o n s (-$0.34/ c u n i t to +$0.90/cunit), w i t h small cost increases i n the short term due mostly to timber l e f t between s e t t i n g s , which may o f t e n be s u f f i c i e n t to meet v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s i n a l l but the most v i s u a l l y s e n s i t i v e s i t e s . Leaving timber w i t h i n s e t t i n g s , e.g. p a r t i a l c u t t i n g , d i d r a i s e short term co s t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y (+$1.09/cunit) and would probably do so wherever i t comprised a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l h a r v e s t i n g operation. Therefore, i t may be s a i d that where v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s are taken i n t o account from the f i r s t , the monetary costs of timber h a r v e s t i n g are not n e c e s s a r i l y increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y by measures taken to reduce v i s u a l impact magnitude. The ex p l a n a t i o n f o r the f i n d i n g s l i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia's governmental c o n s t r a i n t s on timber management. Due to present cut and leave p o l i c y , d e f e r r i n g p a r t of the timber i n v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s a l l o w s more timber to be taken on a d j o i n i n g l e s s c r i t i c a l s i t e s (as i n P l a n IC above), which may or may not be b e t t e r q u a l i t y timber. I t may o f t e n happen though t h a t the v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s , e.g. r i d g e l i n e s , steep slopes, and canyons, are a l s o more c o s t l y to l o g than l e s s v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s such as benches and shallow draws. Thus, deferments on v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l s i t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h the more expensive systems, can represent a c l e a r saving or can spread c o s t s over two or more passes, ' d i l u t i n g ' them i n the lower costs of conventional p r a c t i c e s elsewhere i n - 199 -the same logging p l a n , as i n P l a n 2DI. These p o s i t i v e cost i n t e r a c t i o n s are l i k e l y to be most apparent where timber i s u n i f o r m l y merchantable and a l t e r i n g c u t - b l o c k boundaries does not e n t a i l t a k i n g bad timber and l e a v i n g good; they may disappear where a l l the merchantable timber l i e s i n the v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l area, and c o s t s may r i s e where no compensating c u t t i n g i s p o s s i b l e elsewhere. Governmental c o n s t r a i n t s such as r e s t r i c t i o n s on c e r t a i n logging methods on steep slopes a l s o i n f l u e n c e the cost b a s e l i n e against which e x t r a c o s t s due to v i s u a l aims must be measured. In many i n s t a n c e s , present conventional p r a c t i c e s are more c o s t l y to the environment than design t o o l s are, and monetary cost may not be the c r u c i a l f a c t o r at a l l . I t i s recognised as a l i m i t a t i o n on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s that the examples used c o n t a i n a b i a s towards v a r i a b l e topography. Impacts i n uniform topography of uniform v i s i b i l i t y w i t h h i g h viewing angle may c o n s i s t e n t l y cost more to have t h e i r impact magnitudes reduced, ( c f . Plans 3B and 3C). This i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r e s t landscape type may be an i n d i c a t o r of h i g h and low cost increases due to v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s . In a l l instances where costs may r i s e as a consequence of modifying p r a c t i c e s , the exact area r e q u i r i n g t h i s treatment should be s p e c i f i e d to minimise the e x t r a c o s t s . The importance of an accurate and  d e t a i l e d inventory of viewing c o n d i t i o n s i n v i s u a l l y s e n s i t i v e landscapes  i s paramount. In l a r g e logging o p e r a t i o n s , the increased cost of v i s u a l impact planning might consequently be n e g l i g i b l e , as long as the v i s u a l input i s considered i n the whole p l a n from the beginning. - 200 -Chapter V IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 5.1 A PROCEDURE FOR VISUAL IMPACT PLANNING The f i n d i n g s on v i s u a l e f f e c t s (Chapter I I ) and management i n t e r a c t i o n s (Chapter I I I ) of timber h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s , to be u s e f u l i n p r a c t i c a l f o r e s t management, could be presented i n o u t l i n e form to i n d i c a t e where (both w i t h i n and between proposed h a r v e s t i n g areas) and how planning e f f o r t should be d i r e c t e d . A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of design t o o l s could be developed, from which p r a c t i c e s a p p r o p r i a t e i n reducing impact magnitude i n a p a r t i c u l a r f o r e s t landscape type could' be chosen, according to whether they: a) introduce i n e v i d e n t v i s u a l e f f e c t s , b) c r e a t e evident e f f e c t s ( e s p e c i a l l y dominant ones) t h a t may need to be reduced, i . e . c a n c e l l e d or n e u t r a l i s e d . c) i n t e r a c t w i t h p r a c t i c e s of dominant e f f e c t to achieve a subordinate or i n e v i d e n t combined e f f e c t , i . e . c a n c e l l i n g or n e u t r a l i s i n g p r a c t i c e s . (See B.C. Forest S e r v i c e r e p o r t , Sheppard, 1976). With such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , the task of the planner of v i s u a l impacts would simply be to i d e n t i f y ' t h e p a r t s of the c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n which apply to h i s area of concern. The steps i n t h i s process, shown sc h e m a t i c a l l y i n Fi g u r e 50 comprise: 1) Inventory of v i s u a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas w i t h i n a r e g i o n , i d e n t i f y i n g areas of p o s s i b l e p u b l i c concern over t h r e a t s to scenic q u a l i t y . High p r i o r i t y areas should become obvious to managers w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f o r t i n the short term, eg. c u t t i n g permits seen from t o u r i s t routes and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . - 201 -Figure 50. A Procedure for Visual Impact Planning. 1. Inventory SENSITIVITY Number and type of user. • for each highly sensitive area 2. Inventory VIEWING CONDITIONS Visibility Canopy viewing. Observer position. View direction. Angle of viewing. Distance. BIOPHYSICAL CONDITIONS Climatic influences, eg. snow-lie, rainfall. Topography, eg. slope, aspect, ruggedness. Geology and soils, eg. colour, stability. Vegetation, eg. species mix, density. Existing human impacts, eg. farming.. 4. Describe 4. Describe CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPES Apparent existing landscape pattern and orientation, (form, scale, line, colour, texture.) INHERENT AND CLIMATIC VULNERABILITY Potential appearance due to ground disturb-ance, eg.soil colour, exposure. 5. Identify ' | FOREST LANDSCAPE TYPES \ 7. Identify feasible 9. Select from HARVESTING PRACTICES OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS CLASSIFICATION OF DESIGN TOOLS Visual effects of practices. 10. Predict VISUAL IMPACT Magnitude and importance. - 202 -2) Mapping and d e s c r i p t i o n of viewing c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n each s e n s i t i v e area, as described i n the a p p r a i s a l methods f o r the case study area. The t a k i n g of panoramic photographs and p l o t t i n g of v i s i b l e area from LCPs could e a s i l y be adapted from e x i s t i n g techniques used i n rec o r d i n g f i r e - l o o k o u t i n f o r m a t i o n . 3) Data c o l l e c t i o n on b i o p h y s i c a l ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area. 4) D e s c r i p t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape and i t s p o t e n t i a l appearance w i t h d i s t u r b a n c e , i n terms of the v i s u a l elements. 5) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of f o r e s t landscape types as i n case study a p p r a i s a l . 6) D e f i n i t i o n of v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r each f o r e s t landscape type. 7) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any c o n s t r a i n t s on choice of h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e , eg. equipment a v a i l a b l e i n the area, scheduling, access. 8) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of management o b j e c t i v e s which may c o n s t r a i n the options on design t o o l s . T h e r e a f t e r , the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n may be consulted and the appro p r i a t e range of p r a c t i c e s s e l e c t e d f o r the req u i r e d v i s u a l impact magnitude, determined p a r t l y by the importance of i t s l o c a t i o n , i n step 6. The range of p o s s i b l e design t o o l s may be wide or narrow, or depending on the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of c o n s t r a i n t , non-existent. In the l a t t e r case, the choice must be made whether to meet the v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s and avoid h a r v e s t i n g , or to compromise the v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e . The procedure described above i s not meant to be able to make t h i s d e c i s i o n by a s s i g n i n g v a l u e s ; the d e c i s i o n , as i n most resource c o n f l i c t d e c i s i o n s , must be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of higher a u t h o r i t y . With f l e x i b l e and s i t e - s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n of v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s , w i t h i n c r e a s i n g l y v a r i e d technology a v a i l a b l e , and w i t h more i n t e n s i v e f o r e s t management, there should be few c o n f l i c t s i n v o l v i n g s i z a b l e t r a c t s f o r p o s s i b l e withdrawal from c u t t i n g f o r v i s u a l reasons. - 203 -Steps 2 to 8 above can be c a r r i e d out e i t h e r f o r an area w i t h s e v e r a l f o r e s t landscape types (as i n the case study c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , 4.4), or f o r a s i n g l e proposed c u t t i n g s i t e . In the l a t t e r case, only one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape w i l l be d e s c r i b e d , and i f more than one f o r e s t landscape type occurs, due to a v a r i e t y of viewing c o n d i t i o n s , only the type(s) most v u l n e r a b l e to impacts need be considered i n f o r m u l a t i n g v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of design t o o l s could be used e i t h e r to propose p r a c t i c e s or to assess a p l a n w i t h p r a c t i c e s already proposed, both on the b a s i s of number of p r a c t i c e s w i t h dominant e f f e c t . On many s i t e s , planning to t h i s l e v e l maybe adequate to p r o t e c t the landscape; however, the d e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g examples i n s e c t i o n s 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 represent an extension to the procedure f o r i n d i v i d u a l h i g h - p r i o r i t y s i t e s where a n a t u r a l or near n a t u r a l appearance i s r e q u i r e d . A graphic p r e d i c t i o n of the f i n a l a c t i v i t y i s e s s e n t i a l , not only to give a f i r m impression of the appearance which must be created by the h a r v e s t i n g team, but to provide input during the planning stage. I t can not be overstated that the appearance of an a c t i v i t y on a map i n p l a n i s not a r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t i o n of i t s appearance i n a p e r s p e c t i v e view. Hence, i t would be wise to employ graphic p r e d i c t i o n more g e n e r a l l y f o r i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s , though the drawing need not be as d e t a i l e d as those i n the study examples i n a l l cases. I n t h i s context, the U.S. Forest Service"landscape a r c h i t e c t s commonly use a technique of p r o j e c t i n g a photographic transparency of a landscape on to a l a r g e sheet of white paper, sketch i n the major v i s u a l elements, and then rough i n p o s s i b l e v i s u a l impacts (Bacon, 1975). The technique i s r a p i d and simple, and, most important, r e q u i r e s a minimum of a r t i s t i c e x p e r t i s e , though c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n must s t i l l be p a i d to s c a l e and f o r e s h o r t e n i n g i n sketching i n the impact. - 204 -One other technique w i t h considerable p o t e n t i a l i n graphic impact p r e d i c t i o n should be mentioned b r i e f l y here. Computer-generated drawings, u s i n g e l e v a t i o n s and other i n f o r m a t i o n p l o t t e d on a g r i d , can simulate the three-dimensional view from any p o i n t on the g r i d i n any d i r e c t i o n and from any height above • the surface (Kojima and Wagar, 1972). Further development could perhaps simulate the view more r e a l i s t i c a l l y than i s p o s s i b l e w i t h j u s t g r i d - i n t e r s e c t i o n data, but the technique may remain the t o o l f o r l a r g e s c a l e p r o j e c t s only i n the immediate f u t u r e . As the output from the suggested procedure, recommendations could be made by zone, each r e f l e c t i n g the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the most s e n s i t i v e f o r e s t landscape type where these overlap. For each zone, the range of timber production p r a c t i c e s which' could be used should be s p e c i f i e d , the i n t e n s i t y and d e t a i l of v i s u a l impact planning i n d i c a t e d , proposed v i s u a l impacts p r e d i c t e d a c c o r d i n g l y and the i n t e n s i t y of s u p e r v i s i o n of the ope r a t i o n s t i p u l a t e d . Such zones could be mapped at sc a l e s of 40 chain : 1" (1:31,680) or 4/5 m i l e : 1" (1:50,000), and be incorporated i n t o the Resource F o l i o system c u r r e n t l y i n use as an i n t e r -agency planning a i d . For d e t a i l e d planning of i n d i v i d u a l ' s i t e s , . ' --. 20 : 1" (1:15,840) maps should be used to a t t a i n s u f f i c i e n t accuracy. As a precedent f o r the procedure o u t l i n e d , the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e V i s u a l Management System must be acknowledged. I t should not be assumed, however, that the VMS could simply be tran s p l a n t e d to the B r i t i s h Columbian context, s i n c e the system/has drawbacks and i s adapted to a d i f f e r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n . The v i r t u e of the VMS s e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s l i e s i n t h e i r s i m p l i c i t y , but they are an a r b i t r a r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which has yet to be j u s t i f i e d i n terms of q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the numbers and preferences of viewers, and undoubtedly would need to be modified i n s p e c i f i c cases, where - 205 -r e l i a b l e data could be gathered. The premise that landscape s e n s i t i v i t y f a l l s w i t h d i s t a n c e can a l s o be questioned, s i n c e , w i t h high speed t r a v e l where foreground v e g e t a t i o n does not screen out longer d i s t a n c e views, middleground may be the most s e n s i t i v e : a l l p e r c e p t i o n of foreground d e t a i l i s l o s t due to speed, w h i l e i n extra-canopy viewing of middleground, management p r a c t i c e s a f f e c t i n g s c a l e and shape of openings, f o r example, are f a r more c l e a r l y revealed than i n intra-canopy viewing of the foreground. The premise behind the landscape v a r i e t y c r i t e r i o n used i n the VMS i s that landscapes "with the most v a r i e t y or d i v e r s i t y have the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r h i g h scenic value"'(U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , 1974), a g e n e r a l i s a t i o n w i t h which most f i n d i n g s would broadly agree, eg. Shafer and M i e t z , (1970). However, i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the area that would f a l l i n t o a minimal v a r i e t y c l a s s i s small (except "in p a r t s of the c e n t r a l I n t e r i o r and North-East) and the areas of outstanding v a r i e t y seen by l a r g e numbers of people are perhaps e a s i l y r e c o g n i s a b l e . Government agency manpower i s s t r e t c h e d t h i n l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia and would be unable to conduct l a r g e s c a l e i n v e n t o r i e s of landscape v a r i e t y and s e n s i t i v i t y . To a i d f o r e s t managers, t h e r e f o r e , v i s u a l impact planning should focus on p r i o r i t y areas. These, to a l a r g e extent, are already known by agencies a n t i c i p a t i n g c o n f l i c t s ; and tend to occur i n h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e and more v a r i e d landscapes. Therefore, the breadth of o r g a n i s a t i o n of the VMS i s superfluous i n B r i t i s h Columbia at the moment, although the VMS provides a y a r d s t i c k f o r comparison on a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e . S e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s and v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s should i n s t e a d be assessed s i t e - s p e c i f i c a l l y . The concept of a minimum v i s u a l q u a l i t y standard (Maximum M o d i f i c a t i o n ) f o r a l l lands i s perhaps premature i n a Province - 206 -r e t a i n i n g enormous t r a c t s of defacto wilderness seldom seen by man, though i t should be endorsed f o r a l l areas w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t r e c r e a t i o n a l use. Future B.C. Forest S e r v i c e p o l i c y however, should be concerned w i t h d e l i n e a t i n g v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s on a broader-than-site b a s i s . The VMS provides a workable and reasonably o b j e c t i v e method of ass e s s i n g impact magnitude (as used i n t h i s study)", but has (to t h i s date) made l i t t l e attempt to s p e c i f y the methods of a c h i e v i n g the v i s u a l q u a l i t y goals i t s e t s . I t i s i n t h i s f i e l d t hat B r i t i s h Columbia should make most progress. I t has been shown that i n order to p r e d i c t a v i s u a l e f f e c t of a p r a c t i c e , and consequently'to achieve the d e s i r e d e f f e c t , the d e t a i l of the p r a c t i c e must be s p e c i f i e d . This c o n f l i c t s w i t h the account by F r i d (1975), working w i t h the V i s u a l Management System i n Oregon, of poor r e s u l t s i n implementing v i s u a l l y planned logging where landscape a r c h i t e c t s t r i e d to s p e c i f y p r a c t i c e s i n d e t a i l . ' The p o i n t here i s that the U.S. f o r e s t S e r v i c e employs logging engineers as area s t a f f , who are f a m i l i a r w i t h the VMS and more capable of t r a n s l a t i n g the landscape a r c h i t e c t ' s recommendations i n t o r e s u l t s than he i s h i m s e l f . In B.C., w i t h the s c a r c i t y of such employees, and the l a c k of precedents i n l a n d -scape design, manuals e x p l a i n i n g both the v i s u a l impact planning procedure and the use ( i n d e t a i l ) of p r a c t i c e s as design t o o l s are e s s e n t i a l . 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VISUAL IMPACT PLAN At the t r e e - r o o t s l e v e l s , how i s the h a r v e s t i n g team to execute the p l a n on the ground? The p r a c t i c e s have been s p e c i f i e d , the a c t i v i t y sketched and mapped; the key to implementation l i e s i n accurate t r a n s l a t i o n of the sketch to the map, as already d e s c r i b e d , and of the map to the ground, by conventional marking-out techniques. This avoids the need f o r simultaneous designing and marking on the ground, f o r which s p e c i a l i s t - 207 -teams equipped w i t h gadgets ranging from helium b a l l o o n s to 'walky-talky 1 r a d i o s (Crowe, 1966) are r e q u i r e d . I t may be necessary to mark co n s i d e r a b l y more boundary than u s u a l , eg. an inner and outer boundary f o r a c l e a r c u t w i t h s e l e c t i o n - f e l l e d edge, to mark'many more i n d i v i d u a l t r e e s i n clumps and i d f f u s e edges, or to mark m a i n t r a i l s . In most cases, given an accurate sketch and map, the r e s t of the e x p e r t i s e i n lay-o u t already e x i s t s . As v a r i o u s authors suggest (Wellburn, 1975a; Brace and Stewart, 1973), the necessary e x p e r t i s e i n logging u n d e r ' v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n Canada i s l a c k i n g , or l a t e n t . Such h a r v e s t i n g w i l l c e r t a i n l y demand i n t e r e s t , s k i l l , and care on the par t of operators. U n t i l they become experienced i n c u t t i n g to p r e c i s e boundaries, p r e s e r v i n g s i n g l e and grouped tre e s without damage, and minimising ground di s t u r b a n c e , intense s u p e r v i -s i o n by the B.C. Forest S e r v i c e would be necessary. ' E v e n t u a l l y , s p e c i f i c clauses f o r c o n t r a c t s i n v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l areas may be developed, as are a v a i l a b l e f o r some purposes i n the U.S. N a t i o n a l Forests ( C a i r d , 1975), but u n t i l experience i s gained, wrong d e c i s i o n s w i l l undoubtedly be made and mistakes perpetrated. What should not "be t o l e r a t e d are mistakes due to c a r e l e s s n e s s . To t h i s end, lo g g i n g company personnel, from the planner to the contracted D8 d r i v e r , should be made aware of the aims of any landscape program they are inv o l v e d i n , and be encouraged to l i v e up to them i n p r a c t i c e . This would d o v e t a i l i n t o the move to improve the logger's environmental awareness and the degree of company s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l of logging p r a c t i c e s , supported by Wellburn (1975a). In a d d i t i o n , e x p e r t i s e i n f o r e s t landscape design would have to be increased at a l l l e v e l s i n the supervisory agency. - 208 -F i n a l l y , the need f o r f l e x i b i l i t y i n e x e r t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power should be s t r e s s e d . Where v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s are deemed important, other normal requirements may have to be waived i f operators are to make a p r o f i t and a success. Otherwise, some s o r t of funding to cover any h i g h c o s t s s p e c i f i c a l l y due to v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s w i l l ' b e necessary. 5.3 BEYOND THE STUDY - WHAT NEXT? This t h e s i s does not represent 'the problem solved', more 'the problem o u t l i n e d and s o l u t i o n s posed'. S i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n s of i t are based upon the evidence of personal impressions of those'involved i n the f i e l d study and on data gathered by n o n - c l a s s i c a l ' e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure. In view of the v a r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s , omissions, assumptions, and b i a s s e s mentioned i n the t e x t , the f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s are necessary to plumb the depths of the u n c e r t a i n t i e s : 1) Planning on the b a s i s of a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of design t o o l s could be undertaken on a c t u a l l o g g i n g s i t e s , to t e s t i t s usefulness and r e l i a b i l i t y i n the f i e l d i n the study r e g i o n . I t may be that some v i s u a l e f f e c t s w i l l not be as p r e d i c t e d , and r e v i s i o n w i l l be r e q u i r e d . : .>. 2) Procedures such as the one o u t l i n e d above could be adopted on a t r i a l b a s i s , to t e s t t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a c e r t a i n area. The procedure could be a p p l i e d to any p a r t of the P r o v i n c e , provided step 9 was adapted to l o c a l f o r e s t landscape types and v i s u a l e f f e c t s . 3) More estimated, and a c t u a l h a r v e s t i n g c o s t s under v i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s should be analysed to determine i f the cost trends presented here are accurate and t y p i c a l . The primary need i s to d i s c e r n the extent and p r o p o r t i o n s of the v a r i o u s trends, so'that some idea of the amount of money inv o l v e d i n a v i s u a l impact planning p o l i c y could be - 209 -gained.: As things stand, l i t t l e progress has been made beyond Streeby's (1970) i n t e n t to t i e costs of a v i s u a l management program to the land area i n v o l v e d . The scope of the t h e s i s , broad though i t i s , seems at times very c o n s t r i c t i n g . R e s t r i c t e d to the immediate f u t u r e i n i t s d i r e c t i m p l i c a -t i o n s , n e g l e c t i n g the question of people's p e r c e p t i o n of scenery, i g n o r i n g p o s i t i v e d e v i a t i o n s i n the landscape and"the a s s o c i a t e d need f o r f o r e s t road landscaping, f u t u r e research budding from t h i s small stock i s re q u i r e d i n order of p r i o r i t y as suggested below: a) developing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of landscape design t o o l s i n other p a r t s of B r i t i s h Columbia, notably i n the very d i f f e r e n t " c o a s t a l c o n d i t i o n s or the more uniform landscapes of the c e n t r a l I n t e r i o r . I t would be v a l u a b l e to see how c l o s e l y these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s correspond, and how g e n e r a l l y f o r e s t landscape types may be defined and " s t i l l - b e u s e f u l . b) assessment of p u b l i c (both t o u r i s t and l o c a l ) preferences f o r v a r i o u s v i s u a l impact a l t e r n a t i v e s . This could be c r u c i a l i n s e t t i n g v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r an area according to i t s use and users. A wider s c a l e landscape management program would need a d e f i n i t i v e assessment of s e n s i t i v i t y : techniques e x i s t f o r est i m a t i n g use w i t h reasonable r e l i a b i l i t y but have s t i l l to be implemented on a l a r g e s c a l e ; technique f o r e s t i m a t i n g preferences need to be developed, perhaps i n schemes f o r p u b l i c involvement i n resource management. c) the v i s u a l e f f e c t s of new logging equipment or a new lo g g i n g p r a c t i c e i n a r e g i o n , which may help increase the-options i n choosing design' t o o l s . In p a r t i c u l a r , s k y l i n e systems, small highly-mobile spars l i k e the M i n i - A l p , low ground pressure skidders and " m i n i - b a l l o o n s " show promise. • - 210 -d) assessment of v i s u a l impacts seen from w i t h i n canopy, and t h e i r planning to increase the v a r i e t y perceived on t r a i l s and r e c r e a t i o n a l roads. e) p r e d i c t i n g and reducing d u r a t i o n of v i s u a l impacts, along w i t h r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of severe v i s u a l impacts. Information on r e v e g e t a t i o n of d i s t u r b e d ground, p a r t i c u l a r l y cut-banks, s k i d - t r a i l s , and l a n d i n g s , and on the e f f e c t of compaction, bank-slope,'drainage, e t c . on c o l o n i s a t i o n by p l a n t s , would be h e l p f u l not only i n v i s u a l impact planning, but a l s o i n hydrology and regeneration research. f ) the a p p l i c a t i o n of computers to rec o r d i n g viewing c o n d i t i o n s and graphic p r e d i c t i o n of v i s u a l impacts, i n any f u t u r e landscape program on a wide s c a l e . I n a d d i t i o n , the p o t e n t i a l of s c a l e models and p o s s i b l y holograms i n p r e d i c t i n g v i s u a l impacts and i n p u b l i c d i s p l a y of v i s u a l management programs, could be i n v e s t i g a t e d . I f at some time i n the f u t u r e B r i t i s h Columbia i s to advance on a broad f r o n t i n landscape management, a"-whole new look at p o l i c y and procedures w i l l be necessary, f a r wider i n scope than the procedure presented here and embracing a l l these research p o s s i b i l i t i e s and more. - 211 -Chapter VI '-CONCLUSION. The aim of t h i s t h e s i s i s to provide i n f o r m a t i o n of a usable nature to f o r e s t managers faced w i t h the unprecedented problems of v i s u a l impact planning. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s aim i s the need to d e f i n e terminology and avoid the p i t f a l l s of s u b j e c t i v e assessment of land-scape q u a l i t y . I t i s recognised that the V i s u a l Management System of the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e provides a sound p l a t f o r m which can be both a l t e r e d and b u i l t on f o r the purposes of f o r e s t landscape design i n the B r i t i s h Columbian context. The f i r s t s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e , to evaluate timber h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e s as landscape design t o o l s , has been approached by i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r v i s u a l e f f e c t s i n terms of form, l i n e , c o l o u r , and t e x t u r e , v ary-ing from i n e v i d e n t through subordinate to dominant i n comparison w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c landscape. I t has been found that the v i s u a l e f f e c t of most p r a c t i c e s i n the study r e g i o n can be p r e d i c t e d , knowing only the f o r e s t landscape type and the d e t a i l s of the p r a c t i c e i t s e l f , but that f o r some, i n d i v i d u a l e f f e c t s are not p r e d i c t a b l e due to combination of e f f e c t s . The r e s u l t a n t e f f e c t of such combinations can be p r e d i c t e d , however, i f the p r a c t i c e s i n v o l v e d can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . On t h i s b a s i s , a method of p r e d i c t i n g the v i s u a l impact magnitude of an a c t i v i t y employing a c e r t a i n combination of p r a c t i c e s i n a c e r t a i n f o r e s t l a n d -scape type has been proposed, on the c r i t e r i o n of number of f i n a l v i s u a l e f f e c t s r ated as dominant. This allows the f o r e s t manager to assess or s e l e c t p r a c t i c e s f o r landscape management purposes, and a l s o d i r e c t s h i s a t t e n t i o n to p r a c t i c e s which have primary dominance e f f e c t s i n c e r t a i n landscapes. - 212 -Landscape management i s not, however, the only c r i t e r i o n f o r choice of h a r v e s t i n g p r a c t i c e . A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of landscape design t o o l s should c o n t a i n the consequences of t h e i r use on other resources and o b j e c t i v e s . I t has been found that v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s are not a u t o m a t i c a l l y compatible w i t h other environmental o b j e c t i v e s , e s p e c i a l l y those of f o r e s t p r o t e c t i o n , but that i n the m a j o r i t y of cases and areas a f f e c t e d , use of design t o o l s should not increase the environmental impact of timber h a r v e s t i n g and may w e l l a s s i s t other management goals such as s o i l and w i l d l i f e c o nservation. I t i s noted, though, that s t r a i n would be placed upon the e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the land under e x i s t i n g agency procedures. A case study was undertaken i n the Rocky Mountain Trench of eastern B r i t i s h Columbia, to provide i n f o r m a t i o n on the cost i n t e r a c t i o n s of design t o o l s suggested from the l i t e r a t u r e , as w e l l as to provide a precedent f o r v i s u a l impact planning. The v i s u a l resources of the area were appraised so that f o r e s t landscape types and v i s u a l o b j e c t i v e s could be i d e n t i f i e d . Three s i t e s w i t h p o t e n t i a l h a r v e s t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s were s e l e c t e d to represent the f o r e s t landscape types. A l t e r n a t i v e logging plans have been developed f o r each and the associated v i s u a l impacts and management i n t e r a c t i o n s assessed. The v i s u a l impacts p r e d i c t e d g r a p h i c a l l y , c o r r e l a t e w i t h the magnitudes p r e d i c t e d by the method de r i v e d i n Chapter I I . From the a n a l y s i s of h a r v e s t i n g c o s t s , it'was found that common logg i n g systems used as design t o o l s may not r a i s e costs s i g n i f i c a n t l y , ( w i t h i n + $ l / c u n i t of conventional p r a c t i c e s ) w h i l e other systems evaluated as design t o o l s may f l u c t u a t e i n cost w i t h i n + $3/cunit of conventional p r a c t i c e s . V i s u a l c o n s t r a i n t s may be met w i t h n e g l i g i b l e cost - 213 -increases where not a l l of the most v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l area i s harvested at once. However, i t i s hard to t e l l how widely such c o n d i t i o n s p r e v a i l o u t s ide the case study area, though co s t s are l i k e l y to r i s e l i t t l e or f a l l where v i s u a l l y c r i t i c a l areas c o i n c i d e w i t h poorer logging c o n d i t i o n s due to topography or timber type. Derived from the case study methods, a procedure f o r v i s u a l impact planning on f o r e s t land has been proposed, i n v o l v i n g steps a manager could f o l l o w to acquire and analyse data on the b i o p h y s i c a l and viewing c o n d i t i o n s of the landscapes, and thus armed, to design c o n s c i o u s l y h i s a l t e r a t i o n s to the landscape, u s i n g design t o o l s drawn from a c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n by f o r e s t landscape type. I n the design of i n d i v i d u a l h a r v e s t i n g s i t e s , graphic p r e d i c t i o n i s recommended as an a i d both i n planning and implementation. O v e r a l l , the study i n d i c a t e s t h a t , at l e a s t w i t h a l i m i t e d landscape program, there appear to be no major stumbling b l o c k s to v i s u a l impact planning of f o r e s t h a r v e s t i n g , assuming that the Government i n i t i a -t i v e to take t h i s course extends to r e v i s i o n of i t s own procedures and manning. Given committment by the f o r e s t companies to v i s u a l management, and w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e management e f f o r t or hardship on t h e i r p a r t , a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n the management o f " t h e f o r e s t landscapes of B r i t i s h Columbia could be achieved. In c l o s i n g , there i s need f o r the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study to be s u b s t a n t i a t e d by ongoing research. I t i s hoped' that the t h e s i s provides a precedent i n harmonising the o b j e c t i v e p u r s u i t of knowledge i n landscape planning w i t h the p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n to the f o r e s t e r u n c e r t a i n l y eyeing the trees w i t h a sketch-pad i n h i s hand. r. 214 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamovich, L. 1971. Geometric Design Standards _of Forest "Roads.: ;Anr E s t h e t i c View. In The E f f e c t of Roads on our Forest Environment, 8th Canadian Roadside Development Conference, U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., Vancouver, June 1971. 13 pp. Adamovich, L. and J.B. Webster. .1968. Road L o c a t i o n and Co n s t r u c t i o n i n U.B.C. Forest Area. Reprinted from The Truck Logger, August, 1968. 5 pp. Alexander, R.R. 1975. P a r t i a l C u t t i n g i n Old-growth Lodgepole Pine. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-136, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. 17 pp. Apt, K. 1968. Preferences of Mountain Park V i s i t o r s Regarding Some B.C. and A l b e r t a Forest H a b i t a t s . Unpublished M.F. t h e s i s , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 81 pp. Art h u r , L.M., T.C. D a n i e l , and R.S. Boster. 1975. Scenic Assessment: An Overview. D r a f t review, USDA Forest S e r v i c e Res. Pap., Rocky Mtn. For, and Range Exp. Stn. 33 pp. Bacon, W.R. 11975. Personal communication. Barton, E.R. "1974. Thinning w i t h the S k y l i n e Cable System. J o u r n a l of Fo r e s t r y 72(11) pp. 696-697. Becker, R.E. 1971. Beyond the Road. In The E f f e c t of Roads on our Forest Environment, 8th Canadian Roadside Development Conference, Univ-e r s i t y of B.C., Vancouver, June 1971. 4 pp. Benskin, H.J. 1975. F i n a n c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s and Some Costs and B e n e f i t s of Logging G u i d e l i n e s i n the C h i l l i w a c k P r o v i n c i a l Forest. Unpublished M.F. t h e s i s , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 144 pp. Berntsen, C.N. 1973. Management C o n f l i c t s i n Lodgepole Pine. In Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems Symp. P r o c , 2 v o l s . , D.M. Baimgartner (ed.), Washington State U n i v e r s i t y , Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn, pp. 503-515. B i r c h , L.E. 1975. The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and A p p l i c a t i o n of Forest Landscape Management P r i n c i p l e s . Unpublished B.Sc. t h e s i s , F a c u l t y of Fo r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 62 pp., appendices. Bockheim, J.G., T.M. B a l l a r d , and R.P. W i l l i n g t o n . 1975. S o i l D i s t u r b -ance Associated w i t h Timber Harvesting i n Southwestern B.C. In Canadian J o u r n a l of Forest Research 5(2) pp. 285-290. Boster, R.S. and T.C. D a n i e l . 1972. Measuring P u b l i c Responses to Vegetative Management. A r i z o n a Watershed Symp. Proc. Report No. 2, pp. 38-43. - 215 -Brace, L.G. and D.J. Stewart. 1973. Shelterwood S i l v i c u l t u r e , Wheeled Skidders, and Amenity Values i n White Pine Management. Summary of unpublished paper, 1971, Petawawa For. Exp. Stn., Chalk R i v e r . In Design G u i d e l i n e s f o r Forest Mangement, Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources. 2^pp. B.C. Forest Se r v i c e . 1972. Planning G u i d e l i n e s f o r Coast Logging Operat-io n s . 5 pp. . 1974. Memo on Re-hab P r o j e c t A03412 CP.4, Bugaboo Creek, from W. H i l t o n to R. McLeod, Nelson, B.C. 1 p. . 1975a. Forest Resource. Planning i i i B r i t i s h ..Columbia. A b r i e f submitted to The Royal. Commission on Forest Resources, September 1975, Nelson, B.C. 31 pp. . 1975b. Nahmint-Watershed*-Integrated Resource Study. Vancouver Forest D i s t r i c t , August 1975. 56 pp. . Undated a. Resource Management Manual (proposed, o u t l i n e ) . 47 pp. _. Undated b. Vancouver Forest D i s t r i c t Stumpage A p p r a i s a l Manual. 66 pp.. B.C. Parks Branch. 1973. Cartwright Lakes Recreation Area Proposal. R.H. Ahrens, D i r e c t o r , Parks Branch, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 25 pp. Buck, D.C. 1971. A e s t h e t i c s and C u t t i n g i n the Sh o r e l i n e Reserve of Lake Temagami. F o r e s t r y C h r o n i c l e 47 pp. 270-272. Bu n n e l l , F.L. an d D.S. Eastman. 1976. E f f e c t s of Forest Management P r a c t i c e s on W i l d l i f e i n the Forest s of B r i t i s h Columbia. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 39 pp., appendices. Burke, D. 1973. H e l i c o p t e r Logging: Advantages and Disadvantages Must be Weighed. Advanced Logging Systems, J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 71(9) pp. 574-576. C a i r d , D.J. 1975. Personal communication. Canada Land Inventory (B.C.LLI.). 1972. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of B.C. Recreation C a p a b i l i t y Maps. Car t w r i g h t , G. 1975. Personal communication. Chamberlin, T.W. and W.W. J e f f r e y . 1968. S o i l Movement - Water Q u a l i t y D e t e r i o r a t i o n Associated w i t h Timber Harvesting i n the West Kootenay Area. Unpublished study,.Faculty of F o r e s t r y , Univers-i t y of B.C. 32 pp. Chambers, A.D. 1974. P u r c e l l Range Study - Integrated Resource Management f o r B.C.'s P u r c e l l Mountains. U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., Environment and Land Use Committee. 70 pp. - 216 -C l i f f , E.P. 1965. Forest P a t t e r n s - Beauty and Use. USDA Forest Service PA 679. 12 pp. C o l v i n , B. 1970. Land and Landscape. John Murray. London. 414 pp. Cook, W.L. 1968. The Use of S p e c i a l Clauses i n Timber Contracts f o r the P r o t e c t i o n of A e s t h e t i c Values. Unpublished mimeo, S.U.N.Y. College of F o r e s t r y , Syracuse, N.Y. . 1969. Timber Harvesting and Forest A e s t h e t i c s . - A L i t e r a t u r e Review. M.Sc, t h e s i s , S.U.N.Y. College of F o r e s t r y , Syracuse, N.Y. Crestbrook Forest I n d u s t r i e s . 1974. Recommendations f o r Equipment A c q u i s i t i o n . - FMC-200 BG. Cranbrook, B.C. 5 pp., appendices. Crowe, S. 1966. F o r e s t r y i n the Landscape. F o r e s t r y Commission Booklet No. 18. 31 pp. Crown Z e l l e r b a c h . 1972. Environmental Guide - Northwest Timber Operat-f-v i o n s . D a n i e l , T.C. and R.S. Boster.. 1975. Measuring Scenic Beauty: the S.B.E. Method. Review copy, USDA Forest S e r v i c e , Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. 51 pp. Deangelis, M.V. 1974. Environmental Impact Statements - A Study of Content Requirements and Several Assessment Methods. Unpublish-ed M.Sc. t h e s i s , School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of Bt.C. 259 pp. Dooling, P.J. 1974. Research i n t o the Scenic and Recre a t i o n Values of the T r a v e l C o r r i d o r of Northeastern B r i t i s h Columbia. In Towards a Park and Outdoor Recr e a t i o n Systems P l a n f o r the Golden C i r c l e , Study V o l . 1, F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 129 pp. D u f f i e l d , J.W. 1970. S i l v i c u l t u r e Need Not Be Ugly. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 68(8) pp. 465-467. Eldredge, K. 1975. A P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n f o r V i s u a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n the Wynoochee Re c r e a t i o n Area. Olympic N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , USDA Forest S e r v i c e . I n Proceedings of the F i r s t Rocky Mountain - P a c i f i c Rim Outdoor Recr e a t i o n Conference, P.J. Dooling (ed.), U n i v e r s -i t y of B.C. 8 pp. Eyre, F.H. 1965. Must S i l v i c u l t u r e Be Ugly? J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 63(6) pp. 464-465. Fahnestock, G.R. 1976. Personal communication. F a i r b r o t h e r , N. 1970. New L i v e s , New Landscapes - Planning f o r the 21st Century. The A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , London. 397 pp. - 217 -Ford-Robertson, F.C. 1971. Terminology of Forest Science, Technology, P r a c t i c e , and Products. S o c i e t y of American F o r e s t e r s , Washington, D.C. 349 pp. Forest Club. 1971. F o r e s t r y Handbook f o r B r i t i s h Columbia. 3rd e d i t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B-.-CV.:'.815 pp. Freddy, D.J. 1974. Status and Management of the S e l k i r k Caribou Herd, 1973. M.Sc. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho, Moscow. 132 pp. F r i d , R. 1975. Personal communication. Gratowski, H?J. 1956. Windthrow Around Staggered S e t t i n g s i n Old-growth D o u g l a s - f i r . Forest Science 2(1) pp.60-73. Hanson, J.H. 1974. Logging Road B u i l d i n g , 1974. In Logging P r a c t i c e s Seminar, FP 6524, February 1974, U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 5 pp. Harmesworth, B. 1975. Personal communication. Hay, E. 1972. They C a l l I t FALCON. American F o r e s t s 78(8) pp. 36-39. Hlady, E. 1975. Personal communication. Horner, R. 11975. Nahmint Watershed— V i s u a l Impact Study. In s e r v i c e p u b l i c a t i o n , B.C. Forest S e r v i c e . 25 pp. Howie, F.G. 11972. The V i s u a l Landscape and Resource I n v e n t o r i e s . Unpub-l i s h e d M.F. t h e s i s , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. 126 pp. Jacobs, P.. and D. Way. 1969. V i s u a l A n a l y s i s of Landscape Development. Harvard School of Design. 53 pp. Kojima, M. and J.R. Wagar. 1972. Computer Generated Drawings of Ground Form and Vegetation. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 70(5) pp. 282-285. Korneli'us, L . J . 1974. A Review of R e c r e a t i o n a l P o l i c i e s , P r a c t i c e s , and Impacts on ForesttLands i n the U.S. L e c t u r e , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. K r a j i n a , V.J. 1965. B i o g e o c l i m a t i c Zones and Biogeocoenoses of B r i t i s h Columbia. In Ecology of Western N. America, V.J. K r a j i n a (ed.), U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., pp. r1-17. Larsen, A. 1975. Personal communication. Lautrup, K. 1975. Pe r s o n a l communication. Leopold, L.B. 1969. LandscaperAesfhetics: How to Quantify the Scenics of a R i v e r V a l l e y . N a t u r a l H i s t o r y 78(8) pp. 36-44. Leopold, L.B., F.E. C l a r k e , B;'.B. Hanshaw, and J.R. B a l s l e y . 1971. A Procedure f o r E v a l u a t i n g Environmental Impact. G e o l o g i c a l Survey C i r c u l a r 645, USDI G e o l o g i c a l Survey, Washington, D.C. - 218 -L i t t o n , R.B. J r . 1968. Forest Landscape D e s c r i p t i o n and In v e n t o r i e s - A Basis f o r Land Planning and Design. USDA Forest S e r v i c e Res. Pap. PSW-49, P a c i f i c SW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . 64 pp. . 1973ai. Landscape C o n t r o l P o i n t s : A Procedure f o r P r e d i c t i n g and M o n i t o r i n g V i s u a l Impacts. USDA Forest S e r v i c e Res. Pap. PSW-91, P a c i f i c SW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, C a l i f o r n -i a . 22 pp. . 1973b. E s t h e t i c Resources of the Lodgepole Pine F o r e s t . I n Management of Lodgepole PineeEcosystems Symp. P r o c , 2 v o l s . , D.M. Baimgartner (ed.), Washington State U n i v e r s i t y , USDA Forest S e r v i c e Pacific.SW..For. and Range Exp. Stn. 14 pp. . 1974. V i s u a l V u l n e r a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y .72(7) »pp. 392- 397. " Macmillan B l o e d e l News. 1974. V o l . 11(10), Vancouver, B.C. M a r t i n e l l i , M. J r . 1974. Snow Avalanche S i t e s : Their I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Ev a l u a t i o n . USDA Forest S e r v i c e A g r i c u l t u r a l Information B u l l e t i n 360. 27 pp. 1975. Personal communication. M c C l e l l a n d , B.R. 1974. The Courts and the Conservation of N a t u r a l Beauty. Western Wildlands 1(2) pp. 20-26. McDonald, P.M. and R.V. Whiteley. 1972. Logging a Roadside Stand to P r o t e c t Scenic Values. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 70(2) pp. 80-83, USDA For e s t Service P a c i f i c SW. For. and Range Exp. Stn. McKinnon, R.D. 1975. Recreation Inventory Report, Cartwright Lakes f o l i o , Windermere P.S.Y.U., RD 1, Invermere. In s e r v i c e survey, B.C. Forest S e r v i c e . 23 pp., appendices. McLeod, R. 1975. Personal communication. Meskimen, G. 1971. Managing Forest Landscapes: Is P r e s c r i b e d Burning i n the P i c t u r e ? In P r e s c r i b e d Burning Symp. P r o c , A p r i l 1971, Charleston, S.C., pp. 54-58. USDA Forest Service SE. For. Exp. Stn. M i l l a r , C;E. , L.M. Turk, and H.D. Foth. 1965. Fundamentals of S o i l Science. 4th e d i t i o n , John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 491 pp. Murison, W.F. 1965. Landscape F o r e s t r y : A New P r o f e s s i o n . Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e , October 1965, pp. 30-31. Neff, P.E. 1966. A p p l i e d S i l v i c u l t u r e i n Managing Outdoor Recr e a t i o n S i t e s . Proc. S o c i e t y of American F o r e s t e r s , 1966, pp. 34-35. N e i l , R.G. 1974. L e t t e r to B.C. Forest Service on A03412 - Windermere (Parsons- McMurdo). F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, October 1974. 2 pp. - 219 -Newby, F.L. 1971a. Per c e p t u a l Assessment of Forested Roadside Landscapes. Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. 219 pp. . 1971b. Understanding the V i s u a l Resource. USDA Forest Service Recreation Symp. Proc. pp. 68-72, NE. For. Exp. Stn. . Undated. Environmental Impact A p p r a i s a l of Proposed Develop-ments i n the Harney Peak Area of the Black H i l l s . USDA Forest S e r v i c e P a c i f i c SW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley. Noyes, J.H. 1971. Managing Trees and Woodlands to Improve.the A e s t h e t i c s of Communities. I n Trees and.Forests i n an. U r b a n i z i n g Environment, Co-op. Ext. Serv. U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, Planning and Res-ource Development S e r i e s 17, 1970, pp. 115-120. Ontario M i n i s t r y of N a t u r a l Resources. 1973. Design G u i d e l i n e s f o r Forest Management. 183 pp. Orrom, M.H. 1967. Amenity and. Landscaping: A Survey of t h e i r P l a c e i n B r i t i s h F o r e s t r y . F o r e s t r y Commission Res. and Dev, Pap:.:"55. 6 pp. Outdoor Recr e a t i o n C o u n c i l of B.C. . 1975. A b r i e f submitted to The Royal "r: i..:!rr:.r: .Commission on Forest Resources, November 1975, Vancouver, B.C. 28 pp. Pe t e r s , P.A. 1973. B a l l o o n Logging: A Look a t Current Operating Systems. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 71(9) pp. 577-579. P e t e r s , P.A. and J.D. Burke. 1972. Average Yarding Distance oh I r r e g u l a r -shaped Timber Harvest S e t t i n g s . USDA Forest.Service^Res. Note PNW-178, P a c i f i c NW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., P o r t l a n d . ' 4.vpp. Pommier, G. 19/5. Personal communication. P o t t e r , D.R. and J.R. Wagar. 1971. Techniques f o r Inventorying Manmade Impacts i n Roadway Environments. USDA Forest Service-Res. Pap. PNW-121, P a c i f i c NW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., P o r t l a n d . 12 pp. R i c e , R.M., J.S. Rothacher, and.W.F. Megahan. 1973. E r o s i o n a l Consequences of Timber Harvesting: An Appraisal.. Nat. Symp. on Watersheds i n T r a n s i t i o n , USDA Forest S e r v i c e , pp. 321-329. R i c k a r d , W.M., J.M. Hughes., and C A . Newport. 1967. Economic E v a l u a t i o n and Choice i n Old-growth D o u g l a s - f i r Landscape Management. USDA For-est S e r v i c e Res. Pap. PNW-49, P a c i f i c NW. For. and Range Exp. Stn., P o r t l a n d . '33 pp. Ross, R.N. 1974. In s e r v i c e l e t t e r . t o D i s t r i c t Rangers on S o i l Compaction. Mt. Hood N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , USDA Forest S e r v i c e , Januaty 1974. 4 pp. Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. C.F.S. Pub. No.:.1300, Inform-a t i o n Canada, Ottawa. 172 pp. Ru a l t , R. 1975. Personal communication. - 220 -Rudolf, P.O. 1967. S i l v i c u l t u r e f o r Recreation Area Management. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 65(6) pp. 385-390. Ruth, R.H. 1967. S i l v i c u l t u r a l E f f e c t s of S k y l i n e Crane and Highlead Yarding. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 65(4) pp. 251-255. S a l t e r , C.E. 1972. What the Well-dressed Forest Should Wear. American Forests 78(11) pp. 24-27 and 43. Sandstrom, H. 1976. Personal communication. Schaerer, P. 1975. Personal communication. Schmidt, W.C., C A . Wellner, and R.R. Alexander. 1973. Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine F i r . In S i l v i c u l t u r a l Systems f o r the Major Forest Types of the U.S. USDA Forest S e r v i c e Agriculturer.Handbook No. 445, pp. 40-41. S c h u l t z , CD., and Co. L t d . 1973. The Environmental E f f e c t s of Timber Harvesting i n A l b e r t a . P r o j e c t Report V o l s . 1 and 2, f o r M i n i s t e r of Lands and F o r e s t s , Government of A l b e r t a . 291 pp., appendices. Shafer, E.L. J r . 1967. Forest A e s t h e t i c s : A F o c a l P o i n t i n M u l t i p l e - U s e Management and Research. 14th I.U.F.R.O. Congress Paper 7, Sec t i o n 26, pp. 47-71. Shafer, E.L. J r . , and J . Mietz. 1970. I t Seems P o s s i b l e to Quantify Scenic Beauty i n Photographs. USDA Forest S e r v i c e Res. Pap. NE-162, NE. For. Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 12 pp. Shafer, E.L. J r . and W. Rutherford. 1969. S e l e c t i o n Cuts Increased N a t u r a l Beauty i n Two Adirondack Forest Stands. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 67(6) pp. 415-419. Shaver, M.C, L. Paterson, and C. Forsberg. 1973. F i e l d Guide to S e l e c t -i v e C l e a r i n g . D r a f t copy, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Div., Engineering and A r c h i t e c t u r e Branch, Department of Indian and Northern A f f a i r s . 19 pp. Sheppard, S.R.J. 1975. . V i s u a l Design Design f o r Recreation S i t e s W i t h i n Forest Canopy. Unpublished paper, F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , Univ-e r s i t y of B.C. 34 pp. ._ 1976. V i s u a l Impact Planning i n Cartwright Lakes/Steamboat Mountain Area. Report f o r B.C. Forest S e r v i c e , Nelson Forest D i s t r i c t , d r a f t copy. 119 pp. Simmons, F.C 1965. Why be F u r t i v e about our Logging A c t i v i t i e s ? Northern Logger 14(3) p..8. Simonds, J.O. 1961. Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e : The Shaping of Man's N a t u r a l Environment. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York. Smith, Z.G. J r . 1972. Modifying C l e a r c u t t i n g and Related P r a c t i c e s . In - 221 -Sound American Forestry,' Proc. 1972 N a t i o n a l Convention, Hot Springs, Arkansas, pp. 67-73. S o c i e t y of American F o r e s t e r s . Stevens, P.M. and E.H. Clarke. 1974. H e l i c o p t e r s f o r Logging - Charact-e r i s t i c s , Operation, and Safety Considerations. USDA Forest Service Gem-Tech. Rep. PNW-20, P a c i f i c NW. For. and Range Exp. Stn. 16 pp. S t i l l s , S.A. 1972. S p e c i a l Care. In Last Time Around, B u f f a l o Spring-f i e l d , A t l a n t i c , Los Angeles. 4 pp. Sreeby, L.L. 1970.. Scenic Management Impact on Other Forest A c t i v i t i e s . J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 68(7) pp. 430-432. Swann, B. 1975. Personal communication. Swanson, D.O. 1970. Roosevelt E l k - F o r e s t r y R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the Douglas-f i r Region of the Southern Oregon Coast Range. Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 173 pp. T e l f e r , E.S. 1973. Habi t a t S e l e c t i o n by C e r t a i n W i l d l i f e Species i n N. American F o r e s t s . Mimeo of I.U.F.R.O. paper, September 1973, Budapest, Hungary. 27 pp. Troup, R.S. 1928. S i l v i c u l t u r a l Systems. Oxford Manuals of F o r e s t r y , Clarendon Press, Oxford. 199 pp. Twiss, R.H. 1969. C o n f l i c t s i n Forest Landscape Management - The Need for. Forest Environmental Design. J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 67(1) pp. 19-23. Undi, S. 1972. C l e a r c u t t i n g i n a Q u a l i t y Environment. In Moving Towards Environmental S o l u t i o n s i n Forest Products Management, Proc. Rocky Mountain Forest I n d u s t r i e s Conference, pp. 35-37. Colorado State U n i v e r s i t y . U.S.D.I. (Department of the I n t e r i o r ) . Undated. Forest Engineering Handbook.- A Guide f o r Logging Planning, Forest Road Engineering. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State O f f i c e . 220 pp. U.S. Forest S e r v i c e (Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ) . 1970. Management Prac-t i c e s on the B i t t e r r o o t N a t i o n a l Forest. Task Force A p p r a i s a l . 100 pp. . 1971. Forest Management i n Wyoming. Wyoming Forest Study Team. 80 pp. 1973- N a t i o n a l Forest Landscape Management V o l . 1.. A g r i c u l t -ure Handbook No. 434. •'" 77 pp. . 1974. N a t i o n a l Forest Landscape Management Vol.2, Chapter 1, The V i s u a l Management System. A g r i c u l t u r e Handbook No. 42. 47 pp. - 222 -Vaughan, A.V. 1973a. A Background Paper Prepared f o r the Workshop on V i s u a l Impact. Ontario Hydro. 5 s e c t i o n s . . 1973b. S t r u c t u r a l Design: V i s u a l and S o c i a l Considerations. Paper presented to Canadian E l e c t r i c a l Assoc., f o r Ontario Hydro. 20 pp. W a e l t i , H. 1975. Personal communication. Wellburn, G.V. 1975a. A l t e r n a t i v e Methods f o r Logging Steep Slopes i n the Nelson Forest D i s t r i c t of B.C. Forest Management I n s t i t u t e I n f . Rep. FMR-X-76, Canadian F o r e s t S e r v i c e , Department of the Environment. 57 pp., appendices. . 1975b. Personal communication. Wellner, C A . and R.A. Ryker. 1973. Ponderosa Pine and Rocky Mountain D o u g l a s - f i r . In S i l v i c u l t u r a l Systems f o r the Major Forest Types of the U.S. USDA Forest S e r v i c e , A g r i c u l t u r e Handbook No. 445, pp. 35-37. Williamson, R.M. and W.F. C u r r i e r . 1971. App l i e d Landscape Management i n P l a n t C o n t r o l . J o u r n a l of Range Management 24 pp. 2-6. W o h l w i l l , J . 1976. Human Behaviour and Environmental Q u a l i t y . Lecture ( C e c i l and Ida Green V i s i t i n g P r o f e s s o r ) , March 1976, Univers-i t y of B.C. Zube, E.H. 1973. Scenery as a N a t u r a l Resource: I m p l i c a t i o n s of P u b l i c P o l i c y and Problems of D e f i n i t i o n , D e s c r i p t i o n , and E v a l u a t i o n . Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e 63 pp. 126-132. - 223 -View UOCATiON ^LOCATION <St~CP6 FORM A P P E N D I X 1. " "' VISUAL. MPhcr AsggsgMeAjT POT?^ .WUNflcR... ^ ~ I M P A C T T>T>£ CUOTCM}--cat-skid vi5/s/i.ir/ Cjoxra. j ITT*M-cftucpt W - W ' A S - . A/cfne. I £^fO50(?e. Cymnfl 6^rn. etfeVATicrw ftppnw. 4,7010' RjttSTtrt C£. ACjZ/j5"3, CPS, /2- S - TTriMt lOOOos*. /.igHT//v& S/de-, Se sr</e c?| Cr. S, Obi- M^ T/wce. i - / mi orjs^vae POSITicN Inferior". CLearzu-k cnenhsA al&na hiUi l&nf' ons^alctjrifvj bcj vaUiys X cjtfllies cn zicfc-hilL SHU ttbf m thara-ofer K / I / H chojr. landscape., Mo ' avtcx VkiUe. 6i&. As sma.lL . w i w w j ^ still IMOI insccjt,.. Soxle. s oYx&ihdicw cut Jc^we^i^ef^fitthi.'' Somt lint from yvaSi A i / r Z u / s , / a / f e y < j » u ^cnhvur X A d f v ' e w "/ri/fc/e £ s > n belcwcj-a(L mc&exiaS y\ot Y&KLJ Yc&nf; Seme, dkwrf-hrnber- evwi^ar^ cahk-srwtvs. :.. ^rZAn-up beginning even on /edksJ' cu,h-bl<xks ; cpnzmlly muth paUry qntnij-hniwvry thasi the dark- gvte.n op rnahtre. fgr&t, t/tesufua-li have no arri^imJir^ \efi&ot colour amUasr co-S&trxiMnt MilA ibrrf*. ... _ -T&a-uwsj "Jgx/uwf &Yitav/" tfirible. a^Hvis dtshinceri\ytn^ / •ssfJc/als. foave no tPfejd, .. ..... ffcmcT iwe v . . p«Acr<ces. . I M P A C T IMfVRT/WCt; •.. .size /fyp<x / 7O-2Q0 ac. 7/ -7"J STATI? vtgfcTATvoM. /cwshrubs er\ chfef- cfeatmh, few sco-He*$$ ntsiifbats.. Mosf/tj caf-skidiecT, witk cmtriUzS /ay-oW. . S m a t l pakhes c j a r c / e j <»cj Bco-laqy*-, no sksJ-hra.ik, no ns(Suzds.t no rah. Hih^tahte, Joym- jimlo^r left en fhtse. pakhes. MO.V<L /&rq£ ina^hxfifhs or <dnps m tiie.avllies h> .break stele, i meakirum truyru, hn+use upper oJ^e AD ^ojffe>o cewro&r, as no ncdkvul aperu^i fa twiv-lah. ... PHOTOS. MW£>. OX-17. - 224 -APPENDIX 2 OVERLAY 4 : SIMPLIFIED COMPOSITE OF VISIBLE AREA FROM 3 HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE CONTROL POINTS. - 225 -APPENDIX 3 SIMPLIFIED COMPOSITE MAP OF VISIBLE AREA FROM RECREATIONAL ROADS AND CAMPSITES. - 226 -';/:[.APPENDIX 4. GENERAL DETERMINANTS USED IN LOGGING PLANS. Road Lay-out. Haul road - Class 6 or below; 66' r/w; 8-10% sustained max. favourable grade, 12% absolute max; 5-6% sustained max. adverse grade, 8% absolute max. Spur road - 40-60' r/w; 15-16% max. grade; 2,000'(30 ch) spacing "15%, 1000* (15 ch) spacing 15-30%,. IOOO.1 spacing over 30% with both ground and cable yarding. Cut-block Lay-out Nelson Forest District guidelines, 1973: 50% cut and leave policy; maximum clearcut size 160 ac, with cut-blocks at least 20 ch apart, and with no part of clearcut further than 15 ch from forest edge; no clearcut within 10 ch of lake, 2 1/2 ch from streams. No restriction on selection cut-block size. Forest company working guidelines: Maximum clearcut size 100-200 ac, clearcut to one bank of minor streams; follow type-lines and topographic breaks. Local restrictions: Smaller clearcut acreages on dry south and west-facing Poor sites due to regeneration problems, and inside Environmental Protection Forests with aac restrictions. Yarding Lay-out Nelson Forest District guidelines, 1973: No tractor-logging on slopes over 70%; restricted tractor-logging between 50% and 70%. - 227 -Ca t - s k i d d i n g - up to 70% s l o p e s ; up to 30% slopes w i t h o u t s k i d - t r a i l s ; max. favourable t r a i l s grade 30%, max. adverse t r a i l grade 6%; o p t i m a l y a r d i n g d i s t a n c e 12 ch, longest c o m e r 16 ch, • u p h i l l 3 ch. R t - s k i d d i n g - lip to 50% s l o p e s ; up to 30% without t r a i l s on f i r m ground, up to 15% u p h i l l ; max. favou r a b l e t r a i l grade 40%; max. adverse t r a i l grade 15%,(short s t r e t c h e s only) o p t i m a l y a r d i n g d i s t a n c e 12 ch, longest corner 16 ch. FMC.200 s k i d d i n g - up to 100% s l o p e ; up -to 40% without t r a i l s , though stumps b u l l d o z e d f o r h i g h speed t r a i l s ; o p t i m a l y a r d i n g d i s t a n c e 40-45 ch.(Crestbrook F o r . I n d u s t r i e s , 1975). Eco-logger y a r d i n g - up to 100% s l o p e ; maximum y a r d i n g d i s t a n c e 600' (9 ch> u p h i l l or d o w n h i l l , u s u a l l y 500' or l e s s due to d e f l e c t i o n problems; s p a c i n g between lan d i n g s 300-500' (approx.6 c h ) . Landing-s - unnecessary below 30% s l o p e , but u s u a l l y b u l l d o z e d anyway to a l l o w t r u c k s to t u r n and f r o n t - e n d l o a d e r s to manoeuvre. N-.B. Spur roads and lan d i n g s to be used only i n a second pass are not l a i d - o u t i n the f i r s t pass. - 228 -- ; APPENDIX 5. ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN LOGGING PLAN EVALUATION Timber Volumes. . . (based on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 1974 F o r e s t Cover maps, rec o n n a i r e p o r t s , and f o r e s t company personnel average e s t i m a t e s ) . SPECIES AGE,HEIGHT AND SITE GUNITS/ACRE STOCKING.CLASS P1,P1(F),P1(S) 430 - 20 - 531 27 631 - 30 641 - 40 741 - 45 P1F,P1S,P1FS 430 - 20 531 - 30 631 - 32 731 - 38 P1A 531 on / D J ± 20 (reserve A) 330 - 8 FP1 530 - 30 630 - 35 731 . - 40 741 G 50 831 - 45 F 731 831 831 P M or G 45 35 50 - 229 -SPECIES AGE,HEIGHT AND STOCKING CLASS SITE CUNITS/ACRE ,FS .' FS(PIA) FP1S + F.Vets SBF 831 841 530 220 831 P M or G 33 60 27 10 30 N.B. ,: ' These volumes represent modal or average estimates of recoverabl timber in clearcuts; selection logging was assumed to recover 60% of clearcut volumes; clearcut logging of stands selectively logged in 1940s assumed to yield 60% of normal volume. Second pass volumes were not assumed to be larger than in the fir s t pass. - 230 -Road Costs Haul road - new - Class 6 - > 30% slope - $20,000/mile -<30% - $15,000 " - Class 6 - >30% - $15,000 " - <30% - $10,000 " - upgrade o l d lo g g i n g road - $ 7,000 " - r e h a b i l i t a t e $ 4,000 " N.B. These costs assume complete r/w d i s p o s a l . Costs of main road maintenance and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n were assumed to be borne-by the Fo r e s t S e r v i c e . Spur road - new - >30% - ou t s i d e c u t - b l o c k - $12,000/mile - i n s i d e - $10,000 " - <30% - o u t s i d e - $10,000 " '. - i n s i d e - $ 8,000 " - F l a t - o u t s i d e - $ 8,000 " - i n s i d e - $ 6,000 " - r e h a b i l i t a t e f o r 2nd pass - 1/3 complete r/w d i s p o s a l c o s t . N.B. This assumes that spur roads o u t s i d e c u t - b l o c k r e q u i r e complete r/w d i s p o s a l , w h i l e at l e a s t some of r/w d i s p o s a l on roads i n s i d e a c u t - b l o c k can be deferred u n t i l c u t - b l o c k s l a s h d i s p o s a l l a t e r i n the same year. C u l v e r t - l a r g e or wooden $100 each Bridge - 20' span $0.35/cunit Yarding Costs. D i r e c t y a r d i n g (not c o n t r a c t ) - r . t ski d d e r s -$6.50/cunit - cat ski d d e r s -$8.50/cunit - rt.& cat' skidders -$7.50/cunit - FMC 200 -$6.11/cunit eco-logger avid rehandler -.$19.60/cunit - 231 -N.B 1. FMC f i g u r e i s the highest c a l c u l a b l e from t o t a l c ost f i g u r e s a v a i l a b l e from i t s r o u t i n e use by the US Forest S e r v i c e (CF1 1974 , Y S CFl's own c o s t s / c u n i t are lower s t i l l US c o n d i t i o n s are unknown. 2. Eco-logger cost estimated from running costs of Revelstoke Sawmill c a b l e - y a r d e r , i n c l u d i n g $3.00/cunit estimate f o r s k i d d e r t o p u l l logs from beneath yarder. 3.. A l l the above s k i d d i n g c o s t s assume op t i m a l y a r d i n g d i s t a n c e s f o r the machine, and f u l l - t r e e s k i d d i n g of timber t y p i c a l i n t h i s area. Landings ->60% slo p e - $600 each ($4.63), but stem from experimental c o n d i t i o n s forwarding bunched timber from a f e l l e r - b u n c h e r on g e n t l e s l o p e s . The - 30-60% II $500 II - <30% II $350 " -$200 • 1/3 c o n s t r u c t i o n cost - f l a t '- r e h a b i l i t a t e d APPENDIX 6 COST CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE LOGGING PLANS IN THE CASE STUDY AREA-IMPACT SITE 1. A. - EXISTING CONDITION'S (See Plan 1A) • ..• "Block a: 104 acres P1631-M,. P1FS 631-M, P1531-G, P1F 631-M; f l a t t i s h , 25% i n places; clearcut and s e l e c t i o n p o t e n t i a l ; TSE, with PGE at lake-edge. .Block b: 1 5 7 a c r c s P l f S 631-M; P1F 631-M; 0-25%, 50% at k n o l l summit; s e l e c t i o n cut p o t e n t i a l ; PGE, some i n v i s i b l e areas on lower slopes. Block c: 57 acres P1(S) 531-G, P1FS 631-M; < 15%; clearcut p o t e n t i a l ; i n v i s i b l e from Dunbar Lake. B. CONVENTIONAL LOGGING PRACTICES (See Plan IB) (KB." plan l'B i s based on an actual tentative cutting plan proposed by Revclstoke Sawmill, November 1975, a f t e r the impact area j had been selected independently for study i n th i s report). LOGGING PLAN Haul I'd: access from south (connecting with Wcstside Road near H a l l Lakes), with the cost born by the impact area f o r that section (partly o ld roads upgraded) shown i n s o l i d red on maps, up to 1st landing. The road i s to Class 6 standard, though leaving a 2 chain reserve s t r i p encroaching on the r/w i f necessary by the southerly lake. R/w volume: - new haul road - 40 ch (0.5 miles), 1 ch wide 4 ac @ 30 cun/ac = 120 cunits (P1F 53 Resid-M) - upgraded haul road - 40 ch (0.5 miles), 1/2 ch cleared 2 ac 6 30 cun/ac = 60 cunits (P1F 53 Resid-M.... Spur roads: none outside cut-blocks, no r/w volume. Block a: clearcut 20 ac (to 7" diameter); r t . s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 2 landings; leave remainder (comply with cut and leave p o l i c y ) 20 ac @ 29 cun/ac* •= 580 cunits Block b: clearcut 144 ac (to 7" diam.); r t . s k i d , p o s s i b l y with cats on steepest slopes where t r a i l s w i l l be necessary; 5 landings, leave 13 ac beyond economical yarding d i s t . 144 ac @ 29 cun/ac* = 4176 cunits - . Block c: clearcut 43 ac (to 7" diam.); r t . s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 1 landing. leave 14 ac beyond economical yarding distance 43 ac @ 29 cun/ac* = 1247 cunits . • Total Volume - 6183 cunits Road Cost: haul road - 0.5 miles @ $15,000/mile (new, ' 30%) = $ 7,500 - 0.5 miles @.$ 7,000/mile (upgraded) = $ 3,500 spur road - 1.63 miles @ $8,000/mile (new. < 30%) .= $13,040 $24,040 £ t o t a l road cost = $24,040/6183 cunits $3.88/cunit Yarding Cost: landings: 8 <30% @ $ 350 ... - $ 2,800 t o t a l landing cost = $2800/6183 cunits - $ 0.45/cunit d i r e c t skidding cost (not contract, mostly r t ) - $ 7.00/cunit Total cost ° $11.34/cunlt (This i s high because the volume fi g u r e s taken are lower than the averages used i n Sites 2 and 3' , while the same figures are used f o r road-costs i n a l l ) . ' * Actual volume estimates from Revelstoke reconnaissance by Maclean Forestry Services Ltd., 1975. SECOND PASS Loggable leave «• 39 acres, i n Block a, from lower spur road. In proximity to p r i v a t e leases (summer homes) and overlapping 3 acres of Er reserve, t h i s block, along with the rest of Block a, would -probably be l e f t alone to avoid c o n f l i c t s with recreation i n t e r e s t s . Block a: clearcut 39 acres, east of lower spur road; r t . skid, no t r a i l s 1 new landing, 1 re h a b i l i t a t e d . 39 acres @ 27 cunits/ac » 1053 cunits Total volume = 1053 cunits Road cost: spur road: 0.24 miles @ 1/3 $10,000/mile = $800 t o t a l road cost = $800/1053 cunits » $0.76/cunit Yarding cost: landings: 1 new, le s s than 30%, @ $350 : 1 r e h a b i l i t a t e d , @ 1/3 $350 landing cost = $466.67/ 1053 cunits - $0.44/cunit d i r e c t skidding cost = $6.50/cunit Total cost of second pass ° $7.70/cunit C. CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES WITH REDUCED APPARENT CUT-BLOCK SCALE•  Logging Plan (See Plan 1 CI) Haul road: as f o r B, R/w volume =180 cunits Spur roads.: adjusted to f i t replaced landings. 10 ch outside cut-block, 10 ch outside ut-block, 075 ch wide 0.75 acres @ 29 cunits/acre • ° 22 cunits " - $350 " $116.67 $466.67 Block a: clearcut 59 ac (to 7" diam.); r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 2 landings : leave remainder 59 ac @ 29 cunits/ac - = 1711 cun i t s Block b: clearcut 100 ac (to 7" diam.); r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 3 landings : leave areas as i n B, plus loggable leave above and below upper spur road, Including the rocky 50% slopes of the summit. 100 ac @ 29 cunits/ac*- •= 2900 cunits Block c: clearcut 44 ac (to 7" diam.); r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; '2 landings : leave as i n B 44 ac @ 29 cunits/ac-'. - 1276 units T o t a l Volume - 6089 cunits Road cost: " j. haul road - - as i n B , spur road - 1.5 miles @ $8,000/mile (r/w d i s p o s a l would be ' ^ p o s s i b l e i n s i d e cut-block a t landings) = $12,000 I t o t a l road cost = $23,000/6089 cunits " $3.78/cunit Yarding cost: ' ' landings - 7 -'- 30% 0 $350 . - = $2,450 t o t a l landing cost = $2,450/6089 cunits ° $0.40/cunit -d i r e c t skidding cost ( r t skidders.only) = $6.50/cunit  T o t a l cost = $10.68/cunit . '" NB. This i s lower than B because no cat-skidders need to be used, a l l the cut-block being generally below 25%, and the need f o r road and landings i s reduced by v i r t u e of the altered cutting boundary. It presupposes.that the c u t t i n g to the east of the lower spur road i s acceptable since i t i s i n v i s i b l e , as shown by the v i s i b i l i t y maps. . . . . " H i ^ n _ ^ : d e f e r r l n g t i f f i b e r c u t t l n g t o l a t e r p a s s > t f c o u g h ^ than that l e f t i n B as loggable leave. -: s l i g h t l y longer cut-block boundary, 255 ch instead of 210 ch. SECOND PASS (See Plan IC II) Loggable leave = 25 acres i n Block b, a c c e s s i b l e from upper spur road with one new landing, and 4 acres from the e x i s t i n g upper landing, by conventional logging methods. Block b: clearcut 29 Acres @ 30 cun/ac » 870 cunits -. T o t a l volume » 870-22 '«• 848 cunits ' / '•• .^'O". Road cost: haul road: assume no expenses . spur roads: 0.62 miles @ 1/3 ($8,000)/mile = $1,654 t o t a l road cost - $1,654/848 cun i t s -'$1.95/cunlt Yarding cost: d i r e c t skidding cost ( r t . skidders only) = $6.50/cunit - landings: 1 new 30% @ $350 = $350 1 r e h a b i l i t a t e d @ 1/3 ($350) = $117 • $467 landing cost » $467/848 cunits «• $0.55/cunit T o t a l cost of 2nd pass = $9.00/cunit • D. SELECTION LOGGING TO RETAIN CANOPY IN VISIBLE AREAS  Logging Plan (See Plan ID). Haul road: as f o r B, r/w volume = 180 cunits Spur roads: l a i d out as f o r C, but 25 ch r e q u i r i n g r/w d i s p o s a l i n s e l e c t i o n - c u t area, 2 acres @ 29 cunits/ac = 58 c u n i t s Block a: clearcut 59 ac. as i n C; 2 landings 59 ac 0 29 cunits/ac-- = 1711 cunits BJLockJb: clearcut 49 ac (7" diam.), below middle spur road and above i t where i n v i s i b l e from Dunbar Lake; r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 1 landing. 49 ac. @ 29 cunits/ac* - 1421 cunits : s e l e c t i o n l o g 78 ac (7" diam. and c u l l s , reserve sound deciduous and Douglas f i r ) ; r t / c a t s k i d , main t r a i l s on steeper slopes and near landings; 3 landings. 78 ac. @ 17.5 cunits/ac. •- ° 1357 cunits : leave 28 ac. beyond economic yarding distance, on steep.summit slopes, and to o r i e n t south edge of selection-cut block. Block c: c l e a r c u t 44 ac. as i n C; 2 landings. 44 ac. @ 29 cunits/ac ' - 1276 cunits T o t a l Volume - 6003 cunits Road cost: . haul road - as i n B . " $11,000 spur road - 1.19 miles @ $8,000/mile » $ 9,520 - 0.31 miles @ $10,000/mile (r/w disposal) - $ 3,100 $23,620 T o t a l road cost = $23,620/6003 - $3.93/cunit Yarding cost: landings - 8 @ $350 = $ 2,800 t o t a l landing cost - $2,800/6003 = $ 0.47/cunit d i r e c t skidding cost: ' $ 7.50/cunit Total cost » $11.90/cunit Hidden costs 1) Marking trees, close supervision, t r a i l f l a g g i n g , e t c . would cost ••. more than the marking of a longer i r r e g u l a r cut-block boundary. i i ) Higher proportion of c u l l timber, w i l l lower market value. i i i ) If average pie'ee s i z e f a l l s , f a l l i n g , yarding, and loading costs w i l l be higher than i n c l e a r - c u t t i n g . . These costs can be o f f s e t i n an example such as t h i s by the c l e a r c u t combined i n the same logging chance. The t o t a l area to be logged at one time i s the greatest of a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s (230 ac), since there i s no need f o r leave s t r i p s round or s i z e r e s t r i c t i o n s on s e l e c t i o n cut-blocks to e f f e c t adequate seeding. IMPACT SITE 2. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS (Plan 2A and sketch 2A). a) 98 acs. FP1741-Cr ( s e l e c t i v e l y cut 1948); 10-20%, up to 40% on steeper break forming the edge of the bench; clearcut p o t e n t i a l ; PGE. from LCP 1. b) 157 acs. FPl-741-Cr ( s e l e c t i v e l y cut 1948); f l a t t i s h ; c l earcut p o t e n t i a l ; PSE with very low angle of viewing, from LCP' 1. c) 54 acs. FS 831-P; f l a t t i s h clearcut p o t e n t i a l ; mostly i n v i s i b l e from LCP J save f o r end adjoining d), v i s i b l e as PGE. d) 104 acs. FS 831-P; 65-80%; clearcut p o t e n t i a l ; f u l l y v i s i b l e as PGE with high viewing angle, from LCP 1. la) 85 acs. FIA531-M; approx. 12%; s e l e c t i o n cut p o t e n t i a l ; l a r g e l y i n v i s i b l e ] . B CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES - GROUND SKIDDING. LOGGING PLAN (Plan 2B) Haul Road: Access from Steamboat Mtn. Rd; below Class 6 standard due to short length from main road to f i r s t landing. R/W volume: - new haul road - 40 ch, 1 ch wide 4 ac @ 9 cunits/ac = '36 cunits (F(P1)330-M, F.PlS.220M+F.Vets). Spur Roads: Considerable r/w c u t t i n g through leave area and outside lower cut-block .to outflank the break of slope near the creek. R/W volume: - new spur road - 32 ch outside blocks, 0.75 ch wide 2.5 ac @ 27 cunits/ac = 68 cunits - 47 ch through leave timber, 0.75 ch wide 3.5 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 105 cunits Block a: Clearcut 74 ac (7" diam.limit): r t / c a t s k i d , t r a i l s on upper slopes; 3 landings. 74 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = . 2220 cunits ' : leave'28 ac beyond max. yarding distances. Block_b: Clearcut 38 ac; r t . s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 1 landing. 38 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 1140 cunits : leave 119 ac to comply with cut and leave p o l i c y . Block c: Clearcut 31 ac; r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 1 landing 31 ac @ 33 cunits/ac = 1023 cunits : leave 23 ac. Block d: Clearcut 86 ac; cat s k i d , e n t i r e l y on t r a i l s ; 3 landings. 86 ac @ 33 cunits/ac = 2838 cunits : leave 18 ac i n a c c e s s i b l e or beyond max. yarding d i s t . Block e: Selection cut 14 ac, leaving deciduous and<7" diam. trees; r t . s k i d to landing i n Block c. 14 ac @ 20 cunits/ac = 280 cunits . : leave remainder T o t a l Volume = .7710 cunits Road Cost: Haul road - 0.5 miles @ $10,000/mile . .- $5,000 spur road - 0.3 miles f l a t , no r/w d i s p o s a l @ $6,000/mile » $1,800 - 0.58 miles f l a t , with r/w d i s p o s a l , @ $8,000/mile '=.$4,640 - 0.9 miles<30%, no r/w d i s p o s a l , Q $8,000/mile = $7,200 -0.35 miles<30%, r/w d i s p o s a l , . . . @ $10,000/mile = $3,500 - 0.59 mlles<30% i no r/w d i s p o s a l , @ $10,000/mile = $5,875 28,015 T o t a l road cost = $ 28,015/7710.cunits -$3.63 cunit  Yarding Cost: landings - .2 f l a t | $ 200 - $ 400 - 3^30% @ $ 350 =$1,050 - 3>60% @ $ 600 -$1,800 . ' $3,250 T o t a l landing cost - $3,250/7710 cunits = $0.42/cunit Di r e c t skidding cost- ( r t / c a t , and cat only) . $8.00/cunit T o t a l cost ° $ 12.05/cunit . SECOND PASS , Loggable leave area = 127 acs i n Blocks b and c. With addi t i o n a l short lengths of spur road i n blocks b and e, most or a l l the merchantable timber i n these blocks could be taken economically. C. CABLE-YARDING TO ELIMINATE SKID-TRAILS  LOGGING PLAN (Plan 2 C). Haul Road:as i n B, r/w volume = 36 cunits Spur road: as i n B, except i n Blocks c and d where a greater length i s necessary to gain height f o r cable-logging settings above the b l u f f s and co n t r o l points set by the need f o r d e f l e c t i o n . • R/w volume - new spur road - 42 ch outside Blocks, 0.75 ch wide 2.5 ac @ 27 cunits/ac = 68 cunits 0.5 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 23 cunits (FP1 530-M). . - 47 ch through leave timber, 0.75 ch wide, 3.5 ac @ 30 cunits/ac •» 105 cunits Block a: as i n B, 74 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 2220 cunits Block b: as i n B, 38 ac @ 30 cunits/ac • = 1140 cunits Block c: clearcut 38 ac; r t . s k i d to one landing, no t r a i l s , and yard u p h i l l with Eco-logger to landing on slopes adjoining d; 2 landings. 38 ac @ 33 cunits/ac = 1254 cunits . : leave 16 ac beyond max. yarding distance, and as leave f o r 2nd pass. Block d: Clearcut 95 ac; yard to landings with Eco-logger, down-h i l l where p o s s i b l e ; 9 landings. 95 ac @ 33 cunits/ac » 3135 : leave 9 ac beyond max. yarding distance and where d e f l e c t i o n i s poor. Block e: Leave completely. -T o t a l volume = 7981 cunits • • . Road cost: Haul-road - 0.5 miles @ $10,000/mile = $ 5,000 .• spur road - 0.28 miles f l a t , no r/w d i s p o s a l , @ $6,000/mile ' •-$•1,680 - 0.5 miles f l a t , r/w dispo s a l , @ $8,000/mile " ... . = $ 4,000 - 0.68 miles <30%, no r/w di s p o s a l , • @ $8,000/mile ' '' - $ 5,440 '''•- 0.40 miles <C30%, r/w d i s p o s a l , . ". @ $10,000/mile ' ' .- $4,000 - 1.25 miles>30%, no r/w d i s p o s a l , @ $10,000/mile » $12,500 - 0.08 miles>30Z, r/w di s p o s a l , @ $12,000/mile \ = $ 960 $33,580 To t a l road cost = $ 33,580/7981 cunits . = $ 4.21/cunits. Yarding Cost: landings - 2 f l a t @ $ 200 - $ 400 .. - 3<30Z @ $ 350 - $1,050 - 10>60Z @ $ 600.. - $6,000 $7,450 To t a l landing cost - $ 7,450/7981 cunits - $ 0.93/cunlt Yarding - Volume cable yarded = 3 3 9 9 cunits cable yarding cost = 3 3 9 9 x 1 9 . 6 0 ' = $66,620.40 - Volume ground-skidded = 4,582 cunits. t o t a l ground-skidding cost = 4582 x 7.00 .= $ 32,074 To t a l yarding cost = $(66,620.40 + 32,074)/7981 cunits "= $ 12.37 / cunit (average)  Total cost = $ 17.51/cunit Hidden costs: The t o t a l cost i s 50% greater than the costs of B. To some extent i t obscures the high' cost of cable-logging which would become apparent i f Block d was considered i n i s o l a t i o n . However, i t i s l i k e l y the costs i n B are understimated, because considerable quantities of timber i n Block d may be inaccessible to cat-skidders but recoverable by the Eco-logger. Nonetheless, companies would probably defer such timber unless i t held 40 cunits/acre with large p i e c e - s i z e , since these rates are uneconomic. It i s probably un-economic to construct the upper spur road at the north end of the Block d. " SECOND PASS Loggable leave area = 119 ac i n Blocks b and c s i m i l a r to B. CABLE-YARDING, ORIENTED PATCH-CUTTING, AND SCREENING OF ROADS. LOGGING PLAN (Plan 2DI). Haul Road: As i n B, r/w volume = 36 cunits Spur Roads: As i n C, except that one spur road i n Block d i s omitted and the spur i n Block a i s lengthened to reach landing c l o s e r to rock b l u f f . R/w volume: - new spur road - 42 ch outside Blocks, as in-C, = 9J cunits . - 46 ch through leave timber, 0.75 ch wide 0.8 ac @ 30 cunits/ac ° 24 cun i t s 2.7 ac @ 33 cunits/ac = 89 cunits Block a: Clearcut 69 acres, leaving a l l r e s i d u a l s p o s s i b l e , grouped and scattered; r t / c a t - s k i d , t r a i l s on upper slopes only; 3 landings. 69 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 2070 cunits' •. - . : leave 29 ac beyond max. yarding distance and to screen road. Block b: Clearcut 85 ac, i n 2 blocks; r t . s k i d , no t r a i l s , 2 landings 89 ac @ 30 cunits/ac = 2670 cunits : leave 72 ac f o r 2nd pass, as leave s t r i p approx. 20 ch wide between cut-blocks, and to leave more trees on the r i d g e - l i n e to reduce apparent s c a l e . Block c: Clearcut 30 ac, i n 2 blocks; r t . skid lower block, no t r a i l s and cable yard with Eco-logger, u p h i l l , on upper block; 1 landing. 30 ac @ 33 cunits/ac » 990 cunits : leave 24 ac. f o r 2nd pass. Block d: Clearcut 59 ac, i n 2 blocks; cable yard u p h i l l and downhill with Eco-logger; 8 landings. 59 ac @ 33 cunits/ac " 1947 cunits : leave 45 ac f o r 2nd pass, or where d e f l e c t i o n i s poor. Block e: Leave f o r 2nd pass. T o t a l volume ° 7917 cunits Road cost: Haul road - 0.5 miles @ $ 10,000/mile = $ 5,000 spur road - 0.64 miles f l a t , no r/w disp o s a l . 6 $ 6,000/mile - $ 3,840 ' - 0.27 miles f l o t , r/w d i s p o s a l , .. @ $ 8,000/mile - - $ 2,160 - 0.71 miles < 30%, no r/w ' di s p o s a l , @ $ 8,000/mile ] - $ 5,680 . . - 0.4 miles<30%, r/w d i s p o s a l , . @ $ 10,000/mile .= $.4,000 - 0.63 miles>30%,>30%, no r/w di s p o s a l @ $10,000/mile = $ 6,300 . - 0.5 miles>30% r/w d i s p o s a l , 6 $12,000/mile = $ 6,000 $32,980 T o t a l road cost » $32,980/7917 cunits = $4.17/cunit • Yarding c o s t : Landings - 3 f l a t @ $200 =S 600 . - 3-C30Z @ $350 =$ 1,050 - 8>60Z @ $600 =$ 4,800 $ 6,450 t o t a l landing cost = $ 6,450/7917 cunits = $0.81/cunit y i r d i n g volume cable yarded = 2,112 cunits cable - yarding cost = 2,112 x 19.60 - $ 41,395.20 - volume ground-skidded = 5,805 cunits ground skidding cost = 5,805 x 7.00 = $ 40,635 To t a l yarding cost = ($ 41,395.20 + $ 40,635.00)/7917 cunits = $ 10.36/cunit (average). T o t a l cost ° $ 15.34/cunit. ' Hidden costs: Within Block d, the d e f e r r a l of. timber, for a 2nd pass, represents a cost i n that, from the lower landings, the Eco-logger yards only h a l f the s e t t i n g at one time, thus doubling the moving and s e t t i n g -up costs for the same timber volume. In addition, the spur road has to be upgraded f o r the 2nd pass, though t h i s i s at l e a s t -r e s t r i c t e d to the lower spur road. In Block a, the leaving of groups of residuals may reduce volumes s l i g h t l y , depending how many merchantable stems are l e f t i n s i d e dense patches of unmerchantable r e s i d u a l s . . SECOND PASS (Plan 2D I I ) . Loggable leave - 109 ac, requiring only 2 further ladings. However, a 2nd pass could take most of. the remaining timber i n Blocks b and c with the addition of two short spur roads Block b: Clearcut 63 ac; r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 2 landings -63 ac @ 30 cunits/ac - 1890 cunits • : leave 9 ac beyond max. yarding dist. and to r e t a i n timber screen along crest of drop-off. Block c: Clearcut 28 ac; r t s k i d , no t r a i l s ; 1 landing 28 ac @ 33 cunits/ac » 924 cunits  Block d: Clearcut 25 ac; cable-yard with Eco-logger, downhill e x i s t i n g landings; r e h a b i l i t a t e 5 landings. 25 ac @ 33 cunits/ac = 825 cunits : leave 20 ac beyond max. yarding dist.(volume i n -s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y b u i l d i n g another spur road). Block e: Selection cut 6 ac; r t . s k i d , no t r a i l s , to landing i n Block c. 6 ac @ 20 cunits/ac » . 180 cunits : leave remainder. T o t a l Volume ° 3819 cunits Road cost: . New spur road - 0.18 miles, f l a t , no r/w d i s p o s a l , @ $6,000/mile • ' » $ 1,050 Rehab, spur road - 0.91 miles f l a t , @ 1/3 $8,000/mile - $ 2,427 - 0.90 miles<30%, . • @ 1/3 $10,000/mile ' = $3,000 - 0.60 miles>30%, @ 1/3 $12,000/mile . . $-2,400 - $ 8,877 -T o t a l road cost = $8,877/3819 cunits = $ 2.32/cunit Yarding cost: Landings - 3 new f l a t @ $200 - 5 rehab. @ 1/3 $600 Landing cost = $1,600/3819 cunits = $0.42/cunit yarding - volume cable-yarded » 825 cunits cable-yarding cost = 825 x 19.60 $ 16,170 - volume ground-skidded •» 2,994 cunits ground-skidding cost - 2994 x 6.50 = $ 19,461 T o t a l yarJing cost = ($16,170 + $19,461)/3819 cunits . ' " $ 9.33/cunit (average) T o t a l cost ° $ 12.07/cunit. IMPACT SITE 3. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS (See Plan 3A), a) 88 acs. P1531-C, FP1 731-M, 30-50%; clearcut potential; visible as ground exposure from northern sections of Loop Rd., Driftwood Rd., and East Cartwright campsite.NB. The Es boundary has been taken as a determinant of cut block boundaries. b) 60 acs FP1 731-M, SBF 831-P, 15-25%; clearcut potential; visible partly as ground - exposure and partly as stem-exposure only, from Land." Lake, and Driftwood Road. c) 46 acs. F?l 731-M, SBF 831-P. Generally <25%, steep 40% break at northern edge; clearcut potential; visible as ground exposure from " Loop Road and Driftwood Road. d) 77 acs. FP1 630-M. < 10% generally; possible selection potential; upper part visible as ground exposure but mostly as stem exposure _ — only, from Loop Road and Driftwood Road. e) 30 acs. Es SBF 831-P. Approximately 30%; possible clearcut potential; v i s i b i l i t y as for c. B. CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES • • LOGGING PLAN (See Plan 3B). Haul Road: assume access from the nearest existing main road, the Bugaboo Road to the north, with the cost of the new haul road born by the impact area for that section shown in solid red on maps. The haul road shown south to Rand Creek is to below class 6 standards (with 66' r/w) as i t i s not much longer than a branch road and the •"> timber volume to be hauled over i t is not large. R/w volume: - new haul road - 60 ch. (0.75 miles), r/w 1 ch wide (to Rand Creek). 6.0 ac. @ 30 cun/ac = 180 cunits (FP1 630-G, FP1 530-M, P1F 430-M) Spur roads: 50' r/w; double crossing of Rand Creek necessary to gain height f o r block c, avoiding unacceptable favourable grade on north bank of Rand Creek. Large c u l v e r t s should be s u f f i c i e n t for Rand Cr.; permanent bridges on an avalanche track would be extremely expensive • and unwise. .R/w volume: - new spur road - 1.6 miles;' 9 ch outside cut blocks, 0.75 ch wide 0.68 acres @ 25 cunits/ac •> 17 c u n i t s (SBF 831-P, P1F 430-M) Block a: clearcut i n spring a f t e r block b, to 7" diam., ' . r t / c a t skid with skid t r a i l s reasonably close to the contour, f u l l tree skidding; 4 landings; spot-burning of landings and p i l e d d e b r i s . 40 acs. @ 27 cunits/ac = 1080 cun i t s . 48 acs. @ 40 cunits/ac = 1920 cunits. Block b: leave 2 ch s t r i p along Creek to comply with FS p o l i c y and avoid ^  skidding problems on stream banks; leave 2 acs beyond optimum yarding • M distance below a drop-off. T o t a l - 8 acs. (jj vo • : clearcut 52 acs. i n snow; r t / c a t skid,.skid t r a i l s only where -necessary; 2 landings; . " * . ' ' • 5 acs @ 30 cunits/ac 150 cunits ' • . . ' . . ' • 47 acs 0 40 cunits/ac = 1880 c u n i t s Block c: leave 3 ch reserve s t r i p along Creek and area l y i n g beyond optimal yarding distance i n creek draw; leave 4.5 acres of o u t l y i n g timber below drop-off. Total - 13 acres. . :.clearcut'remainder i n show; as f o r b; 1 landing. 33 acs. @ 40 cunits/ac = 1320 cunits • Block d: c l e a r c u t 2.5 acres beside spur road, f o r convenience i n r/w c l e a r i n g . Leave remainder u n t i l second pass. -2.5 acs @ 35 cunits/ac - 85 cunits Block e:- c l e a r c u t 2.8 acres upslope from c to include i n optimum yarding distance. 2.8 acs @ 30 cunits/ac " '84 c u n i t s Total volume » 6716 cunits Road Cost: haul road - 0.75 miles @'$10,000/mile, with r/w disposal - $ 7,500 spur road - 0.86 miles <20%, no"r/w disposal @ $8,000/mile- $ j,880 - 0.74 miles >30%, no r/w disposal @ $10,000/" •> $ 7,400 c u l v e r t s - 3 Q $100 ' - $ 300 $22,080 Total road cost » $22,080/6716 cunits = $3.28/cunit  Yarding Cost: landings - 4 30% @ $500 - $2000 /';'-'':': - 3 30% 3 $350 . • ' -' $1050 $3050 T o t a l landing cost = $3050/6716 cunits • $0.45/cunit d i r e c t skidding cost (not contract) with r t and cats « $7.50/cunit T o t a l cost = $11.23/cunlt > • SECOND PASS Loggable leave area = 0 acres. . • • --. .' '< The impact area i s therefore a self-contained unit., However, the 1st pass access could readily be expanded to take timber, within the Es reserve N,U, and S of Block a, timber on lower slopes to the south, and timber NW of Block c without sacrificing efficiency of the road lay-out. i.e. committing the lay-out to more switchbacks than are necessary. C. CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES WITH REDUCED CUT-BLOCK SCALE AND ORIENTED  OPENINGS. LOGGING PLAN (See Plan 3C) Haul Road: as in B, Rw volume = 180 cunits Spur Roads: as in B, but extended in Block a and Block c to adjust landing locations for rearranged cut-blocks. - new spur road - 1.78 miles; 50 ch outside cut-blocks, 0.75 ch wide max. but kept as narrow as possible through leave strips; 3.75 acres @ 35 cunits/acre = 131 cunits (PI 531-G, FP1 731-M, SBF 831-P) Block a: leave 30 acs. as i r r e g u l a r width s t r i p ; : clearcut i n two patches i n snow; r t / c a t skid with skid t r a i l s reasonably close to contour; 4 landings a t edges of cut-block; spot-burn. 20 acs. @ 27 cunits/ac = 540 cunits 38 acs. @ 40 cunits/ac » 1520 cun i t s ' Block b: leave c e n t r a l 4-5 ch s t r i p p a r a l l e l to Creek; leave 2 acs. below drop-off beyond optimum yarding distance. T o t a l 9 acres. : clearcut remainder to creek edge or drop-off • - • . ' . i n snow; r t / c a t skid, t r a i l s only where necessary and along snow-packed spur road through leave s t r i p , 2 landings; spot burn 9 acres @ 30 cunits/ac = . 270 c u n i t s ' 42 acres @ 40 cunits/ac = ... 1680 cun i t s I N> Block c: leave c e n t r a l 4 ch s t r i p crossing the spur road; leave 3 ch s t r i p o along Creek bank and outly i n g timber, t o t a l - 13 acres. j : clearcut 33 acs i n snow; r t / c a t s k i d , s k i d - t r a i l s where necessary with one main t r a i l through the reserve s t r i p to eastern landing; 2 landings; 33 acs. @ 40 cunits / ac ' . 1320 cunits Block d: clearcut 4 acres for convenience on r/w and to ori e n t c l e a r c u t shape • • • 4 acres @ 35 cunits/ac «* 140 c u n i t s Block e: cle a r c u t 7 acres above Block c to ori e n t c l e a r c u t shape, 7 acs. @ 30 cunits/ac = 210 c u n i t s T o t a l volume - 5991 cunits • ': . Road cQ3t: haul road - 0.75 miles 0 $10,000/mile, with r/w di s p o s a l » $ 7,500 spur road - 0.92 miles <30% 0 $8,000/mile, no r/w disposal-$7,360 (short-skidding out of reserve s t r i p s ) - 0.78 m i l e s > 30% - 0.38 miles @ $12,000/mile, r/w disposal •= $4,500 - 0.40 miles @ $10,000/mile, no r/w d i s p o s a l - $4,000 c u l v e r t s - t @ $100 _ ..( „ $ 3 0 0 •' •' $23,660 t o t a l road cost - $23,660/5991 cunits ° $3.94/cunit Yarding cost: landings - 4 30% @ $500 each - 4 30% @ $350 each t o t a l landing cost «= $3,400/5991 cunits = $0.56/cunit d i r e c t ' skidding cost = $7-50/cunit . KB. cost may r i s e on - poor s i t e s i f timber i s on rocky ground and p a r t l y i n a c c e s s i b l e to cat-skidders, - narrow openings c a l l i n g for more switchbacks on s k i d -tra i l ' s . . • ' • • T o t a l cost of f i r s t pass -. $1200/cunit  SECOiTD PASS Assuming a second pass within the impact area i n l e s s than 15-20 years:- Loggable leave area = 40 acs; most of t h i s could be logged to • existing landings without passing through regeneration stands,' except f o r the c e n t r a l s t r i p i n Block c which could be skidded to the road. The road lay-out does not include any more switchbacks than i n B, and could ' as e a s i l y be extended beyond the impact area. Black a: c l e a r c u t leave s t r i p to e x i s t i n g landings, as i n f i r s t pass 15 acres @ 27 cunits/ac «• 405 cunits . 15 acres @ 40 cunits/ac = 600 cunits " Bloc'< b: c l e a r c u t leave s t r i p to e x i s t i n g landing 7 acres @ 40 cunits/ac •» ' ' 280 cunits Block c: cost of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g spur road into Block c probably i s not j u s t i f i e d by the volume of timber i n the leave s t r i p . ''$ 2,000 . $ 1,400 $ 3,400 Total volume " 1285-106-' = 1179 cunits Road cost: haul road - assume maintenance has been c a r r i e d out by Forest Service at no expense to the company. 6pur roads - r e h a b i l i t a t e d a t 1/3 construction c o s t : 0.78 miles 30% @ $4,000/mile = $3,120 0.55 miles 30% @ $3,333/mile - ' . $1,833 - r e b u i l t at Creek at f u l l cost 0.05 miles 30% @ 8,000/mile ' = ' ' $ 400 c u l v e r t s - 1 at $100 • •» •.'.'•• $ 100 $5,453 ' t o t a l road cost = $5,453/1179 •= $4.62/cunit Yarding cost:. . . d i r e c t skidding cost = $7.50/cunit landings - r e h a b i l i t a t e d at 1/3 o r i g i n a l cost 4 30% @ $167 each 1 30% @ $117 each landing cost •= $785/1179 - "$0.66/cunit '• T o t a l cost of 2nd pass ° $12.78/cunit D. LONC-DISTANCE GROUND SKIDDING TO ELIMINATE ROAD-SCAR '" -Logging Plan (See Plan 3D). Haul Road: as i n B^R/w volume « 180 cunits Spur Roads: g r e a t l y reduced, with 2nd Creek crossing placed lower downstream, since the landing i t serves need not be c e n t r a l l y placed i n the cut-block, which necessitated the road climbing to avoid the drop-off. . . R/w volume: • - 0.64 miles; 8 ch outside cut-blocks, 0.75 ch. wide 0.6 acres @ 35 cunits/acre = 21 cunits Block a: leave 19 acres of short s t r i p s indenting c l e a r c u t edge, with main t r a i l s through them. $ 668 $ 117 |. $ 785 N> I : c l e a r c u t remainder In snow (to ,7" diameter, 12" stump, 4" top); f u l l - t r e e skid with FMC 200 on snow t r a i l s , and stump-bulldozed main t r a i l s s k i d - t r a i l s with cut-banks only on steepest and narrowest sections r e q u i r i n g contour t r a i l s ; 1 large landing,(based on 40-45 ch optimum skidding distance) p i l e and spotburn at landing. 29 acs. @ 27 cunits/ac •= 783 cunits 40 acs. @ 40 cunits/ac . = 1600 cunits Block b: leave 2-3 ch s t r i p s along spur-roads T o t a l = 6 acres : c l e a r c u t 51 acres to creek side, i n snow; FMC s k i d , v i r t u a l l y no skid t r a i l s , skidding along r/w; 1 large landing, 2 ch from creek; pile- and spotburn. 45 acres @ 40 cunits/ac = 1800 cunits 9 acres @ 30 cunits/ac «= 270 c u n i t s Block c: leave 4-5 ch s t r i p along creek, 3 acs i n a c c e s s i b l e , and 2.5 acres i n reshaping cut-block. Total 14.5 acs. : c l e a r c u t remainder as i n Block a. 31.5 acres @ 40 cunits/ac. « 1260 cunits Block d: clearcut 3.6 acres for r/w and landing l o c a t i o n 3.6 acres @ 35 cunits/ac » 126 c u n i t s Block c: clearcut 2.8 acres for cut-block shaping 2.8 acres @ 30 cunits/ac » 84 cunits T o t a l volume ° 6124 cunits '•'-'. Road cost: - ; haul road - 0.75 miles @ $10,000/mile, with r/w disposal - $ 7,500 spur road - 0.64 miles 30%, no r/w disposal, @ $8,000/mile= $ 5,120 c u l v e r t s - 3 @ $100 = $ 300 • • $12,920 t o t a l road cost » $12,920/6124 cunits •= $2.11/cunit Yarding cost: landings - 3 large 30% @ $500 each landing cost - $1500/6124 cunits- - $0:24/cunit $ 1,500 skidding - assuming optimum yarding distance and routine ,. - operating f i g u r e s ( i e not t r i a l figures',), '» ' : . • skidding cost - $6.11/cunlt T o t a l cost of f i r s t pass ° $8.46/cunit Hidden cost: - Skidding costs used are the higher end of the normal operating c o s t -range i n the US.Average figures would give an even lower cost/cunit. However, i t i s hard to see how the FMC, yarding over a distance 3 t i n e s that of wheeled skidders and with only s l i g h t l y superior speed and load, can match the cost of r t skidding under normal conditions. Generally accepted figures are not yet a v a i l a b l e . Maintenance and r e p a i r costs are higher than with conventional skidders, though the reduced road costs are a d e f i n i t e o f f s e t . - conventional cats would s t i l l be needed to bulldoze main t r a i l s and p i l e debris, although the sums involved are not high. - d e f e r r i n g timber to 2nd pass. I f the c l e a r c u t t i n g was as i n B, which . i s t o t a l l y f e a s i b l e with the lay-out i n D, costs would have been lower s t i l l , i e approximately $8.25/cunit. . •: - increased, marking costs on main t r a i l s and longer perimeter (410 ch) SECOND PASS Loggable leave area = 27.5 acs. I f the timber was not taken along with adjacent logging shows and the company f e l t i t worthwhile taking, about 24 acs could be cut and yarded with the FMC using e x i s t i n g r/ws and main t r a i l s i n Blocks a and b, minimising damage to regeneration. Block a: 11 acres @ 27 cunits/ac 297 cunits 8 acres @ 40 cunits/ac • - 320 cunits Block b: 5 acres @ 40 cunits/ac - ' 200 cunits Total volume of 2nd pass = 817-8 - 809 c u n i t s Road c o s t : spur roads - r e h a b i l i t a t e d at 1/3 complete disposal cost 0.41 miles 30Z @ $3,333/mile = $1,367 - r e b u i l t a t f u l l cost 0.05 miles 30Z @ $8,000/mile - .• $ 400 c u l v e r t s - 1 a t $100 ,"; '»'. $ 100 $ 1,867 T o t a l road cost = $1,867/809 cunits = $2.30/cunit -Yarding cost: d i r e c t skidding cost " $6.11/cunit landings - r e h a b i l i t a t e d at 1/3 o r i g i n a l cost 2 @ $167 = • $ 334 landing cost - $334/809 cunits = $0.41/cunit T o t a l cost of 2nd pass = $8.82/cunit With the FMC's long-skidding c a p a b i l i t y , i t may not"even be necessary to r e h a b i l i t a t e roads beyond the f i r s t landing,' which would r a i s e skidding costs but almost eliminate the road-costs. N5 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093714/manifest

Comment

Related Items