United States Department of Agriculture

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest

Wallowa Valley

Ranger District October 2014
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

iii Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa County, Oregon 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agency: Wallowa County 

Responsible Official: TOM MONTOYA, FOREST SUPERVISOR 

1550 Dewey Ave. 

Baker City, OR 97850 

For Information Contact: AYN SHLISKY, TEAM LEAD

72510 Coyote Rd. 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

541-278-3762 

Abstract: This analysis addresses the impacts from implementing the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project (LJCRP). Action alternatives included the Modified Proposed Action, where 

thinning and mechanical fuel treatments across approximately 16,700 acres would encourage the 

development of landscape resilience, including large tree structure, understory plant diversity, 

forage productivity, characteristic fire and insect and pathogen disturbances, and provide income 

and opportunities for local communities to experience natural resource-dependent lifestyles. 

Thinning of largely younger trees across an additional 5,500 acres, which are in the process of 

recovery after stand replacement disturbance, would encourage the development of spatial 

heterogeneity and increase the proportion of early seral tree species toward a more resilient 

condition, consistent with historical reference conditions. Prescribed burning on up to 90,000 

acres would reduce both natural fuel accumulations and those resulting from thinning, increase 

understory productivity and diversity, allow fire to perform its natural ecological role, and 

increase resilience to disturbance. The Modified Proposed Action and one additional alternative 

respond to issues related to the transportation system and vegetation treatments within designated 

old growth management areas, inventoried roadless areas, and Category 4 riparian habitat 

conservation areas. 

Send Comments to: Ayn Shlisky 

Blue Mountains Restoration Team Lead 

72510 Coyote Rd. 

Pendleton, OR 97801
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest iv 

Summary 

The Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project aims to achieve desired conditions as expressed by 

overarching agency plans and policies, tribes, cooperating governments, collaborative groups, and 

the public. The purpose of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project (LJCRP) is to restore, 

maintain, and enhance forest and rangeland resiliency to natural disturbances, protect natural 

resources at risk to uncharacteristic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks, contribute to local 

economic and social vitality, modify fire behavior potential, and improve future forest, range, and 

fire management opportunities. Internal and external scoping for opportunities, issues, and 

concerns revealed three significant issues requiring detailed analysis and resolution. Specifically, 

the LJCRP aims to resolve issues regarding: 1) the best network of roads that will allow for 

recreation, harvesting forest products, fire management, accessing private inholdings, 

administration, and other uses, while also reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts that roads 

may have on forest and riparian resources; 2) the best vegetation treatments to restore forest 

structure and composition toward the historic range of variation (HRV; particularly regarding the 

size and species of trees to retain or harvest), and 3) the types of forest management that is 

needed in designated old growth management areas (Management Area 15), inventoried roadless 

areas, and riparian habitat conservation areas to move toward HRV. This DEIS assesses the range 

of effects of three alternatives, the no action, and two alternative active approaches to achieve the 

project purpose, and resolve, to the degree possible, the three significant planning issues. The 

alternatives range in the extent of upland forest thinning from 0 to 22,100 acres, including 0 to 

800 acres in old forest management allocations; 0 to 2,600 acres in riparian habitat conservation 

areas; and 0 to 5,500 acres in inventoried roadless areas. The alternatives range in the extent of 

burning from 0 to 90,000 acres (through both planned and unplanned fire), and in the length of 

the road network from 363 to 406 open and closed miles. The EIS also assesses the effects of 

restoration and related activities (connected actions) common to all action alternatives. This DEIS 

discloses the beneficial and adverse effects of alternative management approaches for the project 

area, as justification for the responsible official’s preferred alternative. It also describes the 

assumptions we needed to make where adequate understanding was uncertain. To accomplish 

restoration goals, non-significant forest plan amendments are proposed. 

Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. 

Acronyms

AQI - Air Quality Index 

ATV – All Terrain Vehicle 

BA – Biological Assessment 

BE – Biological Evaluation 

BMP – Best Management Practice 

BO – Biological Opinion 

CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations 

CWPP - County Wildfire Protection Plan 

DSC – Detrimental Soil Conditions 

DBH – diameter breast height 

DCH – Designated Critical Habitat 

DecAID - Decayed Wood Advisor 

DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DOGMA – Dedicated Old Growth Management Area 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

v Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

DSC – Detrimental Soil Conditions 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation 

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency 

ERS – Eastside Restoration Strategy 

ESA – Endangered Species Act 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FRCC – Fire Regime Condition Class 

FSH – Forest Service Handbook 

GHG – Green House Gas 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

HEI – Habitat Effectiveness Index 

HRV – Historic Range Of Variability 

ICBEMP –Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IRA – Inventoried Roadless Area 

LJCRP – Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

LOS - Late-Old Structural Stages 

LRMP – Land and Resources Management Plan 

LWD – Large Woody Debris 

MA – Management Area 

MCR -Middle Columbia River 

MIS – Management Indicator Species 

MVUM – Motor Vehicle Use Map 

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act 

NFMA – National Forest Management Act 

NTMBS - Neotropical Migratory Bird Species 

NOI – Notice of Intent 

NFS – National Forest System 

OFMS - Old Forest Multi-Strata 

OFSS - Old Forest Single Strata 

OHV – Off-Highway Vehicle 

PCE - Primary Cavity Excavators 

PVG – Potential Vegetation Group 

PWA - Potential Wilderness Area 

RACR - Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

RHCA – Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 

RMO - Riparian Management Objectives 

RNA – Research Natural Area 

ROD – Record of Decision 

ROS – Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

RV – Range of variability 

TES – Threatened and endangered species 

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service 

WEPP -Water Erosion Prediction Project 

WUI -Wildland Urban Interface 

WWNF – Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest vi 

How This Document is Organized

The format of this DEIS follows the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recommended 

format (40 CFR 1502.10). The document is organized into five chapters: 

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 

This chapter includes information about the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and 

need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section 

also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public 

responded. 

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as 

alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on 

significant issues raised by the public, Tribes, the Forest Service and other agencies. Finally, this 

section provides summary comparison tables of the activities associated with each alternative, 

and how well the alternatives respond to the purpose and need. 

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

This chapter describes the affected environment and the environmental effects of implementing 

the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination 

This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and information regarding the distribution of this 

DEIS. 

Chapter 5 Glossary, References, and Index 

Following Chapter 4 is a glossary of terms, a list of acronyms with their definitions, references, 

an index and appendices. The appendices provide maps and more information to support the 

analysis presented in this DEIS. 

Project Record 

Additional documentation, including detailed specialist reports underlying the background and 

analyses supporting this DEIS, is available from the administrative record (project record) at: 

Wallowa Mountains Office, 201 East Second Street/P.O. Box 905, Joseph, OR 97846 

541-426-5546.

Acknowledgements

In addition to those who helped prepare this DEIS (see “Preparers”, Chapter 4), the Blue 

Mountains Restoration Strategy Interdisciplinary Team would like to acknowledge the input, 

collaborative efforts, inspiration, and support of the following people and organizations: Wallowa 

Whitman Forest Collaborative, Wallowa Resources, Blue Mountains Coalition of Collaboratives, 

Jimmy Kagan, Institute for Natural Resources, Mark Stern, The Nature Conservancy, Nicole 

Valliant, Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment Center, U.S. Forest Service Region 

6 and Forest Health Protection staff, and Kevin Martin, Forest Supervisor, and his staff at the 

Umatilla National Forest.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

vii Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... iv

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ iv

How This Document is Organized .................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ viii

List of Maps (see Appendix A) ....................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xii

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ..................................................................................... 1

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

Background .................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................... 4

Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) ................................................................................ 24

Decision Framework.................................................................................................................. 29

Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 30

Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ............................................................... 32

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 32

Alternative Development Process ............................................................................................. 32

Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................. 35

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................. 40

Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .......................................... 45

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 45

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by alternative ............................................................ 122

Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 152

Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 154

Alternative 2: Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 171

Alternative 3: Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................ 214

Unavoidable adverse effects .................................................................................................... 237

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............................................................. 237

Alternative 2 and 3 – Effects of Not Amending the Forest Plans............................................ 237

Other Required Disclosures ..................................................................................................... 238

Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................................................... 239

U.S. Forest Service Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Interdisciplinary Team ................ 239

Federal, State, and Local Agencies ......................................................................................... 239

Tribes ....................................................................................................................................... 239

Index ............................................................................................................................................ 240

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 241

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 255

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 309

Appendix A – Maps ................................................................................................................. 309

Appendix B - Forest plan direction, and other policies, laws, regulations, and agreements ... 311

Appendix C - Landscape Modeling Methods .......................................................................... 349

Appendix D – Burn probability modeling methods ................................................................ 355

Appendix E – Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant, Wildlife, and Aquatic 

Species (TES) .......................................................................................................................... 357

Appendix F - U.S. Forest Service Habitat descriptions for Region 6 Sensitive Plants 

documented or suspected to occur in the LJCRP .................................................................... 368
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest viii 

Appendix G - Consultation and coordination log, Nez Perce Tribes (NPT) and the Forest 

Service ..................................................................................................................................... 373

Appendix H. Non-native invasive plants documented in LJCRP area. .................................. 376

Appendix I - Analysis process used to identify potential wilderness areas, and other 

undeveloped lands ................................................................................................................... 378

Appendix J - Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

 ................................................................................................................................................. 379

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison of existing and desired conditions of selected attributes for the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration project area ................................................................................................. 7

Table 2. Extent of major vegetation types in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project area .... 8

Table 3. Desired and existing fire regimes for the major vegetation types within the project area 

(Adapted from Barrett et al. 2010 and Stine et al. 2014). ........................................................ 1

Table 4. Severity class and effects to upper level canopy replacement. .......................................... 2

Table 5. Existing and desired severity probabilities for the dry and moist upland forest potential 

vegetation groups. .................................................................................................................... 2

Table 6. Wildlife management indicator species identified in the Wallowa-Whitman forest plan. 6

Table 7. Population Trend data Rocky Mountain Elk (ODFW 2014) .......................................... 10

Table 8. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive wildlife species with 

habitat suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area, and descriptions of desired conditions

 ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 9. Birds of conservation concern with known or assumed habitat in the LJCRP area. ....... 16

Table 10. Riparian Management Objectives for the LJCRP. ......................................................... 21

Table 11. Descriptions of planning alternatives for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 37

Table 12. Description of forest vegetation treatment types ........................................................... 38

Table 13. Comparison of restoration actions and effects by alternative ........................................ 42

Table 14. Generalized vegetation by soil type for the LJCRP ....................................................... 48

Table 15. Watersheds and subwatersheds of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project. ........ 50

Table 16. Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project analysis area............................................................................................................... 51

Table 17. RHCA widths and management area descriptions for the Lower Joseph Creek Project 

Area........................................................................................................................................ 52

Table 18. RHCA Acres by subwatershed for each Category Stream in the LJCRP Area for Upper 

Joseph Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................ 52

Table 19. RHCA Acres by subwatershed for each Category Stream in the LJCRP Area for Lower 

Joseph Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................ 52

Table 20. Results of aquatic habitat surveys for streams within the Lower Joseph project area. .. 53

Table 21. ODEQ temperature standards for streams within the Lower Joseph project area. ........ 54

Table 22. Results of stream temperature monitoring within the Lower Joseph project area. ........ 55

Table 23. Total existing lengths (miles) and densities (miles/square mile) of roads in the 

watersheds affected by the Lower Joseph Creek project area. .............................................. 56

Table 24. Total existing lengths (miles) and densities (miles/square mile) of roads in the 

subwatersheds affected by the Lower Joseph project area. ................................................... 57

Table 25. Salmonid fish species and age class blocked by culverts and miles of habitat blocked.

 ............................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 26. Acres of RHCA category by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by 

subwatershed .......................................................................................................................... 59
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

ix Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 27. Acres of RHCA category by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed by 

subwatershed .......................................................................................................................... 59

Table 28 describes the NAAQS levels described in terms of PM10 and 2.5. ................................ 60

Table 29. Current forest cover type distribution for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project, 

and the natural range of variation in cover types for the Blue Mountains ............................. 63

Table 30. Distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

area ......................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 31. Distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

 ............................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 32. Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area .......... 67

Table 33. Description of fire regime groups (from Barrett et al 2010). ......................................... 69

Table 34. LJCRP forested acres affected by specific insects from 2008 to 2013. ......................... 72

Table 35. Insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area . 73

Table 36. Summary of Total Acres by potential vegetation group and grazing allotment ............ 75

Table 37. Expected forage production by potential vegetation group (USDA Forest Service 2014)

 ............................................................................................................................................... 77

Table 38. Native plant diversity for the LJCRP area ..................................................................... 82

Table 39. Treatments in 2012-2013 using the 2012 Invasive Plant EIS Litigation Settlement 

Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 85

Table 40. Limited treatments in 2012-2013 using the 2012 Invasive Plant EIS Litigation 

Settlement Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 85

Table 41. Miles of habitat by stream for listed and sensitive fish species within the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration project area. .............................................................................................. 86

Table 42. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest range. ........................................................................................................................... 87

Table 43. Conservation status of cavity-nesting MIS .................................................................... 88

Table 44. Current distribution of forest structural stages in areas designated as old growth 

management areas (MA15) in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area (see Figure 7 

for a description of structural stages). .................................................................................... 94

Table 45 – HEI and Cover percentages for desired (forest plan) and existing conditions within the 

Lower Joseph project area. .................................................................................................... 97

Table 46. Road densities by management area and subwatershed, currently, and by alternative for 

the Lower Joseph project area. ............................................................................................... 98

Table 47. Nez Perce comments considered for analysis of the LJCRP. ...................................... 103

Table 48. Traditional plants known to be of interest to the Nez Perce Tribe............................... 104

Table 49. Valued landscape attributes of the LJCRP area ........................................................... 107

Table 50. The proportion of the LJCRP area in each of four scenic integrity classes found in the 

LJCRP .................................................................................................................................. 109

Table 51. Definitions of scenic stability levels ............................................................................ 110

Table 52. Proportion of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project in each landscape visibility 

class ...................................................................................................................................... 111

Table 53. Participation in the top 10 recreational activities on the WWNF ................................ 112

Table 54: Size of Inventoried Roadless Areas, and portions within the LJCRP boundary ......... 118

Table 55. Size class distribution of other undeveloped lands in the project area. ....................... 119

Table 56. Characterization of environmental organizations unroaded area ................................. 120

Table 57. Characterization of acres of treatment within environmental organizations unroaded 

areas by action alternative. ................................................................................................... 120

Table 58. PM10 emissions in the Grande Ronde Basin for prescribed fire and wildfire ............. 127

Table 59. Description of treatment types ..................................................................................... 129

Table 60. Relationship of treatment intensity to the desired post treatment density class ........... 130

Table 61. Activity restrictions according to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria ........... 136
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest x 

Table 62. 2004 to 2013 – Approximate acres of vegetation management activities and wildfire in 

the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................... 143

Table 63. Status of forest management projects in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Area aside from forest vegetation management. .................................................................. 146

Table 64. Comparison of the relative effects of the alternatives ................................................. 152

Table 65. Pileated woodpecker source habitat conditions by alternative .................................... 160

Table 66. Northern goshawk source habitat conditions by alternative ........................................ 160

Table 67. Relative effects of the alternatives on landbird and migratory bird habitat. ................ 162

Table 68. Alternative 2 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area .......................................................................................................................... 177

Table 69. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the LJCRP area .. 178

Table 70. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the LJCRP area

 ............................................................................................................................................. 178

Table 71. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................................................ 179

Table 72. Alternative 2 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area .......................................................................................................................... 179

Table 73. Alternative 2 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................................................ 181

Table 74. Acres proposed for treatment in Alternative 2 through commercial harvest and thinning 

that would be in areas with known noxious weeds. ............................................................. 182

Table 75. Miles of weeds along haul routes by alternative .......................................................... 183

Table 76. Calochortus populations adjacent to Alternative 2 forest thinning units that are not 

treated in Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................ 183

Table 77. Locations of lithosols with known populations of Wallowa ricegrass and white 

fleabanes relative to forest management activities that would be implemented in alternatives 

2 and 3.................................................................................................................................. 184

Table 78. Miles and acres of road reconstruction and temporary roads by alternative. .............. 187

Table 79. Total Road Density by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by 

Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 187

Table 80. Total Road Density by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed Alternative

 ............................................................................................................................................. 187

Table 81. Percentage of treated forest in alternative 2 where trees >21” could potentially be 

removed. .............................................................................................................................. 191

Table 82. Existing distribution of structural stages in old growth management areas (MA15), and 

distribution by alternative for the LJCRP area. See Figure 7 for a description of structural 

stages.................................................................................................................................... 194

Table 83. Present Net Value for alternative 2. ............................................................................. 195

Table 84. Projected employment by major industry for the proposed alternative ....................... 196

Table 85. Acres of harvest and stand improvement treatment by IRA in Alternative 2. ............ 204

Table 86. Affected acres in Potential Wilderness Areas. ............................................................ 207

Table 87. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2. ...................................... 208

Table 88. Change in size class distribution acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2. ... 208

Table 89. Change in acres of areas identified as unroaded by environmental organizations (UEO) 

and influence of past harvest and system roads. .................................................................. 209

Table 90. Alternative 3 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area .......................................................................................................................... 215

Table 91. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................................................ 216

Table 92. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project area ................................................................................. 217
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

xi Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 93. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................................................. 218

Table 94. Alternative 3 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area........................................................................................................................... 218

Table 95. Alternative 3 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ............................................................................................. 220

Table 96. Acres commercially harvested within connectivity corridors by alternative for the 

LJCRP. ................................................................................................................................. 226

Table 97. Present Net Value for alternative 3. ............................................................................. 227

Table 98. Projected employment by major industry for alternative 3 .......................................... 228

Table 99. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 3 ....................................... 234

Table 100. Change in size class distribution acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 3. . 234

Table 101. Change in acres of areas identified as unroaded by environmental organizations 

(UEO) and influence of past harvest and system roads. ...................................................... 234

List of Maps (see Appendix A)

Map 1. Location of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project ............................................... 309

Map 2. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas within the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project boundaries .................................................................................................... 309

Map 3. Lower Grande Ronde subbasin and watersheds of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project .......................................................................................................................................... 309

Map 4. Sensitive plant surveys and locations in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

 ..................................................................................................................................................... 309

Map 5. Non-native invasive plant species found within the LJCRP area .................................... 309

Map 6. Watershed Condition Framework ratings for the LJCRP area ........................................ 309

Map 7. Current level of connectivity between designated old groth (MA15) and other late seral 

old forest. ..................................................................................................................................... 309

Map 8. Current forest canopy cover classes across the LJCRP area. .......................................... 309

Map 9. Vegetation treatments and road network – Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) .. 309

Map 10. Vegetation treatments and road network – Alternative 3 .............................................. 309

Map 11. Droughty soils within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project ............................. 309

Map 12. Landforms of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project .......................................... 309

Map 13. Soils of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project.................................................... 309

Map 14.Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

 ..................................................................................................................................................... 309

Map 15. Existing condition – road status ..................................................................................... 309

Map 16. Alternative 2 - road status .............................................................................................. 309

Map 17. Grazing allotments of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project and Alternative 2 

vegetation treatments ................................................................................................................... 309
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest xii 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Desired and current snag habitat conditions in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife 

habitat type for cavity nesting species in the LJCRP area for snags >10” (top) and >20” 

(bottom). .................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 2. Desired and current snag habitat conditions in the eastside mixed conifer wildlife 

habitat type for cavity nesting species in the LJCRP area for snags >10” (top) and >20” 

(bottom) ................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Location of gray wolf packs as depicted on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

web site (15 October 2014) .................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4. Nez Perce aboriginal territory (Indian Claims Commission boundary) and 1855 and 

1863 treaty land cessions (Adapted from Nez Perce 2013) .................................................. 23

Figure 5. Description of forest structural stages. ........................................................................... 65

Figure 6. Example of a State and Transition Model: Idaho fescue-Prairie Junegrass (Ridge) Plant 

Association and degenerated bench plant community type (Ecology Intranet Site version 

2008). ..................................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 7. Wildlife management units in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area ......... 95

Figure 8. Timber and wildlife emphasis management areas used to analyze an elk habitat 

effectiveness index (HEI) for the LJCRP area. ...................................................................... 96

Figure 9: Nez Perce Seasonal Round depicting a calendar of resource use by the Nimiipuu’ (Nez 

Perce 2013). ......................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 10. Developed recreation within the LJCRP area. ........................................................... 113
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project (LJCRP) objectives are primarily driven by mutual 

goals for restoration of ecosystem resilience, and enhancement of the socioeconomic vitality of 

natural resource-dependent communities. This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

represents one intermediate step in a collaborative, public planning process to determine the best 

course of action for the LJCRP landscape over the next 10-15 years. The DEIS informs selection 

of the best course of action by considering current and desired conditions, and the best available 

science concerning ecosystem sustainability and socioeconomic vitality related to National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. The LJCRP is on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF), in the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon (Map 

1, Appendix A). The “project area” includes only NFS lands within the larger analysis area. The 

analysis area for this DEIS encompasses the entire Lower Joseph Creek watershed, and portions 

of the Upper Joseph Creek watershed, or as defined specifically by resource, and defines only 

the area considered in the evaluation of cumulative effects. Alternative management actions 

analyzed in this DEIS only apply to the project area (i.e., NFS lands only).

Background

In the Pacific Northwest (PNW), the current rate of restoration of forest resilience is not keeping 

pace with the need, particularly as it relates to the unintended effects of fire suppression on 

ecological health, public safety, and protection of resource values. Increased forest densification 

and shifts in tree species composition are ubiquitous conditions across the PNW (USDA Forest 

Service 2013a). Hence, in 2013, the PNW Region of the U.S. Forest Service established the 

Eastside Restoration Strategy1

(ERS). The ERS focuses on accelerating restoration of ecosystem 

resilience at ecologically-significant scales, and breaking barriers to restoration related to 

traditional planning and project implementation processes. The ERS included the establishment 

of a dedicated interdisciplinary team (Blue Mountains Restoration IDT) to plan three large scale, 

accelerated forest restoration projects in the PNW region’s first geographic priority – the Blue 

Mountains of northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. There is also a Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration project in the Blue Mountains (Malheur National Forest) with similar 

objectives. Given the requirements for environmental analyses prior to implementing Forest 

Service land management projects, accelerated restoration, in part, requires breaking barriers to 

efficient planning. The LJCRP is one of three regional projects the Blue Mountains IDT is using 

to increase the landscape available for restoration, and increased the pace of planning. 

The Wallowa County Natural Resource Advisory Committee, the Wallowa-Whitman Forest 

Collaborative, and the Wallowa Mountains Office staff of the WWNF have invested considerable 

 

1

 The Eastside Restoration Strategy is focused on accelerating the pace and scale of forest restoration on 

National Forest Systems lands throughout eastern Washington and Oregon to promote forest and 

community health. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

2 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

time assessing ecological conditions of the Lower Joseph Creek landscape with the intent to 

support acceleration of Forest Service project planning in the area (Wallowa County 2014). The 

LJCRP was identified as an out-year project for the WWNF. In July 2013, a coalition of five 

collaborative groups in the Blue Mountains convened a public meeting to discuss a suite of 

potential projects to be taken on by the ERS. The LJCRP had broad support as a potential test of 

new project planning processes, and a project of large enough landscape scale to advance 

accelerated restoration, yet small enough to be accomplished under an accelerated timeline by a 

dedicated planning team. 

In August 2013, the ERS Board of Directors (BOD) reviewed input from the coalition of 

collaboratives and other sources, and selected the LJCRP for planning from October 2013 -

December 2014. The LJCRP was selected by the ERS BOD primarily due to the active 

engagement of local and tribal governments and collaborators, the availability of Wallowa 

County’s Lower Joseph Creek watershed assessment, and the presence of a local forest products 

industry. The ERS BOD determined that the LJCRP could test the value of a community-based 

watershed assessment to jump-start the NEPA planning process, and advance understanding of 

what it takes to achieve accelerated restoration planning in a collaborative environment. 

The Wallowa County watershed assessment revealed mutual goals for landscape restoration, 

potential ecosystem restoration needs, and opportunities to contribute to local economies within 

the 98,600 acre LJCRP area. The Forest Service took that assessment, along with input from the 

public, tribes, collaborative groups, other government agencies, non-government organizations, 

and others to develop project objectives, the proposed action, and alternatives (see Public 

involvement section, below). 

Forest Plan direction, and other key planning policies 

The scope process for NFS project planning is constrained by laws, government policies, and 

tribal trust responsibilities. This project is tiered to the WWNF Land and Resource Management 

Plan (forest plan) ROD and FEIS as amended (1990). The forest plan provides primary guidance 

for where and how each management activity can occur on the WWNF. It establishes goals, 

objectives, and desired future conditions, identifies management areas within the Forest, and 

provides standards and guidelines for implementation (USDA Forest Service 1990). Map 2 

(Appendix A) illustrates Forest Plan management areas within the LJCRP boundaries (see the 

Forest Plan, table 4-5, p. 4-17 for generally accepted management activities by management 

area). The wildlife/timber production/winter range emphasis Management Area (MA 3) makes 

up 36% of the project area, while the timber production emphasis (MA 1), HCNRA forage 

emphasis (MA 10), and HCNRA dispersed recreation/timber production emphasis (MA 11) areas 

make up 28%, 14%, and 9% of the project area, respectively. The HCNRA dispersed 

recreation/native vegetation emphasis (MA 9), designated old growth (MA 15), wild and scenic 

rivers (MA 7), and research natural areas (MA 12) make up 6%, 3%, 3%, and 1% of the project 

area, respectively. The LJCRP was designed in response to Forest Plan goals for maintaining 

historic plant communities and maintaining ecosystem function (p. 4-30); minimizing insects and 

disease damage(p. 4-48); minimize the risk of fire damage (p. 4-48) and timber management 

consistent with various resource objectives, environmental requirements and economic 

efficiency (pp. 4-48 through 4-51). This project also tiers to the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area (HCNRA) Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) ROD for the FEIS, where 

it overlaps the HCNRA (USDA Forest Service 2003).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 3 

The WWNF Forest Plan is currently under revision. Efforts were made to align wherever 

possible, desired conditions of the LJCRP with the current Forest Plan, and the DEIS for the 

Forest Plan revision. Amendments made to the WWNF forest plan, and other key guiding federal 

and state policies are listed below. See Appendix B for more information.

 1855 Nez Perce Tribe Treaty with the United States (Figure 1). 

 1993 Eastside Screens, implemented to preserve late-successional/old-growth forests on the 

eastside of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington (forest plan amendment)

 1994 Environmental Justice EO 12898 of February 11

 1995 “Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California” (PACFISH) Decision Notice 

forest plan amendment (US Department of Agriculture 1995)

 1998 Biological Opinion on Snake River Basin LRMPs and RMPs for Snake River 

Steelhead and Spring/summer Chinook Salmon (National Marine Fisheries Service 1998)

 1998 Biological Opinion on effects to Bull Trout from Implementation of LRMPs and RMPs 

as amended by INFISH and PACFISH (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service 1998)

 1999 Invasive Species Executive Order (EO) 13112 of February 3

 2001 Migratory Birds EO 12962 of January 10 2004 Programmatic Agreement between 

Region 6 of the Forest Service and the Oregon State Heritage Protection Office (SHPO) 

 2005 USDA Forest Service, PNW Region Invasive Plant Management Record of Decision 

 2006 Wallowa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

 2007 USFWS Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly)

 2008 USDA viability regulation 9500-004 

 2010 Final EIS for the WWNF Invasive Plants Treatment (supplemental EIS (SEIS) in 

process) 

 2010 Lower Grande Ronde Subbasins TMDLs

 2013 National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management

 2013 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System

 Laws and Executive Orders guiding Tribal consultation responsibilities 

 Forest Service policies (FSM 1563.03) to maintain a government-to-government 

consultation relationship with federally recognized Tribes

 Forest Service policy (FSM 2020.3) (working with Tribes) 

 Section 7 CFR 2.42, 36 CFR 251.23, 36 CFR 219.25 Forest Service Manual 4063, and “A 

Guide for Developing Natural Area Management and Monitoring Plans” for the 

establishment of research natural areas. 

 Forest Service Manual 2670 Regional Forester Senesitive Species direction

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ), Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air 

Act (CAA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

4 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

 Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements

 Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds)

 ORS 2013 564.105 (protection and conservation of Oregon native plants)

 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-048-0001 to 629-048-0500 (Smoke Management 

Rules) within any forest protection district as described in OAR 629-048-0500 to 0575.

 Other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, and Forest Service manuals and 

handbooks. 

Purpose and Need for Action

The Lower Joseph Creek Landscape 

The LJCRP lies on the northern boundary of the WWNF, approximately 20 miles north of 

Enterprise, Wallowa County, Oregon (Map 1, Appendix A). The project area is bounded by Cold 

Springs Ridge to the northeast, Forest Road 46 to the east, and Elk Mountain to the south. The 

northeast side of the project area includes portions of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

(HCNRA). 

Other lands adjacent to the LJCRP analysis area are either under private ownership (to the west, 

north and southwest), federal jurisdiction in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

(HCNRA) (to the east), or part of the WWNF (to the south and southeast). Lands under private 

ownership are managed primarily for grazing, timber production, and hunting. An analysis 

conducted during the Watershed Condition Framework Assessment by the WWNF indicate 

slightly more impaired watershed function on adjacent private lands than that of the federal lands 

and those lands managed by the Nez Perce (Map 6, Appendix A). The Nez Perce are actively 

engaged in restoration activities on lands known as Precious Lands to the north of the project 

area. The HCNRA has lower road densities and its management has been less intensive than 

much of the surrounding federal lands. The surrounding Forest Service lands have been managed 

with similar overall intensity and its watershed function was similarly classified as “functioning 

at risk”.

The LJCRP contains NFS lands in the upper reaches of the Joseph Creek drainage, which is a 

tributary to the Grande Ronde River (Map 3, Appendix A). The project area is characterized by 

deep forested canyons interspersed with very steep, grass-covered side slopes and jagged basalt 

outcrops. Joseph Canyon is the birthplace of Chief Joseph and is the traditional homeland of the 

Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce tribe. Prior to European settlement, the Nez Perce used the 

canyon bottomlands as a travel corridor during their seasonal rounds traveling between summer 

camp sites in the Wallowa Valley to winter camp sites along the Grande Ronde and Snake rivers. 

Elk, bighorn sheep, and mule deer were plentiful, as well as native plant foods associated with 

bunchgrass habitat. 

Vegetation of the LJCRP is generally composed of dry and moist coniferous forest (56% of 

project area), and grasslands and shrublands (43%). Elevations range from about 3600 to 5000 

feet in the project area (NFS lands). The LJCRP project area provides habitat for a number of 

Forest Service management indicator species (MIS) and sensitive species, such as the northern 

goshawk, pileated woodpecker, American marten, white-headed woodpecker, fringed myotis, 

Lewis’ woodpecker, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Rocky 

Mountain tailed frog, bald eagle, Snake River steelhead, redband trout, and Columbian spotted 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 5 

frog. Nez Perce lands on the northern boundary provide similar habitat for many of the same 

species (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003b).

Natural ecosystems have been supporting the socioeconomics of human populations for at least 

600 years, and natural ecosystem structures and functions have, at the same time, been affected 

by humans in both beneficial and adverse ways. Prior to Euro-American settlement, and 

continuing into the treaty era and present day, the Nez Perce Tribe have played a significant role 

in shaping the physical environment of their aboriginal homelands. “Wild” horticulture involving 

intentional “firing” of forests and prairies was used to improve hunting and “berrying” as well as 

increase the quantity and quality of camas, and other root and bulb species (Marshall 1999). 

Between the 1400s and 1800s, eastern Columbia plateau Indian tribes had a relatively light 

impact due to nomadic lifeway and reliance on predictable, managed and sustainable subsistence 

resources. In the 1700s, the Nez Perce began grazing horses, and in the 1830s began grazing 

cattle on the canyon grasslands. European settlement and increased population levels introduced 

more intensive resource uses and ecological impacts. Beginning in the mid-1800s, pioneer 

settlers homesteaded in the area, grazing sheep and cattle, raising hogs and planting fruit 

orchards. The watershed has been grazed continuously to some extent since the 1730s. However, 

the rocky terrain prohibited extensive agricultural production (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003b). 

The Wallowa Forest Reserve was established in 1905, and through additional reserves and 

consolidations of public lands, subsequently the area became part of the WWNF.

The need for restoration 

Due primarily to increased populations, and the types of land management following European 

settlement (e.g., fire suppression, timber harvest, domestic livestock grazing, road construction), 

current conditions of the LJCRP area differ from desired conditions to varying degrees. Over the 

last few decades, due to past management practices such as selectively harvesting the largest 

trees, overgrazing, and fire suppression as land managers have increasingly understood the 

unintentional adverse consequences of some land management policies and tactics, they have 

been adjusted to be more ecologically appropriate. Nonetheless, the LJCRP area continues to 

exhibit reduced health and resiliency as a result of the past policies, and is in need of restoration. 

Local communities remain natural resource dependent to some degree, and need the raw material 

and jobs provided by restoration work and continued maintenance. 

Table 1 compares existing and desired conditions for a suite of representative indicators of 

ecological health and resilience, and socioeconomic contributions to human communities. This 

project is expected to move the Lower Joseph Creek landscape toward a more desirable2, 

resilient condition to support lasting human resource uses, forest structure and pattern, forest 

health, natural disturbance regimes, vegetation composition and diversity, fish and wildlife 

habitat, soil productivity, and watershed function. It also aims to maintain healthy and restored 

conditions for future generations. 

Desired and existing conditions 

This section describes the existing and desired conditions for the LJCRP area, the differences 

between desired and existing conditions, and the need for the project. Desired conditions are 

based on scientifically-derived, ecologically-based reference conditions. Reference conditions 

(natural and/or historical ranges of variation) for forested and riparian vegetation, wildlife 

 

2

In general, desired conditions are based on 1) what is assumed to be natural ranges of variation, 

2) Forest Plan and other guidance, and 3) local socioeconomic and ecological contexts. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

6 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

habitat, and disturbance processes have been estimated for the Blue Mountains National Forests 

through literature review (Powell 2012), and localized state-and-transition simulation modeling 

(Appendix C). Ecologically-based references for forest patterns were based on literature 

reviews, expert opinion, and quantitative analysis of historical patch size distributions from 

aerial photographs (Hessburg et al. 1999). The “Affected Environment” sections of Chapter 3 

provide more information on the ranges in reference conditions and desired conditions used in 

this DEIS. These ranges of variation in conjunction with the Forest Plan and other policies and 

guidance, and collaboration with tribes, Wallowa County, and public were used as the primary 

basis for developing the desired conditions for the LJCRP.

One key ecological factor making up the foundation for analysis of departure between current 

and desired conditions, and the need for restoration is ecosystem resilience. Highly resilient 

ecosystems are better able to survive natural disturbances such as fire, insects, diseases, and 

climate change (USDA Forest Service 2013b) than less resilient ones. Ecosystems are most 

resilient and resistant to disturbance when they are similar to conditions under which they 

developed over the long term (Morgan et al. 1994). A system in which natural levels of variation 

have been reduced will be less resilient to change than one exhibiting more natural variation 

(Holling and Meffe 1996). By restoring and maintaining natural ranges of ecosystem structures 

and functions, forest health and sustainability, and ecological resilience will be improved across 

the landscape. Information about historical ranges of variation often provides the best, if not the 

only, indication of natural, ecologically sustainable ranges of variation. Broad-scale assessments 

completed for the Blue Mountains physiographic province and the interior Columbia River basin 

suggest that upland forest ecosystems could be characterized as healthy, sustainable, and resilient 

if three of their ecosystem components – species composition, forest structure, and tree density –

are within the natural, or historic range of variation (NRV, HRV), which developed under 

historical disturbance regimes (Gast et al. 1991, Caraher et al. 1992, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, 

Quigley et al. 1996).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 7 

Table 1 Comparison of existing and desired conditions of selected attributes for the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration project area 

Indicator Metrics Units Existing 

condition

Longterm 

desired 

condition

Vegetation 

structure and 

composition

Ponderosa pine cover type (% of dry upland 

forest) % 28 50-80

Douglas-fir cover type (% of dry upland 

forest) % 51 5-20

Old forest single story structure (% of dry 

upland forest) % 0 40-60

Old forest single story structure (% of moist 

upland forest) % 0 10-20

Young forest and understory reinitiation 

structure (% of dry upland forest) % 45 5-10

Young forest and understory reinitiation 

structure (% of moist upland forest) % 36 10-20

High density class (% of dry upland forest) % 33 5-15

High density class (% of moist upland forest) % 45 15-30

Vegetation 

pattern

% of forest treated with an “individuals, 

clumps, and openings” prescription based 

on natural stand patterns

% 

forested 

area

0 100

Insects and 

Pathogens

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

defoliators % 39 5-15

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

Douglas fir beetle % 45 10-25

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe % 47 20-35

Native plant 

diversity

Diversity score (Shannon-Wiener index)

Based on the chance of encountering the 

same plant species in consecutive samples, 

includes native and non-native species.

Index

3.9 to 4.4 

depending 

on habitat

Maintain

Ecological 

resiliency – fire

% Fire regime (vegetation departure) 

departure from HRV summarized at 5th field 

watershed level

% 29-39 <33

Riparian 

management 

objectives

Qualitative measure of departure from HRV

Categorical

Outside 

the 

acceptabl

e range

Meet 

RMOs

Road Network Open road density Management Area 1

Miles/sq 

mile

2.53-4.34 2.5

Open road density Management Area 3 0.20-1.44 1.5

Open road density HCNRA 0.54-1.37 1.35

Total road density by subwatershed 1.1-1.3 2.0

Based on comparisons between the 1990 WWNF forest plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), tribal 

trust responsibilities, the best available science, community socioeconomics, and existing 

landscape conditions, priority restoration needs in the LJCRP area include reducing tree 

densities, woody fuels and fuel ladders, uncharacteristic fire behaviors, and degradation of 

aquatic and riparian conditions. By increasing the abundance of open, early seral, large-tree 

dominated forests, productive and diverse forest understories, native grasslands, healthy fish and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

8 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

wildlife habitat, and natural fire regimes, the landscape could be brought more in line with 

historical and anticipated future reference conditions. Proposed treatments would reduce the 

departure between current and desired ecological conditions.

Vegetation and Disturbance 

This section describes the differences between desired and existing vegetation and disturbance 

conditions for the LJCRP area. One key focus of the LJCRP, as determined by project scoping 

and Forest Service regional and forest priorities, is the need for restoration of forest structure and 

composition. Other related considerations include the viability of threatened, endangered and 

sensitive plant, wildlife, and aquatic species, forested habitats supporting wildlife species, and 

forested riparian habitats supporting aquatic systems and species. 

Table 2 summarizes the extent of potential vegetation groups (PVGs, (Powell et al. 2007)) in the 

project area. See Chapter 3 for more detail). 

Table 2. Extent of major vegetation types in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project area 

Physiognomic 

Type

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Acres % of Project 

Area 

(Physiognomic 

Type)

% of Project 

Area (Potential 

Vegetation 

Group)

Conifer 55,365 56%

Dry upland 

forest (DUF)

42,407 43%

Moist upland 

forest (MUF)

12,958 13%

Other 191 <1%

Non-Conifer 42,815 43%

Cold upland 

herb

31 <1%

Moist upland 

herb

4,217 4%

Dry upland 

herb

37,470 38%

Dry upland 

shrub

959 1%

Other 138 <1%

Unknown 398 1% 1%

Totals 98,578 100% 100%

Natural and human-caused disturbance 

Natural disturbances are those under which ecosystems developed and were maintained over the 

long-term (Hardy et al. 2001, Schmidt et al. 2002). Fire is the dominant natural disturbance 

regime in the project area. Disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, insects, disease, and weather events, 

including droughts and floods) can be described as a combination of frequencies and severities. 

Fire regime groups, naturally-occurring combinations of fire frequency and severity (Barrett et 

al. 2010), are a relevant way to describe fire regime conditions and effects at the scale of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 9 

LJCRP. Table 29 (Chapter 3) describes the characteristics of fire regime groups. Tables 3 and 4 

compare desired and existing fire regimes, and probabilities of different fire severities for the 

major vegetation types within the project area. Current fire severity probabilities were modeled 

specifically for this project area (see Appendix D for modeling methods). This model uses 

historical fire ignition points and weather recorded for the day of the start. It does not model the 

97th percentile extreme weather events that may coincide with fire ignition. This is especially 

important in the moist upland forest (13% of the LJCRP area) when considering the existing 

burn probability and the wide margin for average return intervals for each fire severity class 

(Table 4). Desired probability and average interval were derived from Landfire Rapid 

Assessment modeling and validated by local experts. 

As a consequence of the past timber harvest, fire suppression, introduction of non-native plant 

species, and livestock grazing, the national forests within the Blue Mountains are substantially 

different from those that existed a century ago (Munger 1917). Dry upland forests (43% of the 

LJCRP area) have experienced the greatest amount of departure from historical conditions. Fire 

history research across the Blue Mountains and western United States has provided support for 

local efforts to establish historical fire return intervals through fire and mechanical means (Hall 

1977, Crane and Fischer 1986, Agee and Maruoka 1994, Maruoka and Agee 1994, Heyerdahl 

and Agee 1996, Heyerdahl 1997, Olson 2000, Stephens et al. 2009, McIver et al. 2012). Dry 

upland forests have now missed several natural fire cycles due to over a century of fire exclusion 

and suppression, which has resulted in increases in fuel loadings and the number of smaller trees. 

The departure in dry forests from the historic range of variation (HRV) in the HCNRA, in-part 

due to past wildfire, generally differs from the rest of the LJCRP area in that there is a greater 

abundance of younger forests in need of increased structural diversity and growth toward larger 

size classes. Additionally, historic grazing removed the fine fuels that carried low severity 

surface fires. Without competition from grasses, tree regeneration increased substantially. Tree 

regeneration that historically would have been thinned by fire continued to grow into dense 

stands and form multi-storied, closed canopies. The historically open stands within dry upland 

forest, with their mosaic pattern of tree clumps or patches and openings, have now filled in with 

younger trees, resulting in a more uniform stand structure, increased ladder fuels, increased stand 

densities, increased fuel continuity, and decreased spatial heterogeneity. Increased stand densities 

and a reduction in low severity fire events on dry sites have also contributed to a shift from shade 

intolerant, fire tolerant tree species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, to more shade 

tolerant, fire intolerant species, such as grand fir. Increased stand densities have also contributed 

to a decrease in the abundance and diversity of understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Shifts in the vegetation structure and composition of dry forests (single to multi-storied), density 

(ingrowth), and composition (increase of shade tolerant species) affect fire severity in several 

ways including increasing the likelihood of replacement severity crown fire due to increased fuel 

loading and reduction in distance between surface and canopy fuels (ingrowth + multi-story + 

increased landscape continuity). An increase in fire intolerant species such as grand fir along 

with the densification of forest stands likewise increases severity ratings due to each species 

relative resistance to fire (composition). An increase in fire intolerant species will result in 

higher fire severity ratings due to their susceptibility to mortality as a result of fire. Fire severity 

describes the effect of fire to the upper level canopy cover (Barrett et al. 2010) in terms of the 

range of replacement. Table 5 shows the severity classes and their respective levels of 

replacement. 

Moist upland forest is one of the most variable PVGs in the Blue Mountains relative to species 

composition. Therefore it is also variable in associated disturbance regimes (frequency, severity 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

10 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

and size). Fire behavior and effects to overstory vegetation are strongly related to seasonal 

drought stress, topography, existing cover composition and over-riding climatic factors, such as 

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influences. Additionally the relative juxtaposition of these 

forests in relation to lower elevation dry upland forest and non-forest (grass and shrubland) 

influence the composition, frequency of disturbance and severity to overstory vegetation. The 

biophysical landscape within LJCRP indicates a high interrelationship between dry and moist 

upland forest and non-forest disturbance. Relatively frequent low to mixed severity fire would 

be expected to occur more often and replacement severity fire to occur more infrequently than 

indicated in Table 5 in moist upland forest, especially at the blended edge between dry and nonforest. In general, replacement severity regimes in moist upland forests usually results in 

heterogeneous landscapes. Large, high-severity fires are usually rare events, and may affect 

large areas (10,000-100,000 acres), but subsequent mixed-severity fires are important for 

creating the landscape heterogeneity. Within these landscapes a mix of stand ages and size 

classes are important characteristics; generally the landscape is not dominated by one or two 

age classes (Stine et al. 2014).

Moist upland forests in the project area currently have a higher potential for replacement severity 

fires than historically or desired, and the effects of replacement fires are uncharacteristic relative 

to those typical of fire regime group III (Table 3). Fire return intervals have been missed but not 

to the same degree as the dry upland forest. However fuels accumulation rates in moist forests 

far exceed those of dry forests due to higher productivity soils. This means it takes less missed 

return intervals to create an uncharacteristic fuel loading and resultant fire behavior. 

To restore fire-related disturbance regimes toward desired conditions in the LJCRP area, fuels 

must be strategically reduced in appropriate locations. Tools available to reduce fuels include 

thinning toward more natural forest structures, and the ecologically- and socially-appropriate use 

of planned and unplanned fire. For more detail on disturbance regimes of the project area, see 

“Affected Environment”, Chapter 3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1 

Table 3. Desired and existing fire regimes for the major vegetation types within the project area 

(Adapted from Barrett et al. 2010 and Stine et al. 2014). 

Vegetation 

Type

Existing 

Fire 

Regime 

(see 

table 29)

Desired 

Fire 

Regime 

(see 

table 29)

Description

Dry Upland 

Forest

Fire 

Regime 

Group III 

(IIIa)

Fire 

Regime 

Group I

Existing fire regime displays a higher proportion of the 

landscape experiencing moderate/mixed severity fire than 

characteristic of the vegetation type. Restoration of forest 

characteristics including fuel reduction will move the 

landscape towards a higher percent of low severity fire 

although some mixed and high would still be a desirable part 

of the vegetation type.

Moist 

Upland 

Forest

Fire 

Regime 

Group III

(IIIb/IIIa)

Fire 

Regime 

Group III 

(IIIa)

Existing fire regime displays a higher proportion of 

replacement severity in this vegetation type than desired in 

the LJCRP. Effects would be uncharacteristic when 

compared to the desired Fire Regime Group of IIIa that is 

typified by the majority of moist upland forest that exists in 

the LJCRP area as described by Stine et al. 2014. Fire 

return intervals have been missed but not at the same 

magnitude as the dry upland forest (DUF), however fuels 

accumulation rates far exceed DUF due to higher 

productivity soils. This means it takes less missed return 

intervals to create an uncharacteristic fuel loading and 

resultant fire behavior.

Non-Forest Fire 

Regime 

Group II

Fire 

Regime 

Group II

The non-forest systems are dominated by replacement 

severity fire disturbance that consumes the majority (>75%) 

of the overstory vegetation (e.g. grass, shrub, etc.). The 

bunchgrasses, however, rarely die in fires, and most of the 

shrub species, with the exception of sagebrush and 

bitterbrush are rhizomatous and root/crown sprout after fire. 

Fire effects to overstory vegetation have not departed from 

historical or desired conditions; however, grazing and 

presence of invasive species have changed the system 

such that certain areas are highly vulnerable to undesirable 

effects from fire . Fire exclusion in these areas has been 

effective in creating a similar number of missed intervals as 

the dry upland forest sites as evidenced by the intermixing 

of the landscape in grass tree mosaic and extensive lithosol 

areas. Lithosol communities produce little biomass and 

probably had less frequent fires than other grasslands, but 

pre- and post-fire vegetation is very similar (this does not 

include the rigid sage portions of the lithosols, which if 

burned take years to recover).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

2 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 4. Severity class and effects to upper level canopy replacement. 

Severity Class Effects

No Fire Effects < 5 percent replacement

Low (non-lethal) 6 – 25 percent replacement

Mixed (mixed severity) 26 – 75 percent replacement

Replacement (stand replacement) > 75 percent replacement

Table 5. Existing and desired severity probabilities for the dry and moist upland forest potential 

vegetation groups. 

Fire severity class Existing Probability 

(% of all fires)

Historical Severity 

Probability (% of all 

fires)

Average Interval 

(years)

Dry upland forest 

(DUF) 

Replacement 5 5 – 14 115 – 125

Moderate/Mixed 49 13 – 21 50 – 75

Low 46 64 – 82 8 - 25

Moist upland forest 

(MUF)

Replacement 3 14 – 35 125 – 200

Moderate/Mixed 47 21 – 47 75 – 150

Low 52 18 – 64 25 – 50

In addition to fire disturbance, insects and diseases are also a natural disturbance with a 

characteristic frequency and severity in the project area. Under the Blue Mountains’ normal 

moisture-limited conditions, densely-stocked stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir trees species, 

while differing in some ecological traits, both become stressed. This increases their vulnerability 

to insect infestation, and in the case of Douglas-fir, mistletoe infestation. Similarly, on pine sites, 

multi-storied, densely stocked ponderosa pine stands are at risk of insect infestation under 

drought conditions. These densely stocked and moisture-stressed stands have become more 

abundant during the last half of the 20th century, and localized insect infestations have quickly 

blossomed into outbreaks covering thousands of acres (Gast et al. 1991). Table 31 (Chapter 3) 

summarizes susceptibility to insect and disease mortality for the LJCRP. Although insect 

outbreaks likely occurred prior to the time of the first Euro-American settlers, the frequency and 

size of outbreaks caused by western spruce budworm species and possibly other insects that 

attack Douglas-fir and grand fir appear to have increased as a result of the proliferation of firdominated forests (Swetnam et al. 1995). Similarly, the multi-storied ponderosa pine stands that 

replaced the single-storied stands on pine sites have also increased the potential for outbreaks of 

the western and mountains pine beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomis, and D. ponderosae, 

respectively) (Hessburg et al. 1994). During the past 50 years, tree mortality from insect 

disturbances in some stands has exceeded 80 percent of all overstory trees (Swetnam et al. 

1995). Most tree diseases are increasing in occurrence and severity due to changes in tree species 

composition (increased grand fir within dry upland forest), stand structures (increases in multistoried structure), and increased stocking levels (Scott and Schmitt 1996). The abundance of 

insect-killed trees has substantially increased the surface fuel loads for thousands of acres across 

the Blue Mountains. Conditions became conducive for the occurrence of large, high-intensity 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 3 

wildfires. From 1985 until 1994, lightning-caused wildfires burned more than 445,000 acres in 

the Blue Mountains. Many of these fires were high severity, stand-replacing events that killed 

most of the trees across large areas. Within the project area, two notable wildfire events have 

occurred within the last 30 years. The 1986 Joseph Canyon/Starvation Ridge fire burned over 

40,000 acres within the project area and the 1988 Tepee Butte burned almost 60,000 acres of 

which 1/3 was in the project area. A high percentage of these fires were stand replacing and 

resulted in the stand initiation phase of succession. Since 2004, three wildfire events occurred 

within the project area, burning a total of approximately 23,750 acres.

To restore insect- and disease-related disturbance regimes in the LJCRP area, and move toward 

desired conditions, forest densities and species composition must be strategically restored in 

appropriate locations. Tools available to reduce uncharacteristic insect and disease disturbance 

include thinning toward more natural forest structures, and the ecologically- and sociallyappropriate use of planned and unplanned fire. For more detail on insects and diseases of the 

project area, see “Affected Environment”, Chapter 3. 

Historically, disturbance from timber harvest has differed from natural disturbances in its 

frequency, severity, pattern, and what remains on the landscape following tree harvest. 

Techniques to increase the similarity between human and natural disturbances have improved 

greatly over the past few decades (Diaz and Apostol , Franklin et al. 2013a). 

The severity, extent, and seasonality of planned and unplanned fire can range from being very 

similar to natural fire disturbance to being very different. Fire suppression is a human-caused 

disturbance that, in most cases, alters the natural fire process, except where it is used to mitigate 

uncharacteristic fire severity, which could result from over abundant fuel loads. To reduce 

departure between the effects of human and natural disturbance processes, human-caused and 

natural disturbance frequencies, patterns, and intensities need to be more aligned. Tools available 

to reduce this departure include the use of ecologically-informed tree harvest and fire 

prescriptions. 

Existing and desired conditions relative to road disturbance, and road management needs are 

discussed in the ”Wildlife”, “Watershed, Aquatic, and Riparian Habitat”, “Tribal” and 

“Socioeconomic” sections below. 

Vegetation structure and composition 

Forest structure and composition 

Table 1 compares current and desired conditions for selected vegetation indicators. Tables 25-27 

(Chapter 3) more completely compare current conditions and the RV for forest density, structural 

stage distribution, tree size class, and composition (cover type) for the LJCRP. Existing and 

desired conditions of the project area’s riparian vegetation is discussed below in the section 

“Watershed, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat” section. For more detail on the management history, 

and vegetation composition and structure of the project area, see “Affected Environment”, 

Chapter 3. 

Understory plant diversity, and threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants 

Desired conditions for native plant diversity and understory productivity are based on Forest 

Plan and Hells Canyon National Recreation Area direction, policy guidance, and literature 

reviews. Goals and objectives common to all guidance are to protect and maintain appropriate 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

4 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

habitats to ensure continued viability of TES, native, and other desirable plants (FSM 2672.41, 

WW LRMP, HCNRA CMP, ESA).

Table 1 compares existing and desired understory native plant diversity. Table 37 (Chapter 3) 

provides more detail on native plant diversity for the LJCRP and the Blue Mountains as a whole. 

There are two federally listed threatened plant species with potential habitat modeled in the 

LJCRP area, MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene 

spaldingii) (Murray 2001). Upon review of field observations gathered during surveys conducted 

in 2003-4 and 2014, it was concluded that it was very unlikely that any MacFarlane’s four-oclock would be found in the area of Joseph Canyon that was administered by the Forest Service. 

It was concluded that better potential habitat exists further down canyon closer to the Snake 

River where Joseph Canyon is warmer and wider (Jerold Hustafa, District Botanist Wallowa 

Valley Ranger District, Joseph Oregon, pers.comm.) 

Several populations of Spalding’s catchfly are found in the Crow Creek and Romaine Gulch 

vicinities adjacent to the southeast portion of the LJCRP. Approximately 26,000 acres of 

potential Spalding’s catchfly habitat are modeled within the Forest Service lands in the Lower 

Joseph Creek watershed. The model has been helpful in determining unlikely habitat for 

Spalding’s catchfly, but not as effective in locating populations (Hustafa, pers. comm.). Map 4 

(Appendix A) displays areas were surveys have been conducted for this and other sensitive 

species within the LJCRP between 2003 and 2014. LJCRP will be analyzed for effects to 

Spalding’s catchfly habitat, although no plants have been found to date. 

There are five R6 Regional Forester’s listed sensitive plant speciesknown to occur within the 

LJCRP area. These species are Wallowa ricegrass, (Achnatherum wallowaensis), green-band 

mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus), rough rabbitweed (Pyrrocoma 

scaberula), Snake River daisy (Erigerion disparipilus), and Davis fleabane (E. engelmannii). 

Wallowa ricegrass, Snake River daisy, and Davis fleabane are found in lithosol habitats. Rough 

rabbitweed and greenband mariposa lily are found in grasslands and open dry forest margins. 

Table 36 (Chapter 3) summarizes the sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to occur 

in the project area by habitat type. 

More information on TES, sensitive plants, and other plant species of interest can be found in the 

Plants section of Chapter 3. 

Non-native invasive plants 

Desired conditions relative to non-native invasive plant species are to protect, restore, and 

sustain terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, ecological functions and values; protect and improve 

biodiversity; improve and protect public recreational opportunities and wilderness integrity; 

prevent negative impacts to human health and the economy, and protect and restore fish and 

wildlife populations and habitats (USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 2005). Map 5 

(Appendix A) shows non-native plant species locations, and Appendix H summarizes non-native 

plant species found within the LJCRP area.

Due to litigation of the Final 2010 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment 

EIS, use of chemical invasive plant treatments within the LJCRP area is limited (more 

information can be found in Chapter 3, and the section “Policy, legal, social and economic 

constraints on the decision space”, above). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 5 

Range 

Desired conditions for rangelands are to manage range vegetation and related resource in a 

manner insuring that the basic needs of the forage and browse plants and the soil resource are 

met, and to make available for harvest, forage production that is in excess to the basic needs of 

the plants and soil resource, for wildlife (within agreed upon management objectives) and 

domestic livestock (within forest plan utilization standards). Countryman (2012) found that 

conditions had improved in the dry shrubland potential vegetation group from 30 years earlier, 

but that this improvement has slowed. The dry herbland potential vegetation group has 

experienced invasion by nonnative plants resulting in conversion of some lands to exotic 

herblands (Hann 1997).

While livestock grazing was not identified as a key issue to be addressed in this project, existing 

and desired conditions of native and domestic grazing disturbance is tied to the condition of 

other disturbances, such as forest management and fire, which indirectly influences the 

distribution and seasonality of understory forage. Domestic livestock grazing, as it relates to the 

LJCRPs affected environment, and project effects are discussed under “Rangelands”, in Chapter 

3.

Wildlife habitat 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to provide habitat to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. Rather 

than addressing all wildlife species, discussions in this DEIS focus on forest plan management 

indicator species (MIS), threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species, and landbirds. 

Management indicator species - Wildlife 

HRV estimates for habitat were derived for the Blue Mountains Plan Revision DEIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2014). Dead wood reference condition (HRV) is derived from DecAID 

distribution histograms (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Scientists assume that species are more 

likely to persist under the conditions that remain most similar to those that existed in the past 

(Landres et al. 1999), Samson et al. 2002). It is assumed that maintaining habitat within HRV 

will provide adequate species population viability for the present suite of species. Individual 

species population viability is increasingly compromised as departure from HRV increases (see 

Chapter 3 for more information on the estimation of current and reference habitat conditions).

Primary changes to wildlife habitat in the last 150 years since European settlement have been the 

loss of old forest habitat (due to intensive timber harvesting, uncharacteristic wildfire, and 

density related tree mortality), and the degradation of habitats (e.g., ponderosa pine forest, 

riparian) from a number of factors including timber harvest, fire suppression, over-grazing, 

invasion of exotic vegetation, and human development. The loss and alteration of historic 

vegetation communities has impacted wildlife habitats and resulted in species range reductions, 

population declines, and some local and regional extirpations. In general, for moist forest types, 

the LJCRP area is low in the abundance of smaller trees, and is currently at the low end of large 

tree closed canopied habitat. Generally there is an abundance of medium and large-medium 

trees (10-20” dbh), and habitat >10” dbh with open canopies (<60% canopy closure) as 

compared to the reference range of variation. In dry forests, the LJCRP is below the range of 

variation in large tree, open canopied habitats, and above the range of variation in the medium 

and large-medium (10-20” dbh), closed canopied structural stages.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

6 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) were selected for emphasis in forest-level planning, and 

are assessed during forest plan implementation in order to determine the effects of management 

activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs. 

The amount and quality of habitat is used as a proxy for determining project effects on MIS.

Table 6 lists the terrestrial species selected as MIS in the Wallowa-Whitman forest plan, their 

habitat, and likelihood habitat in the project area. All of these MIS have habitat and likely occur 

in the project area though habitat for the American marten is limited and presence of this species 

within the analysis area is unknown. 

Table 6. Wildlife management indicator species identified in the Wallowa-Whitman forest plan. 

Species Representing Habitat 

Description

Habitat 

Present in 

Analysis Area

Species 

Present in 

Analysis 

Area

Primary cavity 

excavators1

Dead & defective wood 

habitat

Snags and logs Yes Yes

Pileated 

woodpecker

Old growth and mature 

forests

Closed canopy, 

late-seral 

subalpine, montane 

and lower montane 

forests

Yes Yes

American (pine) 

marten

Old growth and mature 

forests

Closed canopy, 

late-seral subalpine 

and montane 

forests

Limited Unknown

Northern 

Goshawk

Old growth and mature 

forests

Subalpine and 

montane forests, 

lodgepole pine, 

post-fire habitat

Yes Yes

Rocky Mountain 

Elk

Species commonly hunted Cover and forage Yes Yes

1 Northern flicker; black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, three-toed, and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped 

and Williamson’s sapsuckers; black-capped, chestnut-backed, and mountain chickadees; and pygmy, redbreasted, and white-breasted nuthatches. 

Primary cavity excavators 

In general, populations of cavity nesting birds have declined across the Blue Mountains 

compared to historical conditions, primarily due to reductions in the numbers of large snags 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). However, of the cavity excavating MIS, Breeding Bird Surveys in Oregon 

have only detected a significant decrease in populations of the northern flicker between 1966 and 

2010 (Sauer et al. 2011).

Table 43 (Chapter 3) shows the conservation status of cavity excavators, and Figures 1 and 2 

summarize desired and current snag habitat conditions for woodpecker species in the LJCRP 

area. 

Snag habitat is currently adequate in the Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Wildlife Habitat Type 

(PPDF WHT), and below reference conditions in the Eastside Mixed Conifer Wildlife Habitat 

Type (EMC WHT). In the EMC WHT, the landscape is deficit in snag density classes above 2 

per acre for large (> 20” dbh) snags, as compared to reference conditions. Figure 3 shows a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 7 

comparison of reference and current conditions for snag density classes in the EMC WHT 

portion of the LJCRP analysis Past management and fire wood cutting has likely had an 

influence on the current conditions of snag habitat. See Chapter 3 for more information.

Figure 1. Desired and current snag habitat conditions in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife 

habitat type for cavity nesting species in the LJCRP area for snags >10” (top) and >20” (bottom). 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

8 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Figure 2. Desired and current snag habitat conditions in the eastside mixed conifer wildlife habitat 

type for cavity nesting species in the LJCRP area for snags >10” (top) and >20” (bottom) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 9 

Old forest wildlife habitats 

Three species were selected in the forest plan to represent old growth habitats that have habitat in 

the LJCRP area: pileated woodpecker, American marten, and goshawk. Due to an increase in 

dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for these species is increasing across 

the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities of large-diameter snags (>21 

inches dbh) needed by these species have declined from historical to current levels (Wisdom et 

al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002), and snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor in the Eastside 

Mixed Conifer WHT (See Chapter 3 for more information). Currently goshawk habitat is above 

HRV in the LJCRP area.

Rocky Mountain Elk 

Rocky Mountain elk are a management indicator species for the WWNF. Elk have been selected 

as an indicator of habitat diversity, interspersion of cover and forage areas, and security habitat 

provided by areas of low human disturbance. Elk management on the WWNF is a cooperative 

effort between the Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 

The Forest Service manages habitat while ODFW manages populations by setting seasons, 

harvest limits, and goals for individual Wildlife Management Units (WMU). 

In general, a mosaic of forage and cover areas in a given landscape, with minimal or no 

motorized access through forage areas, results in high to optimal elk use during any given 

season. This would be the desired condition for landscapes where elk use is promoted, as 

identified in coordination with state wildlife agencies. For many winter ranges, this desired 

condition would emphasize the maintenance of existing cover areas, which often compose 

smaller portions of these landscapes, while also focusing on minimizing or eliminating 

motorized access and uses on winter ranges during the winter period. For many spring, summer, 

and fall ranges, this desired condition would emphasize the maintenance of adequate forage 

areas close to cover and far from roads and trails open to motorized uses. For landscapes where 

hunting occurs, the desired condition would emphasize motorized access restrictions on roads 

and trails during hunting seasons to a degree that elk can effectively use cover and topography as 

security. This approach at managing the desired condition would place more emphasis on 

motorized closures of roads and trails during hunting seasons for landscapes that are flat and 

open, and less emphasis on those that are steep and have more cover, as identified in 

coordination with state wildlife agencies. 

The Forest Plan establishes standards for wildlife habitat, and more specifically elk habitat, on 

the Forest. The LJCRP area provides year round habitat for big game; winter range lies along the 

northern and western portion of the analysis area, transitional range is mid-slope and summer 

range lies along the central portion of the analysis area.

Within the Lower Joseph project area there are parts of two WMUs: Chesnimus and Sled Springs 

(Figure 11, Chapter 3). Table 7 shows the recent trend in populations and the management 

objectives for the two management units. Currently the populations and bull/100 cows ratios 

are exceeding the management objectives set by ODFW in both management units.

According to ODFW (Pat Mathews, ODFW, pers. comm. 2014), the Chesnimnus unit is 

currently 40% over population management objective with up to 70% of the population 

occurring on Zumwalt prairie private lands. The ODFW is currently trying to reduce elk 

numbers and return the elk population to management objective of 3,500 by harvesting antlerless 

elk on Zumwalt private lands. Elk numbers on the National Forests are much below desired 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

10 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

levels, so very little antlerless elk harvest occurs on the national forest portion of the Chesnimnus 

unit. Managing road density is important for security areas and bull escapement during hunting 

seasons.

Table 7. Population Trend data Rocky Mountain Elk (ODFW 2014) 

Management Unit Population Bulls/100 cow

Chesnimnus MO* 3,500 10

2010 3,700 13

2011 5,300 15

2012 5,300 13

2013 5,200 14

2014 5,000 14

Sled Springs MO* 2,750 10

2010 2,500 4

2011 2,700 10

2012 2,700 10

2013 3,000 16

2014 3,100 16

*MO = Management Objective (ODFW)

Research conducted at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and associated research sites 

is providing new insights regarding the importance of maintaining adequate nutritional resources 

for elk (Cook et al. 2013), and of minimizing human disturbance effects through effective 

management of motorized access and cover (Rowland et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2009). Higher 

nutritional resources are generally concentrated in elk forage areas, defined as areas with less 

than 40% overhead canopy cover. Highest nutritional resources are often particularly 

concentrated in areas with less than 20% overhead canopy cover, such as in grasslands, 

shrublands, and forests of the stand initiation structural stage, recognizing that nutritional 

resources in these areas will vary with season of elk use and forage phenology. 

Elk use of forage areas often depends on their proximity to cover areas (to forest stands with 

overhead canopy cover 40% or higher) and the distance to roads and trails open to motorized 

uses. Forage areas within 100 yards of cover areas are most heavily used by elk, as are forage 

areas farther than 1,000 yards from roads or trails open to motorized uses. In addition, 

maintenance of adequate cover areas provides security for elk during hunting seasons and 

reduces elk vulnerability to harvest, such that harvest goals for elk can be met but not exceeded. 

Whether cover areas provide security for elk during hunting seasons, however, often requires 

motorized closures of large networks of roads and trails during hunting seasons. The need for 

motorized closures of many road and trail networks to provide effective security for elk during 

hunting seasons is higher on landscapes dominated by flat, open terrain, and lower in areas of 

steep, convex topography with more cover.

The sensitivity of elk to human disturbance and road management serve as an additional 

indicator for most other wildlife species. Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed 238 articles on the effects 

of recreation trails and roads on wildlife and found the most commonly reported interactions 

included displacement or avoidance where animals were reported as altering their use of habitats 

in response to roads or road networks (Cassier and Groves 1990, Hutto 1995, Johnson et al. 

2000, Klein 1993, Mace et al. 1996, 1998). Disturbance at a specific site was also commonly 

reported and included disruption of animal nesting, breeding, or wintering areas (Linnell et al. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 11 

2000, Papouchis et al. 2001, Skagen et al. 1991). Collisions between animals and vehicles were 

commonly reported and affected a diversity of wildlife species, from large mammals (Gibeau 

and Heuer 1996, Lehnert et al. 1996) to amphibians (Ashley and Robinson 1996). Finally, edge 

effects associated with roads or road networks constructed within habitats, especially latesuccessional forests, were commonly identified (Hickman 1990, Miller et al. 1998).

Connectivity of late seral closed forest habitats 

Maintaining connectivity between habitats, particularly late and old structured habitat, is 

important for numerous wildlife species to allow free movement, interaction of adults, and 

dispersal of young. Management direction pertaining to maintaining connectivity between late 

and old structured (LOS) stands, in addition to designated old growth management areas 

(DOGMA), is provided by the Eastside Screens. 

Eastside Screen direction is to maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between 

LOS (OFMS/OFSS) stands and between all Forest Plan DOGMAs (MA15) by maintaining 

stands between them. Harvesting is permitted in connectivity corridors if canopy closures are 

maintained within the top one-third of site potential. Based on an interpretation made on the 

Forest canopy closures are considered to be within the top one-third of site potential if canopy 

cover is maintained at or above 40% in the dry forest PVG, and 50% in the moist forest PVG. 

The current level of connectivity between MA15 and LOS stands varies across the project area 

due to areas of non-forested vegetation, past timber harvest, and wildfires. Stands of more 

contiguous forest in the northern portion of the project area are currently well connected (Maps 7 

and 8, Appendix A). Major riparian areas, such as Swamp Creek and Davis Creek provide 

connectivity in the southern part of the project area. Pileated woodpecker, American marten and 

their prey, goshawk and their prey, elk, and a variety of other vertebrates and invertebrates are 

affected by the level of connectivity between their source or preferred habitats. This project 

aims to maintain connectivity, to the extent possible, between all LOS and MA15 stands within 

and outside the project area according to forest plan direction. See Chapter 3 for more 

information.

Threatened and endangered wildlife species 

Appendix E lists all proposed, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species applicable to the 

LJCRP area obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011). No proposed or federally-listed terrestrial wildlife species were described for Wallowa 

County, Oregon. 

U.S. Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive wildlife species 

Table 6 summarizes the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive wildlife species with habitat 

suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area (USDA Forest Service 2011). Existing habitat 

conditions are summarized below. Chapter 3 includes more details and information.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

12 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 8. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive wildlife species with habitat 

suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area, and descriptions of desired conditions 

Common 

and latin 

name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

AMPHIBIANS

Rocky Mt 

tailed frog

K

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frogs (Ascaphus montanus) are primarily 

nocturnal, and live in fast-flowing headwater streams in old-growth 

forests (Nielson et al. 2001). They occur in very cold, fast-flowing 

streams that contain large cobble or boulder substrates, little silt, and are 

often darkly shaded (Bull and Carter 1996). In the LJCRP area, tailed 

frogs were documented in Broady, West Fork Broady, East Fork Broady, 

and Cottonwood Creeks during Forest Service’s stream surveys in the 

1990s. Other streams that may provide habitat for tailed frogs are 

Peavine Creek, Rush Creek, Horse Creek, Deadhorse Creek and the 

Cottonwood tributary south of Deadhorse Creek. Tailed frogs are likely 

to occur in RHCA categories 1-3 due to the species’ need for flowing 

water at all times. Tailed frogs are not likely to occur in Swamp Creek, 

as they are found in fast flowing, cold headwater streams.

Ascaphus 

montanus

Columbia 

spotted frog

P

Columbia spotted frogs are highly dependent on aquatic habitats and 

require permanent and semi-permanent wetlands that have aquatic 

vegetation and some deeper or flowing water for overwintering (Bull and 

Marx 2002, Pilliod et al. 2002). The spotted frog frequents waters and 

associated vegetated (grassy) shorelines of ponds, springs, marshes, 

and slow-flowing streams and appears to prefer waters with a bottom 

layer of dead and decaying vegetation (Bull 2005) are year-round 

residents of the Blue Mountains and occur in a number of locations 

across Northeast Oregon (Bull 2005, Reaser and Pilliod 2005). There 

have been no surveys specifically for spotted frogs within the LJCRP 

area but habitat is available and the species may exist along the 

perennial low gradient streams or ponds in the upper elevations.

Rana 

luteiventris

BIRDS

Northern bald 

eagle

P

Bald eagles are highly dependent on riparian habitats. Nesting territories 

are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams. In 

the Pacific Northwest recovery area the preferred nesting habitat for bald 

eagles is predominately uneven-aged, mature coniferous (ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir) stands or large black cottonwood trees along a 

riparian corridor (NatureServe 2012{USDI, 1986 #628). No known nest 

sites exist within the project area. Nearest nest sites are located more 

than 10 miles from the project area. The project area does contain 

potential foraging habitat and the potential for species occurrence.

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalu

s

American 

peregrine 

falcon

K

Peregrines are found in many terrestrial biomes in the Americas; none 

seems to be preferred (although perhaps greater densities in tundras 

and coastally). The most commonly occupied habitats contain cliffs, for 

nesting and generally open landscapes for foraging (Hayes and 

Buchanan 2002, Hays and Milner 2004). A source of water, such as a 

river, lake, marsh or marine waters is typically in close proximity to the 

nest site and likely is associated with an adequate prey base of small to 

medium sized birds (Johnsgard 1990). There is no historical data for 

peregrines in the LJCRP area. Potential nest sites have been identified 

but suitable nest ledges are limited as are larger bodies of water for prey

concentrations. Though no longer listed as endangered, their numbers 

are still low, and managing habitat toward recovery goals is warranted.

Falco 

peregrinus 

anatum

Lewis’ 

woodpecker 

P

Three main habitats used by Lewis’ woodpecker throughout its range are 

burned or logged areas, open ponderosa pine savanna at high 

elevations, and riparian woodland dominated by large cottonwoods at 

low elevations (Bock 1970, Tobalske 1997, Saab and Dudley 1998, Saab 

Melanerpes 

lewis
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 13 

Common 

and latin 

name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

and Vierling 2001, Abele et al. 2004). Currently there is very little recent 

post-fire habitat in the LJCRP area.

White-headed 

woodpecker

P

The white-headed woodpecker is associated with open-canopied 

ponderosa pine forests (Bull et al. 1986, Frederick and Moore 1991, 

Garrett et al. 1996, Kozma 2011). White-headed woodpeckers forage 

predominantly on large-diameter live ponderosa pine trees (Dixon 

1995)with pine seeds being the most important vegetable food item in 

Oregon (Bull et al. 1986, Dixon 1995). In addition, these woodpeckers 

may use areas which have undergone various silvicultural treatments, 

including post-fire areas, if large-diameter ponderosa pines (alive or 

dead) and other old-growth components remain (Raphael 1981, Raphael 

and White 1984, Raphael et al. 1987, Frenzel 2002, Wightman et al. 

2010). Due to fire suppression in dry upland forest habitats, many areas 

that historically supported this species’ habitat - open stands of large 

diameter ponderosa pine - now support closed canopied mixed species 

stands that no longer provide suitable habitat for the white-headed 

woodpecker. 

Picoides 

albolarvatus

MAMMALS

Gray wolf

K

Habitat preference for the gray wolf appears to be more prey dependent 

than cover dependent. The wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety 

of plant communities, typically containing a mix of forested and open 

areas with a variety of topographic features (Mech et al. 1988, Witmer et 

al. 1998, Mladenoff et al. 1999). Based on data collected by the ODFW, 

the Imnaha pack (approximately 15 miles east of Joseph, Oregon) and 

Wenaha pack (centered approximately 20 miles west of Troy, Oregon) 

appear to be breeding, and in the summer of 2014 a new pack 

(Chesnimnus pack) was documented in the project area (Figure 3). 

Wolves prey primarily on large ungulates such as elk and deer (Boyd et 

al. 1994, Fritts et al. 1994, Kunkel et al. 1999). Alternate prey typically 

consists of smaller mammals and birds, such as, beaver, ground 

squirrels, rabbits, and grouse (Boyd et al. 1994; Witmer et al. 1998). 

Individuals may take livestock as secondary prey when ungulates are 

less vulnerable or available (Witmer et al. 1998).

Canis lupus

Fringed 

myotis

K

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) occurs from sea level to 2,850 m but 

is most common at middle elevations 1200 to 2,100 m. Although the 

fringed myotis is found in a wide variety of habitats including desert 

scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage-grass steppe its 

distribution is patchy and it appears to be most common in drier 

woodlands (oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine). They roost in crevices 

in buildings, underground mines, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. Roosting 

in decadent trees and snags, particularly large ones, is common 

throughout its range in western U. S. and Canada. The fringed myotis 

has been identified in the LJCRP (Anderson 1998). In general, the 

greatest threat to this species’ habitat is human disturbance of roost sites 

through recreational caving and mine exploration, and disturbance of 

habitat (Weller 2005) (Keinath 2004).

Myotis 

thysanodes

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

K

Townsend’s big-eared bats have been reported from sea level to 3,300 

meters in a wide variety of habitat types including coniferous forests, 

mixed meso-phytic forests, deserts, native prairies, riparian communities, 

active agricultural areas, and coastal habitat types (Kunz and Martin 

1982, Piaggio and Sherwin 2005). Distribution is strongly correlated with 

the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, including 

abandoned mines (Pierson et al. 1999, Sherwin et al. 2000, Gruver and 

Keinath 2006). A survey by Anderson (1998) located this bat within the 

Lower Joseph Watershed.

Corynorhinus 

townsendii
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

14 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Common 

and latin 

name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

Spotted bat

P

The spotted bat has been found from below sea level to 2,700 m 

elevation and occurs from arid, low desert habitats to high elevation 

conifer forests (Chambers and Herder 2005). Prominent rock features 

appear to be a necessary feature for roosting. This species has been 

found in vegetation types that range from desert to sub-alpine meadows, 

including desert-scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer forest, canyon bottoms, rims of cliffs, riparian areas, fields, and 

open pasture. Roost sites are cracks, crevices, and caves, usually high 

in fractured rock cliffs. As with most bat species, threats include habitat 

destruction or alteration, disturbance, sensitivity to pesticides and other 

pollutants, and overexploitation. No spotted bats have been recorded on 

the WWNF, however due to the lack of intensive bat sampling it is 

possible that the spotted bat occurs there.

Euderma 

maculatum

INVERTEBR

ATES

Johnson’s 

hairstreak

P

These butterflies occur within coniferous forests which contain the 

mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium, commonly referred to as dwarf 

mistletoe. These plants are highly specialized and are known to occur 

on a number of different conifers (Schmitt and Spiegel 2008). Oldgrowth and late successional second growth forests provide the best 

habitat for this butterfly, although younger forests where dwarf mistletoe 

is present also supports C. johnsoni populations (Larsen et al. 1995, 

Miller and Hammond 2007)LaBonte et al. 2001). Older coniferous 

forests, especially those with a heavy component of western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophyla) that are infected by dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium 

tsugense) appear to be its key habitat (Andrews 2010, Miller and 

Hammond 2007, Larsen et al. 1995). In Washington, it is only know to 

occur west of the Cascade crest (Larsen et al. 1995). A disjunct 

population occurs at the Oregon/Idaho border in Baker and Union 

counties, Oregon and Adams County, Idaho. This disjunct population 

may be a relict population isolated by climate changes (Davis and 

Weever 2011).

Callophrys 

johnsoni

Intermountain 

sulphur

P 

This species inhabits open woodland from 3400 to 5000 feet, including 

meadows, roadsides, and open forest and is most often found on steep 

sunny slopes at the ecotone between forest and shrubsteppe or 

grassland habitats (Foltz 2009). Hammond (In Foltz 2009) describes the 

subspecies habitat as sagebrush with scattered Ponderosa Pine, 

including both south- and east-facing slopes. The larvae of this 

subspecies feed on Lathyrus species, including L. brachycalix, L. 

lanzwertii, L. puciflorus, and. L. nevadensis (Foltz 2009). The Asotin 

County population in Washington was reported to feed on L. puciflorus 

(reviewed in Warren 2005). Adults of C. christina use a variety of plants 

as nectar sources, and males may occasionally be seen frequenting mud 

puddles (Warren 2005). 

Colia 

Christina 

pseudochristi

na

Western 

bumblebee

P

Suitable habitat includes typically associated with sub-alpine meadows, 

coastlines, and high elevation valleys. It is known to feed on sweet 

clover, rabbit brush, thistle, buckwheat and clover (Koch et al 2011).

Bombus 

occidentalis

Radiodiscus 

albietum

1/ P = potentially occurs in LJCRP area; K = known to occur 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 15 

Figure 3: Location of gray wolf packs as depicted on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife web 

site (15 October 2014) 

Landbird and migratory bird habitats 

The loss and alteration of historic vegetation communities due to intensive timber harvesting, 

fire suppression, over-grazing, invasion of exotic vegetation, and human development has 

impacted landbird habitats and resulted in some species range reductions, population declines, 

and some local and regional extirpations. In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

released The Birds of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, 

and populations of migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or 

endangered that represent the highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional 

conservation actions. Table 9 summarizes birds of conservation concern with habitat known or 

assumed to occur in the LJCRP area. In accordance with Executive Order 13186 

(“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”), it is recommended that 

these lists be consulted during project planning to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA 

bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions for these species. 

More detail can be found in Chapter 3.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

16 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 9. Birds of conservation concern with known or assumed habitat in the LJCRP area. 

Common 

Name

Breeding 

Bird 

Survey 

(BBS) -

declining 

trends1

Bids 

of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(BCC)

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Habitat 

Group 

1; 2

Habitat 

description Existing condition

Brown 

creeper

BBS (L,R)

Cool/Mo

ist 

Forest;; 

Medium

/Large 

Trees

In the Pacific 

northwest prefers 

late successional 

stages of moist 

coniferous forests 

with high canopy 

cover.

These habitats are 

currently at the low 

end of the RV.At the 

lanscape scale, 

there is a risk to 

uncharacteristic fire 

which would remove 

habitat for this 

species.

Cassin’s 

Finch BCC

All 

Forest 

Commu

nities; 

Medium

/Large 

Trees

Open, mature 

coniferous forests 

of lodgepole and 

ponderosa pine, 

aspen, alpine fir, 

grand fir and 

juniper steppe 

woodlands

Medium/large tree 

habitat (>15" dbh) is 

overall within the 

RV. In relation to 

the RV, moist forests 

are low in closed 

canopied conditions, 

while dry forests are 

low in open 

canopied conditons. 

Large snag density 

is below the RV in 

moist forests. 

Shrubby understory 

habitats may be 

suppressedparticular

ly in the dry forests. 

At the lanscape 

scale, there is a risk 

to uncharacteristic 

wildfire; these 

species would likely 

respond negatively 

to wildfire depending 

on the intensity.

Williamso

n's 

Sapsuck

er

BCC

E. Cascades, mid 

to high elevation, 

mature open and 

mixed coniferous -

deciduous forests. 

Snags are a 

critical 

component.

Mountain 

chickade

e

BBS '(R)

Occurs in 

coniferous forests. 

Forage high in the 

canopy and in 

larger trees.

Ruffed 

Grouse BBS (L)

Mosaics of dense 

cover and 

openings, riparian 

areas.

Whiteheaded 

Woodpec

ker

BCC Sensitive

Dry 

Forest ; 

Medium

/Large

Nesting habitat 

consists of opencanopy stands 

with mature and 

overmature 

ponderosa pine.

Habitats for these 

species are below 

the RV. At the 

landscape scale, 

there is a risk to 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire. A mixed 

severity fire may 

create source 

habitat for whiteheaded 

woodpeckers.

Flammul

ated Owl BCC

Associated with 

ponderosa pine 

forests and mixed 

conifer stands with 

an open canopy, 

open understory 

with dense 

patches of 

saplings or 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 17 

Common 

Name

Breeding 

Bird 

Survey 

(BBS) -

declining 

trends1

Bids 

of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(BCC)

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Habitat 

Group 

1; 2

Habitat 

description Existing condition

shrubs.

Calliope 

humming

bird

BBS ('R) BCC

All 

Forest 

Commu

nities ; 

Open 

Forest

Predominantly a 

montane species 

found in open 

shrub sapling 

seral stages (8-15 

years) at higher 

elevations and 

riparian areas.

In relation to the RV, 

moist forests with 

medium and large 

trees and forests of 

early structure 

(<10") is low in the 

abundance of open 

canopied forests. 

Open-canopied 

habitats in dry 

forests are all below 

the RV. At the 

landscape scle there 

is a risk to 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire or 

disturbance would 

remain high. Lower 

intensity 

disturbance, may 

provide habitat for 

some of these 

species, especially 

the Townsend's 

solitaire.

Townsen

d’s 

solitaire

BBS ('R)

Breeds in and 

near open 

coniferous forest 

stands, natural 

forest openings, 

burned areas, 

shelterwoood cuts 

and clearcuts.

Darkeyed 

junco

BBS ('R)

Forages and nests 

on or close to the 

ground and is 

associatded with 

foret openings and 

patches of early 

seral vegetation.

American 

kestrel BBS ('R)

PostFire 

Habitat; 

Open 

Forest

Wide variety of 

open to semiopen 

habitats, including 

meadows, 

grasslands, 

deserts, early 

successional 

communities, 

open parkland, 

agricultural fields. 

Suitable nest trees 

and perches 

required.

Post-fire habitat is 

currently below the 

RV. Under Alt. 1 

source habitat 

abundance would 

not be changed. At 

the landscape scle 

the risk to 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire or 

disturbance would 

remain high. High 

and moderate 

intensity/scale 

wildfire would likely 

increase habitat for 

these species.

Olivesided 

flycatcher

BBS (L) BCC

Open conifer 

forests (< 40 % 

canopy cover) and 

edge habitats 

where standing 

snags and 

scattered tall trees 

remain after a 

disturbance.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

18 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Common 

Name

Breeding 

Bird 

Survey 

(BBS) -

declining 

trends1

Bids 

of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(BCC)

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Habitat 

Group 

1; 2

Habitat 

description Existing condition

Lewis's 

Woodpec

ker

BCC Sensitive

Primary habitats 

include open 

ponderosa pine, 

riparian 

cottonwood, and 

logged or burned 

pine.

Peregrine 

Falcon BCC Sensitive

Habitat 

Generali

st; 

Human 

Disturba

nce

Wide range of 

habitats, nests on 

cliff ledges, 

bridges, quarries. 

Suitable nesting 

habitat consists of 

cliffs, usually 

within 900 meters 

of water (Pagel 

1995)

Human disturbance 

is likely the most 

important factor 

affecting this 

species.

Ferrugino

us Hawk BCC

Woodla

nd/Gras

s/Shrub; 

Grassla

nd

Occupy habitats 

with low tree 

densities and 

topographic relief 

in sagebrush 

plains of the high 

desert and 

bunchgrass 

prairies in the Blue 

Mtns.

The quality of these 

habitats are 

changed from 

historical primarily 

due to grazing, 

invasive species, fire 

suppression. 

Depending the scale 

and intensity of a 

wildlfire, the quality 

of these habitats 

could be improved 

or reduced.

Mourning 

dove BBS (L)

Habitats range 

within open 

forests and 

clearcuts, grass, 

shrub, junipersteppe, agriculture 

and agricultural 

areas.

Blackbilled 

magpie

BBS (L)

Habitats typified 

by open country, 

ranch and 

agricultural lands, 

juniper 

woodlands, 

sagebrush steppe, 

and open 

meadows and 

riparian thickets.

Swainson

's Hawk BCC

Woodla

nd/Gras

s/Shrub;

Grassla

nd

Found in open 

country with no 

need for 

numerous trees 

prefer prairies and 

irrigated farmland 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 19 

Common 

Name

Breeding 

Bird 

Survey 

(BBS) -

declining 

trends1

Bids 

of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(BCC)

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Habitat 

Group 

1; 2

Habitat 

description Existing condition

with high prey 

densities.

Killdeer BBS ('R)

Open areas with 

short and/or 

sparse vegetation 

or bare ground.

Black 

Swift BCC Sensitive

Riparian

; 

Waterfal

l

Nests on ledges 

or shallow caves 

in steep rock 

faces and 

canyons, usually 

near or behind 

waterfalls and sea 

caves. Forage 

over forests and 

open areas in 

montane habitats.

Particularly in dry 

forests, canopy 

closure is above the 

RV and may be 

suppressing shrub 

development in 

some riparian areas. 

At the landscape 

scale there is a risk 

to uncharacteristic 

fire. Likely, in the 

short-term following 

a wildfire, habitat for 

these species would 

be reduced. In the 

longer-term wildfire 

may increase shrubs 

and habitats for 

some of these 

species.

Bald 

Eagle BCC Sensitive

Riparian

; 

Riparian

/lg tree 

or 

snag/op

en 

water

Associated with 

large bodies of 

water, forested 

areas near the 

ocean, along 

rivers, and at 

estuaries, lakes 

and reservoirs.

Willow 

Flycatche

r

BCC

Riparian

; 

Shrubby

/Decidu

ous 

Riparian

Associated with 

riparian shrub 

dominated 

habitats, 

especially 

brushy/willow 

thickets. In SE WA 

also found in xeric 

brushy uplands.

Red-eyed 

vireo BBS(L,R)

Riparian forests 

consisting of large 

black cottonwood, 

or other decidious 

species with 

understories of 

chokecherry, 

willow, alder, 

hawthorn, and 

hackberry.

Yellow 

warbler BBS (L)

Riparian 

woodlands 

pariculartly those 

dominated by 

willow or 

cottonwood,
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

20 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Common 

Name

Breeding 

Bird 

Survey 

(BBS) -

declining 

trends1

Bids 

of 

Conservation 

Concern 

(BCC)

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Habitat 

Group 

1; 2

Habitat 

description Existing condition

Barn 

swallow BBS ('R)

Breeding habitat 

usually contains 

open areas (fields, 

meadows) for 

foraging, nest site 

that includes a 

vertical or 

horizontal 

substrate (often 

enclosed) 

underneath some 

type of roof or 

ceiling, and a 

body of water that 

provides mud for 

nest-building

Common 

snipe BBS ('R)

Wetland

; 

Marsh/

Wet 

Meadow

Wet meadows, 

marshes, of sedge 

or grass, cattail 

marsh edges or 

riaprian bogs.

1

/ L= long-term trend (1966-1998); R= recent trend (1980 – 1998) 

Management actions needed to reduce departure between current and desired wildlife habitat for 

MIS, landbirds, and, sensitive species include thinning of dense forest stands toward desired 

conditions to ensure their continued resistance to stand replacement disturbances (wildfire; insect 

and disease outbreaks), and protection of existing old forest habitat. Other management actions 

needed to restore forage quality include the reintroduction of fire, redistribution of domestic 

livestock, and invasive plant species eradication. 

Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat 

The state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes within a watershed affect 

the soil and hydrologic functions supporting aquatic ecosystems. Watershed condition reflects a 

range of variability from naturally pristine (functioning properly) to degraded (severely altered 

state or impaired). Watersheds that are functioning properly have terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic 

ecosystems that capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, and nutrients within their 

range of natural variability for these processes (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Specific desired 

conditions for watershed and aquatic systems are based on Forest Plan guidance, as amended by 

PACFISH, other policy guidance, state and federal standards, literature reviews, and Watershed 

Condition Framework definitions of properly functioning watersheds (USDA Forest Service 

2011a). 

Table 1 compares existing and desired conditions for riparian management objectives (RMOs) 

for the LJCRP. Landscape-scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for anadromous fish at 

the watershed scale were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large woody 

debris, bank stability, and width to depth ratio. State water quality standards were used to define 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 21 

favorable water temperatures. These RMOs are stream centric and do not reflect vegetation 

RMOs for all RHCAs and the streams within them. RMOs are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10. Riparian Management Objectives for the LJCRP. 

Pool Frequency: (varies by wetted width)

Wetted width in feet: 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150

Number of pools/mile: 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12

Water Temperature: Compliance with state water quality standards, or maximum 

<68F

Large Woody debris: > 20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; 35 foot length

Bank Stability: >90 percent stable

Width/Depth Ratio: <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth

Chapter 3 provides more detail about the affected environment in terms of riparian management 

objectives, and sediment delivery to streams for the LJCRP. 

In general, vegetative conditions in the RHCAs (management areas defined by a set distance 

from a stream bank or floodplain) reflect the general departure from HRV across the planning 

area. 

For Category 1 and 2 streams the desired condition is for well stocked, closed canopy conditions. 

This desired condition allows for attainment of RMOs for stream temperature, large wood debris 

recruitment, which will maintain pool habitat values, and limit sediment delivery to stream 

channels. In some cases the stream will not be in a forested vegetation type but in a meadow 

vegetation type that would be described as a grass forb community with little coniferous 

vegetation and limited woody vegetation. 

For Category 4 streams the desired conditions is for a vegetation condition that provides for 

generally similar forest structure and composition as the upland forest vegetation. Olson (2000) 

found fire occurrence in riparian zones to be only slightly less frequent than on adjacent uplands 

in similar forest types in the Blue Mountains in Oregon (Wright and Agee 2004). 

This desired condition allows for the attainment of RMOs for large woody debris recruitment 

and limiting sediment delivery to stream channels and storing sediment in the channel to delay 

delivery downstream to fish bearing streams. 

Socioeconomics 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; government; and retail trade sectors contain the largest 

shares of employment in Wallowa County. In addition, logging jobs make up two percent of total 

employment in Wallowa County (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2014). Wallowa County holds 

about one percent of the jobs in the logging sector for the state of Oregon. Of the approximate 

8,500 jobs in the logging sector in Oregon, 97 of those jobs are located in Wallowa County. 

Employment in the wood manufacturing sector only accounts for 16 jobs in Wallowa County, or 

0.1 percent of the wood manufacturing jobs in the state. Although the logging sector makes up 

about two percent of total jobs in Wallowa County, this sector contains 6.5 percent of total labor 

income because the average wage per job in the logging sector was $62,000 in 2012.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

22 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

The public meeting that was held in Enterprise, Oregon (see “Public involvement” section) as 

well as the submitted written comments provided insight into the values, beliefs, and attitudes of 

the Lower Joseph Creek area residents and surrounding communities. The major concerns from 

the commenters were focused on economic, cultural and biological values, with specific beliefs 

regarding roads and access, vegetation treatments, cultural and tribal resources, and recreation, 

among others. 

From the 1950‘s until 1992 the annual harvest from NFS land in Wallowa County averaged 50 to 

100 million board feet year, the highest in 1962 of 129 million board feet. Since 2000, the saw 

timber volume harvested from NFS lands in Wallowa is between 0 and 10 million board feet per 

year with an average harvest of less than 5 million board feet per year (Wallowa County 2014).

Tribal relations 

The aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe, also known as Nimiipúu, or “the people”, 

includes large portions of the States of Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Wyoming 

(Figure 4). Through time and tradition, the Tribe has acquired and applied traditional ecological 

knowledge, as well as the latest science, to design and implement tribal stewardship objectives 

(Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003b, Nez Perce Tribe 2013). The Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce 

had their winter home within Joseph Canyon.

The Nez Perce way of life, now as in the past, depends on the inherent right of tribal members to 

fish, hunt, gather, pasture animals and rely on the land for subsistence as well as sanctuary. 

Article III of the Treaty of 1855 provides for: “The exclusive right of taking fish in all the 

streams where running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as 

also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the 

Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the privileges of hunting, 

gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land”( 

Treaty of 1855, 12 Stat, 957). 

The exercise of treaty rights is dependent upon access to traditional hunting, fishing, and 

gathering sites and the resources associated with them. Sustainable populations of treaty 

resources such as fish, wildlife, and traditional plants, depend upon healthy habitats and resilient 

landscapes. Land management decisions may affect the ecosystems wherein valued tribal 

resources and natural settings are dependent. Refer to the plants, wildlife, fisheries and 

watershed sections of this DEIS, and specialist reports for complete analyses for these resources.

The purpose and need for the LJCRP is not directly driven by Tribal interests. However, tribal 

comments conveyed substantive concern for the protection of treaty and heritage resources.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 23 

 

 Figure 4. Nez Perce aboriginal territory (Indian Claims Commission boundary) and 1855 and 1863 

treaty land cessions (Adapted from Nez Perce 2013) 

In the LJCRP, Nez Perce tribal members:

 Exercise Treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather subsistence resources including access to sites 

for camping and other traditional uses. In the LJCRP traditional plant habitats, including 

scab lands, meadows, riparian areas and seeps are being encroached upon by over stocked 

forests resulting from fire exclusion. The historically open fire dependent ecosystem that 

functioned to provide healthy habitat for subsistence resources, is becoming less resilient to 

disturbance, insects, and disease.

 Are stewards in the management and recovery of steelhead and salmon populations in the 

Lower Joseph Creek watershed.

 Conduct Neotropical bird studies adjacent to the LJCRP.

 Manage for wildlife values in their Precious Lands Management Area located adjacent to the 

LJCRP

 Travel to the LJCRP area to continue traditional practices. Information regarding the 

locations and activities associated with these practices are private and not readily shared. The 

Forest continues to work toward building relationships with the Tribe, tribal staff and 

members so that the potential effects to the settings and values associated with access and 

the use of traditional places may be understood and addressed.

Heritage resources 

Heritage resources, also known as cultural resources, archaeological, ethnographic and 

traditional sites or places, are highly valued by the public and Tribes as they are non-renewable 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

24 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

vestiges of our Nation’ heritage. The Forest Service is responsible for the management of 

heritage resources located on NFS lands. Also see the policy, legal, social and economic 

constraints section in Chapter 1. 

The archaeological and historic sites located in the LJCRP area tell a robust story of early human 

uses, culture and lifeway associated with this landscape (Wallowa County 2014). 

Cultural Resource Site Types in the LJCRP 

Pre-contact to Euro American settlement (up to 1870) 

Tool stone quarries and lithic scatters originating from local granite and andesite outcrops are the 

most common archaeological site type in the LJCRP. Archaeological excavation of a quarry site 

located within the LJCRP area yielded evidence of aboriginal use and occupation dating from 

8000 years ago into the pre-contact era (18 century). In addition, sites associated with the Nez 

Perce (or Sahaptin speakers) seasonal subsistence ground include cambium peeled trees, upland 

plant processing camps and hunting camps. Rock features associated with ancient traditional 

practices have also been recorded.

Early settlement to (1870-1940)

Cabins, barns, troughs, and fencing materials associated with trapping, homesteading and 

ranching are the most represented historic resources in the LJCRP area. Railroad logging camps, 

grades tresses and Civilian Conservation Corps Forest Service guard stations, lookouts, phone 

lines, and pack trails are also well represented.

Desired conditions as set forth in the WWNF plan states that the goal for heritage resources is to 

“provide for the identification, protection, preservation, enhancement and interpretation of 

prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of local, regional or National 

significance so as to preserve their historical, cultural, and scientific values for the benefit of the 

public” (4-20). This goal and associated standards and guidelines are also found in the Hells 

Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan HCNRA CMP; See Appendix B for relevant 

standards and guidelines).

Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are designated for research and educational opportunities, to 

maintain biological diversity on NFS lands, and are selected to complete a national network of 

ecological areas. Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock were originally proposed for RNA 

designation in 1988, and they still maintain all the qualities unique for RNA designation. The 

Horse Pasture Ridge proposed area would contribute to the national network of RNAs by 

providing an example of Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass and Idaho fescue –bluebunch wheatgrass 

plant associations in ridge top communities. The Haystack Rock proposed area would contribute 

to the national network of RNAs by providing an example of Idaho fescue-bluebunch 

wheatgrass-arrowleaf balsamroot and bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg’s bluegrass-narrowleaved skullcap plant associations. More information on these proposed RNAs can be found in 

Chapter 3.

Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Modifications to the proposed action occurred in the time between scoping and issuing this DEIS 

as a result of public comments or analyses that relate specifically to standards and guides found 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 25 

in the respective Forest Plans for the Wallowa Whitman National Forest or the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area. See “Changes to the proposed action since scoping” below. The 

Modified Proposed Action is analyzed in detail in this DEIS; and unless otherwise noted (e.g., 

Table 13), is synonymous with the term “proposed action”.

The Forest Service proposes to implement activities across the approximately 98,600 acre 

LJCRP area to meet the purpose and need. Silviculture treatments would provide a diversity of 

forest structures that are more in line with desired conditions, and more resilient to anticipated 

future environmental conditions. Forest thinning prescriptions would follow a practical, science 

based approach intended to restore characteristic functionality, and resistance and resilience to 

disturbance. Known as “ICO” (individuals, clumps and openings), this approach uses historical 

information at the stand- and landscape-level to design restoration strategies and prescriptions 

for restoration (e.g., see (Franklin et al. 2013a)). For example, the pattern of old trees, stumps 

and snags currently on the landscape provide indicators of natural tree clumping and spacing, 

and thus the degree of horizontal spatial heterogeneity. In places where legacies of historic forest 

patterns are absent (e.g., young, post-fire forests), information is used from similar habitats. 

Thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments across approximately 16,700 acres would encourage 

the development of large tree structural characteristics, understory plant diversity, forage 

productivity, and resilience to disturbances such as wildfire. Thinning of largely younger trees 

across an additional 5,500 acres, which are in the process of recovery after stand replacement 

disturbance, would encourage the development of spatial heterogeneity and increase the 

proportion of early seral tree species. Silvicultural treatments would generally retain and protect 

large trees of early seral species and trees with old growth physical characteristics consistent 

with historical reference conditions. 

Silvicultural treatments in category 4 RHCAs (intermittent, non-fish bearing streams) would be 

applied where they support attainment of RMOs, and would generally parallel adjacent upland 

treatments. Category 4 RHCAs identified for treatment would include the establishment of a 

minimum 25 foot variable width buffer where, unlike treatments within category 4 RHCAs 

outside buffers, there would be no harvest or equipment allowed. RHCAs will be treated in 

accordance with the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria in regards to non-mechanized 

treatments such as non-commercial hand thinning and prescribed fire.

No treatments would occur in categories 1, 2 or 3 RHCAs, with the exception of Swamp Creek 

(Category 1 RHCA), or any RHCAs that are currently in an old forest structural condition. 

Treatment in Swamp Creek includes thinning of encroaching trees to restore meadow features, 

hydrologic function, and aquatic habitat conditions. Removal of woody vegetation encroachment 

resulting from fire exclusion in some riparian areas would protect and restore watershed 

function. Riparian and flood plain restoration may also include road closure or modification. 

Silvicultural treatments in Category 4 RHCAs (intermittent, non-fish bearing streams) would 

only be applied where they support attainment of RMOs, and would generally parallel adjacent 

upland treatments. Category 4 RHCAs identified for treatment would include the establishment 

of a 25 foot variable width buffer where there would be no harvest or equipment allowed. 

RHCAs will be treated in accordance with the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria in regards 

to non-mechanized treatments such as non-commercial hand thinning and prescribed fire. Since 

no single tree selection or group selection would be prescribed in MA15, no trees >21” in 

diameter would be harvested in MA 15. 

Prescribed burning using planned and unplanned ignitions of natural fuels, where ecologically 

appropriate, on up to 90,000 acres, would reduce fuel loads, increase understory productivity and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

26 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

diversity, allow fire to perform its natural ecological role, and reduce uncharacteristic 

disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease. 

The transportation system would be managed through road reconstruction, use of temporary 

roads, and seasonal or permanent closures, as needed to support public access, proposed forest 

management activities, wildlife habitat quality, and aquatic habitat connectivity. The majority of 

road-related activities would make use of the existing system road network. A roads analysis will 

be conducted to assess the transportation system and the appropriate actions needed to meet 

project and administrative needs, public access, forest plan standards and guidelines, future 

needs, and consultation guidance for federally listed fish. Approximately 86 miles of system road 

would be reconstructed; and 12.6 miles of temporary roads would be constructed. Of the roads 

that have already been identified for seasonal or permanent closure under past decisions, or that 

have been naturally closed, 16 miles would be closed, and approximately 25 miles would be 

decommissioned, as determined in the roads analysis and an evaluation of each segment’s status, 

future need, and impact on other resources. Roads proposed for any type of closure will focus 

on restoring water quality, fish habitat and wildlife habitat. 

In the interest of landscape learning and streamlining NEPA, two Research Natural Areas, which 

have been proposed for establishment in the WWNF forest plan (Horse Pasture Ridge (338 

acres) and Haystack Rock (425 acres)) would be established and serve as untreated baseline 

study areas. The establishment of the two RNAs would require a forest plan amendment, as 

described below.

The proposed action would include maintenance and enhancement of culturally significant 

resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including those of 

interest to the Tribes. A monitoring strategy would be developed to support adapting 

management strategies and sharing lessons learned through time. Input from interested parties 

and the most current, applicable science will be used to guide this monitoring. 

Connected actions that would be included in the analysis include road maintenance, and hazard 

tree cutting or removal. Fuels associated with silvicultural treatments (activity fuels) would be 

treated with a suite of available tools including, but not limited to, mastication, removal, grapple 

or hand pile and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, or prescribed fire.

Project design elements and site specific mitigation measures would be developed during the 

analysis of individual activity areas to reduce or eliminate unwanted effects, including those 

affecting tribal resources and cultural values. Mitigation measures may include seasonal 

operating restrictions, snag creation, and/or soil amendments (e.g., adding biochar) on 

compacted or detrimental soils. 

Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) 

The Forest Service proposes amending the Wallowa Whitman Land and Resource Management 

Plan (forest plan) under the 1982 planning regulations following Forest Service Handbook (FSH 

1909.12 section 25.4) and Manual direction (FSM 1926.51) direction. The following forest plan 

amendments would be needed to implement the Modified Proposed Action.

Wildlife habitat 

1. Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan)).The forest plan would 

need to be amended on 7,466 acres within the LJCRP area to allow for the removal of trees 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 27 

greater than 21” in diameter at breast height (dbh). The design of prescriptions for cutting of any 

trees >21” would be based on the desire to restore forest structure and composition toward 

reference conditions (HRV), particularly to increase the abundance of shade-intolerant tree 

species (ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe fire and 

insect and disease outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural disturbance and climate change. 

With the intent to conserve all old trees, the project would adopt scientifically-derived 

guidelines, such as the “Van Pelt guidelines” (2008), to assess tree age regardless of the diameter 

of individual trees. 

The Eastside Screens were adopted as interim direction in 1993 (see the “Policy, legal, social and 

economic constraints on the decision space” section above). In 2003, after 10 years of 

implementation, the Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region examined whether the 

Eastside Screens were functioning as intended (Goodman 2003). It was found that interpretation 

of screens direction, including 21-inch diameter limitations, no harvest in stands below HRV, and 

prescriptive connectivity corridors, at times limits the ability to meet policy objectives of 

providing late, old forest structure (LOS), particularly in dry single-story ponderosa pine or 

western larch stands. Restoring species composition towards HRV can at times require removing 

larger, but younger (<150 year) shade-tolerant species to favor shade-intolerant species such as 

ponderosa pine and western larch. With every year that goes by without the benefits of 

characteristic fire or other disturbances, trees that established prior to the mid-1800s are getting 

larger in diameter. Hard diameter limits, such as a 21-inch dbh limit, can make it difficult to 

achieve desired composition in at least dry and possibly also mixed conifer forests, and 

compromise their future resilience (Franklin et al. 2013a, Stine In Press, 2014) Hard diameter 

limits, such as a 21-inch dbh limit, can make it difficult to achieve desired composition in at least 

dry, and possibly also mixed conifer forests, and compromise their future resilience (Franklin et 

al. 2013a). Site-specific forest plan amendments are used to better meet objectives for moving 

landscapes towards HRV, and providing for the habitat needs of associated wildlife species. The 

amendment would authorize two actions:

a) Some of the large, but young, Douglas-fir, grand fir, and lodgepole pine trees that are ≥ 21 

inches dbh, but less than 150 years in age (at breast height), would be removed from any of the 

structural stages being treated, except for units classified as the old forest single stratum 

structural stage (OFSS; this stage is called “single stratum with large trees” in the Screens). 

Identification of the large but young Douglas-fir and grand fir trees to be removed would be 

based on the need to restore the HRV in stand pattern and characteristic fire regime dynamics 

(more information on this rationale is below). Table 60 (Chapter 3, effects common to all action 

alternatives) summarizes proposed treatments by stand density class.

b) Thinning treatments would occur in OFSS, which is below HRV, but thinning would only 

remove trees < 21 inches dbh, and there would be no net loss of late-old structure following the 

treatment (e.g., the units classified as OFSS structure before treatment, would also be classified 

as OFSS structure after treatment).

Rationale for Removing Trees Greater Than 21-inches in Diameter 

The option to remove some of the young grand fir and Douglas-fir trees that are over 21ʺ in 

diameter and interacting with a desirable tree refers to young but large grand fir and Douglas-fir 

trees (e.g., those grand fir and Douglas-fir trees < 150 years of age and ≥ 21 inches dbh) and 

generally competing with a desirable tree. A desirable tree is defined as those trees whose 

retention will contribute to the purpose and need for the LJCRP. Desirable trees occur in the 

following species preference (from most desirable to least desirable): any live tree ≥ 21 inches 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

28 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

dbh and > 150 years of age, ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, [Engelmann spruce], 

grand fir, [lodgepole pine], and western juniper; on dry-forest sites, the tree species in brackets 

are uncommon and typically associated only with seeps and other moist microsites. A desirable 

tree also possesses a vigor level, and a lack of insect or disease activity, suggesting it could 

survive for at least 10 more years.

Occasionally, a desirable tree is > 150 years of age but < 21ʺ dbh. For some of these situations, 

young but large grand fir and Douglas-fir trees (e.g., those grand fir and Douglas-fir trees < 150 

years of age and ≥ 21 inches dbh) would be cut and removed when competing or otherwise 

threatening a desirable tree greater than 150 years of age, but less than 21 inches in diameter.

Because this portion of the proposed plan amendment would not result in all of the young but 

large grand fir and Douglas-fir trees being removed, a decision about which of the young but 

large grand fir or Douglas-fir trees to remove will incorporate wildlife considerations, and these 

considerations will be incorporated in the marking guides being used by crews preparing the 

LJCRP.

Franklin et al. (2013) provides practical guidance on restoration of dry forest structure and 

composition, including where larger, but younger shade-tolerant species abundance is 

contributing to departure from HRV. 

Rationale for Proposing Thinning Treatments in the OFSS Structural Stage 

Scenario A of the Eastside Screens wildlife standard allows timber harvest activity in LOS under 

two circumstances:

1. To transform some portion of an LOS component that is within or above HRV into an LOS 

component that is deficient (e.g., transforming old forest multi-story stands into old forest 

single story).

2. To maintain or enhance existing conditions in LOS stands within or above HRV.

The LJCRP proposed action includes about 1,478 acres of treatment designed to transform old 

forest multi-story conditions (which is above HRV in the project area), into old forest single 

story, which is below HRV (see the existing and desired conditions for vegetation, above). The 

proposed action includes 31 acres of thinning in old forest single story conditions (out of a total 

224 acres) to maintain or enhance existing conditions. According to the Eastside Screens 

Scenario A, this objective is permissible for old forest multi-story conditions because it is within 

HRV, but it is not permissible for old forest single story conditions because abundance of this 

structure is below HRV. Therefore, a forest plan amendment is needed to accomplish this 

objective. This treatment would not change the overall LOS structural conditions. Therefore, this 

proposed treatment meets the intent of Scenario A because there will be no net loss of LOS as a 

result of proposed treatments. The understory thinning treatments proposed for these stands are 

designed to address species composition, stand density, insect susceptibility, climate change 

adaptation, and fire risk considerations. Specifically, they are designed to:

1. Improve tree vigor, and resistance to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk (see 

Chapter 3), thereby ensuring maintenance and persistence of the large-tree component into 

the future. Reestablishing a large-tree component would also increase resiliency to climate 

change, and the safety and effectiveness of prescribed fire applications. 

2. Contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP. Of the 31 acres of proposed 

treatments in OFSS condition in the proposed action, about 23 acres occurs in stands with a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 29 

ponderosa pine (PP) cover type (PP is below HRV); the remaining 8 acres occurs in stands 

with a Douglas-fir (DF) cover type (DF is above HRV) (Table 25). The ponderosa pine 

treatments are designed to maintain ponderosa pine as the dominant cover type, whereas the 

Douglas-fir treatments are designed to convert Douglas-fir to a ponderosa pine cover type, 

thereby moving the landscape toward HRV.

3. Contribute to stand density objectives for the LJCRP. The entire 31 acres of proposed 

treatment in OFSS are designed to reduce density to low stand density. Low stand density is 

substantially below HRV (Table 27). In areas with wildlife habitat connectivity objectives, 

treatments would ensure maintenance of cover objectives.

2. The forest plan in some areas would need to be amended, if necessary, to allow tree harvests 

that restore old growth characteristics, natural ecological processes, or habitat for old growth 

dependent species in Old Growth Preserves (Forest Plan Management Area 15).

Research Natural Areas 

The WWNF forest plan included analysis of, and recommendations for, the establishment of the 

proposed RNAs evaluated in this DEIS. As part of the establishment records (FSM 4063), a 

forest plan amendment would need to be prepared to change designation of the Horse Pasture 

Ridge and Haystack Rock “proposed” research natural areas (RNA) to “established” RNAs..

Changes to the proposed action since scoping 

The original forest vegetation treatment acre estimates in the proposed action published in the 

federal register on January 9, 2014 were potential treatment acres based on the units documented 

in the Wallowa County watershed assessment (Wallowa County 2014), plus stand improvement 

acres identified by the Forest Service interdisciplinary team. The original road network 

treatments were based on needs identified in existing decision documents. Since then, the team 

has: 

 Mapped the RHCAs, and determined needs to meet riparian management objectives

 Completed a preliminary plan for logging systems

 Completed a wildlife habitat assessment

 Completed an old forest connectivity assessment

 Corrected minor errors to the database in terms of potential vegetation group, cover type, 

structure and density class.

 Completed a roads analysis

All of these items caused the potential forest treatment acres to be reduced to those described in 

this DEIS. The roads analysis identified additional road treatments that would be needed to 

move the landscape closer to forest plan standards for wildlife habitat as they relate to open road 

density. 

Decision Framework

The proposed action and action alternatives are designed to achieve the project purpose and 

need, generally within the current constraints of accelerated restoration, policies, laws, 

regulations, and available resources. However, where necessary, the project decision could result 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

30 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

in amendment of the WWNF Forest Plan. This decision will not preclude subsequent decisions 

designed to complement this project, or fill gaps in achievement of comprehensive ecological 

restoration, or other goals and objectives. 

The WWNF Supervisor is the Forest Service official responsible for deciding whether to select 

the actions as proposed (Alternative 2), select one of the other action alternatives, select an 

alternative that combines attributes from the alternatives or another variation, or, select no action 

(Alternative 1). The decision includes determining: (1) the location and treatment methods for 

restoration activities; (2) design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring requirements; (3) the 

components that will be included in the monitoring and adaptive management plan; (4) the 

components that will be included in the implementation checklist and plan; (5) the estimated 

products or timber volume to make available from the project; and (6) whether the forest plan 

will be amended. The PNW Research Station Director must concur with a decision to establish 

Research Natural Areas.

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2014, and a legal 

notice of the comment period was published in the newspaper of record (Baker City Herald). The 

NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from January 9-February 10, 2014. In addition, 

as part of the public involvement process, the agency made presentations at collaborative and 

other public meetings, public workshops, and field trips. A coalition of five place-based 

collaboratives3 met in July 2013 in Baker City, Oregon to help assess the strengths and 

weaknesses of potential projects to be undertaken by the ERS interdisciplinary team, including 

the LJCRP. For more information, see the analysis of public scoping in the project record. A 

number of public meetings organized by the Wallowa Whitman Forest Restoration Collaborative 

in February, April, and May 2014 in-part focused on scoping results, methodologies used in 

alternative development, and effects analyses. A public field trip was held in the project area in 

June 2014.

Using the comments from the public, Wallowa County, other agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe 

(see Issues section), the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. 

A public open house will be held during the formal comment period for the DEIS.

Issues

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. 

Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the 

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level 

decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 

 

3

 Collaborative groups working with the Forest Service on land management projects and issues in the 

Blue Mountains include the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative, Umatilla Forest Collaborative 

Group, Harney County Forest Restoration Collaborative, Blue Mountain Forest Partnership, and Ochoco 

Forest Restoration Collaborative. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 31 

1506.3)...”. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant may be found in the project record. Also see “other considerations”, in Chapter 2.

As for significant issues, the Forest Service identified the following issues during scoping:

1. There is disagreement about the best network of roads that will allow for recreation, 

harvesting forest products, fire management, accessing private inholdings, administration, 

and other uses, while also reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts that roads may have 

on forest and riparian resources.

2. There is disagreement about which vegetation treatments will best restore forest structure 

and composition toward HRV. In particular, there is disagreement about the size and species 

of trees to retain or harvest, and how to best minimize impacts from harvest and prescribed 

burning on forest and riparian resources.

3. There is disagreement about which types of forest management is needed, if any in Old 

Growth Preservation areas (Management Area 15), inventoried roadless areas, and potential 

wilderness areas (PWAs) to move toward HRV. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

32 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the LJCRP. It includes a 

description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a 

clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the 

information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., 

helicopter logging versus the use of skid trails) and some of the information is based upon the 

environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of 

erosion caused by helicopter logging versus skidding). 

Alternative Development Process 

Alternatives for this project were designed to provide a range of possible actions. Vegetation and 

road treatment designs were designed to address the purpose and need, and forest plan 

amendments were proposed where necessary to meet the purpose and need. The USFS in 

coordination with Wallowa County, and the Nez Perce Tribe developed the range of alternatives, 

project design features, and mitigation measures presented in this chapter based on the purpose 

and need for action and key issues described in chapter 1. Forest plan goals and objectives, 

standards and guidelines, requirements under the Endangered Species Act and other Federal and 

state laws and regulations also influenced the development of alternatives. In total, seven 

alternatives were considered, four were eliminated from detailed study and three were analyzed 

in detail. The ID team recommended, and the responsible official approved two action 

alternatives and a no action alternative.

All of the LJCRP alternatives are consistent with the 1990 WWNF forest plan, as amended, 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 

and the Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan (HCNRA CMP, 1996). All 

proposed fuel treatments (prescribed fire and preparation and treatment of activity fuels) are 

consistent with Forest Plan standards as well as all applicable state and federal laws and 

regulations. See the Clean Air Act disclosure in Appendix B and air quality sections of the DEIS 

in terms of compliance with the State of Oregon requirements for smoke management. Appendix 

B contains forest plan direction and guidance, and other policies applicable to this project.

Issues driving alternatives 

Public and internal scoping identified three significant planning issues that drove the 

development of the range of alternatives:

1. There is disagreement about the best network of roads that will allow for recreation, 

harvesting forest products, fire management, accessing private inholdings, administration, 

and other uses, while also reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts that roads may have 

on forest and riparian resources.

2. There is disagreement about which vegetation treatments will best restore forest structure 

and composition toward HRV. In particular, there is disagreement about the size and species 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 33 

of trees to retain or harvest, and how to best minimize impacts from harvest and prescribed 

burning on forest and riparian resources.

3. There is disagreement about which types of forest management is needed, if any in Old 

Growth Preservation areas (Management Area 15), inventoried roadless areas, and potential 

wilderness areas (PWAs) to move toward HRV. 

Other considerations 

Wildlife Habitat 

All action alternatives would aim to conserve or restore over the long term functional wildlife 

corridors for species dependent on large tree, closed canopy forest structure, within the context 

of the project purpose and need to move the landscape toward the range of natural variation in 

forested structural stages. In addition, this EIS will analyze the relative effects of the range of 

alternatives on wildlife habitat for management indicator species (MIS), threatened, endangered 

and sensitive species, and other focal species. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

All action alternatives would aim to foster the re-introduction of planned and unplanned fire 

where it would be ecologically beneficial. In addition, this EIS will analyze the relative effects of 

the range of alternatives on fire behavior, recreation values at risk of unwanted fire, departures in 

forest structure and composition between current and reference conditions, wildlife habitat, 

threatened and endangered aquatic and terrestrial species, aquatic and riparian habitat, grassland 

extent, forage availability for domestic livestock, dead and down wood, snags, fuels, and wildlife 

habitat.

Economic and Social Actions 

Almost all issues and considerations have an economic facet. Analysis of the relative economic 

effects between alternatives will be part of this EIS, and the economic effects of the alternatives 

will in-turn inform the project decision. Scoping did not reveal economic conflicts or significant 

issues within the scope of the project purpose need.

Livestock Grazing 

The EIS will analyze the relative effects of the range of alternatives on forage availability and 

productivity, and grassland extent. Scoping did not reveal significant grazing issues within the 

scope of the project purpose need.

Watershed Management and Aquatic Habitat 

This EIS will analyze the relative effects of the range of alternatives on aquatic species (both 

listed and management indicator species), aquatic habitat conditions, RHCAs, and the degree of 

watershed restoration. As a part of alternative road networks analyzed under this EIS, the effects 

of aquatic organism passage restoration activities are analyzed as a common element of all 

alternatives.

Climate change adaptation 

All action alternatives include management actions that would improve the ability of national 

forest resources to adapt to a changing climate. The alternatives vary in the types and amount of 

actions. Activities for addressing climate change include the following:
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

34 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

 Conserving species and habitats threatened directly or indirectly by climate change, 

enhancing landscape connectivity, and reducing barriers to species movement to facilitate 

the ability of species to move across the landscape with shifts in habitat distributions 

 Reducing the risk of uncharacteristically severe fires and insects and disease disturbances 

through forest thinning 

 Reducing the risk of increased nonnative species infestations through reductions in the 

extent of current nonnative species and prevention of future infestations 

 Reducing potential increases in stream temperatures through riparian buffers and stream 

restoration and maintenance of effective stream shade 

 Reducing risk of water quality degradation while increasing aquatic connectivity by 

decreasing road density, reducing hydrological connectivity of the road system, replacing 

culverts, and road closure, realignment or decommissioning 

Heritage resources 

All alternatives strive to meet desired conditions set forth in the WWNF plan and would comply 

with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. The goal for heritage resources is to 

“provide for the identification, protection, preservation, enhancement and interpretation of 

prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of local, regional or National 

significance so as to preserve their historical, cultural, and scientific values for the benefit of the 

public” (4-20). 

Learning and adaptive management 

Adaptive management is an interactive learning process producing improved understanding and 

improved management over time, with an emphasis on uncertainty about resource responses to 

management actions and the value of reducing that uncertainty. It is an integral part of 

implementation and will be addressed as part of the implementation of this project. Collaborators 

and the Forest Service will work together using the stated goals and objectives in this document 

to develop specific monitoring questions and implement monitoring strategies as part of a 

forthcoming implementation guide.

Franklin et al. (2013) give four key elements of monitoring:

1. Acknowledge uncertainty

Key LJCRP assumptions include:

 Silvicultural treatments will make treated stands more resilient to uncharacteristic insect, 

disease, and wildfire disturbances

 Understory productivity will increase in stands that are thinned and burned

 Wildlife habitat will improve as a result of silvicultural treatments and road closures

 Water quality and fish habitat will improve as a result of silvicultural treatments and road 

closures

 Other LJCRP project uncertainty concerning social/tribal/economic issues such as:

o Removal of trees >21” under certain circumstances as part of a forest restoration 

strategy
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 35 

o Restoration treatments in Management Area 15 or Inventoried Roadless Areas

o Increased forest management related jobs and economic stability within Wallowa 

County

2. Develop testable hypotheses about policy success

3. Search for information to test the hypotheses

 What data are already being collected to test hypotheses?

 What data can be easily and efficiently gathered to test multiple hypotheses?

 What data can be collected remotely?

 How can the proposed Research Natural Area within the project area be used?

4. Gather information to test hypotheses

 Stands exams prior to and following treatment are conducted in areas representing various 

treatments, to determine diseases/extent, tree density, mortality due to planned and 

unplanned fire.

 Understory productivity is measured before and after treatments and noxious weed 

inventories are conducted

 Quality and quantity of MIS habitat in representative areas is documented before and after 

treatments 

 Stream sedimentation and temperature monitoring by subwatershed 

4. Develop an institutional mechanism that ensures that the hypotheses will undergo 

periodic, fair minded review and management policies can change as a result. 

Franklin et al (2013) note that it is often difficult for people and organizations to admit that 

policies, in which they are invested, have not been successful in achieving their intended goals; 

and that people with investments in failed policy will seek favorable assessments, rather than 

changing a failed policy. External review by collaborators is suggested.

 Review and revise monitoring hypotheses with collaborators

 Employ multi-party monitoring

Alternatives Considered in Detail

A total of three alternatives were analyzed in detail: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), 

the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and Alternative 3. The key features of each 

alternative relative to the significant issues are compared in Table 11. A quantitative comparison 

of alternative treatments is provided in Table 13, and in the list of actions common to all 

alternatives, below. Maps 9-10 show vegetation treatment locations and road networks by 

alternative.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

36 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and serves as a baseline for evaluating other alternatives 

during the effects analysis for proposed actions. The LJCRP would not be implemented under 

Alternative 1. No management actions would be taken to influence the direction or rate of 

change for moving existing conditions toward desired condition. Current activities such as 

permitted grazing, dispersed recreation use, fire protection, and scheduled road maintenance 

would continue within the project area. The existing land and resource conditions would be 

otherwise unaffected, except through natural processes. It is assumed that any previous decision 

not yet implemented would be implemented within the planning horizon.

Alternative 2 – The Modified Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action, which is described in Chapter 1. Alternative 2 is the 

preferred alternative.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, except there would not be commercial thinning 

in RHCAs, IRAs, and MA15. No trees greater than 21” would be harvested, except for safety or 

administrative reasons. In IRAs, there would also be no non-commercial treatments. PACFISH 

buffers would be followed where category 4 RHCAs are present within commercial units. Noncommercial thinning could occur in category 4 RHCAs outside old forest multi-story and old 

forest single story structures (OFMS and OFSS) in accordance with the Blue Mountains Project 

Design Criteria (PDCs). The road network aims to meet public access needs identified by 

Wallowa County. Relative to existing conditions, post implementation road density condition 

would be static for fisheries objectives and wildlife objectives. Road density objectives as stated 

in the 1998 Biological Opinion for the Forest Plan would be met for Snake River steelhead.

Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 3 

The Forest Service proposes amending the forest plan under the 1982 planning regulations 

following Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12 section 25) and Manual direction (FSM 

1926.5) direction. The following forest plan amendments would be needed to implement 

Alternative 3:

1. Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan)).

Alternative 3 includes about 1,201 acres of treatment designed to transform old forest multi-story 

conditions (which is above HRV in the project area), into old forest single story, which is below 

HRV (see the existing and desired conditions for vegetation, above). Alternative 3 includes 20 

acres of thinning in old forest single story conditions to maintain or enhance existing conditions. 

This treatment would not change the overall LOS structural conditions. Therefore, this proposed 

treatment meets the intent of Scenario A because there will be no net loss of LOS as a result of 

proposed treatments. The understory thinning treatments proposed for these stands are designed 

to address species composition, stand density, insect susceptibility, climate change adaptation, 

and fire risk considerations. Specifically, they are designed to:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 37 

1. Improve tree vigor, and resistance to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk (see 

Chapter 3), thereby ensuring maintenance and persistence of the large-tree component into 

the future. Reestablishing a large-tree component would also increase resiliency to climate 

change, and the safety and effectiveness of prescribed fire applications. 

2. Contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP. Of the 20 acres of proposed 

treatments in OFSS condition in Alternative 3, about 14 acres occurs in stands with a 

ponderosa pine (PP) cover type (PP is below HRV); the remaining 6 acres occurs in stands 

with a Douglas-fir (DF) cover type (DF is above HRV). The ponderosa pine treatments are 

designed to maintain ponderosa pine as the dominant cover type, whereas the Douglas-fir 

treatments are designed to convert Douglas-fir to a ponderosa pine cover type, thereby 

moving the landscape toward HRV.

3. Contribute to stand density objectives for the LJCRP. The entire 20 acres of proposed 

treatment in OFSS are designed to reduce density to low stand density. Low stand density is 

substantially below HRV (Table 27). In areas with wildlife habitat connectivity objectives, 

treatments would ensure maintenance of cover objectives. In areas with wildlife habitat 

connectivity objectives, treatments would ensure maintenance of cover objectives. 

Table 11. Descriptions of planning alternatives for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Alternative Restoration Treatments Management Areas Road Network

Alt 1

(No Action)

No management actions 

would be taken to 

influence the direction or 

rate of change for moving 

existing conditions toward 

desired condition. Current 

activities such as 

permitted grazing, 

dispersed recreation use, 

fire protection, and 

scheduled road 

maintenance would 

continue within the project 

area. 

No management actions 

would be taken to influence 

the direction or rate of 

change for moving existing 

conditions toward desired 

condition. Current activities 

such as permitted grazing, 

dispersed recreation use, 

fire protection, and 

scheduled road 

maintenance would 

continue within the project 

area. 

No management actions 

would be taken to influence 

the direction or rate of change 

for moving existing conditions 

toward desired condition. 

Current activities such as 

permitted grazing, dispersed 

recreation use, fire protection, 

and scheduled road 

maintenance would continue 

within the project area. 

Alt 2

(Proposed 

Action)

Trees greater than 21” 

could be harvested, within 

the context of restoring 

forest resilience, safety or 

administration. 

Treatment extent 

generally based on priority 

treatment needs to move 

the landscape toward 

HRV.

Mechanical treatments 

would occur in some 

designated old growth (MA 

15), inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs), potential 

wilderness areas (PWAs) 

and category 44riparian 

habitat conservation areas 

(RHCAs) that bisect 

restoration treatment units 

not currently in old forest 

structure (OFSS/OFMS). 

No treatments in large, 

closed canopied forests in 

MA15 in moist forest.

RHCA treatments based on 

attaining riparian 

management objectives.

Category 4 stream 

Road actions approved under 

existing decisions would 

continue to be implemented. 

Additional roads identified 

through roads analysis that 

could be closed or 

decommissioned to move 

wildlife habitat closer to forest 

plan road density standards 

would be treated

 

4

 Category 4 RHCAs are intermittent, non-fish bearing 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

38 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Alternative Restoration Treatments Management Areas Road Network

treatments would follow 

upslope treatment 

prescriptions and have 

variable width (25 foot 

minimum) no-treatment, no 

equipment stream buffers. 

No treatments would occur 

in Category 1 and 2 

streams, except for 58

acres of treatment specific 

to Swamp Creek. Small 

diameter thinning could 

occur in category 1, 2 

and 4 RHCAs as per 

Blue Mountains Project 

Design Criteria 5.

Alt 3

Similar to Alternative 2, 

except no trees greater 

than 21” would be 

harvested, except for 

safety or administration.

No treatments in MA15,

IRAs, and PWAs. 

Small diameter thinning 

could occur in category 1, 2 

and 4 RHCAs as per Blue

Mountains Project Design 

Criteria.

No other vegetation 

treatments would occur in 

Category 1, 2 and 4 

streams.

The road network meets 

public access needs as 

identified by Wallowa County. 

Activities Common to All Action Alternatives 

All action alternatives would use the same suite of forest vegetation treatment types (Table 12). 

The design of forest vegetation management prescriptions would use the “individuals, clumps 

and openings” (ICO) approach (Franklin et al. 2013b) to achieve trends in forest stand-level 

spatial heterogeneity toward HRV.

Table 12. Description of forest vegetation treatment types 

Treatment Types Treatment Description

Savanna Reestablishment of grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands 

that have conifer encroachment.

Single Tree Selection (STS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present

Group Selection (GS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present; 1⁄2 to 4 

acre group selection to initiate new cohort of seral species (PP/WL).

Intermediate Treatment (IT) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present with 

emphasis on isolating mistletoe infections and creating conditions 

 

5

 National Marine Fisheries Service letter of concurrence for implementation of the Blue Mountains 

Province Expedited Process Instrument for Programmatic Informal Consultation with Project Design 

Criteria on the Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests, and Bureau of Land 

Management Vale and Prineville Districts, dated November 1, 2013. NMFS No. NWR-2013-10339, 

Portland, OR. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 39 

Treatment Types Treatment Description

that reduce intensification of infection.

Stand Improvement (SI) ICO variable density thinning within young, post disturbance stands.

The following activities and guidelines would be common to all action alternatives:

 During tree harvest, favor leaving early seral tree species

 Achieve trend in patch size distribution toward HRV

 Planned ignition priority areas are identified for the action alternatives using the same 

criteria, although acres of high, medium and low priority differ between the alternatives. 

High priority areas in both action alternatives represent the acres that are treated with either 

harvest or stand improvement (SI), or are in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

 Treat fuels associated with silvicultural treatments (activity fuels) using mastication, 

removal, pile and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, prescribed fire, or other means)

 Retain and protect large trees of early seral species and trees with old growth physical 

characteristics consistent with historical reference conditions

 Project design criteria for forest treatments in wildlife corridors in moist upland forest would 

retain at least 50% residual canopy closure, where available

 Project design criteria for forest treatments in wildlife corridors in dry upland forest would 

retain at least 40% residual canopy closure, where available

 For stands identified as moist, large tree, closed canopy, maintain an overall stand minimum 

canopy cover of 60%, and do not harvest any trees >=21” dbh

 The majority of road-related activities would make use of the existing system road network 

 Appropriate actions needed to manage the transportation system would be based on a roads 

analysis 

 Roads proposed for any type of closure will focus on improving resource and habitat 

conditions

 Establish two Research Natural Areas (Horse Pasture Ridge (338 acres); Haystack Rock 

(425 acres))

 Maintain and enhance culturally significant resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive 

plant and animal species habitat

 Provide project design criteria, standards, guidelines, and/or tactics to reduce the spread of 

invasive species

 Provide project design criteria, standards and/or guidelines for tree planting and conservation 

of advance regeneration of early seral tree species currently existing on the landscape

 Develop a monitoring strategy to support adaptive management through time

 Road maintenance and hazard tree cutting or removal

 Provide for aquatic organism passage at 6 sites in the LJCRP area
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

40 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this project, duplicative of 

the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause 

unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but 

dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized. 

Do not establish the RNAs 

Concerns about the establishment of RNAs in the project area do not represent a significant 

issue. The rationales provided for amending the Forest Plan to remove these RNAs as proposed 

are unsupported by data, existing conditions, or science. The Forest Plan requires that these areas 

are managed as RNAs until establishment. 

Remove diameter/age limit for all species 

Commenters during scoping expressed the need to remove diameter and age limitations from 

silvicultural thinning prescriptions. Due to the disruption of the disturbance regime, some climax 

species, such as grand fir and in some instances Douglas-fir occupy sites that would be 

dominated by more fire adapted species. In these instances, we also recognize the need to thin 

these climax species, regardless of size, in order to move the landscape towards the desired 

condition. However, the latest science does not support the wide-spread removal of large or old 

fire adapted species to hasten the transition back to a more fire adapted ecosystem. 

Consider less prescribed fire 

During scoping, some commenters expressed concerns that prescribed fire could adversely 

impact grazing, merchantable timber and special forest products. As part of the project design 

features and the project’s implementation plan, we will design a set of protocol that must be 

followed prior to, during and after implementation to coordinate with grazing permittees, so the 

disruption to their operations are minimal. Additionally, prescriptions and implementation timing 

will be designed so that impacts to forest products will be minimized or avoided all together. 

Adjust treatments in the Proposed Action for resource concerns (“Alternative 4”) 

An alternative was conceptualized that took the vegetation treatments from the proposed action, 

and the road network from Alternative 3, and adjusted vegetation and road treatments based on 

resource concerns. Preliminary evaluation showed that, to a large degree, the primary resource 

concerns were already covered under Forest Plan direction (e.g. riparian habitat conservation 

area management objectives, connectivity, and road density). The majority of resource concerns 

envisioned under this alternative are incorporated into Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action). 

Under accelerated time frames and looking to create NEPA efficiencies, choosing not to develop 

this alternative in detail allows for targeted comments from the public to be the key driver for 

development of any other alternatives within the range analyzed. 

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in 

the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 41 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Relative activity levels for the 

Proposed Action are provided for comparative purposes only. ActionAlso see Table 64 (Chapter 

3). 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

42 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 13. Comparison of restoration actions and effects by alternative 

Criteria Metric

Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Proposed6

Action 

(PA)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternativ

e 3

Group selection Acres 0 3,000 2,576 879

Intermediate treatment Acres 0 400 336 189

Meadow/Savanna Acres 0 800 741 285

Stand improvement Acres 0 5,000 5,453 2,613

Single tree selection Acres 0 13,800 12,220 8,812

Single Tree selection - old 

forest Acres 0 2,000 793 0

Total mechanical forest 

treatments Acres 0 25,000 22,119 12,778

High priority area for 

prescribed burning Acres 0 <90,000 48,577 46,480

RHCA treatment Acres 0 3,000 2,571 749

Cat 1 RHCA treatments Acres 0 58 58 0

Cat 4 RHCA treatments Acres 0 1,822 1,822 0

SI RHCA treatments Acres 0 749 749 749

Forest treatments in IRAs Acres 0 5,488 5,488 0

Total open USFS roads Miles 219 219 198 221

Aquatic organism passage 

improvements # culverts 0 6 6 6

Road construction Miles 0 1.5 0 0

Road reconstruction Miles 0 24 82.6 82.6

Temporary road 

construction Miles 0 26 12.6 12.6

Roads in RHCAs - Lower 

Joseph Miles 17.3 N/A 15.7 16

Roads in RHCAs - Upper 

Joseph Miles 38.2 N/A 38 38

Total stream crossings 

Lower Joseph Creek Miles 205 N/A 187 189

Total stream crossings 

Upper Joseph Creek Miles 280 N/A 277 277

Total road density Lower 

Joseph

Miles/Sq 

Mile 1.30 N/A 1.10 1.20

Total road density Upper 

Joseph

Miles/Sq 

Mile 1.10 N/A 1.10 1.50

Open road density7–

Broady Creek (MA1)

Miles/Sq 

Mile 1.6 N/A 1.6 2.7

Open road density –

Cougar Creek (MA1)

Miles/Sq

Mile 3.7 N/A 3.2 3.5

 

6

 The proposed action published in the federal register and used in scoping is provided here for 

comparison to the modified proposed action, which was analyzed in detail in this DEIS. 

7

 The six subwatersheds not listed here do not substantially differ in open road density (MA1). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 43 

Criteria Metric

Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Proposed6

Action 

(PA)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternativ

e 3

Open road density – Lower 

Swamp Creek (MA1)

Miles/Sq 

Mile 2.7 N/A 2.7 3.0

Seasonal open road density 

– Sumac Creek

Miles/Sq 

Mile 1.4 N/A 0.9 1.1

Restoration jobs # 0 N/A 55 34

Commercial thinning in 

wildlife connectivity 

corridors

% of 

corridors 

thinned

0 N/A 34 17

Timber volume removed million

cubic feet 0 N/A 10.4 6.6

Movement toward need to 

reduce stand densities

Departure 

from HRV

Remains 

outside 

HRV

N/A

Moves 

toward HRV 

more than 

alt 3

Moves 

toward 

HRV less 

than 2

Movement toward need to

increase early seral species

Departure 

from HRV

Remains 

outside 

HRV

N/A

Early seral 

tree species 

move 

toward HRV 

more than 

alt 3

Early seral 

tree species 

move 

toward 

HRV, but 

less than alt 

2

Movement toward need to

increase large tree 

characteristics

Departure 

from HRV

Remains 

outside 

HRV

N/A

Large tree 

abundance 

greater than 

alts 1 and 3

Large tree 

abundance 

greater than 

alts 1 and 

less than 2

Movement toward need to

reduce uncharacteristic fire

Departure 

from HRV

Remains 

outside 

HRV

N/A

High 

severity fire 

closer to 

HRV

High 

severity 

fire closer 

to HRV, 

but more 

area burns 

than alt2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 45 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

Affected Environment

The LJCRP lies on the eastern side of the Blue Mountains ecoregion, which extends from the 

Redmond area of Central Oregon, to Hells Canyon on the Snake River. The Blue Mountains are 

lower and more open than the neighboring Cascades and Northern Rocky Mountains. 

The most distinctive characteristics of the LJCRP area include:

 Joseph Creek, which is the primary drainage for the analysis area and is fed by several other 

minor tributaries before terminating in the Grande Ronde River, less than five miles before it 

meets the Snake River. Joseph Creek is a designated stronghold8

by the Nez Perce tribe for 

Snake River steelhead (Nez Perce Tribe 2013).

 Vegetation mosaics of dry and moist forest, ponderosa pine savanna, and grassland. 

Vegetation displays moderate departure from natural ranges of variation in structure and 

composition.

 Canyons with high runoff potential, capped by more stable and highly productive incised 

plateaus with higher water infiltration, and lower runoff potential. 

 Rich mollisol soils, a temperate climate, and historically frequent low severity fire regimes, 

which in the absence of fire suppression, naturally favor largely open, fire-adapted forests 

and grasslands.

 One fish species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

 One aquatic and five plant species listed as sensitive on the USFS Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list.

 Populations of big game, such as Rocky Mountain elk, and habitat for other wildlife species 

of interest such as pileated woodpecker, American marten, northern goshawk, and whiteheaded woodpecker. 

 Invasive plants, including state listed noxious weeds such as, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea 

diffusa) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), as well as invasive annual grasses 

such as ventenata and cheatgrass. 

 Approximately 42 miles of designated Forest Service trails, and 406 miles of NFS roads.

 Eighteen domestic grazing allotments and sources of wood fiber for the forest products 

industry.

 Remoteness from human population centers, and relatively low visitation. Aside from use by 

domestic grazing permittees, human use occurs mainly during the hunting season and 

consists primarily of horseback riding, hiking, firewood cutting, and motorized vehicle use. 

 

8 Designated strongholds represent areas with historic high production, focal areas for recent tribal harvest, and are 

viewed as essential for long term population persistence. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

46 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

The physical environment 

Climate 

The LJCRP experiences annual precipitation totals generally below 20 inches per year. Highest 

normal precipitation totals tend to be in winter and late spring. Monthly precipitation distribution 

is relatively uniform throughout the year. Drought is a common occurrence, and conditions are 

generally moisture-limited for tree growth. Annual temperature variations tend to be relatively 

large. Mean maximum temperatures are mostly in the 80's (0F) in summer months and in the 30's 

in winter. The dry, clear summer days are usually followed by cool nights; nighttime lows 

generally average in the 40's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2014). 

Climate across the project area and the greater Blue Mountains is changing, and these changes 

will influence local ecosystems and their role in human communities. Average annual 

temperatures in the Pacific Northwest have risen by 1.5 °F since 1900. Since 1950, temperatures 

have risen at twice the rate of increase that occurred before 1950 (Mote 2003a). Temperatures 

are expected to increase by 0.2 to 1 °F per decade throughout the 21st century. 

Based on average data for Blue Mountains (Oregon climate zone 8), average precipitation is 

lower since 1970 for every month except April, July, and August. Cool season (October through 

March) precipitation is lower by 14 percent; warm season precipitation (April through 

September) is lower by 2 percent; July and August precipitation is higher by 27 percent.

Decline in April 1 snowpack - all but 2 of 34 measuring stations have recorded declines in April 

1 snowpack since 1970, with an average decline of 24 percent and a range of 5 to minus-73 

percent (Gecy 2010). Snowpack declines are expected to continue across the Blue Mountains as 

temperatures throughout the region increase. Continued warming is expected to result in more 

winter precipitation falling as rain rather than snow and less winter snow accumulation.

The projected increase in air temperatures and the resulting effect on snow pack and timing and 

magnitude of rainfall is predicted to have considerable impact on natural resources and their 

management in the region and in the Blue Mountains. Changing climates in the next several 

decades may further complicate fire management by increasing temperatures, fire season length, 

and size of annual burned area (McKenzie et al. 2004, Westerling et al. 2006, Cansler and 

McKenzie 2014). Projected increases in temperature will likely result in an extended fire season 

and late season drought. Fires will likely occur earlier and later than current and reference fire 

regime conditions. The total area burned will also likely increase regionally including in the 

Blue Mountains and the Lower Joseph Project area. Fire size, duration and severity could 

increase and result in uncharacteristic changes in distribution and amount of dominant cover 

type.

The current trends in climate change will lead to prolonging the late season drought leading to 

increased occurrence of fire potential coupled with fire suppression policies could lead to larger 

more severe and uncharacteristic fires particularly most obvious in the moisture limited and 

dryer moist upland forest plant associations. Recent drought susceptibility modeling has 

developed maps highlighting the most at risk areas of drought that can help identify increased 

risk for disrupted disturbance processes with increased severity. Drought, along with other 

biophysical factors, also influences susceptibility and vulnerability to insect and disease 

disturbances (Hessburg et al. 1999, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Schmitt and Powell 2005).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 47 

Increasing air temperatures, decline in snowpack and changes in the magnitude and timing of 

rainfall are expected to reduce summer streamflow, increase cool season streamflow, and 

increase stream temperatures at least during the next century throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

These changes in streamflow and temperature have the potential to directly impact aquatic 

habitat and organisms. Climate change may affect water storage and seasonal water availability 

in climate change scenarios that reflect a warming climate (Mantua 2010). Snow pack will 

decrease in these scenarios, thus reducing the intensity of peak flows. The Droughty Soils Index 

analysis, conducted by Oregon State University (2014), predicts the susceptibility of soils within 

the LJCRP analysis area (Map 11). Their results indicate that soils within the proposed treatment 

area are particularly susceptible to a warming climate. Moving the landscape to a more resilient 

species composition and structure, described in the Desired Conditions, would help respond to 

predicted climate change scenarios. Moving the vegetation towards the historic range of 

variation and creating a more fire resilient landscape will mitigate some of the effects of a 

seasonal reduction in water storage. 

Surface erosion and subsequent sedimentation would have the potential to increase as a result of 

larger more intense disturbances (Nearing 2004).

Ecosystems are affected not only by climate change but also through carbon sequestration (e.g., 

plant growth) and greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., fire, organic matter decomposition, and soil 

respiration). Ecosystem functions also directly influence the global carbon cycle.

Forest management can offset greenhouse gas emissions by increasing capacity for carbon 

uptake and storage in biomass, wood products, and soils. Forests of the Blue Mountains 

currently store substantial carbon stocks. Forest management activities and disturbances, such as 

wildland fire, can either increase or reduce carbon stocks over time, depending on their type, 

frequency, and severity. In general, current Forest Service management activities are unlikely to 

affect carbon stocks substantially in the Blue Mountains.

Carbon is also stored in wood products that are harvested from Oregon’s forests, but wood 

products are unlikely to provide for substantial increases in stored carbon under current 

manufacturing, use, and disposal practices. Management activities carried out in response to 

climate change, such as thinning of forests to reduce risk of stand replacing wildland fire or 

insects disturbances, or to reduce moisture stress on the remaining trees, may reduce carbon 

stocks in the short term, but can have long-term benefits for carbon sequestration (Zhang et al. 

2010).

Geomorphology and Soils

The LJCRP is within the Blue Mountains physiographic province and is contained within the 

Lower Grande Ronde river subbasin (Map 3). The LJCRP is characterized by plateaus and 

canyons, founded by Columbia River Basalts and capped with a mosaic of volcanic ash and loess 

deposits (Bennett and Noller, Draft). Steep washboard canyons in the lower elevations feed into 

Joseph Creek and are less stable than the plateaus and have a high runoff potential. These 

canyons are capped by stable and highly productive incised plateaus in the east and angulate 

plateaus in the southernmost extent (Map 12). These plateaus have much higher water 

infiltration, lower runoff potential, and contribute much less sediment to the hydrologic system. 

If defined channels are present, they are typically first order (small tributaries with intermittent 

flow) and field observations indicate that they are more likely to support upland vegetation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

48 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Soils within the LJCRP analysis area are dominated by mollisols (Map 13). These soils have 

organic rich surface layers associated with ponderosa pine and are indicators that widely spaced 

forest vegetation with significant grass and forb understory occupy, or once occupied these areas. 

Frequent fire was an important mechanism in the development of these organic rich soils which 

dually maintained an open understory (Abella et al. 2013). Due to the forage production 

potential and shallow slope gradients on plateaus, mollic integrades also provide high quality 

range and wildlife habitat. Andisols make up the balance of the soils in the analysis area. These 

soils are formed in volcanic ash, are young and generally have a much higher water holding 

capacity which makes them some of the most productive soils to support forested vegetation in 

the Pacific Northwest. Loess derived from the Palouse, Mazama and Glacier Peak ash deposits 

supplement the soil complexes in the project area (Johnson 1987) (Table 14).

Table 14. Generalized vegetation by soil type for the LJCRP 

Residual Soils Ash/Andisols Loess/Mollic intergrades

bluebunch wheatgrass grand fir Idaho fescue

xeric shrublands subalpine fir Douglas-fir

lithosols ponderosa pine

ponderosa pine

Soil productivity is closely related to ash and loess content of soils. Ash soils have high water 

holding capacity, high infiltration rates, low compactability, high detachability, and a 

concentration of nutrients in the upper surface layers. Loess soils hold a large amount of 

nutrients (high in base saturation) and are high in nutrient reserve. Productivity of plant 

associations found on loess soils such as Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass associations have nearly 

three times the dry weight biomass of plant associations such as bluebunch wheatgrasssandbergs bluegrass which grow on residual soils (Johnson 1987). 

Soil water holding capacity has historically been extremely important in the Wallowa-Snake 

province, where summer precipitation is typically very low. Rock fragment content, depth of 

surface soil material, rooting depth, and presence of clay all influence soil water holding capacity 

and in turn contribute to vegetation composition (Johnson and Simon 1987).

Approximately, 70% of the soils on NFS lands within the analysis area have an ash component 

which indicates higher productivity but suggests that many of the soils will be susceptible to 

compaction. Soil compaction or an increase in soil bulk density, can alter the hydrologic function 

of a site and have negative impacts on productivity. It decreases a soil’s infiltration rate which 

leads to increased overland flow, increased surface erosion, and, potentially, increased sediment 

delivered to creeks. Dry meadows and scablands occur on plateau tops and ridges and are 

scattered throughout the project area but are not usually included in harvest units. Dry meadows 

and scablands are defined as having shallow, rocky soils with drought tolerant plants (Johnson 

1987). These soils have more rock and clay than soils influenced by loess or volcanic ash. When 

located on concave surfaces, these soils are often saturated until mid to late July. Disturbance 

tends to disrupt the biological soil crust (BSC) resulting in exposed bare ground, loosened 

surface rock, and a decline in principle grass species. Loss of BSC can take years (decades) to 

re-establish. When you lose BSC, increases in non-native annual grasses and other invasive nonnative plant species can happen more easliy.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 49 

The soils and geology in the subject analysis area are not prone to frequent mass movement, 

though if there is a big enough rainfall event, debris flows may occur. A review of the Statewide 

Landslide Information Database from the Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals 

Industries indicate no record of historic landslides within the analysis area (Industries 2014). 

Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) directly impact soil productivity by displacement, 

compaction, loss of organic matter, rutting, erosion and loss of porosity. Land management 

activities, such as road construction and heavy equipment operation have the greatest potential to 

create detrimental soil conditions. Land managers can reasonably predict that helicopter and 

skyline harvest activities will not degrade soil conditions below acceptable tolerances (Reeves et 

al. 2011). Therefore, temporary roads and ground based harvest activities will be the focus and 

measure of detrimental soil conditions.

A review of historic harvest activities in units proposed for management in the LJCRP area 

indicate 20,000 acres of previous ground based harvest. Detailed investigations of similar units 

in the area (Puderbaugh and Kahler Environmental Assessments) indicate pre-treatment DSCs 

ranging up to 20% with a median distribution of approximately 8%. An evaluation of aerial 

photography and field conditions for the LJCRP area indicate similar conditions. Mitigation 

measures are incorporated into project design to manage DSCs within the allowable WWNF plan 

tolerances of 20%. This may include remediation of DSCs created as a result of proposed 

activities and remediation of affects from previous management activities, inside and outside 

planned activity units. Conditions existing outside of planned activity units that should be 

remediated through subsoiling and revegetation include legacy travel routes, user created routes, 

legacy skid trails and landing sites.

Minerals

The goals of minerals management include providing for exploration, development, and 

production of a variety of minerals on the Forest in coordination with other resource objectives, 

environmental considerations and mining laws. These goals aim to encourage and assist, 

whenever possible, the continuation of regional geologic mapping and mineral resource studies 

on the forest in cooperation with other natural resource agencies.

There are no approved Plans of Operations for mineral resources on NFS lands within the 

LJCRP analysis area at the time of writing. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

(HCNRA) Act of 1975 included the withdrawal of all future mineral development within the 

HCNRA. The proposed activities across all alternatives will not conflict with the General Mining 

Law of 1872, as amended; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended 

and the Surface Resources Act of 1955. The proposed activities across all alternatives are also 

consistent with the Goals and Standard and Guidelines defined in the WWNF Plan (USDA 

Forest Plan, 1990) and outlined in Appendix B.

Water, watersheds and riparian habitat conservation areas 

The LJCRP area is located within the Upper Joseph Creek (HUC 170601060203) and Lower 

Joseph Creek (HUC 170601060204) watersheds of the Grande Ronde River Basin (Map 3). The 

specific subwatersheds in the project area are listed in Table 15.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

50 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 15. Watersheds and subwatersheds of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project. 

Watershed 

Name/Number

Subwatershed 

Name/Number

SWS 

Acres

(Total)

Project Area 

Acres w/in 

SWS

Project 

Area FS 

Acres w/in 

SWS

Other SWS Acres

(Private, State & 

BLM)

Lower Joseph 

Creek

1706010606

Horse Creek/ 

170601060605 12,341 12,337 5,770

Private 6,286

Vale BLM 275

Washington 6

Lower Joseph 

Creek

1706010606

JosephCr.- Rush 

Creek/ 

170601060602

20,484 2,0482 5,6700

Oregon 639

Private 12,800

Vale BLM 1,373

Lower Joseph 

Creek

1706010606

Lower 

Cottonwood 

Creek/17060106

0606

14,991 1,4992 6,709

Private 7,318

Vale BLM 709

Washington 256

Lower Joseph 

Creek

1706010606

Upper 

Cottonwood 

Creek/17060106

0603

13,509 13,508 12,248 Private 1,259

Vale BLM 0.18

Lower Joseph 

Creek

1706010606

Broady 

Creek/17060106

0604

13,561 13,559 1,0268

Private 2,847

Vale BLM 444

Upper Joseph 

Creek

1706010605

Davis Creek./ 

170601060506 10,759 10,621 7,950 Private 2,671

Upper Joseph 

Creek

1706010605

Elk Creek./ 

170601060502 16,814 46 31 Private 15

Upper Joseph 

Creek

1706010605

Joseph Creek

Cougar Creek/ 

170601060508

13,431 13,429 12,80 Private 450

Upper Joseph 

Creek

1706010605

Joseph CrSumac 

Creek/17060106

0504

11,115 11,085 9,594 Private 1,491

Upper Joseph 

Creek

1706010605

Lower Swamp 

Creek/17060106

0507

21,914 21,824 14,877 Oregon 1

Private 6,945

The relevant inclusive beneficial uses of the Lower Grande Ronde Subbasin and its tributaries as 

determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2010) are: 

 Public Domestic Water Supply

 Private Domestic Water Supply

 Industrial Water Supply

 Irrigation

 Livestock Watering

 Fish and Aquatic Life

 Wildlife and Hunting
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 51 

 Fishing

 Boating

 Water Contact

 Recreation

 Aesthetic Quality

 Hydro Power

The Clean Water Act (1972) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the 

waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired 

waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards 

set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority 

rankings for waters on the lists and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters. A 

TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely 

meet water quality standards. 

A suite of TMDLs were approved by the Department of Environmental Quality for the Lower Grande 

Ronde Subbasin in September of 2010. However, not all pollutants were adequately addressed in these 

plans and thus remain on the list of impaired waters. Regardless of whether an impaired waterbody has an 

approved TMDL established (303(d); Category 4) or one is still needed (303(d); Category 5), the 

waterbody is still classified as water quality limited (303 (d) listed) for not meeting applicable state water 

quality standards (Map 6). 

The following table details relevant water quality limited (303 (d) listed) stream reaches that may be 

affected by the LJCRP (Table 16). The desired conditions for streams within the planning area are to 

ensure their compliance with all applicable Water Quality Management Plans and maintain water quality 

for all beneficial uses. 

Table 16. Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project analysis 

area.

Waterbody Pollutant Season Beneficial Uses Affect by Pollutant Status (2010)

Davis Creek

Mile 0-10.7

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL

Swamp Creek

Mile 0-26.6

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL

Joseph Creek

Mile 8.1-48.2

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL

Joseph Creek

Mile 8.1-48.2

Habitat 

Modification

Yearround

Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 

18.0 degrees Celsius 7-day-average 

maximum

Category 4a: (delisted) 

TMDL approved - 2010.

Streams in the LJCRP area are classified by their fish bearing characteristics, their water carrying duration 

(perennial or non-perennial), and the nature of the stream, pond or wetland, and whether there are 

landslide prone areas. This classification is further bounded by the riparian area zone of influence on 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

52 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

those stream classifications known as Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) (USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995). RHCA widths and management area descriptions, 

which are used to assess the effects of actions on the buffered RHCAs, are displayed in Table 17. RHCA 

boundaries are estimated in GIS for planning and analysis purposes. Tables 18-19 summarize RHCA acres 

by subwatershed for each category stream for the Upper and Lower Joseph Creek watersheds, 

respectively.

Table 17. RHCA widths and management area descriptions for the Lower Joseph Creek Project Area. 

RHCA Category Stream / Feature Type Description

1 Fish Bearing Streams

Distance equal to 2 site potential trees or 300 

feet slope distance from the edge of the active 

channel, whichever is greatest

2 Perennial Nonfish Bearing Streams

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 

feet slope distance from the edge of the active 

channel, whichever is greatest

3 Ponds, Wetlands (≥1 acre in size)

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 

feet slope distance from the edge of the active 

channel, whichever is greatest

4

Intermittent Nonfish Bearing Streams, 

Wetlands (<1 acre in size)

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 100 

feet slope distance from the edge of the active 

channel, whichever is greatest

4 Landslides and Landslide-prone Areas

Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 100 

feet slope distance from the edge of the 

landslide or landslide-prone areas, whichever is 

greatest

Table 18. RHCA Acres by subwatershed for each Category Stream in the LJCRP Area for Upper Joseph 

Creek Watershed 

Subwatershed Name

Category I

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Total FS Total FS Total FS

Broady Creek 875 587 143 143 1,407 1,085

Horse Creek 713 411 132 47 2,356 1,115

Rush Creek 1,174 108 464 215 2,178 552

Lower Cottonwood Creek 867 169 224 173 1,583 816

Upper Cottonwood Creek 806 716 130 130 2,179 1,996

Peavine Creek 997 643 166 166 1,698 1,276

Total: 5,432 2,634 1,259 874 11,401 6,840

Table 19. RHCA Acres by subwatershed for each Category Stream in the LJCRP Area for Lower Joseph 

Creek Watershed 

Subwatershed Name Category I

RHCAs (acres)

Category I

RHCAs (acres)

Category 2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 2

RHCAs (acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Total FS Total FS Total FS

Cougar Creek 869 713 155 155 1,596 1,578
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 53 

Subwatershed Name Category I

RHCAs (acres)

Category I

RHCAs (acres)

Category 2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 2

RHCAs (acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Sumac Creek 826 293 152 134 1,032 945

Lower Swamp Creek 1,550 1,144 137 113 2,667 1,822

Davis Creek 883 715 0 0 1205 907

Total: 4128 2865 444 402 6500 5252

Table 20 shows the results of aquatic habitat surveys for those streams that have had habitat surveys 

completed within the project area. Aquatic habitat surveys are conducted on fish bearing streams only. 

Habitat survey results show the context of RMOs for fish bearing streams. Treatments of Category 4 

RHCAs are related to the downstream RMOs (see Table 8, Chapter 1). This information was obtained 

from the Region 6 stream survey database and surveys are on file at the WWNF. 

Table 20. Results of aquatic habitat surveys for streams within the Lower Joseph project area. 

Stream/Year Surveyed 

Survey 

Length 

(miles)

 Pools 

(#/mile) 

%Fine 

Sedimen

t 

(<64mm)

Stable 

Banks 

(%)

Width/

Depth

Ratio

Large 

Woody 

Debris 

(LWD)

(pcs/mi) 

Swamp Creek(2004) 15.44 8 79.5 78 22.1 6

Davis Creek (1995) 6.92 26 ND 95 9.9 67

Elk Creek (1990) 9.08 15 ND ND 17.5 25

Little Elk Creek (1990) 2.07 11 ND ND 8.2 29

Joseph Creek(2005) 5.8 3 80 ND 16.8 <1

Broady Creek (1992) 6.55 23 ND ND 15.7 101

EF Broady Creek(1997) 3.14 34 53.7 99 6.6 113

Cottonwood Creek (1994) 7.15 29 ND 95 16.3 76

Cougar Creek (2005) 2.86 55 80 95 19.6 2

Peavine Creek (1998) 1.74 24.7 68.8 ND 10.9 7

ND=No Data 

The two stream flow parameters of concern are low flows affecting aquatic habitat and effects of 

increased peak flows on stream channel stability. These parameters are currently not affected by 

management activity. Peak flow is primarily affected by an increase in the road network. The roads in 

LJCRP area have been in place for many decades and streams have adjusted to whatever affect they may 

have had (also see Climate Change section, above). Many of the streams in the analysis area flow 

intermittently, and it is likely more streams or more lengths of stream may exhibit that trait as climate 

change continues. Current impacts to water resources include flow modification (three water qualitylimited streams), an elevated total road density on NFS lands in four subwatersheds, and degraded 

streambanks from grazing.

Riparian management objectives 

Table 10 (Chapter 1) summarizes riparian management objectives for the LJCRP. Landscape-scale interim 

RMOs describing good habitat for anadromous fish at the watershed scale were developed using stream 

inventory data for pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, and width to depth ratio. The 

existing condition for those RMOs is found in Table 20. State water quality standards were used to define 

favorable water temperatures. These RMOs are stream centric and do not reflect vegetation RMOs within 

the RHCAs.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

54 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

There are 11 fish bearing (PACFISH Category 1) streams in the analysis area. Ten of the 11 fish-bearing 

streams have had stream surveys completed. Sumac Creek has not had a stream survey completed, and 

stream survey information is dated (over 10 years old) for some of the streams. However, recent field 

examination of some of the streams show that no significant measureable changes have taken place in the 

LJCRP watersheds that would lead to a change in geomorphic parameters. Fish habitat in the project area 

generally does not meet RMOs for pool habitat and width-to-depth ratio (Table 20) and is considered to 

be Not Properly Functioning. 

For the LJCRP, the two RMOs that may be affected by the implementation of any action alternative will 

be stream temperature and fine sediment. These two RMOs may be affected from forest and fuel 

treatments primarily in the Category 4 Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). The potential 

effect to RMOs will be conveyed downstream to the fish bearing streams where RMOs have been 

developed and should be applied. The temperature RMO is considered to be Functioning at Risk and the 

sediment RMO is considered to be Not Properly Functioning.

Fine sediment will be stored in Category 4 streams behind large wood debris that will be delivered from 

the RHCA. This fine sediment will then be routed downstream, metered out over time, to downstream 

fish bearing stream where the fine sediment RMOs are assessed.

The stream temperature RMO will not be affected by any action alternative that treats Category 4 

RHCAs. Since the Category 4 stream is intermittent and not flowing during the time frame where the 

max 7-day average is measured the actions will not affect the stream temperature RMO. The remaining 

RMOs will not be affected by any of the action alternatives due to the implementation of Project Design 

Criteria (PDC)(see Appendix J). The PDCs will serve to maintain and not retard attainment of RMOs.

Four streams surveyed in the project area were below the RMO for pools/mile at the time of the survey. 

The Forest Plan water temperature standards are to meet state water quality standards and prevent 

measurable increases in water temperature (1990 Forest Plan, 1995 PACFISH Amendment), and maintain 

maximum water temperatures below 64°F within migration and rearing habitat and below 60°F within 

spawning habitats (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995). See Appendix B 

for more information on applicable forest plan direction for watersheds. The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) state water quality standard is based on the maximum 7-day running 

average. Temperature standards were developed based on temperature requirements of salmonids during 

different seasons and life stages. There is one standard applicable to streams within the Lower Joseph 

project area. The temperature standard for these water bodies is 64.4oF for salmon and trout spawning and 

rearing. Temperature standards for streams in the Lower Joseph project area are shown in Table 21.

Table 21. ODEQ temperature standards for streams within the Lower Joseph project area. 

Subwatershed Fishbearing Streams in 

Project Area of 

Subwatershed

Temperature Standard

Water Bodies Must Not Be Warmer Than:

(Maximum Weekly Average Temperature)

Davis Creek./ 170601060506 Davis Creek 64.40

F- for salmon and trout rearing and 

migration

Broady Creek/170601060604 Broady Creek 64.40

F- for salmon and trout rearing and 

migration

Joseph Cr – Cougar Creek/ 

170601060508 Cougar Creek 64.40

F- for salmon and trout rearing and 

migration
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 55 

Water temperature influences the metabolism, behavior, and health of fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Fish can survive at temperatures near extremes of suitable temperature ranges. However, growth is 

reduced at low temperatures because all metabolic processes are slowed. At the opposite extreme, growth 

is reduced at high temperatures because most or all energy from food must be used for maintenance 

needs. Fish are also more susceptible to diseases near the extremes of their suitable temperature ranges. 

In general, redband trout and steelhead will occupy waterbodies with water temperatures from 55 to 64°F. 

Upper lethal temperature for steelhead is about 75°F.

Limited water temperature monitoring has occurred in the analysis area (Table 22). The 7-day average 

temperature in Upper Davis and Lower Davis Creek remained below the 18° C/64.4° F standard for the 

period of record. The two sites on upper Swamp Creek remain at or slightly elevated above the standard 

and the site at lower Swamp Creek is consistently elevated above the standard for the period of record. 

Joseph Creek has record elevated temperatures of at least 15 degrees above the standard. Cougar and 

Broady Creek are consistently below the standard.

Table 22. Results of stream temperature monitoring within the Lower Joseph project area. 

Location

Maximum Weekly Average Temperature (Fo)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Upper Davis Creek 63.9 63.3

Lower Davis Creek 59.7 57.6 68.5

Swamp Creek @ FS 

Bndry 64.2 66.0 65.8 63.3

66.6

Swamp Creek @ Bennett 

Pasture 67.8 67.8 68.5 65.3

Swamp Creek @Ford 

(WG5) 73.9 73.2 77.2 74.7 70.9 72.9 70.9

Joseph Creek 81.0 79.0 82.2

Cougar Creek 62.1 61.9

Broady Creek below WF 58.6 59.5

Elk Creek @ Bridge 

(below Gould Gulch) 66.6 63.9 66.7 66.0 63.3 65.1 64.8 64.2 66.9

Four of the 10 streams with fish habitat surveys have high percentages of streambank stability ranging 

from 95% to 99% stable streambanks (Table 20). One stream, Swamp Creek, was below the RMO for 

streambank stability. No streambank stability data is available for five of the streams surveyed. 

Three of the 10 streams surveyed meet the PACFISH width to depth ratio of <10. The width to depth 

ratios for the remaining seven streams surveyed within the project area exceeded the PACFISH width to 

depth ratio of <10. However, the width to depth ratios for these eight streams are within the expected 

range of Rosgen stream types (Rosgen, 1996). All streams are classified as Rosgen B type channels with 

the exception of Swamp Creek and Davis Creek which are classified as Rosgen C type channels. 

Seven of the 10 streams surveyed within the project area exceeded the standard of > 20 pieces of large 

wood per mile. Three streams had less than 20 pieces of large wood per mile.

Sediment delivery to streams 

Composition of the stream substrate is an important feature of aquatic habitat. Cobble and gravel 

substrates provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates as well as eggs and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

56 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

early life stages of numerous fish species. Macroinvertebrates represent a substantial portion of the diet 

available to various fish species, particularly stream dwelling salmonids. 

Fine sediment in streams is a normal component of salmonid habitat; however, major disruptions of 

aquatic ecosystems occur when sediment levels substantially exceed natural levels. Filling of interstitial 

spaces (i.e. the gaps between rocks on the stream bottom) with fine sediment (particles < 2 mm in size) 

eliminates habitat for many macroinvertebrates. Fish eggs and early life stages can also be buried and 

smothered when interstitial spaces are embedded with fine sediment. Studies have shown that an increase 

in 1-3mm size sand from 20% to 30% can decrease emergent survival of salmonid species from 65% 

down to 40% (Phillips et al. 1975). Fine sediments are known to impact fry emergence and survival, and 

fine sediment (<6.5mm in size) levels above 40% can effectively eliminate salmonid populations and 

many macroinvertebrate species (Everest and Harr 2008). Winter habitat for juvenile salmonids is also 

lost as interstitial spaces in cobble-sized and larger streambed material are embedded with fine sediment. 

Increases in fine sediment can occur from increased transport of fine sediment from upland areas and 

from destabilized stream banks. Increases can result from both episodic sources such as wildfires or from 

chronic sources such a native surface roads. Episodic sources normally result in short-term increases that 

return to pre-disturbance levels through natural recovery processes. Chronic sources can result in longterm changes of stream channels and aquatic habitat. 

The forest plan (1990) standard and guideline for fine sediment is “Where natural stream characteristics 

permit...limiting fine inorganic sediment covering stream substrate to 15 percent...” (Wildlife S&G 1). 

Fine inorganic sediment is defined as sand and silty material less than 3.3 mm in size. The PACFISH 

amendment (1995) did not include an RMO for fine sediment. The Forest Plan standard was modified in 

1995 and subsequently in 1998 as part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA ) consultations on the Forest 

Plan to <20% fine sediment (particles <6.4mm in size) in spawning areas or < 30% embeddedness 

(Service 1995, National Marine Fisheries Service 1998).

Fine sediment levels currently exceed the 20% threshold established under ESA consultation for the 

Forest Plan (NMFS 1995, 1998) in Swamp, Joseph, E.F. Broady, Cougar and Peavine creeks (Table 19). 

There is no data for Davis, Elk, Little Elk, Broady, and Cottonwood creeks. 

Roads provide a substantial source of sediment and a mechanism for delivering sediment to the stream 

systems. The Biological Opinion (NOAA 1998) for Snake River Steelhead on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest plan describes a Term and Condition to achieve a 2.0 miles per square mile of total road 

density (open and closed) within a 5th field HUC. In addition to total road density two additional 

indicators of sediment delivery will be assessed; total number of stream crossings and total miles of road 

within RHCAs. These two have been used to assess the potential impacts on streams from the 

transportation system. 

The existing condition of the transportation system is displayed in Tables 23 and 24. The existing 

condition transportation layer is based on USFS data, as amended by Wallowa County in 2010 (Wallowa 

County 2014), and by field review in 2014.

Table 23. Total existing lengths (miles) and densities (miles/square mile) of roads in the watersheds affected 

by the Lower Joseph Creek project area. 

Watershed

Name

Drainage

Area

(mii2)

Total FS

Open Roads

(mi)

Total FS

Closed Road

(mi)

FS Open and 

Closed

Road Density 

(mi/mi2)

Total Number 

of Stream 

Crossings

Miles of 

Road in 

RHCAs

Upper Joseph Creek 170.07 128.2 59.0 1.10 482 38.21

Lower Joseph Creek 163.64 107.7 111.5 1.30 462 17.26
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 57 

Table 24. Total existing lengths (miles) and densities (miles/square mile) of roads in the subwatersheds 

affected by the Lower Joseph project area. 

Subwatershed

Name

Drainage

Area

(mii2)

Total FS

Open Roads

(mi)

Total FS

Closed Road

(mi)

FS Open and Closed

Road Density 

(mi/mi2)

Total Number 

of Stream 

Crossings

FS Roads

in RHCAs (mi) 

Broady Creek 21.19 33.54 12.26 2.2 75 8.48

Horse Creek 19.28 15.64 9.76 1.3 81 4.33

Rush Creek 32.01 17.43 24.87 1.3 9 1.47

Lower Cottonwood 

Creek

23.42 5.71 10.4 0.7 3 0.23

Upper Cottonwood 

Creek

21.11 14.42 12.6 1.3 29 2.03

Cougar Creek 20.99 31.19 23.11 2.6 62 7.61

Sumac Creek 17.37 36.87 18.93 3.2 96 14.86

Lower Swamp Creek 34.24 33.42 26.88 1.8 78 9.52

Davis Creek 16.81 26.69 22.11 2.9 44 6.23

Peavine Creek 23.01 20.93 9.77 1.3 9 0.73

There are approximately 112.92 miles of open and closed roads within RHCAs and 485 stream crossings 

in the LJCRP area. Subwatersheds that have elevated road densities are Broady Creek, Cougar Creek, 

Davis Creek and Sumac Creek. Sumac Creek also has an elevated number of stream crossings and miles 

of road in RHCAs based on drainage area and relative to other subwatersheds.

There are six culverts within the project area that are partial or complete barriers to the upstream 

migration of fish, creating an issue of habitat connectivity. The culverts are located on Broady Creek and 

tributaries (four culverts), Davis Creek, and Sumac Creek (Table 25). None of the six culverts identified 

are complete barriers. Some level of passage is evidenced by the presence of spawning and juvenile 

salmonids above each culvert. However, these culverts impede passage at various times of the year 

through a combination of excessive gradient, undersized to pass high flows, or being “perched” above the 

stream surface more than 4 inches. Habitat connectivity can be increased by removing or replacing these 

culverts.

Grazing can also be a source of sediment to streams and effects to riparian areas in the LJCRP area 

through several means: 1) trampling soft soils in streamside wetland areas, which compacts them and also 

retards or impedes vegetative growth; 2) breaking down stream banks and widening the stream channel 

through erosion of the stream bank pieces, which end up in the creek; and 3) over-browsing riparian 

vegetation, from grass to forbs to shrubs, which then do not protect the soil as well from the erosive 

power of raindrops and overland flow. Grazing effects are mitigated by controlling livestock numbers, 

limiting season of use, setting utilization standards and by dispersing animals across the range. These 

management options are not within the scope of this project.

Fine sediment inputs to streams can also come from overland flow across adjacent burned areas. There 

were no burned areas in the LJCRP area which might have contributed to overland flow. 

Table 25. Salmonid fish species and age class blocked by culverts and miles of habitat blocked. 

Stream Name

Location

FS Road Number Fish 

Species

Adult/Juvenile 

Passage Barrier

Miles of Habitat 

Blocked

Broady Creek 4600505 ST,RT juvenile and adult 3.0

WF Broady Creek 4600505 ST, RT juvenile and adult 2.5

WF Broady Creek Trib 4600505 ST, RT juvenile and adult 0.5
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

58 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Stream Name

Location

FS Road Number Fish 

Species

Adult/Juvenile 

Passage Barrier

Miles of Habitat 

Blocked

EF Broady Creek 4600505 ST, RT juvenile and adult 2.0

Davis Creek 4602120 ST,RT juvenile and adult 3.5

Sumac Creek 4600190 ST,RT juvenile and adult 1.0

ST=Steelhead, RT=redband trout 

Riparian vegetation 

Road construction, culverts, grazing, the absence of beaver are all factors contributing to hydrologic 

changes that alter the speed and shape of stream flow, and consequently riparian vegetation composition.

Riparian forests provide large woody debris (LWD) and moderate stream water temperature, both of 

which are important fish habitat features. LWD provides cover for fish and increases hydraulic diversity 

and habitat complexity and pools (Bryant 1983, Bisson et al. 1987). Increased water temperatures can 

affect or influence the physiology, behavior, and distribution of salmonid fish and can interact with other 

stressors affecting salmonids (US Environmental Protection Agency 2001(Teply and Dale McGreer 

2014)). Riparian shrubs, such as willow species, and riparian sedges provide streambank stabilization, as 

well as shading stream margins. Sedge species such as Carex aquatilis and C. utriculata have strong and 

long rhizomes which actually reach across small streams, esssentially knitting the banks together (Wilson 

2008). Shade intolerant willows can be found on stream margins in openings, forming dense stands whose 

stems and roots hold streambanks and sediment (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997).

Fluvial morphology expressed using Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen 1996) was used in the 

development of wetland and riparian plant associations in the Blue Mountains (Crowe and Clausnitzer 

1997, Wells 2006). Preliminary landform keys are included in both Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997 and 

Wells 2006. While largely untested, landform keys give a general idea of expected vegetation by landform 

and Rosgen channel types. In LJCRP, stream gradients on plateaus average less than four percent. The 

streams are Rosgen B, C, or G channels. On the breaklands, stream gradients exceed 10 percent. These 

Rosgen A and A+ channels are very efficient at moving water and sediment to valley stream systems. In 

the valley bottoms, channel gradients drop to less than two percent. Here Rosgen type C and E channels 

are common. Rosgen G and F channels can be found where channel modifications have occurred (WWNF 

WMO, 2010). 

In general, broad channel types with low gradients (2% or less), Rosgen C and E channels, have sedge 

and willow communities where soil is saturated most of the year. On drier soils (terraces) forested 

communities such as ponderosa pine/ common snowberry grow. Degraded C and E channels are 

frequently occupied by Kentucky bluegrass. In cold air drainages lodgepole occupy the riparian/upland 

interface with individuals and clumps in the riparian area where soils are not saturated.

Narrow to moderately wide V channels or trough shaped valleys with moderate gradients (2 to 4%), 

Rosgen B channels, tend to have mountain alder communities along streambanks and floodplains with 

ponderosa pine/common snowberry or Douglas-fir/common snowberry plant associations. Narrow V 

shaped channels with high gradients (>4%), Rosgen A channels, also have mountain alder communities.

Riparian areas and the RHCAs that are delineated as areas of influence are managed through a set of 

desired condition statements and riparian management objectives (RMOs; see Table 10, Chapter 1). 

Treatment of RHCAs is guided by these and site specific stand data collected through the planning of the 

LJCRP. The site specific data that is available is primarily for Category 4 streams in the project area. 

Some limited site specific data is available for the RHCAs of Swamp Creek. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 59 

The total acres of RHCAs in each of the three categories are displayed by subwatershed within the Upper 

and Lower Joseph Creek watersheds in Tables 26 - 27, respectively. There is limited stand data on 

RHCAs in the project area. Some information exists on Category 4 RHCAs but is limited to the adjacent 

upslope stand information. For the LJCRP the assumption is that for Category 4 RHCAs the stand data 

for the adjacent stand would be very similar to the RHCA vegetation. 

Table 26. Acres of RHCA category by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by subwatershed 

Subwatershed Name

Category 

I

RHCAs

(acres)

Category I

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 

2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 

4

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Total FS Total FS Total FS

Broady Creek 875 587 143 143 1,407 1,085

Horse Creek 713 411 132 47 2,356 1,115

Rush Creek 1,174 108 464 215 2,178 552

Lower Cottonwood Creek 867 169 224 173 1,583 816

Upper Cottonwood Creek 806 716 130 130 2,179 1,996

Peavine Creek 997 643 166 166 1,698 1,276

Total: 5,432 2,634 1,259 874 11,401 6,840

Table 27. Acres of RHCA category by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed by subwatershed 

Subwatershed Name

Category I

RHCAs

(acres)

Category I

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 

2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 2

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 

4

RHCAs

(acres)

Category 4

RHCAs

(acres)

Total FS Total FS Total FS

Cougar Creek 869 713 155 155 1,596 1,578

Sumac Creek 826 293 152 134 1,032 945

Lower Swamp Creek 1,550 1,144 137 113 2,667 1,822

Davis Creek 883 715 0 0 1,205 907

Total: 4,128 2,865 444 402 6,500 5,252

Olson (2000) found fire occurrence in riparian zones to be only slightly less frequent than on adjacent 

uplands in similar forest types in the Blue Mountains in Oregon (Wright and Agee 2004). As Olson noted 

in her thesis: “Keeping fire out of the ecosystem will not only continue to alter the structure and 

vegetation composition of these riparian forests, but will also allow the buildup of fuels that could result 

in unprecedented fire intensities, and subsequently higher fire severities, than were present in the system 

historically. If the goal of forest management is to restore historical disturbance regimes to these forests, 

results from this study indicate riparian forests should be managed according to the historical fire regime 

of the forest type rather than distance from a stream” (Olson 2000) (in this context, “distance from a 

stream” refers to a process of using designated buffer widths (in feet), varying by stream class, to 

establish riparian habitat conservation areas).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

60 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Air Quality 

The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish standards for 

certain pollutants in order to protect human health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) have been established (Table 28). Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern in 

smoke management. Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM10) describes particles small enough to enter the human respiratory system. 

Table 28 describes the NAAQS levels described in terms of PM10 and 2.5. 

Pollutant Averaging Period Primary NAAQS

PM 10 Annual arithmetic mean n/a

24-hour 150 μg/m3

PM 2.5 Annual arithmetic mean 15 μg/m3

24-hour 35 μg/m3

Air quality monitoring sites are located in LaGrande, Cove, and Baker City, Oregon. These sites maintain 

equipment that provides estimates for PM10 and PM2.5 levels for health purposes. Visual quality is 

monitored from an automated IMPROVE (Integrated Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments) site 

located within Starkey Experimental Forest.

Smoke generated from wildfire would continue to increase as the landscape further departs from reference 

conditions and fuel loadings increase and become more continuous across the LJCRP area. There are two 

areas of concern due to smoke impacts: the town of Enterprise, Oregon which is an identified smoke 

sensitive receptor area and the Eagle Cap Wilderness which is identified as a Class 1 Airshed. 

Local research indicates that PM10 production due to wildfire is approximately twice that produced in a 

prescribed fire (Huff 1995).

All burning would be conducted in compliance with Oregon DEQ requirements and applicable 

agreements. Burns will be registered, planned, accomplishment reported, and monitoring conducted as 

specified in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-048, 2008). Burn plans will address smoke 

management concerns and requirements. 

The biological environment 

Vegetation and disturbance regimes 

The following are analysis topics and corresponding indicator specific to the vegetation resource and 

disturbance regimes (fire, insects and disease). These analysis topics will be tracked throughout the 

effects analysis in order to address whether, or to what degree, the project meets purpose and need 

objectives.

Forested Vegetation – Percent Departure from RV:

 Forested tree cover type

 Indicator: percent of upland forest potential vegetation group in each forest cover type

 Forested structural stages

 Indicator: percent of upland forest potential vegetation group in each forested structural stage

 Forested tree density class

Indicator: percent of upland forest potential vegetation group in tree density classes
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 61 

Forested Vegetation – Forest Pattern Similar to Historic Fire Regime

 Heterogeneous mosaic of tree clumps, individual trees, and openings

Indicator: percent of forested landscape treated with ICO prescription

Forested Vegetation – Large Trees

 Tree size class distribution

Indicator: tree size class distribution by upland forest potential vegetation group 

Insects and Disease Susceptibility – Departure from RV (Schmitt and Powell 2008, Powell 2010)

 Insect and disease susceptibility rating (Schmitt and Powell 2005)

Indicator: percent of upland forest potential vegetation group by susceptibility rating 

Timber resource:

 Acres of harvest treatment

 Indicator: acres treated that remove timber volume

 Timber volume 

Indicator: timber volume removed as a result of restoration treatment

Wildland Fire Regime:

 Fire Regime

Indicator: Fire Regime departure from desired extent (6 – 15% per year) and desired severity

 Fire Management Decision Space 

Indicator: Relative description of how wildland fire (planned or unplanned ignition) may be managed to 

meet resource objectives. Indicator is based on movement of the landscape toward natural disturbance 

regimes that promote typical fire severity and reference landscape conditions. 

The Lower Joseph Creek watershed currently supports a mix of forests, ponderosa pine savannas, and 

grasslands. This mix of vegetation types has varied in relative abundance through time for tens of 

thousands of years (Mehringer 1996). Range of variation (RV) analysis is an analytical technique to 

characterize inherent variation in the composition, structure, and density of vegetation, reflecting recent 

evolutionary history and the dynamic inter-play of biotic and abiotic factors. “Study of past ecosystem 

behavior can provide the framework for understanding the structure and behavior of contemporary 

ecosystems, and is the basis for predicting future conditions” (Morgan et al. 1994). The historical range of 

variation (HRV) is meant to reflect ecosystem properties free of major influence by Euro-American 

humans, providing insights into ecosystem resilience (Kaufmann et al. 1994, Landres et al. 1999). RV 

helps us understand what an ecosystem is capable of, how historical disturbance regimes functioned, and 

inherent variation in ecosystem conditions and processes – the patterns, connectivity, seral stages, and 

cover types produced by ecological systems at a landscape scale. Ecosystems of the LJCRP developed 

with wildfire, insect outbreaks, disease epidemics, floods, landslides, human uses, and weather cycles. 

Change was, and still is, constant in their development, and HRV is designed to characterize the range of 

vegetation composition, structure, and density produced by these agents of change (Morgan et al. 1994), 

as well as other constraints like soils, topography, temperature, moisture, and others. Powell (2010) 

synthesizes literature and information on ranges of variation for Blue Mountains ecosystems, and 

represents the best available science for defining the characteristics of resilient ecosystems for the LJCRP.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

62 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 2 (Chapter 1) summarizes the extent of major vegetation types (potential vegetation groups) in the 

project area. Potential vegetation groups are aggregations of plant associations found in the Blue 

Mountains (Johnson 1987, Powell and C.G.Johnson 2007) and represent a combination of temperature 

and moisture regimes. Given that plant associations are considered to be fairly homogeneous in terms of 

their growing environments, it is also assumed that potential vegetation groups will generally respond to 

management in a similar manner. Within each potential vegetation group, historical fire return intervals 

and severities vary, depending on several factors, such as fuel loadings, aspect, elevation, and weather 

conditions before and during fires (Heyerdahl 1997). Insect and disease frequencies and severities also 

vary, depending on species, vegetation density, and environmental factors. Approximately 40 plant 

associations were grouped into plant association groups (PAG), and potential vegetation groups (PVG) 

following procedures from Powell et al. (2007).

Potential vegetation groups (PVGs) of the LJCRP are almost equally split between grasslands and forests. 

Approximately 75% of the forests are dominated by the dry upland forest PVG, and 25% by the moist 

upland forest PVG. Dry upland forests are located at low to moderate elevations, and were historically 

dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir cover types (Table 29). Cover types9

classify existing 

vegetation composition (Eyre 1980, Shiflet 1994), reflect majority or plurality tree species abundance, 

and apply to both pure and mixed stands. Compared to RV estimates, ponderosa pine is underrepresented 

in the dry PVG, while Douglas-fir, grand fir and lodgepole pine are overrepresented. In the moist PVG, 

lodgepole pine is underrepresented and Douglas-fir and grand fir are overrepresented. All other cover 

types are within RV estimates.

Dry upland forests were historically characterized by predominantly frequent, low severity surface fires 

occurring at intervals of less than 20 to 25 years (Barrett et al. 1997). While larger-diameter, old trees 

typically survived these low severity fires, younger, smaller-diameter trees and less fire-tolerant species 

were killed. The historical fire regime created and maintained a generally open forest structure, with a 

small-scale mosaic pattern of clumps or patches of trees dominated by large diameter, old ponderosa 

pines, scattered individual trees, and openings that contained an abundance of native grasses and shrubs 

(Franklin et al. 2008, Larson and Churchill 2012, Churchill et al. 2013). This spatial heterogeneity is a 

key structural element of the historical dry upland forest (Franklin et al. 2008). Crown fires may have 

occurred historically in mid- to late-seral closed canopy structural stages. However, these events were 

limited in extent due to the predominance of open canopy forest (Barrett et al. 2010). The frequent fires in 

the dry upland forest potential vegetation group also contributed to relatively low fuel loadings.

The moist upland forest PVG is dominated by Douglas-fir, western larch, western white pine, grand fir, 

and sub-alpine fir (Table 29), and generally located at moderate elevations. It is characterized by mixedseverity fires occurring every 40 to100 years. In a mixed-severity fire regime, fire severity ranges from 

stand-replacing crown fires that kill greater than 75% of overstory leaf cover to nonlethal, low-intensity 

surface fires that kill less than 25% of the overstory, or lack of fire that leave patches of living trees (e.g., 

as can currently be seen along parts of Cold Springs road). According to Perry et al. (2011), mixedseverity fires create a patchiness of forest structure, composition, and seral status that can be observed and 

quantified at an intermediate or meso-scale, with patch sizes ranging from a few hundredths up to tens or 

hundreds of acres, depending on locale and climatic drivers. Hessburg et al. (1999) measured patch sizes 

of uniform structure and composition from historic aerial photography from the 1930s for the ecological 

subregion including the LJCRP, and found patch sizes for moist (and dry) upland forests to range from 

approximately 10 to 600 acres. While forest management likely had affected vegetation pattern by the 

1930s, it is the best sosurce of data available on historic forest pattern. In forest types that were 

historically dominated by mixed-severity fire regimes, surface and canopy fuels, topography, climatic 

conditions, and ignitions worked in concert to influence variation in fire frequency, severity, spatial 

extent, and seasonality. The result was a complex spatial-temporal mix of low, moderate, and high 

 

9

 For the LJCRP, cover types were calculated using a three-step process described in Powell (2004, page 14). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 63 

severity patches. Due to patterns of burning, this type of historical fire regime created a complex mosaic 

pattern across the landscape, resulting in high levels of diversity in both plants and animals (Perry et al. 

2011).

Table 29. Current forest cover type distribution for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project, and the 

natural range of variation in cover types for the Blue Mountains 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 11,921 28% 50-80

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Douglas-fir 21,773 51% 5-20

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Western larch 572 1% 1-10

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Lodgepole pine 217 1% 0

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Grand fir 7,464 18% 1-10

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Engelmann 

spruce

22 0% 0

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 438 1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 1,428 11% 5-15

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Douglas-fir 5,878 45% 15-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Western larch 583 4% 10-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Lodgepole pine 219 2% 25-45

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Grand fir 4,653 36% 15-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Engelmann 

spruce

133 1% 1-10

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 64 0%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Forest structure 

The basis for the forest structure classification system used in the Blue Mountains is the four stage system 

that was developed for conifer forests located west of the Cascade Mountains (Oliver and Larson 1996). 

This system was expanded to an eight class system to include a wider spectrum of structural variation that 

exists within the drier eastside forests of Oregon and Washington (O'Hara et al. 1996). Figure 5 illustrates 

and describes the forest structural stages for this analysis.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

64 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Description of forest structural Stages

Stand Initiation (SI). Following a stand-replacing 

disturbance such as wildfire or tree harvest, growing space is occupied rapidly by vegetation that 

either survives the disturbance or colonizes the 

area. Survivors literally survive the disturbance 

above ground, or initiate new growth from their 

underground organs or from seeds on the site. 

Colonizers disperse seed into disturbed areas, it 

germinates, and then new seedlings establish and 

develop. A single canopy stratum of tree seedlings 

and saplings is present in this stage. 

Stem Exclusion (SE). In this structural stage, 

trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy all 

of their growing space, competing strongly for 

sunlight and moisture. Because trees are tall 

and reduce light, understory plants (including 

smaller trees) are shaded and grow more 

slowly. Species needing sunlight usually die; 

shrubs and herbs may go dor-mant. In this 

stage, establishment of new trees is precluded 

by a lack of sunlight (stem exclusion closed 

canopy) or by a lack of moisture (stem exclusion open canopy). 

Understory Reinitiation (UR). As the forest 

devel-ops, a new age class of trees (cohort) 

eventually gets established after overstory 

trees begin to die or because they no longer 

fully occupy their grow-ing space. Regrowth of 

understory seedlings and other vegetation then 

occurs, and trees begin to stratify into vertical 

layers. This stage consists of a low to 

moderate density overstory with small trees 

underneath. 

Young Forest Multi-Story (YFMS). As 

succession progresses, three or more tree 

layers have become established as a result of 

minor disturbances (including tree harvest) that 

cause progressive but partial mortality of 

overstory trees, thereby perpetuating a multilayer, multi-cohort structure. This class 

consists of a broken overstory layer with a mix 

of sizes present (large trees are scarce); it 

provides high vertical and horizontal diversity
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 65 

Description of forest structural Stages

Old Forest (OF). Many age classes and 

vegetation layers mark this structural stage 

containing large, old trees. Snags and decayed 

fallen trees may also be present, leaving a 

discontinuous overstory ca-nopy. The drawing 

shows a single-layer stand of ponderosa pine 

reflecting the influence of frequent surface fire 

on dry-forest sites (old forest single stratum; 

OFSS). Surface fire is not as common onmoist 

sites or common on cold sites, so these areas 

generally have multi-layer stands with large 

trees in the upper-most stratum (old forest 

multi strata; OFMS). 

Figure 5. Description of forest structural stages. 

Sources: Based on O’Hara and others (1996), Oliver and Larson (1996), and Spies (1997). 

Table 30 summarizes the existing forest structural stage percent and the estimated RV percent by potential 

vegetation group. Overall, the OFSS stage is rare and extremely underrepresented in the dry PVG while 

the OFMS and UR stages are overrepresented in both PVGs. The SE and SI stages are close to or within 

RV.

Table 30. Distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage

Acres Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF OFSS 188 0% 40-60

Dry UF OFMS 8334 20% 5-15

Dry UF YFMS 3427

19165

8%

45% 5-10

Dry UF UR 15738 37%

Dry UF SE 7518 18% 10-20

Dry UF SI 7018 17% 15-25

Dry UF Unknown 184 0%

Dry UF 

Total

42407 100%

Moist UF OFSS 36 0% 10-20

Moist UF OFMS 3919 30% 15-20

Moist UF YFMS 1976

4626

15%

36% 10-20

Moist UF UR 2650 20%

Moist UF SE 2343 18% 20-30

Moist UF SI 2011 16% 20-30

Moist UF Unknown 23 0%

Moist UF Total 12958 100%

Grand Total 55365
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

66 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Tree Density Class 

Tree density is a characterization of tree stocking for an area. It expresses the number of tree stems 

occupying a unit of land. Stocking can be expressed as a “stand density index” or in some other measure 

of relative density, or it can be quantified in absolute terms as a number of trees per acre or as the amount 

of basal area, wood volume, or canopy cover on an area (Powell 1999, 2013)).

Published stocking guidelines are available for evaluating tree density levels (Cochran et al. 1994, Powell 

1999, 2009). By using the stocking guidelines in conjunction with potential vegetation groups, it is 

possible to estimate how much forest-land acreage is currently overstocked and how it compares to a 

range of variation for this ecosystem component. 

Currrently in the dry PVG, the high density class is overrepresented, the moderate density class is close to 

RV and the low density class is underrepresented. For the moist PVG, high is overrepresented and the 

moderate and low classes are within RV (Table 31).

Table 31. Distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class

Acres Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

Dry High 14182 33% 5-15

Dry Mod 13673 32% 15-30

Dry Low 14346 34% 40-85

Unknown 206 0%

Dry UF Total 42407 100%

Moist UF

Moist High 5821 45% 15-30

Moist Mod 3676 28% 25-60

Moist Low 3260 25% 20-40

Unknown 201 2%

Moist UF Total 12958 100%

Grand Total 55365

Size Class Distribution 

Tree size class is a diameter range characterizing a stands predominant situation with respect to tree size 

using diameter at breast height. For this analysis, size class represents the upper (overstory) size class 

meeting the minimum canopy cover threshold (10% for >20” and 20% for <20”). Within multi-age class 

structural stages (OFMS, YFMS, UR), it is estimate of the largest overstory tree size while for single age 

class structural stages (SI, SE, OFSS) it is an estimate of the overall average tree size. Tree size class can 

be a general indication of site productivity, tree age (young, mature, old) and structural stage as well as 

habitat suitability.

Reference conditions for tree size class are related to, but not the same as those for structural stage. Stateand-transition modeling was used to estimate the relative abundance of 5” tree size classes given 

historical disturbance regimes (Appendix C). Across all PVGs, the HRV for size classes were modeled to 

be: <5” dbh: 23% of the forested area; 5-10” dbh: 14%; 10-15” dbh: 20%; 15-20” dbh: 17%; >20” dbh: 

26%. Current size class distribution within the project area (Table 32) is dominated by the 10-15 and 15-

20 inch diameter classes (66 percent of dry and 55 percent in moist). This is consistent with the cessation 

of natural fires approximately 100 years ago and the growth of trees that have regenerated since the time 

of cessation. The large tree (>20) size class represents sixteen percent of the dry PVG and twenty three 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 67 

percent of the moist. These percentages are largely due to the historic removal of the large tree component 

as well as the stand replacing fire events that occurred within the project area in the 1980s. One would 

expect a higher percentage in both PVGs to coincide with the old forest (OF) structural stage RV. 

Forest thinning prescriptions would follow a practical, science based approach intended to restore 

characteristic functionality, and resistance and resilience to disturbance. Known as “ICO” (individuals, 

clumps and openings), this approach uses historical information at the stand- and landscape-level to 

design restoration strategies and prescriptions for restoration (e.g., see (Franklin et al. 2013a)). For 

example, the pattern of old trees, stumps and snags currently on the landscape provide indicators of 

natural tree clumping and spacing, and thus the degree of horizontal spatial heterogeneity. In places where 

legacies of historic forest patterns are absent (e.g., young, post-fire forests), information is used from 

similar habitats.

Table 32. Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class (diameter 

range in inches)

Acres Current percentage of 

Potential Vegetation Group

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 7,025 17%

5-10 803 2%

10-15 15,975 38%

15-20 11,754 28%

>20 6,666 16%

Unknown 184 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

<5 2,011 16%

5-10 783 6%

10-15 3,526 27%

15-20 3,583 28%

>20 2,991 23%

Unknown 64 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Early logging on forest service lands was focused on removal of commercially valuable stands of old 

ponderosa pine (Munger 1917, Griffin 1918, Matz 1928). Generally, this caused replacement of stands of 

slower growing, old ponderosa pine with young, faster growing stands. Additionally, as the more drought 

tolerant and shade intolerant ponderosa pine was harvested, it was replaced in many areas by less drought 

tolerant species that are more shade tolerant, such as grand fir and Douglas-fir. The more open, singlestoried ponderosa pine stands were converted to multi-storied stands. As stand densities increased and 

species compositions and forest structures were altered, the frequency and intensity of insect outbreaks 

increased. Under Blue Mountains’ normal moisture-limited conditions, densely-stocked stands of grand 

fir and Douglas-fir trees become stressed, increasing their vulnerability to insect infestation. Similarly, on 

pine sites, multi-storied, densely stocked ponderosa pine stands are at risk of insect infestation under 

drought conditions. As these densely stocked and moisture-stressed stands became more abundant during 

the last half of the 20th century, localized insect infestations quickly blossomed into outbreaks covering 

thousands of acres (Gast et al. 1991, Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). Insects which attack Douglas-fir and 

grand fir include western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis), Douglas-fir tussock moth 

(Orgyia pseudotsugata), Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), and fir engraver (Scolytus 

ventralis). Although insect outbreaks likely occurred prior to the time of the first Euro-American settlers, 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

68 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

the frequency and size of outbreaks caused by western spruce budworm species and possibly other insects 

that attack Douglas-fir and grand fir appear to have increased as a result of the proliferation of firdominated forests (Swetnam et al. 1995)(Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). Similarly, the multi-storied 

ponderosa pine stands that replaced the single-storied stands on pine sites have also increased the 

potential for outbreaks of the western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis) and mountain pine beetle 

(D. ponderosae) (Hessburg et al. 1994, Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). During the past 50 years, tree 

mortality from insect disturbances in some stands has exceeded 80 percent of all overstory trees 

(Swetnam et al. 1995). Several large-scale insect outbreaks, including spruce budworm, spruce bark 

beetle, and Douglas-fir tussock moth, occurred from the 1970s to the 2000s and caused extensive 

defoliation and mortality. Most tree diseases are increasing in occurrence and severity due to changes in 

tree species composition (increased grand fir within the dry upland forest PVG), stand structures 

(increases in multi-storied structure), and increased stocking levels (Scott and Schmitt 1996). Although 

each outbreak was followed by an effort to salvage dead trees, low merchantability and limited access 

prevented removal of dead trees from many areas. The abundance of insect-killed trees substantially 

increased the surface fuel loads for thousands of acres across the Blue Mountains. Conditions became 

conducive for the occurrence of large, high-intensity wildfires. From 1985 until 1994, lightning-caused 

wildfires burned more than 445,000 acres in the Blue Mountains. Many of these fires were high severity, 

stand-replacing events that killed most of the trees across large areas. Within the project area, two notable 

wildfire events have occurred within the last 30 years. The 1986 Joseph Canyon/Starvation Ridge fire 

burned over 40,000 acres within the project area and the 1988 Tepee Butte burned almost 60,000 acres of 

which 1/3 was in the project area. A high percentage of these fires were stand replacing and resulted in the 

stand initiation phase of succession. Since 2004, three wildfire events occurred within the project area, 

burning a total of approximately 23,750 acres.

As a consequence of the past history of timber harvest, fire suppression, and grazing, the forests within 

the LJCRP are moderately different from those that existed a century ago (Munger 1917). Open, singlestoried ponderosa pine stands have decreased, while dense, multi-storied stands of Douglas-fir and true fir 

have increased. Today, more stands are dominated by a uniform distribution of young to mid-aged trees as 

a result of selective harvesting of larger trees, salvage logging, and regeneration harvests that followed 

insect and fire mortality. The risk of insect outbreak has increased due to an abundance of densely stocked 

mixed-species stands. The probability of large, high-severity wildfire has also increased due to the 

increase in insect-induced tree mortality, increased fuel loadings, and the large more homogenous acreage 

of densely stocked, multi-storied stands composed of shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant tree species.

Disturbance regimes

This section describes the affected environment related to insects, disease, and wildland fire and their 

contribution to ecological resilience. Resilience is defined as the ability of a social or ecological system 

to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for 

self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change (FSM 2020.5). An ecologically resilient 

landscape is less susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire (Averill et al. 1995, Gunderson 2000, Walker et 

al. 2004), is at lower risk from uncharacteristic insect and disease infestations and epidemics, provides a 

full range of habitats for native terrestrial and aquatic species, protects water quality and abundance, 

provides a full range of habitats for native terrestrial an aquatic species, protects water quality and 

abundance, provides a full range of uses, products and services, and is more adaptable to changes in 

climate. 

Disturbance processes including fire, insects, diseases and wind, were, and continue to be significant 

drivers of ecosystem resilience (Agee 1993, Agee and Maruoka 1994) and agents of change in vegetation 

structure, composition, density, and pattern. Wildland fire is critical to ecological restoration of fire 

adapted systems and can be used as a tool to manage natural resources. The influence of these disturbance 

processes can provide ecological benefit as well as impacts. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 69 

A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in the ecosystem (Agee 1993). It includes 

characteristics of frequency, severity, and seasonality of fire. The historical fire regime is describe 

according to fire severities that occurred before significant European influence began in approximately 

1850 (Jaindl and Quigley 1995) and includes fire ignited by Native Americans. Fire regimes, especially 

fire frequency and intensity, strongly influence which species will prevail in the vegetation composition 

of a given area, along with biophysical conditions. Fire has been a significant process within the LJCRP 

area historically and is essential to proper ecosystem function. Management can mimic the effects of fire 

through actions such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, or managing wildfire but not always at the same 

frequency or scale as the historical disturbance regime. Land managers have the ability to choose, to 

some extent, what relationship with fire is desirable (Agee and Maruoka 1994). Table 33 describes fire 

regimes grouped into classes of frequency and severity.

Table 33. Description of fire regime groups (from Barrett et al 2010).

Fire Regime Group Frequency (years) Severity Severity Description

I 0 - 35

Low / Mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less 

than 25% of the dominant overstory 

vegetation; can include mixed-severity fires 

that replace up to 75% of the overstory

II 0 - 35

Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 

75% of the dominant overstory vegetation

III 35 - 200

Mixed / Low Generally mixed-severity; can include low 

severity fires

IV 35 - 200 Replacement High-severity fires

V 200+

Replacement / any severity Generally replacement-severity; can include 

any severity type in this frequency range

Fire Regime Departure 

Hann et al. 2003 described amount of departure (percent) from historical fire regime and vegetation 

conditions through the fire regime condition class tool. This tool was developed to compare historic 

natural vegetation, associated disturbance regimes, and current vegetation succession classes to identify 

the amount of departure from historical conditions. This analysis will utilize departure versus the 

simplified condition classes; however the underlying principles are utilized to describe departure from 

vegetative range of variability and historic disturbance regime when compared to existing landscape 

condition. The larger the departure percent indicates a greater need for ecological restoration of 

disturbance processes and vegetation management. 

The existing condition and successional trends in vegetation in the LJCRP is similar to those described for 

the larger interior Columbia River basin (Quigley et al. 1996). Data shows that the Blue Mountains are 

dominated by upland forest ecosystems that evolved with frequent fire, low and mixed severity fire; the 

LJCRP is likewise dominated by this type of disturbance frequency and severity. The non-forest areas 

within the Joseph Creek project historically supported frequent fire with mixed to replacement severity 

fire. Much of the Lower Joseph project area is characterized by low to moderate departure from historical

conditions.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

70 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Insects and Disease 

Ecosystem management and restoration strives to maintain an endemic level of insects and disease 

disturbance consistent with historical levels of activity within the range of variability for those plant 

communities providing resilience and adaptability for those systems. Insects and disease activity are 

important disturbance processes that create snags and down logs in the forested system. Trees with decay 

and mistletoe infestations provide habitat for a variety of forest-dwelling flora and fauna including 

microbes, fungi, invertebrates, small animals, and cavity nesting birds. During the past several decades, it 

has become increasingly more common for levels of insect and disease created disturbance to exceed presettlement conditions (Scott and Schmidt 1996). Campbell (1996) observed the following broad scale 

trends in the Blue Mountains that are applicable to the LJCRP area.

 Outbreaks of defoliating insects, such as western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth, are 

now larger, more intense, and more frequent than in the past.

 Bark beetle related mortality, associated with tree stress and overstocked stands, is more prevalent.

 Drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s, coupled with overstocked stands, has contributed to 

increased mortality from bark beetles, other insects, fire, and disease.

 Many root diseases and dwarf mistletoes are more widespread and severe because of past 

management and the resulting change in forest structure and composition.

Insect and diseases common within the project area include:

Defoliators – Douglas-fir tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata) and western spruce budworm 

(Choristoneura occidentalis) are evaluated together as a defoliators group. Several large-scale outbreaks 

of both species have occurred within the Blue Mountains from the 1970s to the 2000s and caused 

extensive defoliation. 

The Douglas-fir tussock moth is a native defoliator of conifers (Douglas-fir and true fires) in western 

North America. Usually the first indication of attack appears in late spring. Larvae from newly hatched 

eggs feed on current year's foliage, causing it to shrivel and turn brown. By mid-July they may feed on 

both current and old foliage, although current needles are preferred. Defoliation occurs first in the tops of 

trees and the outermost portions of the branches, and then in the lower crown and farther back on the 

branches

Western spruce budworm is a small native moth that feeds in the caterpillar stage on buds and developing 

conifer needles. In the Blue Mountains it feeds primarily on grand fir and Douglas-fir but will also feed 

on western larch, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. The larvae feed on developing foliage in the early 

summer. Because current year growth is primarily consumed, it takes several years of defoliation for 

long-term impacts to occur. Areas within the LJCRP area did suffer impacts from a western spruce 

budworm epidemic that occurred within the Blue Mountains from about 1985 to 1993. Stands with 

Douglas-fir and grand fir with older dead tops and dead firs on the ground are evidence of prior budworm 

damage (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014).

Conifer forests with high susceptibility to defoliating insects are typically characterized as having low 

precipitation and persistent droughty conditions, a high proportion of host tree species, and a multilayered canopy structure (Gast et al. 1991, Hessburg et al. 1999). Within the project area, the risk of 

budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreaks is currently higher than historically due to the presence 

of more host trees, primarily Douglas-fir and also grand fir, and dense, multilayered stands. Without 

management, these stands will continue to increase in density and stocking of shade-tolerant firs, 

increasing their risk to western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth defoliation, damage, and 

mortality (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 71 

Douglas-fir beetle – Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) is the most destructive bark beetle 

pest of Douglas-fir. In the Blue Mountains, Douglas-fir is the principle host of the Douglas-fir beetle, 

although rarely, western larch is attacked. Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks are often associated with 

defoliator events, drought, fire or wind damage, old and diseased stands, and high stocking levels (Gast et 

al. 1991; Hessburg et al. 1999). Where such susceptible trees are abundant, once they have been infested 

and killed, beetle populations can build up rapidly and spread to adjacent green, standing trees. Damage is 

greatest in dense stands of mature Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir dominated stands and dry mixed-conifer 

stands with an interior Douglas-fir component are most likely to host Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks. 

Populations of Douglas-fir beetles are currently high on the Wallowa-Whitman and continued mortality is 

expected from this beetle while stands remain overstocked and droughty conditions continue (Spiegel and 

McWilliams 2014). See table 34 for extent of recent Douglas-fir beetle activity within the project area.

Fir engraver – The fir engraver beetle (Scolytis ventralis) is the most important bark beetle of true firs in 

the Blue Mountains. It attacks and kills trees of nearly all age classes, from pole size to mature sawtimber 

(Gast et al. 1991). In addition to infesting standing green trees, the fir engraver will attack freshly cut logs 

and recent windthrows.

Elevated fir engraver beetle susceptibility is often associated with mixed conifer plant communities 

having a substantial component of grand fir and experiencing defoliator damage, drought, high stand 

density or root disease infestations (Gast et al. 1991; Hessburg et al. 1999). The extent of recent firengraver activity within the project area is listed in table 34.

Bark beetles in ponderosa pine – The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) can reproduce in 

all species of pine within their range. Attacks by this beetle have also been associated with increased 

intertree competition and drought. In the 1970’s the Blue Mountains experienced a widespread mountain 

pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak that resulted in the mortality of much of the older (over 

about 80 years old) lodgepole pine and some of the ponderosa pine as well. Within the project area, trees 

on the ground have been observed that show characteristic mountain pine beetle galleries and are 

evidence of this past outbreak (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). The Blue Mountains are currently 

experiencing another mountain pine outbreak. Again, they are killing most of the lodgepole trees over 

about 80 years old, and ponderosa pine in overstocked stands as well. There is currently some mountain 

pine beetle activity in the pines within the project area (Table 34) and it can be expected to continue for 

several years where current ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stand densities are above recommended 

densities (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). For ponderosa pine, recommended stocking levels would be at 

or lower than the basal area for the Lower Management Zone by plant association as determined by 

Cochran et al. (1994) and Powell (1999). These recommendations are especially relevant to parts of the 

project area that, under a changing climate, can no longer support tree densities that they did historically.

Historically, western (Dendroctonus brevicomis) has caused the most damage in the California pine 

regions, but this insect has caused loss of ponderosa pine over the years in Oregon and Washington 

including the Blue Mountains (Gast et al. 1991). Western pine beetles typically breed in trees that are firedamaged, drought stressed, or attacked by other agents such as mountain pine beetles or root disease. 

Large ponderosa pines are particularly susceptible where crowns are declining due to overly dense stands. 

They are at high populations currently due to recent drought. Managing stand density under the guidelines 

for mountain pine beetles will also reduce the risk from western pine beetles (Spiegel and McWilliams 

2014). Where individual large, old pines are to be retained, Kolb et al. (2007) recommend thinning around 

these trees to increase resources to them.

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe - Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii Engelmann) is a very 

common pathogen in the Blue Mountains and as such it is probably the greatest threat to long term 

successful management of Douglas-fir in the area. Forest Inventory data on the Wallowa Whitman NF 

indicates that 57 percent of the type is infected (Marsden et al.). Stands in the Douglas-fir plant 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

72 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

community series with dominant components of susceptible hosts from early through late successional 

stages often have very high levels of infestation, with severe infection levels on individual trees. Stands in 

communities where Douglas-fir is a minor component or only became established late in succession, 

usually have incidental or scattered light dwarf mistletoe infections (Schmitt 1997). Based on inventory 

data, these trends hold true within the LJCRP project area.

Root diseases - Root diseases included in this group include laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) and 

Armillaria root disease (Armillaria ostoyae). 

Laminated root rot is caused by the fungus, Phellinus weirii. This root disease causes severe damage in 

affected mixed conifer stands. Most of the disease’s impact results in direct tree mortality and growth 

loss. Douglas-fir and grand fir are highly susceptible; western larch, subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce 

have an intermediate susceptibility and pine is tolerant (Gast et al. 1991). 

Armillaria root disease is caused by the fungus, Armillaria ostoyae. This is one of the most common and 

damaging root diseases in the Blue Mountains. In active disease centers, trees are often killed outright or 

are frequently weakened and attacked by secondary pests. Site damage (i.e. soil compaction) and stresses 

to hosts generally increase the mortality caused by this pathogen (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014). All 

conifer species can be infected, but grand fir is among the most susceptible hosts while western larch and 

lodgepole pine are usually least affected (Gast et al. 1991). The highest incidence has been observed in 

moister plant communities. Armillaria root disease was confirmed within the project area killing Douglasfir, grand fir, and small ponderosa pine (Spiegel and McWilliams 2014).

Table 34 lists the areas acres of insect and disease activity within the LJCRP area from 2008 – 2013 as 

observed through annual aerial surveys

Table 34. LJCRP forested acres affected by specific insects from 2008 to 2013. 

Insect

Acres Affected

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Douglas-fir Beetle 115 3,067 141 30 46 232

Fir Engraver 23 237 848 20 56 47

Mountain Pine Beetle – Ponderosa Pine 16 268 27 26 24 32

Mountain Pine Beetle – Lodgepole Pine 0 49 493 81 102 56

Western Pine Beetle 11 89 11 8 115 16

Insect and Disease Susceptibility 

Susceptibility is defined as a set of conditions that make a forest stand vulnerable to substantial injury 

from insects or diseases. Susceptibility assessments do not predict when insects or diseases might reach 

damaging levels; rather, they indicate whether stand conditions are conducive to declining forest health, 

as indicated by increasing levels of tree mortality from insect and disease organisms. 

Drought, ecological site potential (potential vegetation type), species composition and abundance, tree 

size, forest structure (canopy layering, structural stage), stocking (tree density), intra-stand variability 

(clumpiness), and other biophysical factors influence susceptibility and vulnerability to insect and disease 

disturbances (Hessburg et al. 1999, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Schmitt and Powell 2005). 

Trees with increased insect or disease susceptibility often occur in dense forests where they face greater 

competition for soil moisture, nutrients, and other resources. For example, ponderosa pines in high-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 73 

density stands have lower xylem water potentials and rates of photosynthesis, indicating greater drought 

stress (in this instance, high density causes physiological drought rather than climatic drought). These 

trees also have decreased resin production and foliar toughness, suggesting an increased susceptibility to 

insect and pathogen attack (Kolb et al. 1998). 

To provide a process for evaluating insect and disease susceptibility, range of variation information was 

developed for nine insect and disease agents, and three classes of susceptibility (high, moderate, low), and 

it is stratified by potential vegetation group (Powell 2010). 

Table 35 lists the susceptibility ratings for the six insect and disease agents associated with the PVGs and 

cover types within the LJCRP area. Current ratings for the dry upland forest PVG indicate conditions in 

the low rating are above the range of variation (RV) for bark beetles in ponderosa pine; are below RV for 

defoliators, Douglas-fir beetle, fir engraver and Douglas-fir mistletoe; are within RV for root diseases. For 

the high rating, defoliators, Douglas-fir beetle, fir engraver and Douglas-fir mistletoe are above RV; bark 

beetles in ponderosa pine are below RV; root disease is within RV. For the low rating in the moist PVG, 

Douglas-fir beetle, fir engraver, bark beetles in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe are below 

RV; defoliators and root diseases are within RV. The high rating in the moist PVG indicates Douglas-fir 

beetle, fir engraver and Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe are above RV; defoliators, bark beetles in ponderosa 

pine and root diseases are within RV.

Table 35. Insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Existing RV 

Range Existing RV Range Existing RV Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 25%↓ 40-85% 35%↑ 15-30% 39%↑ 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 15%↓ 35-75% 39%↑ 15-30% 45%↑ 10-25%

Fir Engraver 41%↓ 45-90% 45%↑ 10-25% 14%↑ 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 23%↑ 5-10% 56%↑ 15-30% 21%↓ 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%↓ 25-55% 39% 15-40% 47%↑ 20-35%

Root Diseases 31% 30-60% 47% 25-50% 22% 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 8% 5-10% 29% 20-30% 63% 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 5%↓ 30-60% 23% 20-40% 71%↑ 10-30%

Fir Engraver 19%↓ 30-70% 34% 20-35% 47%↑ 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 32%↓ 40-70% 52%↑ 15-35% 16% 5-25%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 11%↓ 30-65% 33% 20-45% 56%↑ 10-20%

Root Diseases 14% 5-15% 49% 20-50% 36% 35-75%

↓ less than RV; ↑ greater than RV 

Characteristic levels of insect and disease activity consistent with the range of variability would 

contribute to diverse landscape conditions and provide important wildlife habitat components such as 

hollow trees, dead wood, and mistletoe brooms as well as opportunities for stand initiation and 

development through gap dynamics. The desired conditions for vegetation structure stand density, and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

74 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

species composition would create stand conditions with low to moderate susceptibility to insects and 

diseases across the majority of the upland forest PVGs within the Lower Joseph project area. These stand 

conditions result in an adaptable and resilient forest condition capable of absorbing disturbances while 

retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity of self-organization, and the 

capacity to adapt to stress and change.

Rangelands 

Domestic livestock grazing began in the 1730s, when horses were kept by the Nez Perce. Cattle were also 

grazed by the Nez Perce beginning in the 1830s. Nez Perce livestock numbers (horses and cattle) peaked 

between 1876 and 1877 at about 23,000 animals (Williams 2009). The Blue Mountain forests furnished 

grazing for domestic livestock since the days of the first settlers in the 1870s. For example, prior to the 

establishment of the Wenaha Forest Reserve (now part of the Umatilla NF) there were somewhat in 

excess of 275,000 head of grown sheep plus their increase, 40,000 head of cattle, and 15,000 head of 

horses grazed annually on the Wenaha Reserve alone. This extremely heavy use “is no doubt responsible 

for the present condition of the range” (Ewing, Umatilla NF Forest Supervisor 1939). “Under Forest 

Service administration numbers of stock permitted were rapidly decreased until now approximately 

88,102 head of sheep and 8,528 head of cattle and horses are grazed on the entire Umatilla Forest, which 

is nearly twice the size of the original Wenaha Forest Reserve” (Ewing 1939). In the Wallowas, as in 

many parts of the West, excessive grazing by domestic sheep and cattle had damaged or were damaging 

the ranges almost beyond repair. Soil erosion was extensive, and the desirable forage plants were greatly 

reduced or, in some areas, eliminated. Parts of the range had become "practically valueless for grazing 

purposes" (Sampson 1908, in(Strickler 1980)). From 1907 to 1911, Arthur Sampson, a USFS plant 

ecologist, studied the effects of sheep grazing in the Wallowa Mountains. Sampson’s work resulted in the 

reduction in livestock numbers on the range as well as various land and livestock management practices, 

including deferred grazing and non-use, initiated to promote recovery of the range (Strickler 1980). 

Domestic livestock numbers were decreased greatly between 1906 and 1980. Sheep numbers decreased 

from around 250,000 on the Wallowa NF in 1906 to around 15,000 in 1980 (Williams 2009). Cattle 

numbers at the beginning of the twentieth century were around 19,000 in Wallowa County. Cattle 

numbers peaked in Wallowa County in the 1950’s at just over 50, 000. As of 2004 cattle in Wallowa 

County numbered under 30,000. 

Elk and deer (mule and white tail) are the primary native ungulates. By the beginning of the 20th century 

elk and white tailed deer had been virtually eliminated from the Blue Mountains through over hunting by 

European emigrants. Hunting limits on wild ungulates were initiated, and numbers quickly increased, 

partly due to a decrease in predators, which were also being hunted by settlers (Cliff 1939). Currently, elk 

populations are relatively stable, although not at historic levels, with decreased survival of calves, 

possibly due to a decrease in August precipitation through the last half of the 20th century. Deer 

populations continue a long decline from historic levels (Cliff 1939, Johnson 2012, Johnson 2014 

correspondence). Livestock, elk, and deer have some overlap in forage use, but distribution of use is 

different for each species, based on differences in foraging behavior (Johnson 2014 pers. comm.).

The LJCRP area is part of the Joseph Creek Rangeland Planning Area and encompasses portions of 

eighteen livestock grazing allotments (Map 17; Table 36). Fourteen are managed under the WallowaWhitman forest plan, and four are managed under the HCNRA CMP. Only the active allotments will be 

covered in more detail within this DEIS.

Goals for rangeland management on the WWNF include managing range vegetation and related resources 

in a manner insuring that the basic needs of the forage, browse plants, and soil resources are met, and to 

make available for harvest forage production that is in excess to the basic needs of the plants and soil 

resource, for wildlife and domestic livestock (within Forest Plan standards). See Appendix B for forest 

plan direction applicable to rangeland management. Restoration of forage will be analyzed in this 

document. Changes in allotment management are beyond the scope of this analysis.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 75 

Table 36. Summary of Total Acres by potential vegetation group and grazing allotment 

Allotments Dry UF Dry UH Dry 

US

Meadows Moist 

UF

Moist 

UH

non 

veg

Total

AL-CUNNINGHAM 434 842 3 11 1291

BUCK CREEK 152 9 66 10 237

CACHE CREEK* 302 1251 20 5 43 1621

CHESNIMNUS 53 8 43 15 119

COLD SPRINGS* 9866 8671 181 2432 462 21612

COUGAR CREEK 5855 2878 35 1202 775 32 10778

CROW CREEK 96 1 72 168

DAVIS CREEK 3198 896 131 577 191 4993

DOE CREEK 644 212 390 66 1311

FINE 165 0 317 483

HUNTING CAMP 4877 2062 2485 806 10230

JIM CREEK* 42 74 116

JOSEPH CREEK 400 468 89 24 981

LOST COW* 150 0 150

MUD CREEK 0 1 0 3 4

SWAMP CREEK 12283 9985 38 230 264 351 15 23165

TABLE MOUNTAIN 5174 6410 635 1467 912 14598

TEEPEE ELK 2453 2066 9 626 137 5291

Total 45994 35986 1007 360 9562 4165 47 97150

* Allotment administered under HCNRA 

Overall quality of habitat on a landscape scale using percent departure from historic range of variability 

(HRV) by Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) is given for coniferous forest (see section on Vegetation 

and Disturbance). HRV for grasslands is described using the state and transition concept (See Figure 6 for 

an example for the Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass (Ridge) plant association). According to the state and 

transition model, vegetation at a given site is determined by a complex set of interactions of past 

management, natural disturbances, climate, and seed sources and are described as a phase A through D 

where:

 A - Vegetation is relatively pristine, close to the potential natural vegetation

 B - Vegetation has been moderately altered by grazing to the point that grazing sensitive species 

(decreasers) are diminished but still present

 C - Vegetation has been greatly altered by grazing but still retains enough native species to be able to 

recover to PNV

 D - Vegetation has been altered by loss of native species and invasion of non-native species. This 

phase has crossed a transition to a new state, meaning return to PNV by natural succession is 

probably not possible (Johnson 2005)
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

76 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Figure 6. Example of a State and Transition Model: Idaho fescue-Prairie Junegrass (Ridge) Plant Association 

and degenerated bench plant community type (Ecology Intranet Site version 2008). 

In an evaluation of Blue Mountain ecology plot data, sixty-seven percent of the sampled plots in the moist 

upland herbland potential vegetation group within the LJCRP were in good to fair condition (Phases A 

and B). In the dry upland herbland potential vegetation group, eight percent of the sampled plots within 

the project area were in good or fair condition. Condition is evaluated on vegetation composition, such as 

cover of non-native annual grasses in relation to perennial bunchgrass cover, and the location of large 

areas of bare soil are in relation to plant cover, biological soil crust, and litter. Under the current grazing 

system, big-game winter range has been adequate, according to ODFW wildlife biologists. Isolated 

unsatisfactory range conditions were found within the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor (MA 

7). These unsatisfactory conditions are evident where annual non-native plant species such as cheat grass 

and other introduced grass species exist as a relic of homesteading prior to establishment of the National 

Forest. Range conditions in the proposed RNAs are in a good ecological condition because their steep 

slopes and lack of available water preclude the primary source of threat (livestock grazing). These areas 

are represented by phase A and B plant communities. For pastures within designated old growth (MA 15), 

particularly in moist forest, the existing range production potential is relatively low since the conifer 

overstory generally precludes sustainable rangeland.

Forage resources on these allotments are dominated by rangeland plant associations that include lithosols, 

and bunchgrass grasslands including both the Idaho fescue series, and bluebunch wheatgrass series. 

Dominant open-forested plant associations where livestock use occurs are dry forest ponderosa pine series 

and Douglas-fir series (Johnson 1987, Johnson and Simon 1987). Much of the LJCRP area occurs in the 

warm/dry grand fir plant association groups. The project area also includes non-native perennial and 

annual grasses and forbs from past management activities, especially in open-forested areas. 

Fire suppression practices in dry upland forests have indirectly allowed shade tolerant tree species to 

gradually increase in density and size, exhibiting competitive dominance over herbaceous forage species 

in LJCRP area. While fire has historically played an important role in all vegetation types, moist upland 

forests have shrub dominated understories, sometimes with pinegrass as a co-dominant in the understory 

(Powell et al. 2007) While livestock can use shrubs and pinegrass for forage, neither are preferred forage 

during typical summer and fall grazing seasons (FEIS website). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 77 

Forage production 

Information including existing vegetation, potential vegetation, and soils was used to make the capability 

and suitability identification. Capability depends upon current resource conditions and site conditions 

such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, 

such as silvicultural treatments or protection from fire, insects, and disease. Once the capable rangeland is 

determined, acres that do not have a proposed management area prescription that would allow for grazing 

are subtracted. Administrative sites, recreation areas, and other areas of specific use are also subtracted, as 

are areas specifically closed to grazing by past actions or incompatibility of use between resources. Total 

land base acres (minus nonsuitable and noncapable) give the modeled suitability determination. This is a 

landscape scale estimation based on GIS modeling and is not a site-specific determination. 

Annual forage production has not been used as a measure on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District for 

many years, so there is no current data on actual forage production. Table 37 displays forage production 

that can be expected by Potential Vegetation Group (2014 Forest Plan Revision adapted from Johnson and 

Simon 1982, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1990). 

Table 37. Expected forage production by potential vegetation group (USDA Forest Service 2014) 

Vegetation Group Representative plant 

association code and 

name

Forage production 

(pounds per acre 

per year)

Allotment Acres 

within LJCRP

Dry Upland Forest 

(Dry UF)

CWG112, Grand fir 

pine grass

300 - 600 (450) 45,994

Dry Upland Herbland 

(Dry UH)

GB41, Bluebunch 

wheatgrass

400 - 800 (600) 35,986

Dry Upland 

Shrubland (Dry US)

SD9111, Stiff 

sagebrush / 

Sandberg’s bluegrass

100 - 250 (200) 1,007

Meadows MD3111, Kentucky 

bluegrass (dry 

meadow)

200 – 600 (400) 360

Moist Upland Forest 

(Moist UF)

CWF311, Grand fir / 

Twinflower

<200 9,562

Moist Upland 

Herbland (Moist UH)

GB5917, Idaho fescuebluebunch wheatgrassbalsamroot200 - 1,730 (965) 4,165

Rare plant species 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants 

There are two federally listed threatened plant species with potential habitat in the LJCRP (USFWS 

2014). McFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) is not suspected in the LJCRP as a result of 

previous work in the project area. While suitable habitat for Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) exists 

in the project area, no occupied sites were found within LJCRP. 

TES plant surveys were conducted in the Lower Joseph Watershed as part of the 2010 Lower Joseph 

Range EA (JCRAA). Over 3000 acres of potential habitat within the JCRAA were inventoried (under 

contracts) for potential sensitive and listed plant species during the 2003 & 2004 field seasons (USDA 

Forest Service R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List). These surveys targeted areas modeled as 

very high and high potential habitat for (MacFarlane’s four o’clock in Joseph Canyon) and Spalding’s 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

78 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

catchfly, as well as potential habitat for Forest Service Sensitive plant species (Murray 2001). Follow-up 

visits to many sensitive plant occurrences resulted in the identification of new individuals and occurrences 

and more accurate counts of individuals at known sites. In 2014, using existing information and local 

expertise, an additional 23,747 were surveyed, focusing on Silene spaldingii habitat as well as other 

suspected TES plant species. New populations of Achnatherum wallwaensis and Erigeron englemannii v. 

davisii were found, but no Silene spaldingii was located. 

LJCRP is not within a key conservation area for Spalding’s catchfly (Service 2007). Key conservation 

areas were designated in the Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (USFWS 2007) and are areas with intact 

habitat able to support at least 500 individuals. The Key Areas closest to LJCRP are Joseph Creek on Nez 

Perce Precious Lands Wildlife Managment Area within the Canyon Grasslands biophysical province, and 

Crow Creek, primarily on the Wallowa-Whitman NF, within the Blue Mountain Basins biophysical 

province. As a result of the absence of occupied habitat, in combination with project design criteria to 

protect grassland habitat, LJCRP is not likely to adversely affect Spalding’s catchfly. A separate 

Biological Assessment will be prepared for Spaulding’s catchfly and submitted to USFWS. Habitat 

analysis for Spalding’s catchfly is included with the R6 Sensitive species found in grasslands since there 

is potential habitat for this species. Appendix E lists all suspected and documented TES plant species. 

Appendix F provides more information on sensitive plant species habitat types.

Sources of information regarding TES plants in LJCRP include: 

 NRM TES Plant tabular and spatial data USFS 2014

 Lower Joseph Range Analysis, WMO, 2005

 Lower Joseph Watershed Analysis (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 2010, Wallowa County 2014)

 Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly), USFWS 2007

 Project Files for The Blue Mountain LRMP, Brooks 2007

 USDA NRCS Plants Database (website)

 2007-2013 Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria (website)

 Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (website)

 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center

U.S. Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive and Strategic Plants 

Appendices E lists sensitive plant species that are suspected or known to occur in the LJCRP. These 

species are described below by habitat group. Appendix F also provides more information on these 

species’ habitats.

Coniferous Forest (Dry upland forest and moist upland forest PVGs) 

The conifer forest habitat group includes all types of forest found in LJCRP, from dry ponderosa pine 

forest to the moist grand-fir, although most of the TES species listed below are found in mesic/moist 

conifer habitat. Cordilleran sedge (Carex cordillariana) and clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium 

fasciculatum) are found in both moist and dry forests, though both plants need some shade, if not tree 

canopy, then shrub canopy. Northern twayblade (Listera borealis) is found in forested areas with high soil 

moisture such as mossy areas, forested swampy areas and along forested cold streams. Both the clustered 

lady’s slipper and northern twayblade are in the orchid family and require some sort of mycorrhizal 

symbiont. Mycorrhizae are the underground portion of a group of mushrooms that grow on the roots of 

plants, taking nutrients from the host plant or tree in return for more efficient nutrient and water 

absorbtion by the plant or tree host. The truffles, Rhizopogon subclavitisporus and R. bascillisporus have 

scant habitat information and are assumed to be found in both dry and moist conifer forests. Truffles are 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 79 

mycorrhizal fungi whose fruiting bodies stay below the soil surface. Coarse woody debris in an important 

substrate for liverworts and mosses in forest habitats. Bug on a stick is found an a variety of substrates 

such as wood or soil in both open and closed canopy forests, though associated tree species (Doug-fir, 

western hemlock, and lodgepole suggest moist to cold forests. Moist forests are the habitat of naugehyde 

liverwort (Ptilidium pulcherrimum), in LJCRP it would be expected in the most mesic forested habitats, 

likely on the lower boles and bases of trees. Goblin’s gold (Schistostega pennata and bent stem moss 

(Tetraphis geniculata) both inhabit closed canopy, low light areas on wood or soil. Pacific Yew, (Taxus 

brevifolia) is not a sensitive species, but is a species of concern for the WWNF Wallowa Mountain 

District. Pacific Yew, like many of the suspected sensitive plants and bryophytes, requires closed canopy 

conditions in the most mesic of moist forest habitat found in LJCRP. 

Potential threats to TES plants in coniferous forest habitat are: changes in light regimes; changes in soil 

moisture and microsite humidity due to loss of canopy closure; grazing; prescribed burning in the spring; 

soil disturbance from logging activities; and road construction and maintenance. For clustered lady’s 

slipper, fires severe enough to burn through the duff layer and into the organic horizons may damage the 

shallow rhizome/root system. Lichthardt (2001) studied fire effects on C. fasciculatum on the Wenatchee 

NF and their work suggests that the species cannot tolerate high-intensity fire that eliminates the duff 

layer, as indicated by a lack of roots and rhizomes found in excavations after fire. Opening canopy for 

cordilleran sedge, through mechanical treatment or fire may provide habitat, but may also make plants 

more susceptable to grazing. Appendix F provides more information on sensitive species suspected to 

occur in coniferous forests in the LJCRP area.

Grasslands (Moist and Dry Upland Herbland PVGs) 

Grasslands are composed of upland herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses. Grasslands include both 

moist and dry bunchgrass habitats. Meadows and grass or grass-like dominated riparian areas are separate 

habitat groups. There are two grassland species documented in the LJCRP, green band mariposa lily 

(Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus) and rough rabbitweed (Pyrrocoma scaberula).Both are regional 

endemics, meaning they are only found in our part of the world. There are thirteen records (Oregon 

Biodiversity Information Center) of rough rabbitweed in the Joseph Canyon area, only one is in the 

project area, the other twelve are adjacent, with eleven on Nez Perce precious lands and one on BLM 

land. Rough rabbitweed is a composite (in the daisy/ sunflower family) that grows in deeper grassland 

soils with Idaho-fescue, often in trasition zones between grassland and Douglas-fir-ponderosa pine 

stringers. It is remarkable that there is only one known population on USFS lands in the LJCRP project 

area. Nez Perce Precious Lands to the north are not grazed. It is unknown at this time what factors 

influence the presence or absence of rough rabbitweed.Green band mariposa lily is a member of the lily 

family, and like many lilies has a corm or strachy bulb that helps this plant survive in the more xeric 

rockier parts of the Joseph canyonlands. Green band mariposa lily is slightly more plentiful with ten 

populations within the LJCRP and another six populations on other land ownerships. This species is a 

seasonal round plant for the Nez Perce tribe. Both green band mariposa and rough rabbitweed are 

concentrated at the very north end of the LJCRP, extending north into other land ownerships. The known 

site of Pyrrocoma scaberula is not near any project activities. Moist upland grasslands, those in the Idaho 

fescue plant associations, are also habitat for Spalding’s catchfly. Rough rabbitweed sites were found 

during searches for the rare, endangered catchfly (Roger Ferriel, pers. comm.). Spalding’s catchfly is also 

found at the bases of toeslopes in Idaho fescue grasslands (S. Geer, pers. comm.), which can be drier sites 

and the rough rabbitweed sites. The suspected plant, needle leaf sedge is a small inconspicuous grasslike 

plant that grows in dry prairie, sagebrush steppe and open forest. In our area it is a glacial relict, where 

small isolated populations were left after the last glacier retreat. Current documented populations are in 

the northern Rockies. There is one historic site from Baker county dated 1938. Delphinium bicolor is 

suspected in the project area and is found in dry meadow edges, sage scrub, open woodlands and 

woodland edges, and in seepy areas in dry forest. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

80 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

For the most part, moist upland herbland is in good to fair condition within the project area. Dry upland 

herblands are generally in fair to poor condition in the project area. The generally poor condition of dry 

upland herblands may be due to drier soil conditions and shorter growing seasons in droughty years 

which may make recovery slower than recovery of moist upland herblands, even when management is 

changed in a positive direction. Moist grasslands and dry grasslands are both at risk from degradation due 

to grazing, which can include increases in size and connectivity of bare soil patches, loss of biological soil 

crusts, and increases in invasive non-native annual grasses and noxious weeds. Care must be taken 

regarding timing and extent of prescribed fire in grasslands. Spring burning, if conditions allow it, can 

damage growing plants. Prescribed burning must be done in coordination with grazing so that grasslands 

have time to recover from burning prior to grazing. Idaho fescue is often suppressed for a few years after 

wildfire, after which it regains its former cover, while other species in Idaho fescue communities return to 

prefire cover in the first year after fire. Bluebunch wheatgrass plant associations typically regain prefire 

cover in the first year after fire. Other threats to grasslands are ground disturbance from road construction 

and maintenance, and logging. Appendix F provides more information on sensitive grassland species 

suspected or known to occur in the LJCRP area.

Moist meadows 

Moist meadows are typically saturated in the spring, but by mid to late summer the water table has fallen 

below the soil surface. In LJCRP there are many moist meadows interspersed within forested areas. 

Several sensitive plant species are found in the transition zone between the wet or moist meadows and the 

surrounding forest or otherwise drier areas, such as moonworts (Botrychium spp.), dwarf Phacelia 

(Phacelia minutissima), and Douglas’ clover (Trifolium douglasii). Camas and yampa are two important 

food plants that occur in these habitats. Main threats are road or trail construction or maintenance, 

recreationists, off highway vehicles, forage seeding, poorly designed or broken water developments, 

changes in the water table, possibly logging and burning projects, and grazing. Appendix F provides more 

information on sensitive meadow species suspected to occur in the LJCRP area.

Springs and seeps 

Springs are points where groundwater emerges and flows. Groundwater also feeds seeps, but seeps do not 

produce perennial flow. Threats include grazing, improperly placed or malfunctioning water 

improvements, and other activities that cause changes in hydrology. Springs and seeps are typically small, 

but are well distributed on all three forests in the plan area. Appendix F provides more information on 

sensitive species suspected to occur in springs and seeps in the LJCRP area.

Wet meadows, riparian 

Wet meadows are saturated throughout the growing season with the water table at or slightly below the 

soil surface. Threats include changes in hydrology, trampling and browsing, invasive wetland plants, such 

as reed canary grass. Appendix F provides more information on sensitive species suspected to occur in 

wet meadows and riparian areas in the LJCRP area.

Rock Outcrops, Talus, Scree 

Talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops are expected to be impacted to a relatively small degree. Outside 

wilderness areas, this habitat type is likely to be the least affected by forest and rangeland management 

activities. This is because talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops support scant vegetation that does not support or 

attract grazing livestock or possess sufficient fuel to carry a prescribed fire. Road construction and rock 

quarries are apt to be the only management activities with potential to affect these sites. Appendix F 

provides more information on sensitive species suspected to occur on rock outcrops, talus or scree 

habitats in the LJCRP area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 81 

Lithosols and Rigid Sagebrush Steppe 

Lithosols are habitats with very shallow soils with little zonation on poorly weathered basalt or andesitic 

bedrock. While the soils can be saturated following spring snow melt, they dry quickly and are exposed to 

full sun for the entire growing season. Plants adapted to this harsh environment usually bloom and fruit 

early in the growing season. Basalt lithosols can be found in the dry upland shrubland potential vegetation 

group or dry upland herbland potential vegetation group. Basalt lithosols may also be found as small 

inclusions within a larger matrix of grassland and shrublands, as well as adjacent for forests. The common 

plant associations within the dry upland shrubland and dry upland herbland potential vegetation groupings 

are stiff sagebrush or low sagebrush/Sandberg’s bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass/Sandberg’s bluegrass or 

Sandberg’s bluegrass/one-spike oatgrass. Countryman, et al (2012) found that conditions had improved in 

the dry shrubland potential vegetation group from 30 years earlier, but that this improvement has slowed. 

The dry herbland potential vegetation group has experienced invasion by nonnative plants resulting in 

conversion of some lands to exotic herblands (Hann 1997). Wallowa ricegrass, Englemann’s daisy, and 

white cushion Erigeron are documented on lithosols the LJCRP project area. The lichen, Thelnella 

muscorum v. octospora, a component of biological soil crusts, is suspected. Appendix F provides more 

information on sensitive species suspected or known to occur on lithosols in the LJCRP area. Threats to 

lithosol habitat include: livestock trampling, grazing and trailing especially before soils have dried 

sufficiently; salt blocks, invasion of exotics, road construction, OHV traffic, and log decking. 

Diversity and viability of plant habitats 

Diversity 

"Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent 

with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning area. Such diversity shall be considered 

throughout the planning process. Inventories shall include quantitative data making possible the 

evaluation of diversity in terms of its prior and present condition. For each planning alternative, the 

interdisciplinary team shall consider how diversity will be affected by various mixes of resource outputs 

and uses, including proposed management practices." (36 CFR 219.26) 

Diversity is given in this document as total number of vascular plant species, as a ratio of native to nonnative plants, and as values using the Shannon diversity index, which gives an idea of the variance within 

Potential Vegetation Groups found in the LJCRP. The Shannon diversity index represents information for 

a community, where the more variation in a community’s composition, the less predictable each sample of 

it would be. Values range from 0 for a community with one species to values up to 7 for communities 

with many species, The higher the number, the less predictable the sample (Barbour 1987).

Plants were categorized according to information from NRCS Plants database and the Blue Mountain 

Ecology database. Ecology plots established to describe plant communities and associations provided 

species lists for each habitat type. Ecology plots were established to be representative of vegetation types 

in good condition, and while the data from ecology plots cannot be directly extrapolated to the project 

area, they provide useful information on the potential vegetation types they represent.

Viability 

“For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers 

and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the 

planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to 

support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed 

so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” (36 CFR 219.19) Species included 

on the R6 Regional Forester’s TES list have viability concerns. In addition to the R6 determination of 

viability at risk, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC), a state funded entity that provides 

information on Rare Plants and Animals in Oregon, provides more detail about the type of rarity/viability 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

82 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

risk for each species. ORBIC uses a 1-5 scaled ranking, based primarily on the number of known 

occurrences, but also including threats, sensitivity, area occupied, and other biological factors. Global (G) 

and State (S) are included. The ranks are summarized below:

1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because it is somehow especially vulnerable to 

extinction or extirpation, typically with 5 or fewer occurrences.

2 = Imperiled because of rarity or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to 

extinction (extirpation), typically with 6-20 occurrences.

3 = Rare, uncommon or threatened, but not immediately imperiled, typically with 21-100 occurrences.

4 = Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 

occurrences.

5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.

H = Historical Occurrence, formerly part of the native biota with the implied expectation that it may be 

rediscovered.

ORBIC rankings and range information from literature and herbarium information are included for each 

documented or suspected species in the project area. 

Habitat 

Overall quality of habitat on a landscape scale using percent departure from historic range of variability 

(HRV) by Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) is given for coniferous forest. HRV for grasslands is 

described the state and transition concept. According to the state and transition model, vegetation at a 

given site is determined by a complex set of interactions of past management, natural disturbances, 

climate, and seed sources (See Range section for explanation).

Table 37 shows diversity as a function of native to non-native plants and gives the Shannon diversity 

index value, which is a reflection of variability where a higher score indicates greater variability for that 

community. Percent native cover in the LJCRP is greater than for the Blue Mountains in general. Reasons 

for this could be more productive site conditions, or less historical disturbance than the overall conditions 

found in the Blue Mountain ecoregion.

Table 38. Native plant diversity for the LJCRP area 

Habitat Total Species 

Richness

Native 

Species 

Richness

Percent Relative 

Cover in Native 

Species

Shannon 

Diversity 

Index

ARRI/POSA3 (SCAB) 60 53 93 3.7

Cold Moist FEID 140 116 89 4.4

Dry UH 126 109 91 4.4

Moist UF 80 73 95 3.9

Dry UF 139 110 86 4.3

Non-native invasive plants 

Non-native invasive plants (weeds) threaten economic and ecologic viability in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Watershed. Across the watershed, weeds threaten ecological integrity by reducing biodiversity, altering 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 83 

native plant communities, altering stream nutrient release cycles, and increasing soil erosion. Weeds are 

damaging to rangeland health because they simplify riparian and upland plant community structure and 

function, and reduce forage quality and quantity (Wallowa County 2006b). These impacts degrade 

economic and social values of agricultural lands, rangeland, forestlands, and wetlands. Annual economic 

losses from 21 of the 99 noxious weeds listed by Oregon, estimated in 2000, were $83 million dollars, or 

about 3,329 jobs per year (ODA Plant Division 2001). Noxious weeds can spread at an estimated rate of 8 

to 14% per year (Whitson 1998), and for some species, at rates of 60% growth per year (Prather 1989). 

Appendix H summarizes most of the non-native invasive plants found within the project area.

Non-native annual grasses alter grasslands by competing with native plants for limited resources and 

increasing fine fuels. They can form heavy thatch which may interfere with biological soil crust (BSC) 

development and alter BSC species composition and the growth of native seedlings. Non-native annual 

grasses known to occur in the LJCRP area are Bromus japonicus, Bromus brizaeformis, Bromus mollis, 

Bromus tectorum, Ventenata dubia, Taeniatherum catput-medusae, and Vulpia myuros. The extent of 

infestation by non-native annual grasses can only be speculated, since records are incomplete for these 

species. It is assumed that all grasslands within the project area have the potential to be infested. 

Some non-native pasture grasses were planted in the past, notably after the 1986 Wildcat fire. Like nonnative annual grasses, these species also compete with native species for available resources. Current nonnative pasture grass species are: Dactylis glomerata, Thinopyrum intermedium, Phleum praetense, and 

Bromus carinatus x cultivar. These cultivars, which have persisted and thrived since planting, now 

occupy roadsides, openings and disturbed and undisturbed open areas throughout the project area. The 

persistence of these species are now known to be problematic when used for restoration purposes (USDA 

Forest Service Region 1 2014). Inventory and the history of planting pasture grass are incomplete. 

Multiple introductions may have occurred before or after the 1986 post-fire seeding. Information 

regarding the 1986 post-fire seeding was lost in the 2009 fire that burned the Wallowa Mountains Visitor 

Center and federal office building.

Construction and use of roads contributes to the expansion of undesirable exotic plants and noxious weed 

populations throughout much of the forest. Roads are the primary spread corridors for weedy species as 

vehicles readily transport seeds on their undersides and muddy tires. Large populations of noxious weeds 

and exotic plants are found along roads that access forest land from agricultural areas. Smaller 

populations are found throughout the project area, with the highest concentrations found along heavily 

traveled roads. Weedy species are detrimental to native plant communities, displacing natives and 

potentially converting entire communities to exotic groundcover. Adverse effects include a loss of 

species diversity in understory plant communities, degradation of wildlife habitat and range forage, and 

loss of soil-holding capacity leading to increased erosion and sedimentation. Grasslands and grass-tree 

mosaic communities are most at risk from expanding weed populations. Several of these already contain 

rapidly expanding populations of yellow starthistle, knapweed, ventenata grass, and medusahead.

Besides providing transport routes, roads provide prime seedbeds for weedy species. New road 

construction and regular maintenance activities create the bare soil and early seral conditions that offer 

advantage to these aggressively invasive plants. Roads also offer an advantage of easy access for 

monitoring and treatment of noxious weed populations that are already established. Closing roads that 

currently support noxious weed populations can impede treatment access. 

During reconnaissance of the project area, it was found that not all noxious weed sites have been recorded 

in the Forest Service’s corporate database (Natural Resource Manager (NRM)). Cynoglossum officinale

(hound’s tongue) is common along roads within the project area, as well as old landings, but has not been 

documented thoroughly. It was assumed for this analysis that hound’s tongue is present throughout the 

road system and has the potential to be on all old landings.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

84 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Non-native annual grasses and seeded forage grasses are not currently documented in the NRM database. 

The Forest Service’s Blue Mountain Ecology program maintains a database with data collected from 

ecology plots and range condition and trend plots in key areas. Range monitoring key areas and ecology 

plots are subjectively selected to represent typical vegetation and condition; hence, the data cannot be 

directly extrapolated to the project area. In addition, ecology plots are not placed in highly disturbed areas 

such as landings, salting areas, water troughs, roadsides, quarries, or old agricultural fields where nonnative invasive species are most prevalent. However, the amount of cover in noxious weeds, non-native 

annual grasses, and seeded forage grasses documented on range and ecology plots likely represents what 

is typically found in the project area in general.

Appendix H lists invasive plant species documented in the NRM database, and/or observed in the LJCRP 

area. The NRM database focuses on state listed noxious weeds, but can include any invasive plant of 

concern. NRM database also tracks invasive plant surveys as well as treatments. 

Treatment History 

In an effort to effectively and strategically manage noxious weeds across the landscape, the Wallowa 

Canyonlands Partnership (WCP) began in 2000. The WCP is a Cooperative Weed Management Area 

(CWMA) that works with federal, state, and county agencies, private landowners and the Nez Perce tribe 

to manage noxious weeds across jurisdictional boundaries. In the past, the WCP steering committee 

included the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Wallowa Resources, Tri County CWMA, Oregon Dept. 

of Agriculture, Wallowa County Vegetative Dept., The Nature Conservancy, and BLM. As they began 

work in Lower Joseph Creek, the WCP worked with Asotin County and Washington Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife. 

In March 2010, the Final EIS for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment was 

completed. A Record of Decision was signed on April 2, 2010. The project was underway when the 

Forest Service was sued by the League of Wilderness Defenders (District of Oregon, in League of 

Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service and 

Connaughton; Case 3:10-cv-01397-SI). The court found the purpose and need for action, Proposed 

Action, range of alternatives, and direct/indirect effects analysis adequate to meet the spirit and letter of 

NEPA. However, the court found the original cumulative effects analysis inadequate (Dresser 2013). As a 

result, until a SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) is completed, 17,000 acres and any 

newly identified infestations may be treated using only non-chemical methods. Continued herbicide use is 

site specific as outlined in the 2012 Partial Vacatur Opinion and Order. LJCRP includes sites covered 

under exhibit 1 (Approved treatment) of the Partial Vacatur. These sites were approved under the 92-94 

Environmental Assessments and the 2010 EIS approved chemicals that can be used on these sites (Table 

39).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 85 

Table 39. Treatments in 2012-2013 using the 2012 Invasive Plant EIS Litigation Settlement Guidelines 

(Beckijo Smergut, pers.comm) 

Non-native plant species Sum of acres

Centaurea diffusa 115.32

Centaurea maculosa 12.43

Centaurea solstitialis 4.51

Cirsium arvense 1.94

Onopordum acanthium 117.58

Senecio jacobaea 4.46

Grand Total 256.24

Additionally, the 2012 Partial Vacatur Opinions and Order allows for limited treatments consisting of spot 

and hand/select treatments outside of RHCA boundaries using herbicide formulations and mixtures 

containing one or more of eight active ingredients—clorsulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate (excluding the 

Round-up formulation), imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, sethoxydim, and sulfometuron—of the 

sites listed on Exhibit 2. Table 40 lists the weed sites in the LJCRP area that fall into this category.

Table 40. Limited treatments in 2012-2013 using the 2012 Invasive Plant EIS Litigation Settlement Guidelines 

(Beckijo Smergut, pers.comm) 

Non-native plant species Sum of Acres

Centaurea solstitialis 18.09

Onopordum acanthium 282.05

Grand Total 300.14

The Wallowa Mountain Office of the WWNF considers all ODA A-listed weeds as high priority for 

treatment. The litigation has left notable weed infestations untreated, such as the Swamp Creek Meadow 

Hawkweed population, which covers patches of the flat parts of the meadow. Mechanical means are 

ineffective for meadow hawkweed, which is rhizomatous and able to sprout from roots and root 

fragments.

Aquatic habitat 

Proposed, threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species 

Snake River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were listed as threatened on August 11, 1997. Designated 

critical habitat was designated on September 2, 2005 and became effective on January 2, 2006. Snake 

River steelhead have been documented in the analysis area. 

Steelhead are widely distributed in Joseph Creek including throughout the LJCRP analysis area. The 

current population level (abundance) of the Joseph Creek steelhead population has remained above 1,000 

spawners (ICTRT 2010) since 1996 and is rated at very low risk (NOAA 2014). The Joseph Creek 

steelhead population currently meets the viability criteria with a viability rating of Highly Viable (ICTRT 

2007).

Bull trout, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and Snake River spring Chinook salmon are not present in 

the aquatic effects areas. Additionally, potential effects to aquatic habitat from the proposed activities will 

not extend into stream reaches occupied by these species downstream of the analysis area. Habitats for 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

86 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

other sensitive aquatic species for the WWNF are not present in the analysis area. Critical habitat for 

Snake River steelhead is present in the analysis area. 

Management Indicator Species - Fish 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to provide habitat to maintain 

viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) were selected for emphasis in planning, and are assessed during forest plan implementation 

in order to determine the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of 

other species with similar habitat needs. The amount and quality of habitat is used as a proxy for 

determining the effects of project activities on MIS.

Both steelhead and redband trout are MIS species for the forest plan. The analysis for each species will 

be done for each alternative described in this DEIS.

See Table 41 for miles of spawning and rearing habitat and miles of designated critical habitat for each of 

the listed and sensitive fish species within the project area by stream. Designated critical habitat for 

steelhead includes all occupied habitat and is the same as the distribution of the species. 

Table 41. Miles of habitat by stream for listed and sensitive fish species within the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration project area. 

Stream

Name

Steelhead Habitat 

(Miles)

Redband Habitat 

(Miles)

Spawn Rear DCH Spawn Rear

Swamp Creek 21.1 21.1 21.7 21.7 21.7

Davis Creek 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3

Cougar Creek 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1

Green Gulch -Joseph 

Creek 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2

Broady Creek 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2

Horse Creek 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9

Cottonwood Creek 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8

Peavine Creek 10.0 10.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

Rush Creek 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

Sumac Creek 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

TOTALS 137.6 137.6 142.2 142.2 142.2

DCH=Designated Critical Habitat. Steelhead DCH: Includes occupied habitat. 

Redband trout surveys have not been conducted in the LJCRP area. It is assumed that their abundance 

overlaps that of Snake River Steelhead and extends above this range particularly where barriers to 

anadromous fish exist.

Redband trout, the resident form of Oncorhynchus mykiss, are widely distributed in the LJCRP area and 

likely share a common gene pool with steelhead. 

Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. Adult redband trout are generally 

associated with pool habitats, although various life stages require a wide array of habitats for rearing, 

hiding, feeding, and resting. Pool habitat functions as important refugia during low water periods. An 

increase in sediment lowers spawning success and reduces the quantity and quality of pool and interstitial 

habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and LWD.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 87 

Spawning takes place from March through May. Redds tend to be located where velocity, depth and 

bottom configuration induce water flow through the stream substrate, generally in gravels at the tailout 

area of pools. Eggs incubate during the spring and emergence occurs from June through July depending 

on water temperatures. Redband trout may reside in their natal stream or may migrate to other streams 

within a watershed to rear. Habitat requirements are similar for redband trout and juvenile steelhead.

The amount of occupied MIS habitat on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest ranges from about 320 

miles to over 990 miles, depending on the species (Table 42). Based on GIS analysis, the amount of MIS 

habitat in the project area (14.6 – 137.6 miles) represents a small percentage of the overall miles of habitat 

for the entire forest. Redband trout are assessed for the miles of habitat that is not covered by the cooccupancy with steelhead. This is about 14.6 miles of habitat where there is only redband trout 

occupancy.

Table 42. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest range. 

MIS

Forest 

Distribution 

(mi)*

MIS in 

Analysis 

Area (mi)

Proportion of MIS habitat in 

Project Area out of total on 

Forest

Rainbow Trout/ Redband 

Trout 320 14.6 4.6

Steelhead 990 137.6 13.9

*Miles calculated for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

Regional Forester Aquatic Sensitive Species 

The western ridge mussel (Gonidea angulata) is the only aquatic Regional Forester sensitive species with 

potential distribution in the LJCRP area. Record reviews and data searches by WWNF personnel revealed 

that western ridge mussels were historically present in large numbers in the Snake River. This review 

confirmed that western ridge mussels are currently present in the Snake River, Hells Canyon portion, on 

the Hells Canyon NRA. The current Snake River western ridge mussel population is suspected to be at 

very low levels compared to pre-European settlement. Western ridge mussels have not been documented 

in the LJCRP area. 

Threats to western ridge mussels and other species of freshwater mussels include loss of host fish, 

introduction of non-native fish, dams, channel modification from channelization and suction dredge 

mining, thermal pollution, chemical pollution, sedimentation and siltation from forest management and 

agricultural practices, water withdrawal and diversion, and livestock grazing in riparian areas. Since 

western ridge mussels require stable habitats, they may be particularly threatened by dewatering and other 

activities that cause shifting substrates, water level fluctuations, and seasonal loss of oxygen due to high 

temperatures or dewatering. Species that live for 20-30 years, as has been suggested for western ridge 

mussels, often appear to have healthy populations, when in reality only the older adults may be 

withstanding environmental changes and the population may no longer be reproducing.

Wildlife 

This analysis summarizes the terrestrial wildlife species found in the project area and the effects of the 

alternatives on these species. Rather than addressing all wildlife species, discussions focus on Forest Plan 

management indicator species (MIS), threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species, and landbirds. 

The existing condition is described for each species, group of species, or habitat. Direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of alternatives are identified and discussed. The full wildlife specialist report and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

88 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

supporting wildlife documentation is located in the Project Record, and includes detailed data, 

methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references and technical documentation used to reach 

conclusions in this environmental analysis. 

Viability of MIS is being assessed using the historical range of variability (HRV) concept that compares 

current amounts and distribution of habitat to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Suring et al. 

2011). Scientists assume that species are more likely to persist into the future under the conditions that 

remain most similar to the conditions that they persisted in during the past (Landres et al. 1999, Samson 

et al. 2002). It is assumed that maintaining habitat within HRV will provide adequate species population 

viability for the present suite of species. Individual species population viability is increasingly 

compromised as departure from HRV increases.

In general in the moist forest types the LJCRP area is low in the area of smaller trees, and is currently at 

the low end of large tree closed canopied habitat. Generally there is an abundance of medium and largemedium trees (10-20” dbh), and habitat >10” dbh with open canopies (<60% canopy closure) as 

compared to the range of variation. In the dry forests the LJCRP is below the range of variation in large 

tree, open canopied habitats, and above the range of variation in the medium and large-medium (10-20” 

dbh), closed canopied structural stages.

Management indicator species - wildlife 

Table 6 (Chapter 1) lists the terrestrial species selected as MIS in the Wallowa-Whitman LRMP. All of 

these MIS have habitat and occur in the planning area, with the exception of American Marten, whose 

presence in the LJCRP area is unknown. 

Primary cavity excavating birds 

Primary cavity excavating (PCE) birds (woodpeckers) depend on standing and down dead wood for 

nesting, roosting, and foraging. By providing adequate dead wood habitat for these birds, it is assumed 

that adequate habitat will be provided for other species that rely on dead wood for all or part of their life 

histories. Because these MIS where selected to represent dead and defective wood habitat, this analysis 

and discussion focuses primarily on that habitat component. Table 43 summarizes the current 

conservation status of cavity excavating birds on the MIS list. Additional information on cavityexcavating birds’ habitat associations, distribution and life history requirements is summarized in MellenMcLean et al. (2012). 

A few of the MIS woodpeckers are discussed in more detail due to conservation concerns. The pileated 

woodpecker is also MIS for old-growth habitats and further discussed in the old-growth habitat section of 

this document. More detailed discussions of white-headed and Lewis’ woodpeckers are found in the 

sensitive species section.

Table 43. Conservation status of cavity-nesting MIS 

Species

USFS 

Sensitive

NatureServe Ranks1

Global OR

Black-backed woodpecker G5 S3

Downy woodpecker G5 S4

Hairy woodpecker G5 S4

Lewis’s woodpecker Yes G4 S2S3

Northern flicker G5 S5

Northern three-toed woodpecker G5 S3

Red-naped sapsucker G5 S4

White-headed woodpecker Yes G4 S2S3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 89 

Species

USFS 

Sensitive

NatureServe Ranks1

Global OR

Williamson’s sapsucker G5 S4B S3N

Pygmy nuthatch G5 S4

Red-breasted nuthatch G5 S5

White-breasted nuthatch G5 S4

Black-capped chickadee G5 S5

Chestnut-backed chickadee G5 S5

Mountain chickadee G5 S4

1/ NatureServe Ranks (NatureServe 2010): G5 or S5 = widespread, abundant, secure; G4 or S4 = 

apparently secure; G3 or S3 = vulnerable; G2 or S2 – Imperiled

In general, populations of cavity nesting birds have declined across the Blue Mountains compared to 

historical conditions, primarily due to reductions in the numbers of large snags (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

However, of the cavity excavating MIS, Breeding Bird Surveys in Oregon have only detected a 

significant decrease in populations of the northern flicker between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al. 2011).

Current forest plan direction, as amended by the Eastside Screens, is to maintain snags at 100% of 

biological potential for all woodpecker species that occur on the Forest. This equates to 2.25 snags/acre 

>12” dbh and 0.14 snags/acre > 20” dbh. Snags can be averaged over an area no larger than 40 acres. The 

desired condition is to maintain snags in a clumped distribution.

Rose et al. (2001) report that monitoring indicates that the biological potential models are a flawed 

technique. New information about the ecology, dynamics, and management of decayed wood has been 

published since then, and the state of the knowledge continues to change. However, until the forest plan is 

amended to reflect the new science, 100% biological potential is the minimum number of snags that need 

to be maintained through the life of the stand.

Integration of the latest science is incorporated into this analysis using DecAID Advisor (version 2.2) 

(Mellen-McLean et al. 2012), which is an internet-based summary, synthesis, and integration (a "metaanalysis") of the best available science, including published scientific literature, research data, wildlife 

databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. 

Data from unharvested plots are assessed separately and these data can be used as a reference condition to 

approximate HRV of dead wood. There is debate among professionals on the impact fire exclusion has on 

stands relative to HRV of dead wood. One caveat to using these data is, "On the eastside in particular, 

current levels of dead wood may be elevated above historical conditions due to fire suppression and 

increased mortality, and may be depleted below historical levels in local areas burned by intense fire or 

subjected to repeated salvage and firewood cutting" (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Even with this caveat, 

the data are used in this analysis because they are still some of the best data available to assess HRV of 

dead wood, even in eastside dry forests; they are the only available data showing distribution and 

variation in snag and down wood amounts across the landscape; and the data from unharvested stands are 

in the range of other published data on HRV of dead wood even in the drier vegetation types. For a full 

discussion see HRV Dead Wood Comparison (Mellen-McLean 2011).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

90 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

A distribution analysis10 was used to determine how close current conditions for dead wood on the 

landscape match reference conditions. Existing conditions for down wood were derived by using Gradient 

Nearest Neighbor (GNN) data11. GNN data are based on 2011 imagery. 

The distribution analysis results are then compared to the needs of woodpecker species using tolerance 

levels and intervals (range between 2 tolerance levels) from DecAID. Tolerance intervals are estimates of 

the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values. See the 

wildlife specialist’s report for specific snag densities by tolerance level.

The PPDF and EMC wildlife habitat types occur in the analysis area. Results of the DecAID distribution 

analysis are displayed in Figures 2-3. 

In the Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Wildlife Habitat Type (PPDF WHT), the landscape is near or above 

reference conditions for densities of large snags (>20”), and for snags >10” in density classes < 8 

snags/acre (Figure 2). There is less area lacking snags (0 snags/acre) than would be expected under 

reference conditions, and more area in the lower snag density classes. Most woodpecker species using this 

WHT should currently have an adequate amount of snag habitat on the landscape. The exception is those 

species using high densities of small snags in recent post-fire habitats (e.g., black-backed woodpecker). 

Large snag habitat for pileated woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker is rare in this WHT both 

currently and with reference conditions.

In the Eastside Mixed Conifer Wildlife Habitat Type (WHT), the landscape is deficit in snags density 

classes above 2 per acre for large (> 20” dbh) snags, as compared to reference conditions (Figure 3). Snag 

habitat for cavity-nesting birds is generally below reference conditions for densities of both large (>20”) 

and small (>10”) snags as more area is within the snag density class of 0 snags/acre than would be 

expected. In the higher density classes, especially the highest density classes, the area is currently below 

reference condition. These snag density classes (in deficit) provide habitat above the 30% tolerance level 

for pileated woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker. Large snag habitat for those two species may be 

limiting in this WHT and the 2 woodpeckers may be limited to more productive sites in this WHT where 

snag densities are expected to be higher (Bull et al. 2006, Ohmann and Waddell 2002). 

The amount of the landscape in the highest density classes for snags may be somewhat inflated due to an 

excess of dense stands with smaller trees susceptible to mortality than likely occurred historically. In 

addition, the data used in the calculation of reference conditions are from the late 1990s when spruce 

budworms were active in the Blue Mountains which created high levels of tree mortality.

Pileated woodpecker 

The pileated woodpecker is an MIS for both dead and defective wood habitat and old growth habitats. For 

additional details see Mellen-McLean (2012a) in the analysis file. Also see the body of work by Evelyn 

Bull in the Blue Mountains (Bull 1987, Bull and Holthausen 1993, Bull et al. 2005a, Bull et al. 2007, 

Nielsen-Pincus and Garton 2007).

Pileated woodpeckers are associated with late-seral stages of the subalpine, montane, lower montane 

forests, specifically, the old-forest single- and multi-strata stages of mixed conifer forests (Wisdom et al. 

2000). Stands of pure ponderosa pine typically lack the abundance of snags and downed wood necessary 

for foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers (Bull et al. 2007). In the Blue Mountains, densities of 

nesting pairs of pileated woodpeckers were positively associated with the amount of late structural stage 

forest and negatively associated with the amount of area dominated by ponderosa pine and the amount of 

area with regeneration harvests (Bull et al. 2007). 

 

10 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/distribution-analysis-green-tree.shtml 

11 http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/plot-database 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 91 

Snags, down logs, and large hollow trees are important habitat components for pileated woodpeckers. 

Large ponderosa pine and western larch snags are used for nesting and roosting (Bull 1987). Bull and 

Holthausen (1993) found that density of large snags (> 20 inches dbh) was the best predictor of density of 

pileated woodpeckers in the Blue Mountains. The woodpeckers also use large, decadent trees and hollow 

grand fir for roosting (Bull et al. 1992). Large snags and down logs are important foraging substrate for 

pileated woodpeckers in the Blue Mountains (Bull 1987).

Pileated woodpeckers are considered vulnerable in the state by ODFW12. However, they are considered 

“apparently secure” in Oregon by NatureServe. Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to 

fire suppression, habitat for pileated woodpeckers is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 

2000). However, densities of large-diameter snags (>20 inches dbh) have declined from historical to 

current levels (Wisdom et al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002). 

As discussed in Chapter 1, densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh) in the Eastside Mixed Conifer (EMC) 

WHT are below reference conditions in the snag density classes that provide habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers (Figure 2, Chapter 1). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for pileated woodpeckers 

in the EMC habitat types (moist forest PVG).

A viability assessment completed for the LRMP Revision indicates a moderate viability concern for the 

pileated woodpecker on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest; suitable environments are moderately 

distributed and/or exist at moderate abundance across the historical range of the species (Wales et al. 

2011).

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, structural conditions used by 

Pileated woodpeckers may have increased on drier ponderosa pine sites. However, this habitat type does 

not produce large-diameter snags (>20 inches dbh) in densities used by Pileated woodpeckers (Figure 1, 

Chapter 1).

American marten 

The American marten is an MIS for old growth habitats. For additional details see Mellen-McLean 

(2012b) in the analysis file. Also see the body of work led by Evelyn Bull in the Blue Mountains (Bull 

2000{Bull, 1999 #689, Bull and Heater 2000, Bull et al. 2005b).

American marten are associated with old multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multi-story 

structural stages in subalpine and montane forests. Large snags and down logs provide rest and den sites 

for marten. (Wisdom et al. 2000)

In the Blue Mountains, marten selected unharvested, closed canopy (50-75%), old-structure stands in 

subalpine fir, spruce, grand fir, and lodgepole forests (Bull et al. 2005b). Stands used by martens had 

higher densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh), averaging 4.0 snags/acre. Snags used as resting and 

denning sites average from 26 to 38 inches dbh in eastern Oregon, depending on habitat type (MellenMcLean et al. 2012).

In addition to providing rest and den sites, down wood is an important component of marten habitat 

because their primary prey is small mammals associated with down wood. These small mammals include 

voles (Microtus sp.) red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) and 

squirrels in northeast Oregon (Bull and Blumton 1999, Bull 2000). Subnivean (under snow) spaces 

created by logs provide marten with access to prey during the winter (Bull and Blumton 1999). Down 

wood used as den and rest sites in the Blue Mountains averaged 26 inches dbh (Bull and Heater 2000).

 

12 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

92 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

American marten are considered vulnerable in the Blue Mountains by ODFW13, however, they are also a 

hunted species. They are considered “vulnerable” to “apparently secure” in Oregon by NatureServe14

. 

Reduction in amount of late-seral forest and associated large snags and logs, and associated fragmentation 

of habitat are the main reasons marten are considered vulnerable (Wisdom et al. 2000, Hargis et al 1999).

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for American marten is 

increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities of large-diameter snags 

(>20 inches dbh) have declined from historical to current levels (Wisdom et al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002). 

Densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh) in the EMC WHT are below reference conditions in the snag 

density classes that provide habitat for American marten (See the wildlife specialist’s report for more 

information on tolerance levels for American marten). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for 

marten in these habitat types.

A viability assessment completed for the Wallowa-Whitman forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 

2014) indicates a low to moderate concern for the American marten on the WWNF. Historically, habitat 

was of moderate to low abundance with gaps in distribution, and these currently conditions are similar at 

the scale of the Forest (Wales et al. 2011).

The American marten is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in North America (Bull and Heater 

2001). Marten in northeastern Oregon exhibited larger home ranges than those found in many studies with 

an average home range size of 6,714 acres for males and 3,499 acres for females (Bull and Heater 2001). 

Bull and Heater (2001) recommended managing larger areas (16.78 mi2 (10,739 acres) per breeding pair) 

for marten in northeastern Oregon. Martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat fragmentation 

(>25%) (Hargis et al. 1999), and Bull and Blumton (1999) found declines in red –backed voles, red 

squirrels, and snow shoe hares in fuel reduction harvests, which are primary prey items for martens. 

Furthermore, martens avoided all harvested stands and stands with less than 50 % canopy closure (Bull et 

al. 2005b).

Potential habitat for marten in the LJCRP area is limited. Currently there are 9,833 acres of potential 

habitat of which about 1,829 acres is source habitat in the project area (17% of the potential). Source 

habitat was described as those areas in moist forest with large trees (>=21”), and closed canopy 

conditions (>=60%). 

Currently the project area contains about 17% of the potential as source habitat, which is just below or at 

the lower end of the HRV for this habitat type (median HRV is 24% of potential source habitat area). 

Northern goshawk 

The northern goshawk is a MIS with nesting requirements associated with forested habitat with late/old 

structure (LOS), but will use a variety of forest structure types for other life history needs. It is an 

indicator of the abundance and distribution of mature and old-growth forests. Life history, risk factors, 

conservation status and population trend, as well as habitat condition and species viability are described in 

detail in the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Management Indicator Species Assessment, WallowaWhitman National Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011c). Wales (2011c) analyzed source habitat of 

numerous wildlife species of interest in the Blue Mountains and WWNF in support of the Blue Mountains 

Forest Plan Revision. Source habitats are defined by Wales (2011c) as those stands that provide for a 

stable or increasing population and for all the life history needs of the goshawk including nesting, 

roosting, foraging, resting, travel, and dispersal. Potential habitat is defined as stands within dry Douglasfir, dry grand fir, cool moist, and cold dry plant association groups that have the capability to provide 

 

13 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf 

14 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 93 

source habitat but that currently do not provide the tree size, canopy cover, or structural conditions. Given 

time and lack of human intervention or disturbance these areas may provide source habitat.

Wales (2011c) estimated that approximately 466,679 acres of source habitat existing on the WWNF 

historically. Currently, approximately 440,696 acres (94% of estimated historical conditions) of source 

habitat occurs on the WWNF. Source habitat for the goshawk is identified as forests with >15” DBH and 

closed canopies (dry forests canopy closure >=40%, moist forest canopy closure >=60%). The risk and 

habitat quality factors were the abundance of forests with trees >20” and closed canopy as well as habitat 

effectiveness. Primarily as a result of an abundance of source habitat in many areas above the median 

HRV, the viability of goshawks in the Blue Mountains was calculated to currently be an A outcome 

(Wales et al. 2011). An “A” outcome is described as ‘suitable environments are broadly distributed and of 

high abundance across the historical range of the species.’

The existing condition within the Lower Joseph Creek watershed contains 19,362 acres of source habitat 

for the northern goshawk. This corresponds to about 55% of the potential habitat. The HRV for this 

species that was calculated as a mean across all watersheds on the Wallowa-Whitman NF (Wales et al. 

2011, USDA Forest Service 2014) found the range to be 1-46%. Currently goshawk habitat is above the 

HRV in the LJCRP area. 

Old growth management areas, late-old forest habitat, and connectivity corridors 

Three species were selected in the forest plan to represent old growth habitats that have habitat in the 

LJCRP area: pileated woodpecker, American marten, and goshawk. The Forest Plan designated old 

growth management areas (Management Area 15; MA15) and provides standards and guidelines (Forest 

Plan 4-89 through 4-91) for their management. Habitat for these species is discussed specifically above. 

This section focuses on old forest habitat, including areas designated as MA15, and connectivity corridors 

for wildlife species dependent on these habitats.

Late and old structure forest habitat is defined by the Eastside Screens as single and multi-strata stands 

with large trees, by proxy. A large tree is defined as being ≥ 21 inches dbh. Multi-stratum stands are 

comprised of two or more tree canopy layers and two or more cohorts of trees. Medium and large sized 

trees dominate the overstory but trees of all size classes may be present. Stand structure and tree sizes are 

diverse. Single stratum late, old structure stands are comprised of a single dominant canopy stratum 

consisting of medium or large sized trees. Large trees are common. oung trees are absent or few in the 

understory. The stand may appear “park-like.” 

The large-open structural stage of the dry forest PVG is below HRV, defined as conditions in the preEuropean settlement area. Low amounts of this habitat limit the abundance of wildlife species associated 

with late and old structure forest habitat in the area, such as the northern goshawk, flammulated owl, 

white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, and brown creeper. 

Connectivity between MA15 and late old structure (LOS) stands was assessed utilizing field 

reconnaissance, aerial photographs and GIS mapping. The current level of connectivity between MA15 

and LOS stands varies across the project area. Areas of non-forested vegetation in combination with past 

timber harvest and wildfires have created gaps of varying size across the project area. Several LOS stands 

are currently somewhat isolated by their adjacency to areas non-forested vegetation. Stands of more 

contiguous forest in the northern portion of the project area are currently well connected (Maps 7 and 8, 

Appendix A). In the southern part of the project area, connectivity is largely through major riparian areas 

such as Swamp Creek and Davis Creek. This connectivity discussion is pertinent to all wildlife species 

mentioned elsewhere, particularly those that utilize LOS habitat for any part of their life history. Pileated 

woodpecker, American marten and their prey, goshawk and their prey, elk, and a variety of other 

vertebrates and invertebrates are affected by the level of connectivity between their source or preferred 

habitats. The connectivity network was established based generally on stand boundaries and connects, to 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

94 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

the extent possible, all LOS and MA15 stands within and outside the project area according to direction in 

the forest plan amendment #2. 

There are 31 Forest Plan allocated MA15 areas in the LJCRP area. These stands are intended to maintain 

habitat diversity, preserve aesthetic values, and to provide old-growth habitat for wildlife. In total, the 

area within MA15 is 3,081 acres of which 111 acres are not forested, for a total of 2,907 forested acres. 

See Table 44 for a description of the existing structural stages. 

Table 44. Current distribution of forest structural stages in areas designated as old growth management 

areas (MA15) in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area (see Figure 7 for a description of structural 

stages). 

Old 

forest 

multistory 

(OFMS)

Old 

forest 

single 

story 

(OFSS)

Young 

forest 

multistory 

(YFMS)

Understory 

reinitiation 

(UR)

Stem 

exclusion 

(SE)

Stand 

initiation 

(SI)

Total

Total 1,481 14 206 678 592 0 2,970

Dry forest 

PVG 913 0 142 397 417 0 1,869

Moist 

forest 

PVG

567 14 65 281 174 0 1,101

Elk 

Rocky Mountain elk are a management indicator species for the WWNF. Elk have been selected as an 

indicator of habitat diversity, interspersion of cover and forage areas, and security habitat provided by 

areas of low human disturbance. Elk management on the WWNF is a cooperative effort between the 

Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Forest Service manages 

habitat while ODFW manages populations by setting seasons, harvest limits, and goals for individual 

Wildlife Management Units (WMU). Within the Lower Joseph project area there are parts of two WMUs: 

Chesnimus and Sled Springs (Figure 7).

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) 

HEI values area based on a comprehensive elk habitat model developed by Thomas et al. (1988). These 

values consider the interaction of size and spacing of cover and forage areas, density of roads open to 

vehicle traffic, forage quantity and quality, and the quality of cover. For this report, HEI values were 

calculated without a forage quality value since actual data does not exist. 

Currently the Lower Joseph project area is meeting the LRMP direction of HEI >=0.5 in the MA 1(timber 

emphasis, summer range) areas (Figure 8, Table 45).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 95 

Figure 7. Wildlife management units in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

CHESNIMNUS

SLED SPRINGS

IMNAHA

MINAM

SNAKE RIVER

WENAHA

Legend

Lower Josesp Watershed

CHESNIMNUS WMU

SLED SPRINGS WMU
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

96 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Figure 8. Timber and wildlife emphasis management areas used to analyze an elk habitat effectiveness index 

(HEI) for the LJCRP area. 

A cover to forage ratio is used to describe the relative amounts of cover to forage and while the optimal 

ratio of cover to forage is 40:60 (Thomas 1979). The LRMP establishes a minimum standard that at least 

30% of forested land be maintained as cover in the Timber Emphasis areas (MA1, MA11). For this 

analysis we defined ‘Forage’ as areas with <40% canopy closure. ‘Marginal’ cover is defined as areas 

with 40-60% canopy cover, and ‘Satisfactory’ cover refers to areas with >=60% canopy closure. We used 

these definitions as that was the scale of the data available. 

Currently in both the Lower and Upper Joseph watersheds in the summer range there is >=55% cover, in 

the MA1 (timber emphasis, summer range) areas (Figure 8, Table 45).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 97 

Table 45 – HEI and Cover percentages for desired (forest plan) and existing conditions within the Lower 

Joseph project area. 

Forest Plan direction

Existing condition

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Lower Joseph 

Watershed

Upper Joseph 

Watershed

Total Cover % MA 1 >= 30% (summer range) 77% 23% 55% 30%

Cover:Forage 77:23 23:77 55:45 30:70

Marginal Cover % 35% 11% 26% 14%

Satisfactory Cover % 42% 13% 28% 16%

Forage % 23% 77% 45% 70%

Marginal Acres

 

4,634 

 

4,078 

 

4,408 

 

4,134 

Satisfactory acres 

 

5,583 

 

4,901 

 

4,743 

 

4,756 

Forage acres

 

3,047 

 

29,750 

 

7,589 

 

20,570 

HEI MA 1 >= 0.5 (summer range) 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.71

Road Densities 

Motor vehicle access and associated human activities are widely recognized as an important factor in how 

wild, free-ranging elk distribute themselves across available habitat. As the amount and frequency of 

motor vehicle access increases, habitat effectiveness decreases (Lyon 1983). A literature review by 

Gagnon et al. (2007) found that 84 percent of 53 literature sources identified an effect to elk from motor 

vehicle traffic. Gagnon et al. goes on to explain that the remaining 16 percent of sources claiming little 

effect to elk from traffic cited differences in ungulate populations, ungulate behavior, or landscape 

variables that explained the reduced effect from traffic. In the book, North American Elk Ecology and 

Management (Toweill and Thomas 2002), Lyon and Christensen characterize the body of research 

showing roads having a “consistent year-round influence” on elk’s use of the environment as 

“overwhelming.” 

Within this project area there is the Chesnimnus Cooperative Travel Management Area. This is a joint 

agreement between the Wallowa-Whitman NF and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife where 

there are identified seasonal road closures. he closures are in effect 3 days prior to the rifle bull elk 

season through the end of the rifle bull season (approximately 10/25 – 11/27). The objectives of this 

closure are to protect soils and wildlife habitat, minimize harassment of wildlife, maintain adequate bull 

escapement, and promote quality hunting. 

The LRMP direction for road densities by management areas calculated at a subwatershed is: MA1 <= 2.5 

mile/square mile; MA3 <=1.5 mile/square mile; and HCNRA <=1.5 mile/square mile. The road density 

estimate does not take into account off-road vehicle use on OHV trails or closed roads, or cross-country 

travel. The current road densities by management area per subwatershed for the Lower Joseph project 

area are shown in Table 46.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

98 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 46. Road densities by management area and subwatershed, currently, and by alternative for the Lower 

Joseph project area. 

Subwatershed

MA 1 Open Road Density 

(mi/mi2) 

MA 3 Open Road Density 

(mi/mi2) 

HCNRA CMP Open Road 

Density (mi/mi2) 

Forest Plan 

Standard 2.5 1.5 1.35 

Broady Creek

Current 2.8 1.2 1.4

Alt. 1 1.6 1.4

Alt. 2 1.6 - 1.1

Alt. 3 2.7 0.3 1.1

Cougar Creek

Current 4.3 0.9

A1 3.7 0.7

A2 3.2 0.4

A3 3.5 0.8

Davis Creek

Current 4.1 0.2

A1 4.0 0.2

A2 2.8 0.2

A3 4.0 0.2

Horse Creek

Current 1.7

A1 1.7

A2 1.5

A3 1.7

Lower 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Current 0.5

A1 0.5

A2 0.5

A3 0.5

Lower Swamp 

Creek

Current 3.0 0.3

A1 2.7 0.3

A2 2.7 0.3

A3 3.0 0.3

Peavine Creek

Current 2.5 0.2

A1 1.2 0.2 -

A2 1.2 0.2 -

A3 2.5 0.2 -

Rush Creek

Current 4.1 0.9

A1 3.3 0.5 -

A2 3.0 0.5 -

A3 3.9 0.8 -

Sumac Creek Current 4.3 1.4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 99 

A1 3.6 1.2

A2 2.8 1.2

A3 4.0 1.3

Upper 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Current 0.7

A1 0.7

A2 0.7

A3 0.7

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species 

The list of federally-listed species applicable to the planning area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). No proposed or federally-listed terrestrial 

wildlife species were described for Wallowa County, Oregon. The USFS Region 6 Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species List (Appendix E), dated January 31, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011) was reviewed 

for sensitive species potentially applicable to the LJCRP area. 

U.S. Forest Service Region 6 sensitive wildlife species 

Table 6 (Chapter 1) summarizes the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive wildlife species (Also see 

Appendix E) with habitat suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

Table 6 also describes their habitat conditions.

Landbird and migratory bird habitat 

Breeding Bird Survey 

The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Robbins et al. 1986) is the primary source of population trend 

information for North American landbirds. However, it only has data for the last 30 years, and extensive 

habitat changes occurred prior to that time which undoubtedly affected bird populations, but for which 

there are no quantitative data. Attempts to assess the extent of bird population changes prior to the BBS 

have been documented through an examination of historical habitats at the time of European settlement 

(approximately 1850) and knowledge of bird species habitat relationships (Wisdom et al. in press). There 

is one BBS Physiographic Region within the geographic boundaries of this conservation strategy (Central 

Rocky Mountains). This BBS physiographic region occurs mostly outside of Oregon and Washington, 

including parts of Idaho, Montana, and Colorado. Thus, BBS population trend estimates should be viewed 

cautiously because they may not reflect populations in Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Table 

7 (Chapter 1) lists bird species with significantly declining trends as measured by the BBS.

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S) and Bird Conservation Plans: 

The Oregon and Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight (PIF) was formed in 1992 and has since 

developed a series of publications aimed at assisting private, state, tribal and federal agencies in managing 

for landbird populations. Five avian conservation plans have been developed by PIF covering the various 

geographic regions found in Oregon and Washington. These documents have been prepared to stimulate 

and support a proactive approach to the conservation of landbirds throughout Oregon and Washington. 

Recommendations included in the documents are intended to inform planning efforts and actions of land 

managers, and stimulate monitoring and research to support landbird conservation. They also serve as a 

foundation for developing detailed conservation strategies at multiple geographic scales to ensure 

functional ecosystems with healthy populations of landbirds. The Plan reviewed and incorporated for this 

project is: Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Rocky Mountains of Eastern Washington and 

Oregon.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

100 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird 

communities, habitats, and resource management issues. The BCR that is within the planning area is BCR 

10 the Northern Rocky Mountain’s. In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The 

Birds of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of 

migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent 

highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions. The goal is to prevent or 

remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and 

conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 

13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” 

Table 7 (Chapter 1) lists the birds of conservation concern for the Northern Rockies BCR, excluding those 

not known to occur, or without habitat in the LJCRP area. 

The Conservation Strategies for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) BCC species list for the project area were 

reviewed and incorporated into this analysis. Those species and habitats that are within the project area 

are incorporated and effects disclosed later in this document. 

The social environment 

Pre-contact historical environment 

Prior to European settlement, the area was used by people of the Nez Perce Tribe for traveling from 

Wallowa Valley to wintering sites along the Grande Ronde and Snake Rivers. The area attracted elk, 

bighorn sheep, and mule deer that were used for subsistence during the winter months. The bunchgrass 

communities also provided roots, bulbs, and fresh greens to native inhabitants. After modern horses 

became available, Tribal horse herds grazed the canyon grasslands. European settlement brought 

homesteading and cattle ranches to the area, but the steep, rocky terrain within the Lower Joseph Creek 

project area limited the expansion of hay, grain and vegetable production (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003b). 

Since establishment of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest15, land management activities have 

included timber harvest, livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, and recreational uses such as camping and 

hiking.

Socioeconomics 

The WWNF operates as a steward of many natural amenities that relate to changes in population, 

employment and income, supports a portion of area population and employment growth, and thus plays a 

principal role in the community. The WWNF lies within Wallowa, Union, Baker, Malheur, Umatilla, and 

Grant Counties in Oregon; Adams, Idaho, and Nez Perce Counties in Idaho; and Asotin County in 

Washington. 

Wallowa and Union counties comprise the economic analysis area for the economic impact analysis for 

this DEIS. Together, the two counties contain many of the businesses that will likely complete the 

contracted restoration work, the facilities that will process much of the commercial timber material 

removed, and represent the functional economy for many of the individuals residing and working in the 

area. 

The social analysis area was based on the area with likely social impacts from this project, which includes 

Wallowa County and the Nez Perce Tribe, as discussed below. The majority of project scoping comments 

were from Wallowa County and the expected social effects on communities from the LJCRP are 

 

15 The Wallowa National Forest was established in 1905, the Whitman NF in 1908, and the two were combined to 

become the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in 1954. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 101 

anticipated to occur in this area. However, IMPLAN data does not include the Nez Perce Reservation so 

this social analysis area was included only where data was available.

It is important to capture the Nez Perce (Nimi'ipuu) communities in the social analysis area since they are 

expected to be impacted by the LJCRP. The Nez Perce Reservation lies in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater 

and Idaho counties in Idaho. The LJCRP will impact the communities on the Reservation through their 

traditional and subsistence cultures if the members travel for resources on the WWNF land. Historically, 

“the Nimi'ipuu traveled across Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The traditional homeland of the 

Nimi`ipuu is North Central Idaho, including areas in Southeastern Washington, Northeastern Oregon with 

usual and accustomed areas in Western Montana and Wyoming” (Nez Perce Tribe 2010). See the heritage 

and tribal relations specialist’s report for more details on the use of the LJCRP area by the Nez Perce 

tribe.

See Chapter 3 and the socioeconomics specialist report for more information regarding population 

demographics, enviromental justice, employment , income, timber market , forest products, and non 

market values

Heritage resources 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the analysis area is based on the Proposed Action and the action 

alternatives and is bounded spatially by treatment unit boundaries. Up to 22,119 restoration acres of forest 

(proposed action/alternative 2) involve ground disturbance. Of this area, 5,200 acres lay within high, 

medium and medium-low cultural resource probability areas as outlined in the Wallow-Whitman NF 

Stratified Inventory Probability System (on file, Wallowa Whitman National Forest, Supervisors office) 

These acres represent areas of likely effect thereby necessitating intensive inventory and design criteria 

where needed to protect cultural values.

Thirty five previous cultural resource inventories have been conducted between 1980 and 2005 within the 

LJCRP area resulting in the survey of 14,468 acres, and recording of 299 cultural sites. Previous and new 

inventories cover a total of 18,668 acres, or about 20% of the 98,000 acre analysis area, and more than 

30% of proposed Alternative 2 and 3 treatment units. 

Based on information gathered through archaeological inventory of current and previous cultural resource 

inventories, it is evident that the LJCRP area is rich in cultural and archaeological resources; many of 

which are National Register eligible sites. Of these eligible sites, 43 are located in, or near, proposed 

alternative 2 and 3 treatment units. All eligible sites will be protected from restoration treatments though 

the development of project implementation plans that will identify protection measures, or design 

features, in an effort to mitigate effects. 

Felling trees, skidding and landing logs, road construction and decommissioning, grading native surface 

roads, and the operation of wheeled and tracked vehicles have the potential to impact heritage resources. 

Post-harvest activities often include piling and burning slash, obliterating temporary roads, and soil 

stabilization. Activities associated with mechanized silvicultural treatments have the highest potential to 

impact heritage resources because they involve the operation of industrial-scale logging equipment. Using 

the 2004 Programmatic Agreement as a guide (Region 6 Forest Service and Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office, 2004) non-mechanized silvicultural practices (i.e., cutting trees with a hand operated 

chainsaw) have little potential to affect historic properties. Activities associated with prescribed burning 

such as low-intensity burns, line construction, and mop up—provided that historic properties sensitive to 

fire are avoided or protected—have moderate to low potential for effects.

Studies in experimental archaeology suggest that skidding logs can damage the upper 20cm of an 

archaeological site after just one skid {Philipek, 1985 #739}. Segin’s (2005) studies in experimental 

archaeology indicate that tracked vehicles with 14 pounds of surface pressure per square inch can cause 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

102 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

vertical artifact displacement greater than 20 cm, and horizontal movement of more than 2 meters after 

just 6 passes of the tracked vehicle.

Long term timber management and grazing activities have been conducted within the LJCRP analysis 

area over the past one-hundred years. Historic activities such as skidding logs, temporary road 

construction have affected sites over that time span. Hunting and fuel wood gathering activities, which 

may include driving off existing roads, has also affected cultural resources. Even with past impacts, many 

sites still retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Tribal relations 

The affected environment regarding Nez Perce Tribe interests involves lands ceded by treaty, including 

associated reserved rights, subsistence and cultural resources located in the LJCRP. The affected 

environment also involves the current conditions of the “Traditional Economy” (Silas Whitman, pers. 

comm. July 8, 2014). The traditional economy is guided by strong cultural values, tradition, beliefs and 

practices associated with a subsistence lifeway dependent upon fishing, hunting and gathering of treaty 

resources.

The Tribal Relations analysis uses largely a qualitative approach by comparing relative effects for each 

alternative with a focus on the Nez Perce Tribe’s values associated with the their “Traditional Economy”. 

This is an economy that is guided by tradition, beliefs and practices associated with a subsistence lifeway 

dependent upon fishing, hunting and gathering of treaty resources. 

Many of the Tribes comments include concerns regarding the direct or indirect physical impacts on the 

land and its resources resulting from large scale restoration treatments. Therefore, effects analyses 

include scale of treatment (acres) as a metric to measure the relative degree of physical effects of the 

alternatives. 

Values associated with the traditional, cultural and contemporary beliefs and practices surrounding land 

stewardship are of utmost importance to the Tribe and ongoing staff to staff coordination. The Tribal 

coordination and consultation record can be found in Appendix G. 

The Tribal Relations effects analysis considers risks to the conservation of the Nez Perce traditional 

economy by taking into account rights, values, beliefs, and attitudes as derived from tribal input. Not all 

of the values, beliefs and attitudes are addressed in this analysis. However, the information shared 

through comments, consultation and staff to staff coordination provides the best information available. 

Some tribal comments, concerns, values and beliefs required interpretation to more fully describe and 

disclose effects to Tribal values by alternative. In all cases theseinterpretations considered the tribe’s 

public comment responses, as well as issues shared at government to government consultation, or staff to 

staff, coordination meetings. 

Nez Perce issues to be analyzed for effects are summarized below in Table 47. The Tribal Relations 

column includes traditional cultural values and will be addressed in this report. The Natural Resources 

column summarizes tribal concerns regarding management of treaty resource habitats and ecological 

conditions relative to wildlife, hydrology, aquatics, silviculture, road management, old growth, and 

botany. Tribal cocnerns specific to heritage or cultural resource management are addressed in the 

Heritage Resource Specialist Report. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 103 

Table 47. Nez Perce comments considered for analysis of the LJCRP. 

TRIBAL RELATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE

Impacts on hunting, fishing and gathering Harm to treaty resource habitat (see all resource 

effects sections )

Need to address the true value of the landscape 

beyond economics

No treatments in riparian area unless demonstrate 

positive effects (see aquatics and hydrology effects 

sections)

Concern for water developments impacts * Abandoned roads, run off erosion, sediment delivery; 

road decommissioning needed (see hydrology and 

soils effects sections)

Maintain old growth legacy trees Properly functioning watersheds (see hydrology 

effects sections)

Federal compliance of treaty responsibilities * Want upward trend in fish habitat, water, riparian 

conditions (see aquatics, hydrology, botany sections)

Resource risks of accelerated planning and 

restoration

Road density/road placement and relative to treaty 

resource values (see all effects sections)

Maintenance of administrative access and wildlife 

connectivity to the adjacent Precious Lands Wildlife 

Management Area *

Concern for ESA wildlife and native plant resource 

condition (see wildlife and botany effects sections)

Impacts to traditional plant resources, including the 

“traditional economy” of the Nez Perce Tribe ( 

NPTEC meeting 07-08-14)

Impacts to fish strongholds, particularly from roads and 

disturbance in RHCAs (see aquatics, roads, botany 

effects sections)

Conservation of inventoried road less areas Achievement of riparian mgt objectives (see aquatics 

effects section)

Likely Traditional Cultural Properties, sacred sites 

and traditional use areas in project area. Need 

traditional use studies

Adequate heritage inventory to ensure protection 

during project implementation (See heritage effects 

section)

* Issues or concerns not analyzed for effects as they may be addressed outside environment analysis 

through ongoing consultation, partnerships or policy direction 

The following assumptions are considered in the effects analysis: 

 Resources associated with traditional economy values are at risk from catastrophic fire, loss of 

structural and biological diversity and climate change.

 Overstocked stands reduce the sunlight available for shade intolerant traditional plants 

 A lack of wild, low intensity fire is reducing regeneration of fire dependent traditional plants, forage, 

and browse 

 Catastrophic wildfires are a threat to all landscape resource values as fire suppression has moved 

Ponderosa pine, and moist forest habitat, outside the range of variability.

 Restoration treatments that move landscapes towards ecological resiliency allow for increased 

biological and structural diversity that will benefit traditional foods and other cultural and treaty 

resources

 In the short term negative effects to settings and other tribal values resulting from restoration 

disturbance will be evident on the landscape but are expected to protect and enhance tribal values 

over the long term

 Resource data, Historic Range of Variability (HRV) models and climate change predictions are 

acknowledged for their uncertainty while providing the best available tools for analysis 

 Some tribal members may prefer the No Action alternative due to the uncertainty surrounding the 

pace and scale of accelerated restoration objectives that are not “tried and true”. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

104 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 48 describes traditional plants known to be of interest to the Nez Perce Tribe. Table 48 does not 

include all of the traditional plants that may potentially exist in the LJCRP. This table only includes plants 

that are known to be of interest as documented in the Nez Perce Seasonal Round plants (Figure 9), and 

that were mentioned via personal communication with tribal members and staff. The seasonal round 

identifies the historical or traditional premise for the traditional Nez Perce economy. Most of the plants 

and animals in figure 9 and table 48 are still gathered and used today. 

The habitat, soil disturbance and fire response information was provided via personal communication by 

Jenifer Ferriel, Joan Frazee, and Missy Anderson. Digging and harvest benefits to plants were provided by 

Nakia Willamson, personal communication.

Table 48. Traditional plants known to be of interest to the Nez Perce Tribe 

Species Common or 

Traditional

Name

Habitat Response to 

Mechanical 

Treatment /Soil 

Disturbance 

Fire Response

Apocynum

cannabinum 

Indian Hemp 

or Dogbane

Proliferates in open moist 

margins near riparian areas 

along streams, springs

Grows in open 

disturbed areas

Increases plant 

vigor

Balsamorhiza 

(saggitata)

Balsam root Associated with bunchgrass on 

well drained deep soils, 

extending into open stands of 

ponderosa pine and Doug-fir

Increases with 

overgrazing

Likely negative effects

Survives fire 

because of deep 

tap root and woody 

caudex

Calochortus 

sp.

Mariposa Lily Grasslands, dry forest Likely negative effects Low-Medium 

tolerance

Camassia 

quamash

gem’es or 

Camas lily

Vernally moist meadows and 

seeps

Increases with aeration 

with digging/harvesting

Low-Medium 

tolerance

Claytonia 

lanceolata

Spring Beauty widely scattered at mid to high 

elevations in open moist 

grassy slopes

Likely negative effects Early bloomer so 

less risk by wildfire

Lewisia 

rediviva

Bitterroot Grows on well-drained, 

exposed areas. Most common 

in grassland communities but 

occurs in open areas of 

western shrub, woodland, & 

forest communities

Likely negative effects Dormant in summer 

and early fall so 

escapes most 

wildfire. Susceptible 

to fall fires

Lomatium 

canbyi

q’eg’iit or 

biscuit root

Sagebrush steppe, scablands, 

rocky soils. Seeds into open 

areas 

Light-moderate 

disturbance can be 

beneficial; especially

from harvest where 

digging aerates the soil 

Mostly fire evader 

as found in rocky 

soils. Has deep 

taproot so is likely 

to survive lowmoderate fires

Lomatium cous “qaamsit” or 

cous

Dry open scabby ridges in 

foothills, low mountainous 

elevations, lowland flats, 

scablands

Light-moderate 

disturbance can be 

beneficial; especially 

from harvest where 

digging aerates the soil

Has deep taproot 

so is likely to 

survive lowmoderate fires 

Early blooming so 

evades most 

wildfires

Lomatium 

grayii

Gray’s 

Parsley

Rocky slopes and dry 

grasslands, common among 

bunch grasses and sagebrush

Likely negative effects Mostly fire evader 

as habitat in rocky 

soils and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 105 

Species Common or 

Traditional

Name

Habitat Response to 

Mechanical 

Treatment /Soil 

Disturbance 

Fire Response

Prunus 

virginiana

Chokecherry Grows at low to mid-elevations 

in where soil and topography 

accumulate moisture, i.e. 

riparian areas, wooded draws, 

and steep ravines

Negative effects Re sprouts rapidly 

and prolifically post 

fire

Ribes 

(lacustre)

Currents and 

goose berries

True fire association. Found in 

openings in wetter habitats i.e. 

cool, moist and wet forests. 

Intolerant found in openings in 

most habitats Shade intolerant

Grows well in disturbed 

soils

Likely negative

Taxus 

brevifolia

Yew Moist cool to wet, well drained 

sites beneath closed tree 

canopies

Sensitive to drastic 

change to light and 

temperature; especially 

after canopy removal

Fire intolerant

Vaccinium sp. Huckleberry Moist cool forests at mid to 

upper elevations, defines true 

fir site potential in the Blue 

Mountains

Some disturbance such 

as thinning is beneficial. 

Mechanical not 

beneficial 

Low intensity fire 

benefits berry 

production
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

106 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Figure 9: Nez Perce Seasonal Round depicting a calendar of resource use by the Nimiipuu’ (Nez Perce 2013). 

Scenery 

Scenic character goals, desired conditions, and scenic conservation design features are provided in the 

WWNF Forest Plan (see Appendix B). The landscape character goal for the LJCRP area is to maintain a 

naturally appearing to slightly altered landscape character that expresses predominately natural processes 

in scenic viewsheds and travel routes. 

Landscape character 

Dominant scenic features of the LJCRP area include open ponderosa pine forests, large, open pine, and 

larch forests with fall color, grassy forest floors, canyon lands with timbered stringers and basalt rims, 

basalt and granite rock outcrops, deciduous riparian trees and shrubs, and rustic wooden “ruins” of old 

homesteads. Table 49 summarizes some of the valued landscape attributes, and special features of the 

LJCRP area. Ecologically sound landscapes can be aesthetically pleasing as well as sustainable, being 

reflective of the inherent natural disturbance regimes (including the natural role of fire, insects and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 107 

pathogens). Landscape conditions that depart from natural ranges of variation can cause uncharacteristic 

disturbance severity, which can lead to a dramatic change to the existing scenery. 

Vegetation is the primary component that would be affected by management practices considered for the 

LJCRP. The existing and desired vegetation conditions are described in the “Vegetation and disturbance 

regimes” section of this Chapter. Landscape variety could be increased by creating a more natural 

distribution of forest structural and age classes, including natural appearing open spaces. 

The landscape variety ranges from the common landscape character type typical of the Wallowa 

Mountains to unique habitats located throughout the landscape and spectacular scenery viewed along the 

Lower Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River. 

Restoration objectives to move the landscape toward a more natural range of variability in vegetation 

structure, composition, and disturbance regimes is consistent with desired conditions for scenic character. 

Enhancement of large tree viewing opportunities from travel routes, viewpoints, and recreation 

destinations is also desirable. 

Forest Road 46 forms the eastern project boundary, and several other road corridors travel through the 

project area with numerous viewpoints. The project area is characterized by plateaus and canyons, with 

Cold Springs Ridge to the northeast, and Elk Mountain to the south. Parts of the LJCRP are visible from 

the Chief Joseph viewpoint on Oregon Highway 3 north of Enterprise, Oregon. 

Landscape Scenic Viewsheds

The LJCRP area has been divided into 4 separate landscape areas for assessing scenic effects, including:

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor

Table Mountain

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680

Table 49. Valued landscape attributes of the LJCRP area 

Vegetation 

type

Valued Landscape 

Attributes

Special and Distinctive Features

Dry Forest Ponderosa pine and Douglasfir, western larch, mallow 

ninebark, common snowberry

Open park like stands of ponderosa pine and larch, with an 

understory of grasses. Basalt rock outcrops. Open park-like stands 

of pine allow filtered light to reach the grassy forest floor to create a 

unique, open but sheltered experience. This openness provides 

deep visual penetration into the forest, allowing views of other 

attributes such as rock outcrops, water features, and framed vistas.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

108 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Vegetation 

type

Valued Landscape 

Attributes

Special and Distinctive Features

Grasslands Bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho 

fescue, prairie junegrass, elk 

sedge, boulder field, and 

sparsely covered forb 

communities.

Cliffs, talus, steep verticality. The eastside plateau grasslands are 

contrasted by adjacent pine and Dougals-fir forests. The grasslands 

allow the contours of the landform to be expressed providing 

rounded curves and bends to be a part of the scene. Canyon 

grasslands punctuated by basalt rims and incised by steep 

drainages, stringers of timber creating dark contrasting lines vertical 

to the slope, defining the small draws. Riparian vegetation also 

provides color and shape variation. Slopes are often very steep 

lending a severity to the landscape.

Moist 

Forest

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 

grand fir, western larch and 

western white pine Engelmann 

spruce, lodgepole pine and 

subalpine fir, Pacific yew, 

Rocky Mountain maple, 

serviceberry, and a large 

variety of other shrub species.

Deep shade, and heavy vegetation. 

Riparian 

herblands 

and 

shrublands 

Black cottonwood quaking 

aspen, ninebark, oceanspray,

rocky mountain maple, and 

willows. 

Linear stringers of deciduous trees and shrubs amidst grass slopes. 

The eastside riparian shrublands are very brushy, providing variety 

in form as well as fall color. These habitats are often surrounded by 

grassy midslope and/or coniferous forest, which provide visual 

diversity in color and form. The deciduous vegetation provides a 

ribbon of fall color amidst the surrounding coniferous forest or 

grasslands.

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook 

Joseph Viewpoint located on State Highway 3, is designated as a Level 1 (critical) viewshed within the 

WWNF and over 76,000 visitors stop at the site annually. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

Joseph Creek is classified as a Wild River from one mile downstream from Cougar Creek (Joseph Creek 

Ranch) to the WWNF boundary, for a total of 8.6 miles. Joseph Creek's outstandingly remarkable values 

include scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife and history. The spectacular natural setting, 

ruggedness, inaccessibility and steep topography of Joseph Creek and the surrounding environs of Joseph 

Canyon create a lasting impression on those who view it. The river corridor provides a spectacular 

example of the steep, rimrock-exposed canyons found in northeast Oregon.

Access to Joseph Canyon and Joseph Creek is limited due to remoteness, steep and rugged terrain and 

climatic conditions. Hiking, horsepacking, birdwatching, wildlife viewing, fishing and big game hunting 

can be enjoyed in a solitary manner. The canyon contains examples of northeast Oregon geology, with 

Columbia River basalt canyons exposed by downcutting of rivers. The 2,000 foot deep canyon is virtually 

unmodified and its spectacular details, such as steep sideslopes, basalt layers and dikes, can be easily 

viewed from the canyon rim. Joseph Creek is an important wild steelhead and wild rainbow trout fishery. 

Wildlife includes bighorn sheep, deer, elk, bear, river otter and cougar. The area plays a vital role in Nez 

Perce Tribal history. Most important is the proximity of the river corridor to the winter gathering place for 

Chief Joseph and his band at the mouth of Joseph Creek.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 109 

Table Mountain 

Table Mountain accessed by Forest Service Road 4650, provides scenic viewpoints south and west across 

grassy hillsides and forested stringers into Joseph Canyon and the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River, 

and has been identified as an important place to view scenery by local residents.

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680 

Red Hill Lookout is located on Forest Road 46 and straddles the hydrologic divide between Upper and 

Lower Joseph Creek Watershed, and about 2,300 people visit the viewpoint each year. Cold Spring Ridge 

forms the northeastern boundary of the project area, within the Hells Canyon National recreation area 

(HCNRA) between the Cook Ridge and Wildhorse Inventoried Roadless areas.

Scenic integrity 

Scenic integrity is the amount of human caused deviation in form, line, color, and texture of a landscape. 

Scenic integrity serves as a frame of reference for measuring scenic integrity levels based on the valued 

attributes of the existing landscape character being viewed. The degrees of integrity vary from very high 

to very low. Scenic Integrity is measured on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest through Visual 

Quality Objective levels defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s Chapter 1 USDA Handbook 

# 462.Table 50 summarizes the proportion of the LJCRP area in each of the four scenic integrity levels 

found in the project area (very high to low). The current landscape character is predominately a naturally 

appearing to slightly altered forested environment viewed in the foreground, middleground and 

background of viewsheds. The existing scenic integrity of the LJCRP meets the visual quality objective 

of the Forest Plan and has a range of scenic integrity levels from very high to low. Within the project area 

there are evidences of past activities. Partial removal treatments can be seen in partial retention areas, and 

stumps are apparent. Along with the evidences of treatments are the indirect effects of additional variety 

in color and texture as deciduous shrubs and larch species have begun to take hold. Areas of retention 

visual quality objective are intact. The scenic integrity levels meet the Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines for a natural appearing foreground and middleground from the designated travel routes and 

viewsheds and areas of natural appearing to slightly altered in some middleground and background areas.

Table 50. The proportion of the LJCRP area in each of four scenic integrity classes found in the LJCRP 

Scenic 

integrity 

level

Visual 

quality 

objective

Condition and allowed management effects

Acres

% of 

project 

area

Very high Preservation Unaltered. Allows ecological changes only 

2,371 2

High Retention Appears unaltered. Management activities are not visually 

evident.

 

7,494 8

Moderate Partial 

retention

Slightly altered. Management activities remain visually 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

 

52,996 54

Low Modification

Moderately altered. Management activities may dominate 

landscape, but must borrow from naturally established 

form, line, color, or texture.

 

35,717 36

Total 98,578 100

Scenic stability 

Scenic stability levels are defined in Table 51. The greatest hazard to scenery resources in this area are 

large stand replacement fires that would burn much more intensely due to the stocking levels, species 

compositions, ladder fuels and canopy closure that have developed over time, and large epidemics of 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

110 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

insect or disease. Table 4 summarizes existing and desired fire severity probabilities for the dry and moist 

upland forest potential vegetation groups. Fire severity can be classified into three classes: replacement, 

moderate (mixed), and low. A fire with a replacement severity generally means that more than 75% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation is killed by the fire. Moderate or mixed severity fires are generally lowseverity fires replacing less than 25% of the dominant overstory vegetation, but can include mixedseverity fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory. Low severity fires generally kill less than 25% of 

the dominant overstory. 

Table 51. Definitions of scenic stability levels 

Level Definition

Very High Stability All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are 

likely to be sustained.

High Stability All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are likely to be 

sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors that 

present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery attributes.

Moderate Stability Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are likely to 

be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline.

Low Stability Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are likely to 

be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may seriously 

threaten or have already eliminated the others.

Very Low Stability Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are seriously threatened or 

absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not likely to be sustained. 

The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained.

No Stability All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or seriously 

threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be sustained, 

except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms.

In dry upland forests, existing fire regimes are more dominated by mixed severity fires than is 

characteristic of this type (13-21% of fires are characteristically mixed severity, compared to 49% today). 

Dry forest fire regimes in the LJCRP area are less dominated by low severity fires than is characteristic of 

this type (64-82% of fires are characteristically low severity). Low severity fires that generally dominated 

dry forest fire regimes created the landscapes that are highly valued – open, park like stands of large 

ponderosa pine and western larch. Dry forest areas with higher levels of mixed severity than the RV are of 

moderate to low scenic stability since, when these places burn, they will include up to 25% in patches that 

are completely killed, including large trees of high scenic attractiveness and value. 

In moist upland forests of the LJCRP area, fire suppression has reduced the number of replacement 

severity fires compared to the RV (14-35% of fires are characteristically of replacement severity, 

compared to 3% today). This condition also has moderate to low scenic stability. Naturally, replacement 

fires in moist forests served to create horizontal forest heterogeneity. Fire suppression has caused forest 

densification and increased horizontal homogeneity; hence, when a stand replacement fire escapes fire 

suppression, they are generally larger and more severe. Grasslands of the LJCRP area generally burned 

historically with replacement severity, and still do, although high levels of domestic livestock grazing in 

some areas have reduced fire extent and frequency relative to historical levels.

Landscape visibility 

Landscape visibility for scenic analyses is categorized into three classes: foreground, middleground, and 

background. Foreground is based on landscape visibility and is defined as views up to 1⁄2 mile distance 

zone, middleground is 1⁄2 mile to 4 miles distance zone and background is 4 miles to the horizon from the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 111 

travelway and use areas. Additional information and descriptions regarding Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQO’s) may be found in the Forest Service Scenery Management System (USDA Forest Service, 1995) 

and the Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service 1974) National Forest Landscape 

Management Handbooks. Table 52 summarizes the proportion of the LJCRP in each landscape visibility 

class.

Table 52. Proportion of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project in each landscape visibility class 

Visibility class Acres %

Foreground 11,049 11

Middleground 21,999 22

Background 413 <1

Other 65,116 66

Total 98,578 100

Recreation 

The recreation activities within the LJCRP project area are predominately dispersed in nature, however, 

developed sites, trail use and special use permitted activities occur within the project area. There are 5 

developed recreation sites including Coyote and Dougherty campgrounds, the Kirkland Cabin, the Joseph 

Canyon Viewpoint and the Frog Pond and Chico Trailheads. Other recreation activities are focused on 

day use activities such as OHV use, hunting, firewood gathering, mushroom picking, and viewing 

scenery. The highest use in this area occurs during the big game hunting seasons when hunters occupy 

many of the dispersed campsites within the area. 

Because the construction of new recreation facilities or reconstruction of existing recreation facilities is 

not proposed for the LJCRP, this document focuses on the harvest activities and fuel treatments and their 

effect on the recreation setting and visitor opportunities. 

The analysis area is the project area as described in Chapter 1 of this EIS. This analysis area is 

characterized by a diverse range of habitats. Northern aspects and higher elevations consist of mixed 

conifer types, ridge tops and southern aspects transition into ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand 

fir types. 

The 1990 forest plan uses the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) framework for stratifying and 

defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities and experience opportunities. There are 

seven ROS classes arranged along a continuum from primitive to urban. The LJCRP lies within the ROS 

class Roaded Natural, semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and a small amount of Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Other forest plan recreation standards and guidelines that apply to the proposed activities in LJCRP 

include recreation site development; outfitter/guide services; special places such water features, rock or 

unique landform features, historic sites, etc.; and road, trail and area motor vehicle use in accordance with 

the forest travel management plan (see Appendix B). 

Existing Condition 

Although no specific recreation use studies were completed for the LJCRP, inferences can be made to the 

typical types of activities that occur in the project area based on a national recreation survey. In 2008 the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

112 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

WWNF conducted the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) (WWNF, 2009) survey to gather 

information about recreation visitor satisfaction, activities and use levels. One product of the survey 

revealed the primary and overall participation levels for various activities.

Table 53. Participation in the top 10 recreational activities on the WWNF 

Top activities on the WWNF Percent of visitors who 

participated in this activity

Percent of visitors who 

participated in this as primary 

activity

Viewing natural features 49.9% 13.3%

Viewing wildlife 46.8% 3.5%

Hiking and walking 46.5% 15.3%

Relaxing 39.4% 5.7%

Driving for pleasure 30.0% 11.2%

Fishing 24.7% 13.2%

Visiting historic sites 17.0% 0.5%

Picnicking 15.7% 1.4%

Developed Camping 13.4% 1.9%

Backpacking 12.9% 6.6%

Some of the activities with low participation on the WWNF (Table 53) are: Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) 

use (2.6%), bicycling (1.5%), horseback riding (1.8%), and snowmobiling (0.8%). The highest percent of 

survey respondents were from Baker County, OR (8.8%), Union County, OR (7.1 %), Foreign Countries 

(2.5%), Nez Perce County, ID (2.5%), Wallowa County, OR (2.0%), and other counties in and around the 

WWNF in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. During their time on the forest, visitors spent an average 2.0 

hours at developed recreation sites, 44.3 hours at overnight sites, and 27.3 hours in undesignated areas.

Dispersed Recreation

Visitors participating in dispersed recreation activities do not primarily use or rely upon developed sites 

such as campgrounds, or picnic areas. However they may use a developed site to support their activity, 

such as parking at a trailhead, but their main time is spent away from the developed sites. All of the 

activities listed in Table 53 (except developed camping) could be viewed as dispersed recreation 

activities. Other activities may include hunting, OHV use, snowmobiling, horseback riding, and cross 

country skiing. Visitation for these dispersed activities in areas known as ‘general forest areas’ (nonwilderness areas) account for over 54% of the total Forest visits according to the NVUM survey (WWNF, 

2009). 

Dispersed camping is a popular activity for overnight users who do not camp in a developed campground. 

There are numerous dispersed camping opportunities in LJCRP. These campsites receive low to moderate 

use beginning in late spring with the majority of sites showing heaviest use during the fall hunting season. 

Many of these campsites have been used for decades with some sites showing soil compaction and a loss 

of vegetation.

As shown in Table 53, other types of dispersed recreation occur year-round. Visitors enjoying these 

recreational pursuits may use forest roads as transportation networks (i.e. OHV riders, snowmobile riders, 

cross-country skiers, driving for pleasure, viewing wildlife), or just travel cross-country away from roads 

and trails (i.e. hunters, viewing nature, fishing, hiking or walking). 

Currently OHV use can occur both on designated open roads, closed roads, trails and in many crosscountry locations in LJCRP. Overall motor-vehicle use in the area is light yet it does increase during the 

big-game hunting season. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 113 

Developed Recreation Sites and Trails

In addition to the two campgrounds, the Joseph Canyon Viewpoint, Kirkland Cabin, and the two 

designated trailheads, there are approximately 50 miles of designated trails (Figure 10) which are not part 

of the motorized road network. Also, the Red Hill lookout straddles the hydrologic divide between the 

Upper and Lower Joseph Creek Watersheds. Overall use of these facilities is low except during fall 

hunting season when it may be used at a moderate level. The exception amongst these sites is the Joseph 

Canyon Viewpoint, which experiences high use throughout the year.

Figure 10. Developed recreation within the LJCRP area. 

Permitted Uses 

Some recreational activities are managed under permits which allow recreationists or operators to do 

certain activities under the terms of the permits. These permits include; gathering firewood, gathering 

3⁄43⁄41⁄2 1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄43⁄41⁄2

3⁄43⁄41⁄2

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄43⁄41⁄2

3⁄41⁄23⁄4 3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4 3⁄41⁄23⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄43⁄41⁄2

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4 3⁄41⁄23⁄4 3⁄41⁄23⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4 3⁄41⁄23⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

1⁄23⁄43⁄4

3⁄41⁄23⁄4

DOUGHERTY CAMPGROUND

FROG POND TRAILHEAD

COYOTE CAMPGROUND

CHICO TRAILHEAD

JOSPEH CANYON VIEWPOINT

RED HILL LOOKOUT VIEWPOINT

SWAMP CREEK

BASIN CREEK

Legend

1⁄23⁄43⁄4 Lower Joseph Trails

Recreation Sites

Project Area

Lower Joseph Watershed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

114 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

forest products like mushrooms, hunting and recreation special use activities. Use of these permits can be 

considered ‘recreational’ since visitors often participate in them for primary or secondary forms of 

enjoyment. 

Annually the WWNF sells over 2,500 of personal use firewood permits and over 1,900 forest product 

permits like mushroom and Christmas tree tags. Each permit has terms and conditions which guide uses 

and locations for the activities. Although no data is available for how many permits are used in the 

LJCRP, these activities can generally occur in most areas outside of riparian areas, old growth 

management areas, tree plantations, and other special designated location described on the permits. 

Outfitter guides that operate in the LJCRP area consist of one big-game outfitter with a base camp and 

operations occurring from a private lodge, and two cougar and bear hunting guides (USFS, 2011). There 

is a current mountain bike outfitter permit; however, the permit has not been used for at least three years. 

Each operation is authorized by a special use permit, which states the annual operating plan and 

requirements of the permittees. Management involves preparation of an annual operating plan and field 

inspections of the base camp.

The LJCRP area lies within the Chesnimus and Sled Springs Big Game Management Units. The area is 

popular during big game and bow and rifle seasons in late summer and fall, and bear and turkey hunting 

in the late fall and early spring. ODFW will continue to offer hunting opportunities in this area as part of 

their management of big game. Within this project area there is the Chesnimnus Cooperative Travel 

Management Area. This is a joint agreement between the WWNF and the ODFW where there are 

identified seasonal road closures. The closures are in effect 3 days prior to the rifle bull elk season 

through the end of the rifle bull season (approximately 10/25 – 11/27). The objectives of this closure are 

to protect soils and wildlife habitat, minimize harassment of wildlife, maintain adequate bull escapement, 

and promote quality hunting. 

Potential Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless Area and other Undeveloped Lands 

This section incorporates by reference the LJCRP Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Area, and Potential 

Wilderness Area Report contained in the project record. This section summarizes the affected 

environment and environmental consequences for the Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, and Cook Ridge 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Joseph and Wildhorse Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA), other 

remaining undeveloped lands, and environmental organizations unroaded areas. These topics are grouped 

and discussed together because they share terminology and interrelated history. The 

PWA/IRA/Wilderness report found in the project record discloses additional narrative and maps in 

support of this topic.

Scope of Analysis 

The scope of analysis includes the LJCRP area, Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse and Cook Ridge IRAs, Joseph 

and Wildhorse PWAs, and lands immediately adjacent to the project boundary such that reasonable 

analysis could be completed in identifying areas with wilderness potential. There is no designated 

wilderness within or adjacent to the project area, so there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effect of the proposed activities on wilderness. Therefore, effects to designated wilderness will not be 

discussed further.

Wilderness 

Wilderness evaluation and wilderness recommendations are a forest planning issue and outside the scope 

of this site specific analysis and decision. Only congress has the statutory authority to designate 

wilderness. It is within the authority of Congress to designate wilderness areas that do not meet the 

potential wilderness inventory criteria. Areas recommended to Congress for wilderness study or 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 115 

designation are those areas identified on the potential wilderness inventory and evaluated for wilderness 

suitability for potential addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System by forests during the 

Land Management Planning process using wilderness inventory criteria, outlined in Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 71.

Inventoried Roadless Area 

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) sets forth particular requirements when timber may 

be cut, sold, or removed within Inventoried Roadless Areas. Following are the requirements which apply 

to this project and will be used as indicators of compliance with the RACR. They are further explained 

below.

 The purpose is to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition or structure, such 

as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be 

expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. 36 CFR 294.13 

(b)(1)(ii).

 The timber is generally small diameter. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

 Timber cutting, sale, and/or removal are needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless 

area characteristics. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

 The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management activity 

not otherwise prohibited. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2). This criterion will only be applied to cutting and 

removal of roadside danger trees.

 The cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent. 36 CFR 294.13 (b).

These criteria only apply to the management within IRAs. 

Acres of forest treated within Inventoried Roadless Areas will be used to track the extent of the effects.

Alternative 2 is the only action alternative that proposes the cutting, sale, or removal of timber within 

IRAs. There would be no temporary roads constructed. The existing system roads will be used to 

facilitate yarding and haul. Therefore, no criterion is needed to address this concern.

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure 

The specific purpose for treatment of IRAs in this project is: “To maintain or restore the characteristics of 

ecosystem composition or structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within 

the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current 

climatic period.” The current condition of the project area in Chapter 1 applies to the IRAs identified for 

treatment activities. Fire suppression outside and within the IRAs have resulted in increased density of 

younger fire intolerant species (such as grand fir) and an associated increase in fuel loading and in 

particular an increase in ladder fuels. Old fire resistant trees are likely to continue to decline in many of 

the dry and mixed conifer stands found in these IRAs due to increased competition especially during 

times of extended or early onset drought. These structure, density, composition, and disturbance regime 

changes increase the potential risk for uncharacteristic wildfire or insect/disease mortality with increased 

severity and effect on the integrity of the IRAs.

Maintaining or Improving Roadless Area Characteristics 

Uncharacteristic disturbance due to changes in structure, density, composition, and pattern could 

adversely affect roadless area characteristics of the Joseph Canyon, Cook Ridge, and Wildhorse IRAs. 

Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present in and characterize 

inventoried roadless areas, including;
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

116 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

1. High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;

2. Sources of public drinking water;

3. Diversity of plant and animal communities;

4. Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

5. Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation;

6. Reference landscapes;

7. Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

8. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

9. Other locally identified unique characteristics.

Generally Small Diameter 

The RACR did not specifically define what constitutes “generally small diameter timber,” “(b)ecause of 

the great variation in stand characteristics between vegetation types in different areas...” The Rule further 

states that project planning:

[W]ill consider how the cutting or removal of various size classes of trees would affect 

the potential for future development of the stand, and the characteristics and 

interrelationships of plant and animal communities associated with the site and overall 

landscape. Site productivity, due to factors such as moisture and elevation gradients, site 

aspect, and soil types, will be considered, as well as how such cutting or removal of 

various size classes of standing or down timber would mimic the role and legacies of 

natural disturbance regimes in providing habitat patches, connectivity, and structural 

diversity critical to maintaining biological diversity. In all cases, the cutting, sale, or 

removal of small diameter timber will be consistent with maintaining or improving one or 

more of the roadless area characteristics (see Final Rule, Federal Register, Volume 66, 

No.9, 3257). 

Stand data will be collected in September for a sample of stands within IRAs to model the existing 

quadratic mean diameter (QMD) in comparison to post-treatment QMD. If the QMD for proposed 

treatments in each IRA increases as a result of treatment, this may illustrate that the treatments’ net effect 

is to shift the landscape toward the HRV, increasing the average stand diameter, and reducing the 

overabundance of stands with smaller average diameters. This will determine and indicate that the 

treatments meet the criteria of removing small diameter trees.

Cutting, Sale, or Removal of Danger Trees is Incidental 

Cutting danger trees along roads can be necessary to remove trees with pose a danger to travelers. 

Danger trees are identified using the Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response (USDA 

Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management). The primary objective of this activity 

would be incidental to maintaining a road for safe travel. This criterion applies only to the activity that 

removes danger trees. Other criteria used for other prescriptions (e.g., generally small diameter) does not 

apply to danger tree mitigation.

Description of Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, and Cook Ridge IRA 

During the current Forest Plan Revision Process each of these IRAs were analyzed for meeting potential 

wilderness criteria and detailed descriptions were made for each concerning their existing resource 

conditions. Further description for the Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, and Cook Ridge IRAs are found in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 117 

Appendix C of the FEIS for the Wallowa Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan. Wildhorse and 

Cook Ridge IRAs described in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management 

Plan. These documents are incorporated by reference and are included in the project record. Below is a 

brief summary of the contents as it pertains to the cutting, sale, or removal of timber and the projects goal 

to maintain or restore ecological structure and natural disturbance for each of these IRAs.

Joseph Canyon IRA (24,288 acres)

The Joseph Canyon Roadless Area lies adjacent to State Highway 3 on the northern boundary of the 

Forest, 20 miles north of Enterprise, Oregon. In addition to evidence of timber harvest, there are scattered 

examples of human activity. These include abandoned fields and remains of buildings within the isolated 

private land parcels along Joseph Creek. Old railroad grades and skid trails in the lower reaches of Davis 

and Swamp Creeks were the result of logging activities from 1920s and ‘30s. About 50 livestock watering 

facilities, 30 miles of fence, and 6 miles of jeep road are found within the area. Recurring surface fires of 

low-to-moderate intensity and endemic insect and disease episodes controlled species composition, 

maintained sustainable stocking levels, and favored the retention of the intolerant conifers such as 

ponderosa pine. The absence of fire over the last 100 years (prior to 1986) resulted in the widespread 

development of dense forest dominated by sapling to small-sized, late seral Douglas-fir. The probability 

of a stand replacement event exceeding historic patterns, whether by fire, insects, or pathogens, was quite 

high due to the predominance of continuous layered, late seral structures. These expected consequences 

were realized during the Joseph Canyon Fire of 1986. Most of the timbered stringers (approximately 75 

percent) were converted to the stem initiation stage of stand development. Salvaged stands were either 

seeded aerially or planted with conifer seedlings. Sites are marginally stocked with ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings. 

Cook Ridge IRA (19,617 acres)

The Cook Ridge Roadless Area is entirely within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Much of the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area is in a roadless and undeveloped condition. The Cook Ridge 

Roadless Area is located primarily in Township 4 North, Range 48 East northwest of Buckhorn Springs. It 

abuts the Mountain Sheep Roadless Area to the north and east, Cold Springs Ridge to the west, and the 

Wallowa Valley Ranger District to the south. The area is dominated by Cook Creek which bisects the 

roadless area, south to north. The entire roadless area was impacted by the 1988 Teepee Butte Fire. The 

effects of the fire varied according to differences in fire intensity, duration, and pre-fire vegetative 

composition. Primarily, the intensely burned portions of the area occurred on the steep breaklands and 

within the dense thin-barked, grand fir-dominated stands on the upper plateau. Approximately 700 acres 

of the severely burned upper plateau was replanted with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch in 

1992. Regenerated stands are currently fully stocked with conifers averaging four to six feet in height. 

The unplanted and non-harvested land base capable of supporting conifers will require decades to restock 

with conifers given the loss of potential seed source and the relative harshness of the exposed sites. The 

IRA was also impacted by the Cache Creek fire of 2012, which burned 5,780 acres.

Wildhorse IRA (20,308 acres)

The Wildhorse Roadless Area is bounded by the Cook Ridge Roadless area to the east and by the 

Wallowa Valley Ranger District to the west and south. The national forest boundary delineates the 

northern extent. The Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management portion of the roadless area was salvageharvested following the Teepee Butte Fire of 1988. Substantial volume was removed via approximately 4 

miles of permanent road which was constructed to facilitate harvest on the upper plateaus. Approximately 

1,700 acres of the upper plateau were replanted with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch in 

1992. Regenerated stands are currently stocked with conifers averaging 4-6 feet in height. The unplanted 

and non-harvested landbase capable of supporting conifers will require decades to re-stock with conifers 

given the loss of potential seed source and the relative harshness of the exposed sites. Previous high-
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

118 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

intensity fires altered the landscape. Prior to the fire, logging had been limited to light salvage entries and 

restricted to ground-based equipment within the Dispersed Timber Recreation Management land 

allocation within the HCNRA. Following the Teepee Butte Fire, salvageable timber in excess of 12-inch 

DBH was removed from the upper flats of Cook Creek. About 4 miles of permanent road and 1 mile of 

temporary road was constructed to facilitate salvage harvest within both the Cook Ridge and Wildhorse 

Roadless Areas.

Table 54 indicates the number of acres for each of the IRAs located within and outside of the project 

boundary. No changes were made to these boundaries. All three of these inventoried roadless areas will 

be considered in this analysis including the portion of the Cook Ridge IRA that is within the project 

boundary.

Table 54: Size of Inventoried Roadless Areas, and portions within the LJCRP boundary 

IRA Name Total 

acres

Acres in 

project 

boundary

Joseph 

Canyon 24,288 24,225

Wildhorse 20,308 20,282

Cook Ridge 19,617 544

As a result of past management activities some portions of the IRAs may now have forest roads, stumps, 

skid trails, roads that are substantially recognizable, have acres where salvage or harvest have not 

regenerated to the degree that canopy closure is similar to surrounding areas. Under this situation these 

areas would not meet PWA inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71). Approximately 17,805 acres of 

the Joseph Canyon IRA, 4,899 acres of the Wildhorse IRA, and the 544 acres of Cook Ridge IRA within 

the project boundary did not meet PWA criteria because past logging was evident and these acres had 

recognizable stumps, contained forest roads, were within 300 feet of a forest road, or were adjusted under 

the Boundary Adjustment Guidelines found at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70(72.5).

Potential Wilderness Areas 

The Forest Service Land Management Planning Handbook Chapter 70 (FSH 1909.12(70)) describes the 

criteria for evaluating Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA). Basically, the area must be 5,000 acres or 

greater or contiguous to an existing wilderness area, or potential wilderness area in other Federal 

ownership and are absent of features that are substantially recognizable and would detract from the 

wilderness characteristics of the area as identified in FSH 1909.12(70). For this analysis, areas containing 

system roads (including 300 feet on either side) and past harvest (1970 – present) were removed from 

consideration for Potential Wilderness (see Appendix I for an illustration of the analysis process). Two 

PWAs were identified, based on GIS mapping, as being potentially affected by actions proposed in this 

project.

The following indicator quantifies and tracks this issue:

 Acres within Potential Wilderness Area which could continue to qualify under FSH 1909.12 Chapter 

70.

There are two PWAs (Joseph and Wildhorse) within the project area. There is a large overlap of PWA 

acres with IRA so effects to both will be discussed similarly. Total PWA acres include all areas meeting 

PWA evaluation criteria including some portions of the Joseph Canyon and Wildhorse IRA in addition to 

adjacent land outside of IRA boundaries. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 119 

Other Undeveloped Land 

Indicators of comparison between the alternatives are as follows.

 Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc)

 Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

 Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

 Change in size class of other undeveloped lands

The process used to identify other undeveloped lands is described in the PWA/IRA/Wilderness report 

located in the project record. Approximately 40,919 acres (about 41 percent) of the project area have 

been identified as isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands. A portion of these acres are within IRA 

boundaries but did not meet PWA evaluation criteria found in FSH 1909.12 Ch. 71. Table 55 shows the 

size class distribution for other undeveloped lands in the project planning area. Managing planned 

(prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions is an important part of the overall restoration of landscape 

resiliency therefore the acre affects from fire is consistent between alternatives. Only the high priority 

areas (areas that receive a form of mechanical or hand treatment or areas within dry upland forest) are 

included in the acre calculation.

Table 55. Size class distribution of other undeveloped lands in the project area. 

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

253 1 to 99 acres 3,826

30 100 to 499 acres 5,747

7 500 to 999 acres 5,249

11 1,000 to 4,999 acres 26,097

0 5,000+ acres 0

301 Total 40,919

Human influences have had an impact on long-term ecological processes within the other undeveloped 

lands particularly through the use of grazing and wildfire suppression. These social uses and concerns 

will likely continue in the near term with a potential to increase the severity of disturbance by insect, 

disease, or wildfire. Opportunities for primitive recreation are generally characterized by hiking (crosscountry and some trail), hunting and off trail horseback riding. Ongoing firewood gathering and removal 

of danger trees along forest roads that border these areas changes the vegetation, creates stumps, and 

presents a managed appearance within the developed transportation corridor.

Consideration of Areas Identified as Unroaded by Environmental Organizations 

In addition to the areas identified above as meeting Forest Service Criteria for Potential Wilderness Areas, 

there are five areas identified by environmental organizations as unroaded that are “rare on the landscape” 

and have had limited human influence. The organizations further state that these areas could provide the 

ecological building blocks for restoration of natural disturbance processes such as fire. These areas do 

not, in their entirety, meet the Forest Service’s criteria as potential wilderness as identified in FSH 

1909.12 CH. 70 and the Boundary Adjustment Guidelines found at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 (72.5).

The following indicator will be used to track this issue:

 Acres of treatment within areas identified as unroaded by environmental organizations
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

120 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Consideration of these areas will be shown in the project record with maps and tables indicating overlap 

with Forest Service identified PWA, IRA, and proposed treatments and the environmental consequences 

in terms of acres from those treatments. Table 56 characterizes these areas and Table 57 shows the acres 

affected by the action alternatives (there will be no effect due to the no-action alternative so it will not be 

included in this table). Managing planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions is an important part 

of the overall restoration of disturbance throughout this landscape therefore the affect from fire is 

consistent between alternatives. Only the high priority areas (areas that receive a form of mechanical or 

hand treatment or areas within dry upland forest) are included in the acre calculation.

There are approximately 33 miles of system road included within the area identified by environmental 

organizations.

Table 56. Characterization of environmental organizations unroaded area 

Environmental 

Organizations Unroaded 

Area Name

Total acres included in 

Environmental Organizations 

Unroaded Area

Acres in 

project 

boundary

Acres in 

Forest Service 

IRA

Acres in Forest 

Service PWA

Joseph Canyon 40,222 38,902 24,034 (Joseph 

Canyon IRA)

6,440 (Joseph 

PWA)

Cottonwood Creek –

Broady Creek 24,482 23,991 20,085 (Wildhorse IRA)

15,396 

(Wildhorse 

PWA)

Sumac Creek 1,729 1,717 0

Yew Wood Springs 1,394 1,394 0

Boner Gulch 1,378 1,352 0

Total 69,205 67,356 44,119 21,836

Table 57. Characterization of acres of treatment within environmental organizations unroaded areas by 

action alternative. 

Environmental 

Organizations 

Unroaded Area 

Name

Total acres 

included in 

Environmental 

Organizations 

Unroaded Area

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Harvest Stand 

improvement

Prescribed 

Fire (High)

Harvest Stand 

improvement

Joseph Canyon 40,222 4,906 835 17,579 2,846 628

Cottonwood 

Creek – Broady 

Creek

24,482 3,334 2,242 11,874 335 43

Sumac Creek 1,729 178 0 520 86 0

Yew Wood 

Springs 1,394 699 1 983 659 1

Boner Gulch 1,378 224 0 401 173 0

Research Natural Areas 

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are designated for research and educational opportunities, to maintain 

biological diversity on National Forest land, and are selected to complete a national network of ecological 

areas. Establishment of research natural areas has been sanctioned in the Code of Federal Regulations in 

Section 7 CFR 2.42, 36 CFR 251.23, and 36 CFR 219.25. Direction for establishment is provided in 

Forest Service Manual 4063 and in “A Guide for Developing Natural Area Management and Monitoring 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 121 

Plans” written by the Pacific Northwest Interagency Natural Area Committee. As stated in this guide, 

each RNA is designated based on three major objectives: 1) To preserve examples of all significant 

natural ecosystems for comparison with those areas influenced by humans; 2) to provide educational and 

research areas for ecological and environmental studies and monitoring; and 3) to preserve gene pools for 

typical and rare and endangered plants and animals.

Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock were originally proposed for RNA designation in 1988. Horse 

Pasture Ridge proposed RNA is on the WWNF, northeast of Enterprise, Oregon (T5N R45E section 28, 

Willamette Meridian). Haystack Rock is also northeast of Enterprise, Oregon (T4N R45E primarily in 

sections 8 and 17 with small portions found in sections 7 and 18, Willamette Meridian). The Horse 

Pasture Ridge proposed area will contribute to the national network of RNAs by providing an example of 

Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass and Idaho fescue –bluebunch wheatgrass plant associations in ridge top 

communities. The Haystack Rock proposed area will contribute to the national network of RNAs by 

providing an example of Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass-arrowleaf balsamroot and bluebunch 

wheatgrass-Sandberg’s bluegrass-narrow-leaved skullcap plant associations. Horse Pasture Ridge and 

Haystack Rock proposed RNAs would therefore preserve examples of a significant natural ecosystem, 

would preserve gene pools for these community types, and provide an educational and research area for 

study of these unique ecosystems.

There are no known significant mineral resources within the area. Recreation use is light, consists of big 

game hunting, and is expected to continue. Loss of timber utilization is minimal because the area 

contains few trees. Grazing is incidental to none since they are located on the steep rocky slopes above 

Joseph Canyon. There are no threatened or endangered plants or animals known in the area, and there are 

no system roads or trails nor a need for system roads or trails in either proposed RNA.

Transportation 

Roads analysis assesses the current forest transportation system and identifies issues and assesses 

benefits, problems and risks to inform the decisions related to the administration of the forest 

transportation system and helps to identify proposals for changes to the transportation system as it relates 

to the WWNF forest plan. 

The design of this analysis is based on the methodology used in the publication Roads Analysis: 

Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA Forest Service 

1999).

The WWNF forest plan and the CMP for the HCNRA describes management areas related to resource 

issues. For certain management areas, there are road densities described as standards and guidelines to 

address certain resource concerns (see wildlife section describing road densities relative to elk habitat, 

above). In addition, the Biological Opinion on the WWNF LRMP for Snake River Salmon and Steelhead 

(1998) described a 2 mile/square mile road density as a term and condition for 5th field HUCs to limit the 

potential impact on listed fish and their habitat.

Transportation System for LJCRP Area

The LJCRP Area contains 406 miles of existing NFS roads. Currently there are 127 miles of road open to 

motorized vehicles year-round. There are 10 miles of road closed to motorized vehicles from 8/28 to 

11/28 (seasonally closed) and 101 miles closed to motorized vehicles from 10/25 to 11/27 (seasonally 

closed). There are 128 miles of road closed year around to all motorized vehicles. The WWNF under the 

LRMP (1990) is open to cross country travel except where expressly designated closed to cross country 

travel under a CFR for specific roads or areas.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

122 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Temporary roads constructed under precious authorizations or decisions may still be evident. There is no 

inventory of temporary roads for the analysis area. Unauthorized roads existing within the analysis area 

have not been inventoried and are not considered part of the transportation system.

Wallowa County has jurisdiction of 35.99 miles of road providing links to private lands with and adjacent 

to the analysis area. Any use of these roads by the Forest Service will require an agreement between the 

county and the Forest Service.

About 6.13 miles of Oregon State Route 3 traverses along the western perimeter of the analysis area. A 

Memorandum of Understanding exists between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and 

Region 6 of the USDA Forest Service describing the procedures and responsibilities for both parties 

where state highways intersect NFS lands.

Lands 

National landmarks, parklands, prime farmlands, rangelands, and forestlands 

There are no national landmarks, parklands, prime farmlands, nor prime rangelands in the project area. 

The project would not convert forestlands to other uses. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by alternative

Spatial and temporal context for project level effects analyses 

For the effects analyses the spatial context being considered is the 98,600 acres of NFS lands (project 

area). The baseline year used for this analysis is the year 2014 as the existing condition. In this analysis, 

all past activities and events are included in the existing condition description. In the effects discussion, 

post treatment refers to the time the final activity is accomplished (assumed to be the year 2024), “shortterm” effects refers to effects over the 10-year period from the time the final activity was accomplished 

(year 2034). Beyond 20-years we will be considering effects as “long-term” (year 2054). 

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context being considered is the 178,000 acre analysis area. 

Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of changes in the existing condition due to present and 

foreseeable activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered 

is approximately 10 years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed will have been 

completed and the responses to these actions has occurred.

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(c). There would be no changes in 

current management, including the continuation of fire suppression, and implementation of previous 

management decisions. Alternative 1 is the point of reference for assessing action alternatives 2 and 3.

Effects common to all action alternatives 

The physical environment 

Surface Erosion 

Wildland fire management activities may increase surface erosion by reducing effective ground cover by 

burning or mechanical removal during fireline construction. Additionally, at certain temperature 

gradients, fire-induced water repellency may develop in soils which inhibits water infiltration and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 123 

increases surface erosion. (DeBano 2000). In Alt 2 and Alt 3, up to 90,000 acres of planned or unplanned 

ignitions may occur. Refer to the Vegetation Disturbance section of the DEIS for more information. 

At the site scale, surface erosion may affect site potential and site productivity in areas where material is 

gained or lost through management activities. Additionally, changes in soil composition and structure may 

result in moisture content changes and subsequent drought tolerance. Organisms dependent on soil 

characteristics and wildlife dependent on vegetative conditions expressed by soil composition, structure 

and depth may also be affected by surface erosion. (Grigal 2000). However, due to the limited scope of 

the proposed treatments and the limited extent of potential effects when managed through Best 

Management Practices and Mitigation Measures, it is unlikely for these potential effects to extend beyond 

the site scale or to persist indefinitely. In all action alternatives, the effects of surface erosion would not 

compromise ecosystem components within or beyond the LJCRP.

Sediment from road construction, road decommissioning, and road maintenance activities. 

Road construction and road maintenance activities have the potential to indirectly introduce fine sediment 

into stream channels. Road maintenance prior to log haul would help maintain the design drainage of the 

road surface which reduces the potential for larger sediment inputs to runoff that eventually enters stream 

courses. The action alternatives propose to re-open old temporary roads. Additionally, the action 

alternative also proposes to construct approximately 12.6 miles of temporary road. Temporary road 

reconstruction would re-establish several stream crossings, using temporary culverts. These roads would 

be decommissioned after project completion. 

Maintenance of the existing system roads prior to hauling would include measures to upgrade the quality 

of the road bed and to improve road drainage. This includes the placement of new aggregate surfacing 

where necessary, blading, removing debris from landslides, brushing out encroaching vegetation, 

removing berms, ditch and culvert inlet cleanout where needed, and repairing several sections of asphalt 

road surface. Aggregate road surfacing greatly minimizes the amount of fine sediment from road surfaces 

entering streams following log haul, especially during and following rainfall events. Additionally, deep 

patch repairs to the roadbed are proposed along some segments of the haul route.

Road-related ground-disturbing activities have been designed to minimize the risk of sediment being 

transported to streams from erosion or surface run-off. Road work would be restricted to the dry season. 

This restriction would reduce the risk of surface erosion due to ground disturbance. The 12.6 miles of 

temporary road construction crosses four intermittent streams.

All new temporary roads and re-opened temporary roads would be decommissioned and re-vegetated 

directly following completion of harvest operations to help reduce compaction, increase infiltration rates, 

minimize surface erosion, and re-establish natural drainage patterns.

Road maintenance prior to log hauling also increases the risk of road related sediment entering streams 

near road crossing during rainfall events. This increase is associated primarily with aggregate and native 

surface roads although ditch cleaning associated with paved roads is a potential sediment source. Any 

fine sediment created by road maintenance activities would most likely be washed from the road surface 

in the first few precipitation events of the fall that are sufficient to cause runoff from the road surface. 

Although there is a possibility of increased sediment entering streams due to these activities, most roadrelated sediment would be trapped and stored in the ditches or on the forest floor below cross drains. 

Sediment from log haul 

Log hauling along aggregate surface or native surfaced roads has the potential to introduce sediment in 

small quantities to streams. Traffic breaks down surfacing material resulting in finer surface gradation 

and increased sediment transport from the road surface. Any fine sediment created by hauling traffic 

would more than likely be washed from the road surface in the first precipitation event that is sufficient to 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

124 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

cause runoff from the road surface. Any input of sediment is expected to be minimal as the roads where 

there is a potential for surface run-off are asphalt or durable crushed rock. Native surfaced road use 

would be restricted to periods when road related runoff is not present and as such, little sediment is 

expected to leave the road bed while haul is occurring. 

During the wet season, log haul would only be permitted on asphalt and rocked roads when conditions 

would prevent sediment delivery to streams. In periods of high rain-fall, the Forest Service would restrict 

log hauling when necessary to minimize water quality impacts. Haul would be stopped if there is rutting 

of the road surface or a noticeable increase in the turbidity of water draining to the road ditches or at 

stream crossings. 

Log hauling would not measurably increase the amount of fine sediment in streams. The roads along the 

haul route are rocked or paved at stream crossings, and road ditches are well vegetated. Road maintenance 

prior to log haul would help maintain the design drainage of the road surface which reduces the potential 

for sediment to runoff into stream courses. Road maintenance and repair would have a beneficial effect on 

slope stability would reduce the risk of water quality and resource damage from the use of these roads. 

The potential for sediment input into streams along the haul routes would further be minimized by 

permitting haul only when conditions would prevent sediment delivery to streams. Any sediment that 

could enter a stream during haul activities would be at stream crossings along aggregate surfaced roads. 

The majority of these crossings are at intermittent or small perennial streams that would have very little 

flow, during the normal season of operation. An analysis of sediment delivered from haul routes and 

temporary roads to stream reaches was conducted using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project model. 

Modeling indicates that there is negligible difference in the sediment derived from haul between 

alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 use approximately the same haul system. 

Chemical contamination 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a dust abatement spill or petroleum spill could potentially result in direct 

effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water. Dust abatement would be applied to gravel 

haul roads as needed, up to 260 miles total over the lifetime of the project. The risk of water 

contamination due to the application of dust abatement is minimized under the action alternatives by 

several mitigation measures that would be required under the timber sale contract. Dust abatement with 

chemical compounds under Alternatives 2 and 3 include maintaining an average 100 foot no-application 

buffer at perennial stream crossings and maintaining a 100-foot no treatment area adjacent to the outside 

edge of the road along the ditch line. Moreover, the application of dust abatement materials would 

normally occur only once per year in a window of time when no rain is forecast for at least three days. 

The buffering of applications away from perennial stream crossings has been found to effectively mitigate 

pollution of adjacent waters (USDA 1999). The rate of application of dust abatement compounds in the 

planning area would be “typical” and therefore is not expected to contribute to adverse riparian or aquatic 

effects. 

Magnesium chloride is typically used on a limited basis and at low application rates, as compared to study 

areas where the most noticeable effects have been seen. Based on the literature review and typical 

application rates for dust abatement purposes that would be used in the LJCRP planning area, effects from 

these compounds to plants and animals in the riparian and aquatic environments would be negligible 

under the action alternatives. 

Timber sale purchasers would be required to have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site, they 

would be required to develop spill prevention plans if substantial amounts of fuel or other pollutants are 

stored in sale areas, and traffic control measures would be required in the timber sale contract. All of these 

requirements associated with Alternatives 2 and 3, detailed in Chapter 2, function to diminish the chances 

that potential direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water from project-related 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 125 

pollutants would actually occur. Thus, risk of chemical contamination is considered to be low for both 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

The action alternatives would present more risk of indirect effects to downstream beneficial uses because 

of the amount of potentially polluting products transported to the project area. lternatives 2 and 3 present 

similar risks of an accidental spill contaminating off-site or downstream waters and the beneficial uses of 

those waters. The likelihood of an accidental spill is believed to be low under the action alternatives; 

therefore no mitigation measures would be applied to the transport of potential pollutants outside the 

timber sale areas. 

Mining 

The direct effect to mining prospectors or future mining operators is a possibility in that the selection of 

these alternatives would increase administrative oversight by the agency for travel by persons entering the 

national forest for the purpose of mining or prospecting. 

If, as a result of implementing these alternatives, roads that are not designated as available for motor 

vehicle travel because they will be removed or will be physically closed with barriers, berms, or gates will 

limit access without additional coordination with the District Ranger and additional administrative 

oversight. Due to the current absent demand for mineral resources within the analysis area and limited 

proposed closures across action alternatives, the anticipated direct and indirect effects to mining are 

minimal.

Generally, all alternatives (including Alternative 1) have the potential to increase the social and economic 

impacts to mining operators. In all alternatives, the potential for previous physical closure decisions to be 

implemented could continue to occur into the foreseeable future. It is expected that without a regular 

rotation of vegetation projects combined with the lack of public clearing of undesignated roads and 

unauthorized roads, it is highly likely that many will begin to re-vegetate within a 10 year period and 

would be grown closed within a 15 year period, decreasing motor vehicle access. It is unknown how 

much of an issue this will become; however, it is recognized as a potential effect of designated motor 

vehicle routes. 

As roads are physically closed or decommissioned over time by previous site specific project decisions or 

they grow closed due to lack of maintenance, the cost to mining operations will increase as the burden to 

open and maintain access roads for mining shifts from the government to the operator. The operator 

would have to assume all cost associated with maintenance, operation, and reclamation of the road.

Socially, the need for regulatory oversight may increase under all action alternatives as roads are closed 

and decommissioned. Economically, the cost associated with maintaining roads to a standard that reduces 

impacts to adjacent national forest resources would be the responsibility of the operator. Due to the 

current absent demand for mineral resources within the analysis area and limited proposed closures across 

action alternatives, the anticipated cumulative effect to mining is minimal.

Mass Wasting 

At the landscape scale, surface erosion may increase substantially in the event of a large scale 

disturbance. The treatments proposed in all action alternatives will mitigate some of this risk by restoring 

stand structures and species compositions (see Fire and Fuels Report).

Water quality and temperature 

The LJCRP is in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plans derived from the Lower Grande 

Ronde Subbasins TMDL (2010). By implementing and monitoring water quality related Best 

Management Practices we would minimize the probability of degrading waters within the planning area 

or downstream. Any effects would by short lived and only detectable at the site scale. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

126 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Under the Action Alternatives, the proposed activities may indirectly benefit water quality by potentially 

reducing the extent and/or severity of wildfires. High intensity wildfires and emergency fire management 

have the potential to degrade water quality through increased runoff and erosion, accelerated nutrient 

inputs and through chemical spill or misapplications of fire retardant. 

Chemical Contamination 

Most past and on-going land management operations throughout the Lower Grand Ronde basin such as 

silvicultural activities, timber sales, and all forms of road work use a variety of potentially polluting 

products (such as dust abatement, petroleum, concrete, adhesives, cleansers, herbicides, etc) that pose a 

risk of entering waterways if spilled or mishandled. The level of timber harvest and associated road work 

on Federal land has diminished over the last two decades relative to the previous three decades. 

Therefore, the level of additive effects that can contaminate water from such actions has also diminished. 

Potential contamination of waters within the river basin associated with private lands development has not 

diminished. Water contaminations from these sources can be expected to increase as demand for food and 

natural resources increases with the human populations. Therefore, the lower areas of the Lower Grande 

Ronde subbasins are where the cumulative effects of all the additive forms and sources of water 

contamination would be most likely realized.

The probability of the action alternatives resulting in any cumulative effects to water contamination 

hinges on whether a substantial spill of petroleum or dust abatement products occurs. Should a spill 

occur and clean-up measures fail, a cumulative effect could be realized. This is particularly true the 

further downstream an accidental spill occurs. 

None of the alternatives are expected to appreciably affect water quality over the long-term (decades, or 

longer), and none are expected to contribute to chemical contamination or have a measurable effect on the 

nutrient regime unless an accidental spill were to occur. The chances of such a spill are offset as much as 

possible by a series of Best Management Practices required in the timber sale contract associated with 

both action alternatives. 

 Any impacts to water quality associated with contamination of water due to timber sale operations would 

be short-term and likely localized. As such, the broad-scale goals of the Lower Grande Ronde TMDL 

(2010) and PACFISH strategies would not be compromised.

Water quantity - streamflows 

The proposed activities will have no direct, measureable effect on the hydrographs for waterways within 

the LJCRP area. Though we lack a consistent record of streamflow data within the LJCRP area, other 

waterways adjacent to the planning area do not indicate a strong peak flow response (US Geological 

Survey 2014). No new permanent roads are proposed in any alternative. The proposed road closures and 

decommissioning in the action alternatives are unlikely to produce a measurable response in streamflows. 

Moreover, the intensity of the proposed treatments will not alter stand densities in excess of the range of 

variation (See Silviculture Sections). However, if the proposed treatments are successful in the mitigating 

the risk of a high intensity wildfire, there may be an indirect benefit of reducing the probability of adverse 

wildfire effects (widespread loss of canopy cover and ground cover, soil hydrophobisity) that have the 

potential to modify the timing and intensity of streamflows. 

Water Quantity - groundwater 

Pursuant to the proposed Forest Service Groundwater Directive (FSM 2560), groundwater resources were 

evaluated in the LJCRP analysis. The proposed activities will have no direct, measurable effect on 

groundwater resources. Source water protection will be satisfied through the implementation of Best 

Management Practices (Appendix J) and PACFISH RHCA treatment buffers. Water withdrawals and 

minerals resource management are not part of any action alternative. Equipment supporting the proposed 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 127 

restoration activities has the potential to locally and temporarily impact groundwater resources in the 

event of a chemical spill (See discussion on chemical contamination and streamflows). 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

The proposed action alternatives would have no adverse impact on floodplains or wetlands as described in 

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. Floodplains and wetlands will be protected by applicable PACFISH 

RHCA buffers in Alternative 3. In Alternative 2, conifers encroaching on the valley bottom meadow along 

approximately 3 miles of Swamp Creek may be thinned to meet Riparian Management Objectives by 

taking steps to restore structure, pattern and species composition of overstory vegetation (Appendix J). All 

other floodplains and wetlands will be protected by applicable PACFISH RHCA buffers in Alternative 2. 

Wetlands were initially identified through a review of the National Wetlands Inventory data that were 

derived from selectively field validated remotely sensed data. Floodplains were modeled using digital 

elevation models and calculating the area inundated during a 100-year flood (See Physical Environment 

Report).

Air Quality 

Prescribed burning of forest fuels (logging slash or natural) will comply with Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR) 629-048-0001 to 629-048-0500 (Smoke Management Rules) within any forest protection 

district as described in OAR 629-048-0500 to 0575. These rules establish emission limits for the size of 

particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5) that may be released during these activities. 

Huff (1995) found PM 10 smoke production was twice as high for wildfires as for prescribed fire because 

wildfires generally occur during drought periods in which there are low fuel moistures and more fuel 

available for consumption. Their research in the Grande Ronde Basin found the following levels of 

PM10 emissions (Table 58). This study did not look at PM 2.5 as a subset of PM 10 but smoke 

production models used to submit burn plans to the State of Oregon at the time of implementation will 

show the respective levels. Past experience with this modeling has shown a similar trend in the level of 

PM 2.5.

Table 58. PM10 emissions in the Grande Ronde Basin for prescribed fire and wildfire 

Fire Type PM 10 (tons/acre)

Wildfire 0.318

Prescribed Fire 0.167

Under both action alternatives up to 90,000 acres are available to manage with fire thus air quality and 

smoke emissions would be similar and would follow the established rules to comply with the Clean Air 

Act prior to implementing planned ignition or using unplanned ignitions to benefit restoration objectives. 

The number of acres accomplished per year will be determined by established emission limits negotiated 

with the State of Oregon, funding, appropriate burn conditions, and personnel availability. 

The biological environment 

Disturbance and fire regime 

Harvest, stand improvement, and prescribed fire (planned and unplanned ignition) 

Treatments under both action alternatives are designed to use evidence based ecologically informed 

principles to restore function and processes and appropriate disturbance regimes in a landscape created by 

disturbance. Following guidelines found in Franklin et al. (2013) and local range of variability estimates 

inform how disturbance regimes regulated forest structure and composition and contributed to landscape 

resilience. The two action alternatives manipulate forest structure, density, and composition as well as 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

128 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

landscape pattern in a way to reduce uncharacteristic disturbance due to density dependent mortality 

(insects) and compositional influenced mortality (disease and fire). These treatments also lead to a 

reduction in uncharacteristic moderate and replacement severity fire as a result of an increase in fireintolerant species, decreased abundance of fire-tolerant species, multi-storied stands that increase ability 

of fire to influence canopy fuels, and densification of forest stands across the landscape that increase the 

continuity and amount of fuel across the LJCRP area. 

Prescribed fire as a silvicultural tool is critical to restoring health, resiliency, adaptability and process to 

the forested landscape within LJCRP. Franklin et al. (2013) indicate that fire will be a constant in the dry 

forests of eastern OR and WA and will neither be eliminated nor would it be desirable to do so. Both 

action alternatives recognize the ecological need to manage fire (planned and unplanned) to meet the 

purpose and need of this project and to move the landscape towards more resilient conditions while 

mitigating undesirable effects of higher proportions of unnaturally high severity fire. There would be 

areas of mixed severity that provide opportunities to regenerate early seral species at the stand and 

landscape scale. These opportunities may vary in size from < 1 acre to 10’s of acres. These conditions 

would affect the LJCRP at an ecologically important scale for the types of forested systems found in the 

project area.

Under the two action alternatives up to 90,000 acres of prescribed fire would be available for 

implementation. It is anticipated that some of this would be done using planned ignitions but realizing 

the limitation of burn windows, cost, and personnel this project encourages the use of unplanned ignitions 

so long as it is exhibiting fire behavior conducive to meeting the restoration objectives described in 

Chapter 1.

Planned ignition priority areas are identified for the action alternatives and described in the project design 

features for this document. High priority areas represent the acres that are treated with either harvest or 

SI, or are in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. Prescribed fire following harvest or SI 

serves to “complete” the first restoration step by mechanically moving forest structure, density, or 

composition towards the reference conditions as well as returning fire as a natural disturbance process to 

create natural patterns of heterogeneity. On acres treated with a combination of cutting and fire the 

departure from the natural fire regime will be moved toward desired conditions. 

On high priority areas outside harvest and stand improvement (SI) areas, wildland fire would be used to 

alter forest density, structure, composition, and pattern. In general, density would be reduced due to small 

diameter tree mortality to canopy consumption or cambium scorch, and this would move the landscape 

closer to RV and begin to restore natural disturbance regimes. Improving large and old forest structure 

would occur by fire supporting restoration of old or early seral trees species of large size and reducing the 

number of smaller diameter young trees within the stand. Early seral tree species would be favored (not 

killed) by fire due to their inherent adaptive strategies to survive fire (thick bark, self-thinning crown, 

etc). Returning fire to the system is a direct way to influence the restoration of reference conditions, 

disturbance regimes, and reference patterns on the landscape. There would be areas of mixed severity fire 

(similar to a group selection harvest) that would provide the necessary environment to successfully 

regenerate early seral species across the landscape, a characteristic that is currently underrepresented. 

The moderate priority areas are located in the moist upland forest potential vegetation group and would 

experience a higher relative probability of moderate/replacement severity fire. Low priority areas are 

dominated by non-forest vegetation and are not critical to meeting the forested vegetation portion of the 

restoration objectives.

Activity Fuels 

Activity fuels, slash and brush derived from cutting in the harvest and SI treatments, would create a short 

term increase in fuel accumulation and potentially increase the severity of wildfire should it occur prior to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 129 

fuel treatments. Activity fuels would be treated in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, 

mastication, removal, pile (grapple or hand) and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, or prescribed fire. 

Fire Management Decision Space 

The action alternatives provide options for fire management to utilize planned and unplanned ignitions to 

influence the resilience and restoration of the LJCRP by reducing the amount of uncharacteristic fire 

severity, albeit to differing degrees. The primary difference between the action alternatives in this respect 

is the indirect effect of limiting fire management opportunities under alternative 3 by no harvesting or 

conducting SI work in IRA, PWA, designated old growth, or RHCAs. Alternative 2 prepares more acres 

for the re-introduction of fire and therefore gives more options for using fire to protect important resource 

values such as old trees, late and old structure forests, riparian habitat conservation areas, wildlife habitat, 

IRA characteristics, PWA characteristics, or designated old growth. Alternative 3 treats less acres overall 

and in particular the areas that have the greatest social concern for harvest or SI. By eliminating 

treatment in the IRA, PWA, RHCA, and designated old growth under alternative 3 these areas would 

continue to develop structure, density, and composition that present a higher proportion of 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire such that it limits the decision space and comfort of fire management 

to allow planned or unplanned fire to reclaim its role as a restorative process both within these areas and 

areas immediately adjacent to and outside that would also benefit from fire. 

Forest vegetation 

Features specific to desired condition objectives have been designed into the action alternatives to prevent 

impacts and meet the standards and guidelines in the WWNF forest plan, as amended, under this EIS, and 

meet the LJCRP purpose and need. The comprehensive silviculture design is documented in Appendix J -

Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices.

Table 59 describes the treatment types that are proposed in the action alternatives. See the project record 

for the decision matrix used to determine treatment type and intensity to move project area toward RV.

Table 59. Description of treatment types 

Treatment Types Treatment Description

Savanna Reestablishment of grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have 

conifer encroachment.

Single Tree Selection (STS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present

Group Selection (GS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present; 1⁄2 to 4 acre group 

selection to initiate new cohort of seral species (PP/WL).

Intermediate Treatment (IT) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present with emphasis on 

isolating mistletoe infections and creating conditions that reduce intensification of 

infection.

Stand Improvement (SI) ICO variable density thinning within young, post disturbance stands.

The STS, GS and IT treatment types have a treatment intensity associated with them (high, moderate, 

low) indicating a post treatment desired density class. Table 60 illustrates the change from existing 

density class to post treatment density class based on treatment intensity.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

130 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 60. Relationship of treatment intensity to the desired post treatment density class 

Post Treatment Density Class ↘

Treatment Intensity:

High Moderate Low

Existing Density:

High Low Moderate High

Moderate Low Moderate

Low Low

Rangelands and understory vegetation 

Direct effects to rangeland resources and understory vegetation from LJCRP activities include temporary 

loss of understory vegetation including forage plants, through ground disturbance from logging activities, 

crushing and piling related to logging activities and prescribed fire. Map 5 (Appendix A) shows the 

locations of invasive plants relative to project activities. Physical effects of prescribed fire, where soil is 

heated can create areas where soil biota such as ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi, desirable bacteria, and 

invertebrates are killed. Small slash piles result in moderate soil heating in the surface 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 

in). The range in reported temperatures does not suggest any major changes in soil properties with the 

exception of potential root, seed bank, and microbial mortality. Large slash piles, especially those 

containing a high proportion of large-diameter wood result in high soil temperatures and long heat 

durations. Detrimental heating effects on soil properties should be expected in the top 10 cm (4 in) or 

more (Busse 2014). Prescribed fire can be beneficial under the right circumstances. Forest underburning 

produces minimal soil heating except in areas where duff layers are completely consumed. Therefore, 

detrimental heat damage should not be expected in most cases. Grassland fires produce nominal soil 

heating. The dominance of fine fuels in these systems ensures that burn duration time is generally low and 

soil temperatures are minimal (Busse 2014).

Indirect effects include increased risk of spreading invasive annual grasses and noxious weeds through 

road construction, grading, and rocking, logging related activities, and prescribed fire when seed sources 

are available. The introduction of seed sources from logging equipment, shoes and clothing of workers 

and recreationists, as well as by wildlife and livestock is also an issue where bare soil is exposed. 

Thinning logging, and prescribed fire may facilitate exotic species invasions by disturbing existing 

vegetation, exposing mineral soil, facilitating the spread of propagules, reducing shading, and increasing 

soil resource availability (Dodson et al. 2008) with the strongest response when a combination of thinning 

and burning is used (Metlen and Fiedler 2006). Project design criteria (see Invasive Plant specialist’s 

report and Appendix J) would reduce risk of spreading invasive non-native plants. 

Loss of forage and understory canopy cover through logging and burning activities may require a period 

of rest prior to grazing, depending on the time of year treatments occur, how much bare soil is exposed, 

and the condition of understory plants after treatments. This would have to be determined by the range 

manager and botanist after treatments have been implemented.

The amount of forage and understory vegetation depends on many factors, such as annual variations in 

precipitation, heat, soil, and competing vegetation. Low to moderate intensity fire may increase fire 

resilient grass species such as pinegrass (FEIS 2014). Benefits from silvicultural treatments and 

prescribed burning may include increases in forage and browse canopy cover. Relationships between tree 

canopy density and understory plant growth have been developed for major forest cover types in 

Montana, similar to forest cover types in LJCRP. In general, a tree canopy that covers more than 50% of 

the open sky will shade out most understory plants rendering the site unproductive for grazing. 

Decreasing the amount of forest canopy cover to less than 50% results in a proportional increase in forage 

production until the tree canopy cover has been reduced to 10 - 20%. Understory vegetation in ponderosa 

pine forests increased proportionately to decreases in crown cover until a canopy cover of 20% was left. 

Further thinning resulted in no further understory increases. Canopy thinning in stands of Douglas-fir, on 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 131 

the other hand, showed continuous increases in forage production until the stand was clearcut (Kolb 

1999). Young (1965) found that shrubs in dry upland forest (ABGR) had the highest cover when tree 

canopy was 21 to 35% and grass species were most productive between 0 and 20% tree canopy cover. 

Other studies show no such relationship (in Ponderosa pines stands with cover between 20 and 50 

percent) (Krueger 1981). Long et al. (2008) described an increase in forage cover in the spring in stands 

where tree canopy had been reduced, however by summer the forage cover had decreased due to 

desiccation. Treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the most impact where post treatment takes 

density to less than40% cover. Moist upland forest treatments where density would be reduced to less 

than 40% canopy cover would occur on less than one percent of the LJCRP area. It is doubtful there 

would be enough reduction in cover to increase native forage grasses, such as elk sedge, pinegrass, Idaho 

fescue or blue-bunch wheatgrass in moist upland forest stands. However, there should be improvement in 

dry upland forest treatments where about 11% of the total LJCRP area would have canopy cover taken to 

low density (below 40% canopy cover).

TES Plants 

Map 4 (Appendix A) shows the locations of TES plants relative to project activities. There are no 

documented TES plant species in coniferous forest habitat within the LJCRP. However there are four 

bryophytes (Buxbaumia aphylla, Ptilidium pulcherrimum, Schistostega pennata, Tetraphis geniculata), 

two fungi (Rhizogogon subclavitisporus, Rhizopogon bacillisporus), and two vascular plants (Carex 

cordillerana, Cypripedium fasciculatum) suspected in forested habitats in the project area 

There is only one historic record of C. fasciculatum from the Wallowa-Whitman NF and efforts to 

relocate this orchid have not been successful. Rhizopogons live below ground, making them difficult to 

detect and neither species has been found in our area, although R. subclavitisporus is documented from 

northern Idaho. Bryophytes such as Ptilidium pulcherrimum and Tetraphis geniculata require moist shady 

microsites. 

Direct effects to forested areas would be caused by machinery and tree felling crushing vegetation and 

disturbing and compacting soil. All TES species suspected in conifer forest habitat would be subject to the 

effects of logging and thinning activities that crush vegetation and/or disturb soil.

Prescribed fire after silvicultural treatments would remove understory vegetation, woody debris, and litter, 

impacting microclimate as well as soil temperature and moisture. Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), a 

species of concern for the WMO district, is extremely sensitive to changes in microclimate and requires 

canopy closure to thrive, as well as long periods without disturbance (Busing 1995). Yew is found in the 

LJCRP in closed canopy mixed conifer stands in moist sites, in fact, Johnson (1998) describes yew as an 

indicator of a high water table. 

Indirect effects to forested areas resulting from logging and thinning would be loss of canopy closure and 

resulting changes in microclimate. Cypripedium fasciculatum and Listera borealis are both in the orchid 

family and probably require mycorrhizal fungi to establish. Rhizogogon subclavitisporus and Rhizopogon 

bacillisporus are mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi are vital to nutrient and water uptake for many 

vascular plants including conifers. Many edible mushrooms found in coniferous forest are mycorrhizal 

including morels, boletes (Porcini), and truffles. Changes in soil temperature and moisture can change the 

mycorrizal community, or eliminate it. Loss of coarse woody debris changes soil moisture retention 

during dry months, also affecting mycorrhizal fungi (Lippert 2014). 

In general the suspected TES species in LJCRP are found in moist upland forest rather than in dry upland 

forest. Direct and indirect effects May Impact Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute To 

A Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species (MIIH). In 

the case of culturally significant plants, morel habitat may benefit from light burning. Pacific yew is fire 

intolerant and slow to recover after wildfire (Busing 1995).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

132 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Grasslands include both moist and dry bunchgrass habitats. There are two grassland species documented 

in the LJCRP, Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus and Pyrrocoma scaberula. Both are regional 

endemics, meaning they are only found in our part of the world. There are thirteen records (Oregon 

Biodiversity Information Center) of Pyrrocoma scaberula in the Joseph Canyon area, only one is in the 

project area, the other twelve are adjacent, with eleven on Nez Perce precious lands and one on BLM 

land. Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus is slightly more plentiful with ten populations within LJCRP 

and another six populations on other land ownerships. Both Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus and 

Pyrrocoma scaberula are concentrated at the very north end of the LJCRP, extending north into other land 

ownerships. The known site of Pyrrocoma scaberula is not near any project activities. 

Two Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus populations are adjacent to units that would be treated in 

Alternative 2, but not treated in Alternative 3. Carex duriuscula, Delphinium bicolor, Silene spaldingii are 

suspected to be within the project area and suitable habitat exists. Approximately 14, 840 acres of 

potential habitat, identified using a habitat model for Silene spaldingii, is within 300 feet of LJCRP units. 

All of the grassland species tend to grow in grassland between stringers of forest. 

Potential direct effects to Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus include crushing by logging machinery 

and piling, as well as soil disturbance from the same. Indirect effects could be negative in the case of 

spreading invasive annual grasses and noxious weeds through ground disturbance and prescribed fire. 

Positive indirect effects could be the removal of conifers encroaching into grassland stringers and 

nitrogen release as a result of prescribed burning. Direct and indirect effects to grasslands May Impact 

Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause A 

Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species (MIIH).

Moist Meadows,Wet Meadows, Riparian, Springs and Seeps: There are no documented species from 

moist meadows, wet meadows, riparian areas or springs and seeps. Suitable habitat for mesic TES plant 

species has limited potential to be directly impacted by the vegetation management activities proposed for 

the LJCRP, because nearly all the riparian areas and other mesic features are protected by INFISH buffers. 

A very limited amount of timber harvest and log skidding would occur in RHCAs. Along Category 1 and 

2 streams, a minimum 100 foot buffer would be maintained. Category 4 RHCAs would be treated in 

alternative 2, but seeps and springs would be protected from logging and thinning activities, and there 

would be a 25 foot variable width no harvest and no equipment buffer established during implementation 

by a hydrologist or fisheries biologist. Direct and indirect effects are unlikely in these habitats.

Rock Outcrops, Talus, Scree: These habitats are unlikely to be affected by project activities. No impact 

from project activities to these species is anticipated.

Lithosols: There are three sensitive plants documented from lithosol habitats: Achnatherum wallowaensis 

(Wallowa ricegrass), Erigeron disparipilus, and Erigeron engelmannii v. davisii. The two Erigerons are 

taxonomically difficult and virtually impossible to differntiate in the field. They would be considered 

together as “the white fleabanes”. These species grow in rocky areas nearly devoid of other vegetation, 

associated species are Sandberg’s bluegrass and rigid sagebrush. Wallowa ricegrass is known from 

Wallowa and Crook Counties in Oregon. The white fleabanes are suspected to hybridize in our area 

(Brooks 2009) although they are considered distinct species. Davis fleabane is endemic to southwest 

Idaho with disjunct populations in southwest Washington and northeast Oregon. Snake River daisy is 

found in Idaho near the Snake River and in northeast Oregon. Wallowa ricegrass, Davis fleabane, and 

Snake River daisy are all locally abundant in the project area, yet all should be considered narrow 

endemics, meaning they are not well distributed throughout the world, or even within the region. 

Lithosol habitats within the LJCRP are frequently found between forested stringers on ridgetops and are 

generally flat, making them attractive locations for temporary roads, landings, and parking spots for 

logging equipment. During the course of the 2014 TES plant surveys many new populations of Wallowa 

ricegrass and white fleabanes were discovered, as well as extensions of previously documented 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 133 

populations. The white fleabanes found in 2014 have not yet been identified to species and were all 

tentatively lumped into Davis fleabane. 

Most of the new Wallowa ricegrass sites are extensions of existing sites. Wallowa ricegrass is found south 

of Coyote Campground in LJCRP. In general the white fleabanes are found north of Coyote Campground, 

with the largest concentrations in the Cold Spring Ridge vicinity and Wildhorse Ridge. Alternative 2 

would have the most impact on Lithosol habitat, although the effects of Alternative 3 are still substantial. 

Direct effects to TES plants found on lithosols are crushing plants with machinery, burying plants during 

grading, landing construction, damaging plants during felling and yarding, and burying plants under slash 

piles. Indirect effects are soil compaction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses 

(Brooks 2009, Dewey 2013). Mitigations: Known populations would be flagged prior to road grading and 

other road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, with work overseen by District 

Botanist. In addition equipment operators would receive maps with known sites and instructions to avoid 

flagged areas. With mitigations both alternatives May Impact Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely 

Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or 

Species (MIIH) in Lithosols in LJCRP.

Wildlife 

Primary cavity excavators 

Snag habitat is currently adequate in the PPDF habitat type, and below reference conditions in the EMC 

habitat type (moist forests). No snags are prescribed for harvest in any of the alternatives. However, it is 

likely that snag density will decline in areas treated due to safety, skid trails, firewood cutting, and other 

reasons (Harrod et al. 2009)(Hessburg et al. 2010). Prescribed fire will also likely result in loss of snags, 

particularly in the large (>20”) size class (Finch et al. 1997, Pilliod et al. 2006).

American marten 

Commercial harvest treatments in the LJCRP area would not contribute to the reduction of marten source 

habitat on the WWNF; large diameter trees and multiple canopy layers would be retained in both action 

alternatives. Treated stands would maintain canopy closure at >=60%, and no trees >=21”dbh would be 

harvested in marten source habitat. It is assumed that post-harvest these stands will be maintained as 

source habitat. It is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum qualifications as source habitat, 

but the quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced complexity and tree density, and potential 

loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and safety. 

Approximately 35% of marten source habitat has some form of forest treatment (38% in alternative 2, 

34% in alternative 3), which may cause a decline in the quality of source habitat in the short term. 

Approximately 110 acres (114 in alternative 2, 108 in alternative 3) would be harvested in marten habitat 

using group selection/moderate density. Group selections can include openings that are 1⁄4 - 4 acres. 

Martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat fragmentation (Hargis et al. 1999), it may be that 

openings as large as 4 acres will reduce the quality of the habitat for marten. In the longer-term, as trees 

continue to grow, American marten would continue to use these harvested areas for some or all of their 

life history functions. 

Vegetation treatments, in both action alternatives, are assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the 

effects of a stand replacement event, thereby retaining source habitat in the long-term. In both 

Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a loss of down wood, resultant prey availability and subnivean 

access due to fuels reduction treatments (Bull and Blumton 1999).

Because this project proposes some commercial treatment and because the planning area is currently at 

the lower end of the HRV, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative 

trend of habitat. The loss of habitat quality will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest and will likely be 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

134 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

short-term. The Lower Joseph Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of 

the American marten is expected on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk 

The current condition, as well as the short- and long-term outcomes of the action alternatives, maintain or 

exceed source habitat with the HRV for both the pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk. Harvest 

treatments will reduce habitat quality in source habitat through the reduction in stand complexity, canopy 

closure, large snags, and trees with mistletoe. Additionally the loss of large trees in Alternative 2 will 

likely contribute to the loss of habitat quality in the harvested stands.

Rocky Mountain elk 

Harvest activities will result in a loss of cover (canopy closure > 40%) and an increase in potential forage 

(<=40% canopy closure) habitat. Research results on the effects of forest restoration treatments (thinning 

followed by primarily broadcast burning) in northeast Oregon have found that elk will likely respond 

positively to treatment in the spring due to an increased cover and abundance of some important forage 

species, while the opposite may be true for during the hotter summer months (Long et al. 2008a, Long et 

al.2008b). In the summer areas with relatively open canopy cover, most grass species and many forb 

species have cured or senesced by about mid-July as a result of increased exposure to direct sunlight. 

Within untreated areas or areas with denser canopy cover, important forage species often persist for 

several weeks longer. The authors suggest that maintaining a mosaic of treated and untreated forest 

habitats across the landscape will likely be beneficial for foraging habitat. Recently research has shown 

that the adequacy of summer nutrition in the Pacific Northwest drives the productivity of elk and probably 

other ungulate populations (Cook et al. 2013). 

Landbird and migratory bird habitat 

Effects from this project to neotropical migrants would be variable depending the species (table 67). The 

effects of treatments vary depending on intensity and extent. Treatments may temporarily setback mature 

shrubs currently functioning as nesting habitat, but would likely then rejuvenate these same plants by 

stimulating resprouting and new growth in the longer term. Shrub and forb densities may increase in the 

years after treatments and this favors some Neotropical migratory bird species (NTMBS; e.g., olive-sided 

flycatcher) that prefer these structures. 

In the short-term, some nesting habitat may be lost because of logging and burning, but the scale and 

timing at which it would occur is not expected to significantly reduce NTMBS richness or abundance. 

Some birds may experience shifts in home ranges as habitat is altered, but treatments would not result in 

their complete displacement from the project area. There is no indication that habitat changes from the 

project would result in reduced numbers of these birds that would be meaningful at local or landscape 

scales.

Threatened, endangered, and USFS R6 sensitive wildlife species 

Any of the alternatives of this project would have No Effect (NE) to the Canada lynx because it is not 

considered present on the Forest (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Lynx Strategy Letter April 19, 

2007).

The action alternatives would preserve riparian habitat with a corresponding RHCA no activity buffers of 

Category 1, 2, and 3 (see specifics in Chapter 2). Tailed, and spotted frogs do not occur in Category 4 

RHCA’s which in in some instances may have some tree harvest prescribed. These RHCA no harvest 

buffers (category 1-3) would not affect the canopy cover, flow and woody debris within and around 

occupied streams. Therefore all alternatives would have No Impact on the tailed and spotted frogs.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 135 

The LJCRP area may contain some incidental roosting habitat for bald eagles, but does not contain 

nesting habitat. None of the alternatives would alter this habitat enough to make it unsuitable for bald 

eagles; therefore this project would have No Impact on bald eagles or their habitat. 

Peregrine falcons have been sighted within the watershed. Potential nest sites have been identified but 

suitable nest ledges are limited as are larger bodies of water for prey concentrations. The action 

alternatives would have No Impact on the peregrine falcon.

Habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker is uncommon in the LJCRP analysis area. Primary source habitat is 

provided in recent wildfire habitat; little of this habitat exists within the planning area. Riparian habitat 

and corresponding RHCA no activity buffers (see specifics in Chapter 2) would be conserved within the 

project area. Ponderosa pines over 21 inches dbh would not be cut and so large ponderosa pine habitat 

near riparian habitat would not be altered. Forest plan standards and/or guidelines protect large (>=21” 

dbh) trees and snags (see Appendix B). Vegetation treatments may produce source habitat in the xeric 

pine types through the reduction in canopy closure, though the potential loss of large snags may reduce 

habitat quality. Overall, there will likely be a beneficial effect to Lewis’ woodpecker from both action 

alternatives.

The viability outcome forest-wide for the white-headed woodpecker historically was projected to be an 

“A” (suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance across the historical range of 

the species), while currently the viability outcome is projected to be an “E” (suitable environments are 

highly isolated and exist at very low abundance relative to historical conditions). This results in a high 

level of concern for the viability of the white-headed woodpecker. The main factor leading to this level of 

concern is the historic loss of large, open canopied ponderosa pine habitat resulting in levels far below 

HRV for these habitats. The action alternatives equally increase the amount of source habitat composed 

of large, open canopied ponderosa pine forest. Both action alternatives should benefit the white-headed 

woodpecker.

The primary threats to wolves are human disturbance, mortality from shooting and vehicle collisions 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). Primary concerns for activities in the LJCRP area are 1) disturbance to denning or 

rendezvous sites, and 2) providing adequate habitat for populations of prey species such as elk (USDA 

Forest Service 2009). No denning or rendezvous sites have been identified within the project area, and the 

action alternatives are not expected to impact big game prey availability (see section on Rocky Mountain 

elk). Any of the alternatives would have No Effect (NE) to the gray wolf (Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest Gray Wolf Listing Letter April 27, 1999).

Fringed myotis appears to be most common in drier woodlands roosting in large trees and and snags. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose commercial harvest treatments on 16,700 acres 10,200 acres respectively. 

Though snags are not prescribed for harvest, large snags will be removed due to safety and logging 

operations (e.g. skid trails), additionally in Alternative 2, the potential removal of large trees (>=21” dbh) 

may be removed. These large trees will result in a loss of potential roosting habitat. The road closures 

proposed in Alternative 2 will reduce the loss of future snag loss caused by firewood cutting and safety. 

With this taken into account, Alternative 2 and 3 May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH) but are not 

expected to lead to a population decline of the species. No management activities are proposed in any of 

the alternatives at potential caves or mines that may provide Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat. Although 

treatment is anticipated within foraging habitat for this species, it is to be undertaken with the intent of 

restoring vegetation to what was expected to occur historically. It is likely that proposed management 

activities may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) under any alternative but will not contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

136 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Aquatic habitat 

Stand Improvement Activities 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 propose 749 acres of stand improvement treatments within category 4 

RHCAs. These acres would be treated to move these acres towards HRV for the planning area. 

Treatment prescriptions would follow the activity restrictions as described in Table 61 for all category 

streams.

Table 61. Activity restrictions according to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria 

PACFISH/ 

INFISH 

Category

Fish 

Bearing and 

Designated 

Critical 

Habitat 

Streams

Permanently 

Flowing nonfish Bearing 

and Ponds, 

Lakes and 

wetlands > 1 

acres

Seasonally 

Flowing or 

Intermittent 

Streams, 

wetlands < 1 

acres, 

landslides and 

landslideprone areas

RHCA Restrictions* 

(Activities allowed outside 

the no activity stream buffer**)

Activity Default No Activity Buffers

Thinning in 

RHCAs

100’ 75’ on slopes 

< 30%

50’ on slopes 

< 30%

treatment by hand only (no ground based 

equipment)

prior to treatment 500 – 2,500 stems per acre; 

post treatment fully stocked (generally 175 – 220 

trees per acre)

variable spacing

all shade providing trees and long term wood 

recruitment trees retained 

only trees < 9” dbh

Timber Harvest Activities 

Impacts to the RMOs for pool frequency, large woody debris (LWD), bank stability, lower bank angle, 

and width-to-depth ratio are unlikely. Thinning units, skid trails, and landings would not be located in 

RHCAs under the action alternatives. Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would 

prevent adverse impacts to existing pool habitat and future pool habitat. RHCA widths for Category 1 

streams are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that have the potential to fall into stream channels as 

LWD and create pool habitat. 

Impacts to channel morphology RMOs (i.e. bank stability, lower bank angle, and width-to-depth ratio) 

would not occur because activities that could result in mechanical bank disturbance would not occur in 

RHCAs under the action alternatives. Some areas of decreased bank stability may occur where 

herbaceous vegetation along streambanks is top-killed during burning activities. 

Prescribed Burning Activities 

Impacts to the RMOs for pool frequency, LWD, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width-to-depth ratio 

are unlikely. Proposed burning activities would not likely impact existing LWD or future LWD because 

the burn prescription would target consumption of material 3 inches and smaller. Fire intensities would 

not be high enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough to function as LWD (> 20” dbh) in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 137 

stream channels. Prescribed burning activities would follow guidance outlined in the Blue Mountains 

Project Design Criteria, and therefore burning activities are not expected to result in a reduction of current 

or future levels of LWD or pool habitat under the action alternatives. 

Management indicator species – fish 

All of the LJCRP activities proposed would occur upstream from MIS fish, with the exception of 

approximately 58 acres of treatment along Swamp Creek. The direct effects to MIS fish species from this 

treatement would not be measurable. Therefore, there is no potential for direct effects to any MIS. There 

is potential for indirect affects to MIS downstream from the proposed activities because of their proximity 

to the project area. Aquatic habitat indicators potentially affected include fine sediment levels and LWD 

quantities. Road management could cause changes to local hydrology such as increased runoff rates, 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation. Tree removal could potentially reduce large wood availability in 

headwater streams and not directly associated with MIS fish bearing streams. MIS life stages present in 

the area of exposure from the project include juvenile, adult, and eggs. These activities will occur 

upstream from MIS fish. 

Implementation of Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH (USDA/USDI 

1995) and LJCRP Project Design Criteria would avoid negative indirect effects to MIS. Road 

maintenance would result in an overall net reduction of road-related sediment delivery during the project 

and in the long-term. Road closures and some decommissioning proposed under Alternative 2 would 

result in further net reduction of road related sediment delivery. The result would be a beneficial effect to 

the sediment regime, caused by a reduction of anthropogenic-derived sediment delivered to the stream 

network as compared to current watershed conditions. Additionally, thinning densely stocked stands in 

the outer edge of RHCAs restore natural species composition and promote large tree growth. The largest 

trees are retained at expected stand densities. On perennial and fish bearing streams, there is a no harvest 

buffer 300 to 600 feet wide (total width) which when considered along with site potential tree height in 

the project area, will maintain all existing LWD that could potentially fall into streams. 

Effects of the proposed action on MIS species or their habitat across the project area, when considered 

cumulatively with other activities in the project area, would be beneficial to some of the important habitat 

indicators. A net decrease to fine sediment levels is expected, which would improve habitat conditions for 

MIS and their habitat. Reduced sediment delivery improves important aquatic elements such as cleaner 

water, higher quality substrates for spawning and rearing habitat, and less pool infilling. Thinning densely 

stocked RHCAs improves vegetation conditions, which leads to increased large wood recruitment and 

creates more fire resilient stands along streams. The cumulative effects are within the scope of anticipated 

effects to aquatic resources determined in the forest plan (USDA 1990). 

The LJCRP would improve habitat conditions for the aquatic MIS in the project area. Anthropogenic fine 

sediment delivery in the project area will be decreased as soon as project activities begin and reduced 

delivery will be maintained after the project is completed. In the long-term, there would be a reduction in 

artificially induced sediment entering the stream system, benefiting aquatic MIS and their habitat. 

Therefore, the project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest for these species. 

The social environment 

Recreation 

The available types and annual use for dispersed recreation activities would not be affected unreasonably 

in the short and long term. No prohibitions are being made to the dispersed activities. Dispersed uses 

may fluctuate each year but other factors like weather, choosing a different vacation destination, fuel 

prices, and success/non-success of obtaining a hunting tag also influences use in an area.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

138 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

The number, annual use and site capacity for developed recreation sites would not change in the short or 

the long term under any action alternative. All developed recreation sites would remain open, no 

individual campsites/grounds would be altered, and as mentioned above use varies depending on factors 

other than the level of project activities.

The number of trail miles and use would not change in the short or long term. No prohibitions are being 

made to the number of trail miles or trails open and available for use. No change to cross-country travel is 

proposed in any alternative within the LJCRP area.

The number of permits and areas would not change in the short or long term. No changes in the terms of 

the permits or available locations are part of this project.

The specific project activities with potential to impact recreation are common to all the proposals in 

alternatives 2 and 3. Each of these alternatives propose different levels of activities but the effects to the 

public involved in different recreation endeavors common to the area are relatively the same. Both 

alternatives would include four main project activities that would affect recreation: 

• Commercial harvest

• Stand improvement harvest

• Prescribed burning (including post-harvest fuels treatment)

• Road and Access activities (i.e. danger tree removal along open system haul roads, haul roads, 

temporary road construction, permanent road reconstruction, road realignment, road decommissioning) 

Dispersed Recreation - Timber harvest, post-harvest, and prescribed fire activities may restrict user access 

into a treatment unit due to safety purposes, or users may be discouraged from entering a unit due to the 

presence of equipment and workers. This may occur in peak summer visitations or during the fall hunting 

seasons. Downed trees, slash piles, loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms, berries), active fire and 

residual smoke may also discourage visitor use in an area. Noise and other disturbances may affect the 

quality of the recreation experience for an individual regardless of the proximity to the activity. 

A change in natural features or landscape characteristics may elicit different responses in visitors. A 

visitor’s sense of place includes attachments to external factors like natural features or landscape 

characteristics. Important landscape features may consist of large old growth trees and groves, variety of 

trees species, an open or closed tree canopy, rock formations, water bodies, and natural appearing 

openings. The proposed treatments such as harvesting trees, reducing slash or altering canopy cover 

would change or remove some of these natural features. In some cases the changing landscape would 

displace or discourage certain types of dispersed recreational activities (i.e. studying nature, viewing 

wildlife). In other areas it may encourage new dispersed recreational activities (i.e. big game hunting, 

photography) not available under the previous landscape. 

Direct effects to recreationists accessing dispersed camps in the project area or other areas would occur on 

roads during haul periods. The presence of large trucks or an increased frequency of traffic may 

discourage road use to these sites until the road work subsides. When roads are being 

constructed/reconstructed visitors may expect delays or closures during work periods. 

Developed Recreation - Although similar to the effects of dispersed recreation, developed recreation is 

more limited due to the number of sites in LJRCP. Access to developed sites may be delayed or restricted 

during haul periods, or road construction. The presence of large log trucks and other equipment on haul 

routes may discourage users from driving the main access route to developed sites or other associated 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 139 

activities outside of the developed recreation area. The noise, dust, smoke and equipment activity during 

harvest, post-harvest and prescribed fires may affect the quality of the recreation experience for a visitor 

regardless of the proximity to the activity. The frequency and intensity of these activities may vary from a 

few hours to several weeks. Some loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing 

opportunities may result with the vegetation treatments and prescribed fire activities visible from the 

developed sites. 

Slash piles and prescribed burning would change some of the natural features and may discourage trail 

user activities. Noise and other disturbances may affect the quality of the recreation experience. Effects to 

portions of the campgrounds/trails in or adjacent to harvest units would be limited and short-term. There 

is a mitigation no- activity buffer of 100 ft. surrounding developed campgrounds. 

Proposed road closures or decommissions would not affect developed campgrounds or trails.

Permitted Uses – All permitted uses are authorized under the term and conditions of a permit which allow 

activities not available to a non-permitted user. Most of these uses are tied to road access, and the removal 

of forest products is dependent on specific areas or vegetation. Permitted uses may be affected by project 

activities. Similar to dispersed recreation, timber harvest, post-harvest, and prescribed fire activities have 

short term effects and may restrict or discourage entry into a harvest unit. Depending on the level of 

treatment activity, permit users may be displaced to other areas inside or outside LJCRP. 

Increased obstacles like downed trees and slash piles, or loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms, berries) 

would also change harvest patterns. Residual smoke, dust, fire, noise and equipment activity is also not 

conducive to a quality recreation experience. The same effects for road use described in ‘Dispersed 

Recreation’ are also applicable to this recreation use. If roads are used for winter haul, they may be 

available for access by winter recreationist like Christmas tree cutters who normally do not have access in 

many roads during the winter due to deep snow packs. 

Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments would solicit various responses from permit 

users. Permit holders like mushroom pickers, would find short term benefits from open, disturbed mixedconifer forest stands, whereas berry pickers may view the loss of berry patches as a negative effect.

Scenery 

The following summarizes the general effects to landscape character, scenic integrity, and scenic stability 

common to all action alternatives in the project area:

Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity 

1. No regeneration harvests would occur in the project area. Single tree selection would make up the 

vast majority of forest restoration treatments. Group selection treatments would make up less than 

13% of treatment acres, and would create small openings less than 4 acres to support the regeneration 

of favored shade intolerant tree species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. 

2. Enhancement of landscape character would be done by thinning and reducing dense stands of trees, 

providing variety in spatial distribution of plant communities and moving towards more variety in age 

classes. Large diameter trees would be retained within the range of variability for the potential 

vegetation group, and would stand out as more dominant after removing small trees around them; 

views into the forest would be more open. Retention of seral tree species such as ponderosa pine and 

western larch would be favored.

3. The proposed management activities begin the transition of moving the forest setting on a landscape 

scale towards the sustainable landscape character by reducing natural fuels and reintroducing the 

natural role of fire.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

140 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

4. Utilizing existing landings, roads, fire lines and natural fuel breaks as proposed would reduce further 

visual impacts associated with implementation. In these areas, visual impacts are contained in areas 

already impacted rather than introducing new impacts.

5. Thinning treatment methods create texture changes to the existing dense to mosaic textured landscape 

and would blend in well.

6. On the landscape scale, by using prescribed fire in a timely manner and in phased treatments, it is 

expected to reduce the future risk of a potential high intensity wildfire that would affect scenic quality 

and stability.

7. Road maintenance would bring existing roads to a minimum maintenance standard. Numerous closed 

roads would be temporarily opened for commercial material access and removal and re-closed after 

harvest operations are complete. There would not be any new roads that would result in introducing 

new linear corridors in the landscape. 

8. Stumps would be more evident in some areas of foreground of travel routes and dispersed sites. 

Coarse woody debris (slash) would be seen along travel routes before under burning, hand or machine 

piling, and pile burning. This would create a short term negative visual effect until the material is 

burned, decomposes or is softened by early successional grasses and forbs. The proposed under 

burning and pile burning may not entirely reduce the slash. 

9. Prescribed fire has the potential to create larger forms (openings) in the landscape than intended, 

possibly burn out of the area intended, and/or to burn trees that are desired to be retained for scenic 

quality or other resource objectives.

The effects common to all action alternatives of specific forest restoration prescriptions are described in 

this section. All forest restoration treatment types would use the “individuals, clumps, and openings” 

approach which mimics stand tree patterns that would have been found historically.

Single Tree Selection, Group Selection, Intermediate treatment 

Variable density thinning opens up the stands and provides greater viewing distances into the stand which 

is preferable. The appearance of the stands would be improved by retaining large trees, especially 

ponderosa pine and western larch. There would be a variation in tree spacing that retain a variety of 

density patterns and species compositions similar to historical conditions. The reduction of tree stocking 

levels would improve the resilience of the stands by reducing stress and ladder fuels, which reduces the 

risk of high insect and disease outbreaks, and stand replacement wildfire. These are benefits that 

contribute to the improvement of scenic stability when carried out at a landscape scale. Group selection 

would differ from single tree selection in that it would create 1⁄2 to 4 acre naturally-shaped openings to 

initiate new cohort of seral species (ponderosa pine and western larch). Intermediate treatment is similar 

to single tree selection except that is emphasizes isolating mistletoe infections and creating conditions that 

reduce intensification of infection.

This treatment would create stumps, slash and soil disturbance that would be visible from foreground 

views. These effects would be minor within the first one to two years. As regrowth of shrubs and grasses 

occur these effects would be significantly reduced. Single tree selection would not create openings that 

are visible from middleground or background distances. Small openings from group selection treatments 

would be consistent in size and shape with historic patterns, and could be visible from middleground or 

background distances. The effects of this prescription would not reduce the scenic integrity of the units.

Savanna

This treatment type would reestablish grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have conifer 

encroachment. This would enhance scenic quality by restoring open savannas toward historic conditions, 

and promoting the reestablishment of native understory grasses and forbs.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 141 

Wildlife Connectivity Corridors

In wildlife connectivity corridors, restoration treatments would retain at least 40% canopy closure in dry 

forests, and 50% in moist forests. Effects would be similar to those of single tree selection, described 

above.

Planned and Unplanned Fire

Fire is used to reduce litter and ladder fuels, and restore natural ecological processes. Planned and 

unplanned fire will be used on up to 90,000 acres, with dry forest being the highest priority; direct effects 

to scenery would be usually minimal and short lived. A growing season reduces the effects to the 

remaining scorched tree trunks, and dead saplings. This treatment most successfully conserves scenery 

resources when thorough site preparation is done prior to underburning. Fire, at low intensity is a natural 

occurrence in this area, and its effects do not degrade the scenic quality. This treatment can greatly 

improve a stands resiliency to large stand replacement fire which can affect the scenic quality. Future 

prescribed burns, known as maintenance burns may be required in order to maintain the effectiveness of 

the proposed restoration treatments. These maintenance burns would be scheduled every 10 to 15 years, 

based on the average fire return interval in the LJCRP area. These maintenance treatments would protect 

the investment of an effective fuels treatment and increase the number of years before the area would 

need to be entered again for more extensive understory treatments.

Stand Improvement

This treatment reduces stocking levels within young, post disturbance stands to promote growth of 

desirable species and increase spatial heterogeneity toward the range of variability. Direct effects to 

scenery would be minimal and short term. The effects to scenery are limited to the foreground view 

effects of stumps, and slash. This treatment can improve stand resiliency to stand replacement fire, which 

can affect the scenic quality. 

Activity created fuels treatments

Upon completion of commercial harvest activities, non-commercial material would be felled by hand 

crews and piled (or grapple piled), and jackpot burned to further remove ladder fuels. Low intensity 

prescribed burning would occur after these treatments in areas that support fire tolerant ecosystems and 

drier biophysical environments. The effects of this treatment is similar to the underburning of natural 

fuels, however the scorching and soil exposure is usually more intense. This treatment removes the small 

saplings and non-crop trees to increase the conditions for fire resistant trees to dominate these stands. 

Removing these trees improves the large tree character and opens view into the remaining stands. These 

effects are consistent with low intensity fire.

Danger Tree Removal

Danger trees would be felled and removed along all haul routes used for timber sale activity. Removing 

large trees would create new stumps in foreground areas of recreation sites and scenic roads, but the scale 

would be small and maintain scenic quality.

Heritage 

The environmental consequences for alternatives 2 and 3 consider the application of design features and 

mitigation measures developed to protect the integrity of heritage resource values. Treatment activities 

associated with alternatives 2 and 3 will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA,1966)and the Programmatic Agreement between the Pacific Northwest Region Forest 

Service, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(on file Wallowa Whitman National Forest Supervisors Office). All sites located within or near ground 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

142 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

disturbing treatment units would be monitored and updated under the selection of any action alternative. 

Sites determined potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be avoided and 

protected. Known cultural sites located within non-commercial treatment units, such as pre-commercial 

thinning, prescribed fire, and road work will be guided by the Programmatic Agreement between R6 

Forest Service and Oregon SHPO and will be evaluated for National Register eligibility. 

Implementation plans will be developed for potentially eligible sites to ensure that protection measures 

are in place prior to ground disturbing activities. The Forest Service will also consult with tribal staff to 

develop consultation, management and/or protection strategies should specific concerns arise regarding 

potential effects to Nez Perce traditional use areas and resources. 

In addition, prior to project implementation, the Forest will consult with the Nez Perce Tribe to provide 

additional opportunities to identify historically significance traditional use areas, or other areas of interest. 

If necessary, additional mitigation measures may be designed to protect cultural values or accommodate 

traditional uses of the LJCRP by tribal members.

Tribal 

Tribal issues, beliefs and attitudes regarding past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities relative to 

effects to tribal values common to action alternatives will likely be the same as the issues and concerns 

that have already been shared by the Tribe to date. The effects to tribal values common to Alternative 2 

and 3 include: uncertainty regarding the resource risk posed by the scope and scale of accelerated 

restoration, concerns for the conservation of old growth, inventoried roadless and riparian areas, traditonal 

plants and tradtional uses and sites. Refer to aquatic, botany, wildlife and hydrology analyses for 

associated treaty resource analysis.

Research Natural Areas 

The action alternatives will designate in perpetuity 338 acres of NFS land as the Horse Pasture Ridge 

Research Natural Area, and 425 acres as the Haystack Rock Research Natural Area. Once established, a 

management plan specific to the Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock areas will be written. Interim 

management of the areas will be followed as outlined in the forest plan, pages 4-84 and 4-85. The 

objective is to maintain the natural condition of the areas. No forest products or minerals will be 

removed, livestock grazing patterns will not be changed, fire activity will be limited to suppression only 

(unless fire is part of an approved research project), off road vehicles will be excluded, and recreation use 

will be managed at a low intensity level. Environmental consequences disclosed in the 1990 Forest Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement are still valid, and conditions and effects have not changed. 

Management strategies will not change under the establishment, and no adverse or irreversible 

environmental consequences are expected.

Lands - National Landmarks and Parklands 

There are no National Landmarks in the project area. Therefore, no impacts would occur for any National 

Landmark. There are no lands within the proposed project area that would be characterized as parklands; 

therefore, there would be no impacts on any parklands. 

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands 

The project area is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; therefore, there would be no impacts to 

prime farmlands. The project does not contain prime rangeland because of soils and climate, and none of 

the proposed activities in the project would convert rangelands to other uses. The rangelands within the 

LJCRP would likely benefit indirectly from the restoration of forested vegetation in both action 

alternatives. The reduction of stand densities would allow more light to the forest floor, thus increasing 

the abundance forbs and shrubs. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on prime rangelands. The 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 143 

project would not convert forestlands to other uses. All lands designated as forested would be retained and 

managed as forested; therefore, there would be no negative impacts on prime forestland. 

Cumulative effects common to all action alternatives 

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context being considered is the 98,600 acre project area. 

Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of wildfire and vegetation management activities that have 

occurred since 2004 and as changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable activities, 

including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered is approximately 10 

years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed will have been completed and the 

vegetation response to these actions has occurred.

Vegetation Management Activities and Wildfire 2004 to 2013 

Table 62 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment and prescribed 

burning activities as well as wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 2004 to 2013.

Cultural vegetation activities that have occurred in the project area over the last ten years includes 159 

acres of tree planting after harvest and 826 acres of precommercial thinning within young, post 

disturbance stands. Mechanical vegetation management activities have mainly consisted of tree thinning. 

This includes 1,320 acres with an emphasis on improving forest structure, health and growth and 113 

acres of uneven-aged management thinning of all age classes and establishment of a new cohort.

Fuels treatments that have been accomplished in association with mechanical treatments included 179 

acres of thinning for hazardous fuels reduction, as well 583 acres of treatments with a primary focus of 

rearrange and reduce activities generated fuels (slash lopping, crushing, piling and jackpot burning) and 

636 acres of pile burning.

Prescribed burns have been implemented on 868 acres to improve wildlife habitat, reduce natural fuels 

accumulations, and reintroduce fire to fire adapted ecosystems. 

Wildfires from 2004 to 2013 have burned on approximately 23,752 acres of the project area. These fires 

all burned within the same vicinity on the eastside of the project area and have substantial overlap 

between them. Of the acres burned, it is estimated that the overall average burn severity to the forested 

vegetation was 20 percent high severity, 60 percent mixed severity and 20 percent low severity. There is 

wide variability among these percentages from fire to fire due to these fires burning the same area 

multiple times.

Table 62. 2004 to 2013 – Approximate acres of vegetation management activities and wildfire in the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Cultural

Tree Planting 159

Precommercial Thin 826

Total Cultural: 985

Mechanical Vegetation Management

Commercial Thin 1,320

Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 36

Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 77

Sanitation Cut 3

Total Mechanical: 1,436

Fuels Treatments Thinning for Hazardous Fuels Reduction 179
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

144 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Yarding - Removal of Fuels by Carrying or Dragging 86

Piling of Fuels, Hand or Machine 460

Rearrangement of Fuels 37

Burning of Piled Material 636

Total Fuels Treatments: 1,398

Prescribed Burn

Broadcast Burn (Majority of Unit) - Wildlife Habitat 592

Underburn (Majority of Unit) - Low Intensity 276

Total Prescribed Burn: 868

Wildfire

Jim Creek - 2006 360

Cottonwood - 2007 8,439

Cache Creek - 2012 14,953

Total Wildfire: 23,752

The following is a discussion of effects of these past management activities and wildfires in terms of the 

analysis metrics specific to the vegetation resource. 

Forest Cover Type – Planting activities increased occurrence of ponderosa pine and western larch within 

understocked areas. Thinning treatments favored ponderosa pine and western larch and discriminated 

against grand fir. Prescribed burning and wildfires also favored fire resistant tree species.

Forest Structural Stages - Thinning treatments generally retained old and large trees. Sanitation treatments 

may have removed some old forest structure. Prescribed burning and low severity wildfire resulted in 

periodic tree mortality of susceptible old trees. Mixed and high severity wildfire killed a large proportion 

of the old forest structure and increased acres within the stand initiation structural stage.

Tree Density Class - Thinning treatments resulted in forest density within the low to moderate density 

classes. This in turn had a beneficial effect of improved forest growth. Prescribed fire and low severity 

wildfire also led to localized reduction of forest density. 

Pattern - The thinning treatments resulted in some irregular tree spacing. These treatments were incidental 

to reestablishing forest openings and attaining a mosaic of interspaces and tree clumps of varying sized 

and shapes. Mixed severity wildfires resulted in a mosaic of tree mortality and a pattern with 

indiscriminate interspaces and tree clumps. The remaining treatments and low severity wildfire resulted in 

some irregular tree spacing and clumping.

Size Class Distribution – Thinning treatments, prescribed fire and low severity wildfire generally favored 

larger trees and removed trees in the smaller size classes. This resulted in a size class distribution 

emphasis toward larger tree size classes. Moderate and high severity wildfire removed trees among all 

size classes.

Insects and Disease – Susceptibility was reduced in the thinning and prescribed burning treatments and 

low severity wildfire by enhancing stand conditions that are conducive to improved forest health (trending 

toward RV). Thinning treatments also removed dwarf mistletoe infected trees reducing the percent of 

trees infected as well as creating conditions that slowed or inhibited mistletoe spread. Prescribed fire and 

low severity wildfire also led to localized reduction of forest density and dwarf mistletoe infection.

Rangelands and understory vegetation 

Cumulative effects to rangelands include a temporary increase in forage from mechanical forest thinning, 

fuels treatments, and prescribed burning.Wildfires can increase forage in locations where they were low 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 145 

to moderate intensity. In forested range, high intensity fire generally reduces understory vegetation for a 

number of years (FEIS 2014). Bluebunch wheatgrass generally regains pre-fire cover the year after it 

burns. Idaho fescue can take a few years to regain prefire cover, but other components of Idaho fescue 

communities recover in the first year after burning (Johnson 2005). 

Wildfire and project activities have the greatest chance for cumulative effects on non-native plants within 

the LJCRP area, but predicting wildfire occurrence is problematic. Large scale and intense wildfire 

disturbance would create ideal areas for the introduction and spread of non-native plants. With increasing 

numbers of wildfires the numbers of non-native species could increase (Merriam et al. 2006), with the 

largest increases found in those areas with pre-existing non-native plant populations. One benefit of this 

project is the decrease of current fuel loading and therefore the risks of uncontrolled wildfire, so future 

large-scale burns should be reduced. 

Of the activities with predictable timetables, this project coupled with roads, grazing, and timber harvest 

have the highest possibility of cumulative effects within LJCRP. Roads are a vector of weed spread and 

transport, thus unregulated road use, construction of temporary roads, and re-opening of previously closed 

roads increases the risk. Grazing could also increase the risk of spread and introduction of non-native 

species. Livestock are vectors of plant material and can transport seeds and other plant reproductive 

material over distances. The possible increase in the number of non-natives due to project activities 

coupled with transport by livestock could increase the risk for areas outside of the actual project and 

treatment area boundaries (Merriam et al. 2006). These impacts along with timber harvest disturbance; 

log landings, skid trails, etc.; could compound the situation for invasive plants. These disturbed areas are 

likely sites of invasive plant infestations and surveys of completed timber sales, restoration of disturbed 

areas, and treatment of infestations would reduce the overall risk of establishment and spread of invasive 

plants.

TES Plants 

Prescribed fire, thinning, grazing are activities that have occurred and will likely occur in the foreseeable 

future. Wildfire is possible and has occurred in the past 30 years. Grazing is the most likely ongoing 

activity that could complicate restoration efforts, especially in dry open forest habitats, where palatable 

browse and grass is most accessible. Pasture condition should be assessed by the district range specialist 

and the district botanist after restoration treatments occur and prior to putting livestock out to graze. 

Premature use of treated pastures can lead to increased bare soil, erosion, decreases in native 

bunchgrasses and increases in invasive annual grasses. Moist and wet meadows, riparian areas, springs 

and seeps may be more exposed after logging, thinning and/or prescribed fire, making them more 

vulnerable to use by both wild and domestic ungulates. Many of the springs in the project area have been 

converted to ponds, or diverted to troughs, locally drying soil and making water less available to 

vegetation. Lithosols are subject to off-road vehicle use, livestock use, as well as parking areas, and sites 

for piling and yarding. Given that LJCRP project design criteria are followed, cumulative effects May 

Impact Individuals Or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species (MIIH) in LJCRP.

Aquatic habitat 

Past management activities in the LJCRP are summarized in Tables 62 and 63. Potential impacts from 

these activities on aquatic habitat have likely abated. Impacts from road construction and reconstruction 

are discussed separately.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

146 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 63. Status of forest management projects in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project Area aside 

from forest vegetation management. 

Action or Activity

(Year of NEPA 

Decision)

Treatment Status

Range Management

15 Livestock 

Allotments Domestic grazing Ongoing

Recreation and Public Uses

Designated 

Campgrounds

Camping, recreational driving, hunting, collecting 

forest products Ongoing

Regulation of 

Hunting Seasons

ODFW regulation of tags for the big game 

management units

Ongoing

Dispersed 

Camping

Camping, gathering firewood, recreational driving, 

and collecting forest products Ongoing

Other Resources

Noxious Weed 

Treatment

Treating new sites of noxious weed patches as 

approved by the W-W Invasive Species EIS.

Decision signed, 

implementation 

pending litigation

Transportation

Road Maintenance

Grade roads 4600, 4602, 4605, 4615, 4650,4655, 

4680,. Clean culverts and ditches on all roads as 

needed

Ongoing

The analysis area for aquatic resources for the LJCRP includes portions 15 livestock grazing allotments. 

Bank alteration, browsing of shrubs and high fine sediment levels along creeks within the active 

allotments are being addressed by improved management and administration of the grazing that occurs in 

riparian areas. The majority of stream reaches within the allotments are inaccessible to livestock due to 

steep terrain. Condition of aquatic and riparian habitats should improve as a result of these 

improvements in management. Increased monitoring will be occurring to document whether the expected 

changes occur.

Noxious weed treatment is an ongoing project that occurs within all project area subwatersheds. These 

treatments were determined to either have No Effect or to May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Snake River steelhead. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries has been completed for the May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect determinations.

Currently we are not treating noxious weeds with chemicals except in court approved locations (see 

Affected Environment, Non-native invasive plants section, above). Mitigation measures that include type 

of chemical treatments, application rates, area treated, timing, and buffers on streams significantly reduce 

the risk of effects from this activity. However, the overall risk of adverse aggregate effects due to noxious 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 147 

weed treatment is rated moderate because they are not completely controllable, and need to be 

administered.

A limited amount of dispersed camping occurs in this area, but due to the relatively steep topography and 

limited camping along perennial streams, this activity is rated as having a low risk of cumulative effects 

on aquatic resources, listed fish or their habitat. 

There are two developed campgrounds in the LJCRP area: Coyote and Dougherty. Both have limited use 

during hunting season and season camping during the summer. This activity is rated as having a low risk 

of cumulative effects on aquatic resources, listed fish or their habitat.

Regularly scheduled road maintenance occurs every one to seven years depending on the condition of the 

road, the assigned maintenance level, and the maintenance priority. Other scheduled maintenance 

activities occur as specific needs are identified. Maintenance levels for roads are determined by the road 

management objectives, the intended use, operational requirements, and budget levels. Maintenance 

activities occur primarily from late April to late November depending on the actual condition of the road 

and moisture level. Maintenance levels are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

Four types of road surface occur in the LJCRP area: (1) native (dirt surface), (2) improved (pit-run 

surface, spot-rocked), (3) aggregate (crushed rock surface), and (4) asphalt concrete pavement. The 

surface types vary for each maintenance level of road depending on the long-term objectives for the road.

Road maintenance practices can vary to provide additional protection to soil and water resources. 

Seeding of closed roads and low-use roads may be intensified. Keeping maintenance equipment away 

from streams and wet areas and limiting the number of stream crossings may be emphasized to protect 

soil and water resources. The use of pit-run (3- to 6-inch) rock on roadbeds may be used to increase 

protection from erosion. Emergency repair of roads may occur after natural disasters such as flash floods 

or unusually high spring runoff for all maintenance levels.

The short-term effects from all of the transportation activities will be minimized through protection 

measures, such as instream work windows, operating under dry conditions, etc.). In the long-term, this 

project will protect and improve existing habitat. The overall risk of adverse aggregate effects for 

transportation activities in the short term is rated moderate. The overall risk of adverse aggregate effects 

for transportation activities in the long term is rated positive.

There are 6 culverts proposed for replacement within the LJCRP area. These culvert replacements are 

proposed to eliminate migration barriers to juvenile fish and to allow passage of 100-year flows. These 

projects were given a likely to adversely effect determination in the consultation with NOAA Fisheries 

due to the short-term possibility of sediment input to streams. In the long term, however, these projects 

are expected to have a positive effect on listed fish species and habitat. They are given a moderate risk of 

adverse cumulative effects due to potential short-term impacts. Culvert replacement would be covered 

under the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion II (ARBO II) for Section 7 Consultation (Service 

2013).

Collection of fuelwood, Christmas trees, saw logs and house logs (up to three truck loads per permit), and 

posts and poles are permitted only in Management Areas 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11. Harvest of these products is 

not permitted in administratively prohibited areas such as developed campgrounds or within 100 feet of 

wet areas, seeps springs, bogs, and standing or flowing water. No trees are permitted to be cut within 300 

feet of perennial fish-bearing streams. Compliance with these regulations is monitored by USFS Special 

Forest Product Coordinators and Law Enforcement Officers. These activities are given a low risk rating 

for cumulative adverse effects to listed fish species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

148 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Timber production and livestock grazing are the primary land use activities occurring on private lands 

adjacent to the project area. Logging operations on private timber lands are required to follow Oregon’s 

Forest Practices Act and are monitored for compliance by Oregon Department of Forestry. Private lands 

adjacent to the south and west boundaries of the project area have recently been logged. It is assumed that 

logging was conducted in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act and therefore impacts to 

aquatic habitat were successfully mitigated.

Activities, such as roads and timber harvest, on private lands that are likely to result in cumulative effects 

with activities proposed under LJCRP are assumed to be limited. Road densities on private lands in the 

LJCRP area exceed the NOAA Fisheries threshold. Both values would be rated as functioning at 

unacceptable risk using NOAA Fisheries Matrix thresholds.

Cumulative Effects Summary for aquatic habitat

Past and current management activities have had and are having impacts to aquatic habitat and aquatic 

species (including Snake River steelhead and redband trout) in the LJCRP aquatic analysis area. These 

impacts have resulted in a decline in aquatic and riparian habitats in the analysis area. Water temperatures 

and fine sediment levels in the project area are likely higher today then prior to European settlement. 

Current activities (including livestock grazing) on Forest Service lands are managed under the standards 

and guidelines of PACFISH which were developed to speed the recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats. 

The majority of streams in the project area are assumed to be recovering from past degraded conditions. 

However, fine sediment levels are elevated in the LJCRP area. Grazing and roads are the two major 

management activities in the analysis area contributing to fine sediment effects.

Wildlife 

The list of past, present and foreseeable actions was reviewed to determine potential effects to dead and 

defective wood habitat. The only actions which would contribute to potential cumulative effects include 

hazard tree removal and firewood gathering. There are no other vegetation projects planned in the project 

area for the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects of the proposed project and the potential for hazard 

tree removal and firewood gathering have the potential to impact habitat and may increase risks to dead 

and defective wood habitat. This increased risk to loss of snags is of most concern in the EMC habitat 

type (Moist Forest PVG).

Together with other landscape objectives that limit or discourage large fires and insect outbreaks, the 

project would contribute to a negative trend in dead and defective wood habitat across the project area. It 

is unknown how the prescriptions using the ICO (individual, clumps, and openings) approach may affect 

the future development of snags. In the ‘clumps’ which are left unharvested, natural snag creating 

mechanism such as density will remain and snags will continue to develop in both the short and longterm. However, in areas that are thinned ‘individuals’, snag creating mechanisms may be removed, thus 

at least in the short-term, natural snag creation may be happen less often than in the current more dense 

stands. 

This project would temporarily increase road density in the analysis area by constructing 12.6 miles of 

temporary roads and reopen 60 miles (maintenance level 1 system roads), and post-project road densities 

in some subwatersheds would remain above Forest standards. Additionally of concern within the analysis 

area is the unregulated OHV and full-sized vehicle use of closed roads which has been shown to 

negatively affect elk and elk habitat. 

The reduction in connective habitat quality that results from silvicultural treatments will be relatively 

short lived as tree canopies respond to the reduced competition and seedlings establish in response to 

increased sunlight reaching the forest floor. The quality of connective habitat in treatment units would 

likely recover to within desired conditions within fifteen years. In the interim, the network of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 149 

connectivity corridors that is not being treated, including many riparian areas, MA15 areas, and the matrix 

of forested habitats will facilitate movement of LOS associated wildlife species between source habitat 

patches. The incremental effects of prescribed burning, non-commercial thinning, and mechanical fuels 

reduction, would not compromise the quality or function of connective corridors.

Past timber sales, fires, roads, and prescribed burns have modified and converted Neotropical migratory 

bird species (NTMBS) habitat in the analysis area. Past logging has led to the reduction of large trees in 

the area due to selective harvesting, and was likely detrimental to species that depended on contiguous 

conifer cover and avoided forest edges, but favored species that utilize dense shrubs and early seral forest 

habitat. Fire suppression has interrupted historic fire return intervals at the broadscale. Consequently, 

many stands are now overstocked with young trees and are vulnerable to insects, disease, and wildfire. 

Roads, within the north and south portions of the analysis area, built to facilitate timber operations has 

had a long-term impact on the area and continues to provide access for recreationists, hunters, 

woodcutters, and others. This project should not contribute to negative cumulative effects because project 

treatments would begin to shift the project area towards the overall long-term goal of moving toward RV 

for tree size, tree species, and canopy closure. 

Burning plans are designed to maximize retention and protection of large diameter live trees, snags, and 

logs, and there would be no increase in open road density. A mosaic of forest and rangeland conditions 

capable of supporting breeding NTMBS populations would exist if either action alternative is 

implemented.

There is no indication that habitat changes from the project would result in reduced numbers of any 

particular NTMBS that would be meaningful at local or landscape scales. Grazing is an ongoing activity 

in the project area, but is not causing any cumulative effects because it does not change the density or 

distribution of live trees, snags, or down wood, or increase open road density. While grazing does not 

affect forest canopies, shrub and grass habitats can be altered by vegetation removal which leads to 

reduced structural diversity. A simplification of the vegetation likely causes a shift to generalist species 

(Knopf 1996). Grazing should not affect NTMBS shrub or grass habitat because grazing according to 

forest plan standards leaves adequate shrub and grass cover, and is designed to allow for normal recovery 

rates that do not delay regeneration. There are no reasonably foreseeable future activities that may impact 

NTMBS or their habitat in the project area.

Climate change 

Climate change effects are a component of cumulative impacts. Changes in climate influence vegetation, 

water, and disturbance frequencies; and these changes, in turn, influence one another. A change in one 

aspect causes a cascade of responses that, in some cases, counteract and, in others, magnify the initial 

change. Such interactions make prediction of the likely effects of climate change difficult at the scale of 

the LJCRP analysis area even if the nature of the climate change were known. For now, it is certain that 

changes will occur at a continental scale; however, how climate change impacts local landscapes is not 

well understood. Until the environmental responses are better understood, it will be difficult to predict 

with accuracy the environmental outcomes of particular land-use activities. Species most at risk of 

climate change are those with small geographic ranges (e.g., local endemics), narrow physiological 

tolerances, limited dispersal abilities, narrow habitat associations, strong interspecific dependencies, low 

genetic diversity, and those that have recently experienced population declines. Tools to predict the 

potential climatic changes as influenced by the LJCRP activities over the next 10 to 15 years have yet to 

be devised, but it seems unlikely that measurable changes will occur relative to this species (potential 

temperature and precipitation increases being the most likely climatic change in this part of the continent) 

over the short life of this planning document (Yates, 2012).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

150 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Global climate change has the potential to have impacts to aquatic habitat through increases in water 

temperature and changes in streamflows in response to changes in climates16. Long-term changes to 

aquatic habitat in the analysis area may occur as a result of global climate. These changes may include:

 Increases in water temperatures in response to increases in air temperature,

 Changes in runoff patterns in response to an increase in the amount of winter precipitation that falls as 

rain:

o Decreases in summer streamflows in response to a reduction in snowpack. 

o Reduced duration of spring runoff but higher peak flows due to an increase the amount of 

winter precipitation that falls as rain 

Activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to have measureable cumulative effects with 

global climate change because:

1. The proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in a change in runoff patterns because a 

significant decrease in forested cover would not occur.

2. Potential increases in water temperature as a result of proposed burning are unlikely to occur in the 

analysis area and if increases do occur they are unlikely to be measureable.

Recreation 

Past projects and actions which have affected recreation uses include timber harvest, road construction, 

and recreation uses and have been incorporated into the existing condition for this project. This project in 

combination with current projects have a slight potential to influence dispersed recreation activities by 

displacing big game hunters, berry pickers, open areas for viewing scenery, and other recreational uses 

both during implementation and in the longer-term, post implementation.

Scenery 

The geographic boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the LJCRP area and the temporal 

boundary is approximately 10 years, the amount of time needed for evidence of logging, restoration 

activities associated with road management and ecological function to soften and blend into the landscape 

more completely. 

Vegetation management has occurred in the past in the LJCRP area, there have been numerous timber 

sales, fuels reduction treatments, and activities associated with hazard tree removal in developed 

campgrounds and along travel routes. Roading, timber harvest and recreation development have changed 

the landscape from a natural appearing forested landscape.

The activities of past management activities in total combine to maintain a range of scenic integrity levels 

from high to low in the designated viewsheds.

Vegetation management will continue to occur as routine hazard tree removal in developed recreation 

sites and along travel routes. A sustainable forest would be promoted, the larger diameter trees (>20”) 

would be retained and become more healthy as competition from other vegetation species would be 

reduced. The large trees would have more nutrients, water, and space for growing and would be visually 

enhanced for viewing along the travel routes. The landscape character will be scenically and ecologically 

improved as the vegetation patterns become more diverse as a more complex forest structure is 

 

16 For more information developed by the Forest Service to highlight potential impacts to aquatic habitat 

in the Pacific Northwest, see http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/salmon-trout.shtml 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 151 

established and old growth characteristics become more dominant. Overall, the trend is that scenic natural 

appearing landscapes will be more desirable over time in the forested setting.

Heritage 

Overall, the cumulative effects on heritage resources as a result of alternatives are not considered to be 

adverse due to compliance with the Programmatic Agreement between the R6 Forest Service and the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (2004), design criteria and mitigation. The cumulative effects 

on cultural resources resulting from any potential increase in erosion resulting from restoration activities, 

or inadvertent damage by mechanical treatment, are not likely to be adverse. Reducing fuel loads and 

implementing low to moderate intensity prescribed fires would not cause soil sterilization or hydrophobic 

soils as compared to high-intensity wildfires. As noted previously, low-intensity prescribed fires leave 

some vegetation in place and revegetation occurs soon afterwards if soils are not sterilized. However, as 

implementation occurs, archaeologists would monitor for erosion concerns examining sites in the project 

areas, focused on slopes, drainages, and other high probability areas with cultural resources present. The 

potential cumulative effects to cultural resources caused by an increase in erosion are not considered to be 

adverse. High intensity wildland fire could destroy the non-renewable values associated with both historic 

and pre-contact heritage resources.

Tribal 

Prescribed fire, thinning, dispersed recreation, grazing, timber harvest, wildfire and the exercise of treaty 

rights have and will continue to occur into the foreseeable future. Although tribal members are concerned 

about the risk of the pace and scale of accelerated restoration, ecological objectives , as identified in the 

purpose and need, will likely counter adverse effects to tribal values. 

See cumulative effects common to all action alternatives for plants, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, 

climate change and scenery resources.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects 

Analysis 

Prescribed fire, thinning, grazing are activities that have occurred and will likely occur in the foreseeable 

future. Wildfire is possible and has occurred in the past 30 years. Grazing in most likely to complicate 

restoration efforts, especially in dry open forest habitats, where palatable browse and grass is most 

accessible. 

The 2005 Travel Management Rule requires every National Forest to complete a Motorized Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM). In August 2014, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest released existing condition road 

maps to the public for review. The forest plans to use the updated existing condition road and motorized 

trail maps as the starting point to begin the official public planning process to be in compliance with the 

2005 Travel Management Rule. The WWNF effort will include public involvement and official comment 

periods, in order to help the Forest identify a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for public 

motorized vehicle use on the WWNF. Once the travel management planning effort is complete, the 

network of designated roads, trails, and areas will be displayed on a MVUM. This planning will cover the 

LJCRP area, and may result in travel management actions in addition to, and/or different from those 

proposed by the LJCRP.

The WWNF is in the process of completing an Invasive Plants Treatment Plan FEIS. Alternative 2 of that 

FEIS was the selected alternative, which uses integrated manual, mechanical, herbicide, and cultural 

treatments on approximately 22,840 acres of mapped infestations, as well as on sites that may be detected 

in the future. Treatments would be completed following steps outlined in the Annual Implementation 

Planning process and Common Control Measures, according to Project Design Features and Herbicide 

Use Buffers that limit the extent and method of treatment appropriate to site conditions. In addition to 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

152 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

these steps, the Early Detection, Rapid Response Decision Process would be followed for sites that may 

be detected in the future.

In 2005, the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester amended all Forest Plans in Region 6, adding new 

management direction, including an emphasis on early detection, and effective integrated treatment of 

invasive plants. The purpose of the Invasive Plants Treatment Plan EIS is to bring the treatment program 

on the Forest into compliance with the new standards, and allow for effective treatments on all sites 

currently mapped and those that may be detected in the future. Initial treatments will rely more heavily on 

herbicides; but the goal of this project as invasive plant objectives are met, is to reduce the use of 

herbicides over time.

Invasive plants are a threat to aquatic and riparian habitats due to their negative effects to native 

ecosystems. Currently, invasive plant infestations are limited in extent in the LJCRP area (see invasive 

plants specialist’s report). Infestations are mainly located in RHCAs, travel corridors (i.e. roads). 

Treatment of invasive plants infestations along roads will be treated as part of the prevention strategy for 

the LJCRP. Impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic species may result in short-term adverse 

impacts but will improve riparian conditions in the long-term.

Short-term uses/long-term productivity (Neil) 

Short-term effects of tree removal and prescribed burning will reduce inter-tree competition and free up 

growing space for residual trees and understory vegetation. Under all action alternatives, the proposed 

actions and associated design features would not affect long-term productivity of forest vegetation and 

timber resources.

Unavoidable adverse effects (Neil) 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects related to forest vegetation and timber resources.

Irreversible/Irretrievable commitments of resources (Neil) 

Under all alternatives, the proposed actions and associated design features would not involve or invoke 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of forest vegetation and timber resources.

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 64 compares the effects of the alternatives.

Table 64. Comparison of the relative effects of the alternatives 

Criteria Metric Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternative 

3

Total forest treatments Acres 0 22,119 12,778

RHCA treatment Acres 0 2,571 749

 Cat 1 RHCA treatments Acres 0 58 0

 Cat 4 RHCA treatments Acres 0 1,822 0

 SI RHCA treatments Acres 0 749 749
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 153 

Criteria Metric Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternative 

3

Forest treatments in IRAs Acres 0 5,488 0

Roads in RHCAs - Lower Joseph Miles 17.3 15.7 16

Roads in RHCAs - Upper Joseph Miles 38.2 38 38

Riparian Management Objectives Qualitative 

category

Outside the 

acceptable 

range

Meet RMOs 

over longterm

Between Alts 

1 and 2

Total open USFS roads Miles 219 198 221

Total stream crossings Lower Joseph Creek Miles 205 187 189

Total stream crossings Upper Joseph Creek Miles 280 277 277

Total closed USFS roads Miles 93 128 98

Total road density Lower Joseph Miles/Sq 

Mile

1.30 1.10 1.20

Total road density Upper Joseph Miles/Sq 

Mile

1.10 1.10 1.50

Temporary road construction Miles 0 12.6 12.6

Open road density17– Broady Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq 

Mile

1.6 1.6 2.7

Open road density – Cougar Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq

Mile

3.7 3.2 3.5

Open road density – Lower Swamp Creek

(MA1)

Miles/Sq 

Mile

2.7 2.7 3.0

Open road density – Sumac Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq 

Mile

3.6 2.8 4.0

Aquatic organism passage improvements # culverts 0 6 6

Road reconstruction Miles 0 82.6 82.6

Increase in forage production as a result of 

forest thinning

% of treated 

acres in 

allotments

0 17 10

Vegetation pattern (% of forest treated with 

ICO) % 0 25 18

Landscape Resiliency – fire frequency and 

extent (HRV = 6-15% burns/year)

% of project 

area

<2% of

landscape 

burns/year 

(unplanned 

ignitions); 

15-20% 

burns at 

once in high 

fire years

4-6% of 

landscape 

burns/year 

(planned + 

unplanned); 

5-10% burns 

at once in 

high fire yrs

4-6% of 

landscape 

burns/year 

(planned + 

unplanned); 

15-25% 

burns at 

once in high 

fire yrs

Native plant diversity (Based on the chance 

of encountering the same plant species in 

consecutive samples)

ShannonWiener 

index

3.9 to 4.4 

depending on 

habitat

Greater than 

Alt 1

Greater than 

Alt 1

Jobs # 0 55 34

 

17 The six subwatersheds not listed here do not differ in seasonal open road density. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

154 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Criteria Metric Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternative 

3

Timber volume removed million

cubic feet 0 10.4 6.6

Heritage (Relative risk to conservation of 

heritage sites as measured by the area of 

mechanical treatments in high to moderatelow probability heritage site areas)

Acres

0 5,100 2,603

Alternative 1: Direct and Indirect Effects

The physical environment 

Climate 

Relative comparisons of the degree of climate change adaptation between alternatives are based 

on evaluation of one or more of the following indicators:

 Acres available for planting (even-aged harvest) and providing opportunities to adapt tree 

species composition to changing climates

 Acres of designated wildlife corridors, which can reduce barriers to movement

 Acres of thinning to restore disturbance regimes and/or reduce uncharacteristically severe 

wildland fires

 Miles of roads with improved drainage and reduced sediment delivery, thus reducing 

hydrologic connectivity of the road system

 Miles of riparian restoration, which restores floodplain connectivity, flow regimes, and/or 

increases effective stream shade

 Acres of invasive plants treated

No management activities would be implemented under alternative 1; hence, no improvement in 

climate change adaptation would occur.

Physical Environment 

There would be no direct effects to soil productivity or water quality in the analysis area with 

Alternative 1. In the absence of active timber management, soil productivity in former timber 

sale units would continue to improve over the course of 20-50 years (Tano et al, 2005). 

Compaction and displacement would be ameliorated over time through natural restoration 

processes such as freeze/thaw, tree root expansion, ground cover root mass expansion, and 

organic matter, leaf, and litter layer development. Compaction, erosion and water quality related 

effects associated with livestock management across the LJCRP analysis area have improved 

over the last couple decades. These improvements are results of restoration activities, and 

evolving range management practices. However, grazing continues and will continue to impede 

the recovery of soils and water resources. Though the action alternatives will not modify the 

allotment management plans, they produce the secondary benefit of improving forage in the 

uplands which may reduce grazing pressure in the more sensitive lowlands. This potential 

benefit would not occur under the no action alternative.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 155 

Under the no action alternative, no additional roads will be decommissioned. Therefore the direct 

deleterious effects of active road decommissioning would occur (see Alternative 2 Effect for 

detailed discussion on direct effects of road decommissioning). However, these roads would 

remain on the landscape and continue to fragment habitat, interrupt aquatic connectivity, 

lengthen streams, persist as a source of sediment and contribute to detrimental soils conditions. 

Fuel loads, however, will continue to increase and subsequently increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire intensity. Potential wildfire effects on physical environment would 

depend upon the intensity, duration and extent of the fire. Soil recovery depends on post-fire 

organic content and erodibility, slope, and the speed with which groundcover is re-established. A 

stand replacing wildfire with high temperatures, long flame lengths, and long residence times 

could consume litter and duff and reduce effective groundcover. A loss of groundcover could 

lead to indirect effects such as reduced site productivity (nutrient loss through erosion), increased 

sediment production (sheet and rill erosion), and reduced water quality (Landsberg and 

Tiedemann 2000). 

In the absence of proactive management, fuel loads would be high and would raise the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire intensity. The potential for epidemic insect and disease damage would 

also be greater than if the forest were thinned, which also raises the risk of wildfire intensity. A 

high intensity wildfire in the area could lead to indirect effects such as elevated stream 

temperatures and increased stream sediment for approximately 5 to 10 years (Dunham 2007) 

(Charles C. Rhoades 2011). 

Air

There would be no direct effects to air quality under Alternative 1.

In the absence of harvest, SI, and prescribed fire, forest vegetation and fuel loading would 

continue to depart from reference conditions and associated disturbance would continue to 

operate outside characteristic severity levels. Seasonal wildfire would continue to occur with the 

potential to become larger and more severe. Large fires have the potential to produce more 

smoke than prescribed fire in a shorter time period. The presence of smoke has the potential to 

impact air quality, visibility, communities, and human health. The duration of smoke impacts 

from wildfire could last from days to months depending on the fuels affected and duration of 

active fire and would likely be have greater effect than from prescribed burning.

The biological environment 

Vegetation and disturbance regimes 

In the short term, the distribution of forest cover type, forest structural stages and tree density 

class under alternative 1 would be expected to be similar to existing conditions (see tables in 

affected environment section). The following is a narrative discussion of change over time based 

on the current trajectory.

Forest Cover Type 

In the short term, western larch in the dry PVG and ponderosa pine in the moist PVG would 

remain within the desired range. All other cover types in the dry and moist PVGs would be 

outside RV percentages. Conditions would continue to favor Douglas-fir and grand fir. Seral 

species (ponderosa pine and western larch) would continue to stagnant and decline moving 

farther outside RV. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

156 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest Structural Stages 

The dry PVG stand initiation and stem exclusion structural stages would remain within RV 

percentages. All other dry PVG and all moist PVG structural stages would be outside the desired 

range. Successional pathways from stand initiation to old forest would continue. Tree growth 

would slow in areas of high stocking. Forest structure will continue to be outside of RV and 

favor multi-storied conditions.

Tree Density Class 

Within the moist PVG, the moderate and low density classes would remain within the desired 

range in the short term. The percent of the landscape in the moist high and all density classes in 

the dry PVG would be outside of the RV. Overstocked conditions would continue. Tree growth 

would continue to slow and density related mortality would increase. Moderate and high density 

classes would increase as the low density classes transition to moderate, and moderate shift to 

high, further moving away from the desired RV percentages.

Pattern 

In the absence of cutting, pattern would continue to favor continuous tree crowns with small 

canopy gaps associated with insect and disease pockets. Forest canopy would continue to 

increase, shading out understory herbaceous vegetation and further reducing forage production 

and species diversity. Historic grasslands, savannas and forest openings would continue to 

become smaller. 

Size Class Distribution 

The forested landscape would remain dominated by trees in the 10 to 20 inch size classes. Trees 

would continue to grow toward the next higher size class. Individual tree growth would slow and 

where overstocked conditions occur, movement from one class to the next would be inhibited.

Disturbance and fire regime 

There would be no direct effects to disturbance regimes or fire severity under Alternative 1.

Fire suppression has been and would continue to be implemented in the LJCRP area under 

Alternative 1. Given current and expected fire suppression activities less than 2% of the LJCRP 

landscape is affected by fire on average per year. On modeled high fire years approximately 15 

– 20 percent burns at once. The historical range of acres affected by fire in any given year is 

approximately 6 – 15 percent.

In the absence of forest restoration treatment and utilization of unplanned ignitions to increase 

the decision space for fire management, the conditions described in the affected environment 

would continue to depart from desired conditions. The landscape would continue to become less 

resilient to disturbance (including changing climate). Disturbance regimes would continue to 

shift from relatively frequent low/mixed severity disturbance towards relatively infrequent 

moderate/high severity. The landscape would continue to homogenize in density and structure 

creating a more continuous fuel environment that has the potential to support larger more intense 

disturbance effects. The shift from fire tolerant to intolerant species and fire suppression could 

create conditions that select against regeneration of early seral fire tolerant species (a key 

ecosystem component) at the scale of the project. 

In the event of a large high severity fire occurring in the LJCRP following the increase in fuel 

accumulation, insect mortality, and shift from early to late seral species there is the potential to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 157 

affect many ecosystem components including existing early seral old trees and wildlife habitat 

features. 

Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need of the project because there would be no 

restoration of structure, density, composition or patter, thus no restoration of disturbance 

processes at the landscape scale. Disturbances will continue to increase in severity and 

potentially size depending on conditions (fire weather) under which they occur. 

Fire Management Decision Space 

Alternative 1 would not reduce the ecological or political risk of utilizing unplanned ignitions to 

meet landscape restoration goals. Selection of this alternative would not improve fire 

management decisions as a result of restoration activities that are designed to more closely 

resemble natural fire regimes and effects.

Insects and Disease 

Insect and diseases that thrive in overstocked, stem exclusion or understory reinitiation structural 

stages and with host species of Douglas-fir and grand fir would increase. Susceptibility of 

ponderosa pine and western larch would increase as conditions favoring these species deteriorate 

and they become more stressed.

Dwarf mistletoe and degree of mistletoe infestation - Without the removal of infected trees, 

reduction of host trees, or creation of conditions that minimizes potential for spread to uninfected 

trees, it is expected that existing dwarf mistletoe infections would intensify and spread.

Timber Resource 

There would be no harvest treatment (0 acres treated that remove timber volume) and there 

would no timber volume (0 cubic feet) removed as a result of restoration treatments.

Rangelands and understoray vegetation 

There are no known direct, indirect or cumulative effects on range resources because of the No 

Action Alternative. Effects related to this alternative on range resources are primarily indirect in 

nature. Rangeland condition, livestock distribution, forage available for utilization and 

improvements will remain unchanged and consistent with existing management. Changes in 

livestock distribution through enhancement of transitory range will not occur.

Non-native invasive plants 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no essentially no change in the threat of invasive 

plant increase and spread compared with the current situation. Currently, invasive plants 

increase and spread through ongoing land management activities and permitted actions, 

recreational users, and wildlife. Known invasive plant sites within the planning area are 

currently managed under an integrated management system. Documented (and NEPA approved) 

sites would continue to be treated based upon their current priority and status.

Invasive plant spread is primarily related to factors of seed transfer and new potential habitat in 

areas of freshly disturbed soil, and changed site conditions. Therefore, invasive plant abundance 

is expected to increase as the number of forest users increases. Potential invasive plant spread 

from other vectors (livestock, wildlife, human activities, wind) would continue.

The overall effects of the no action alternative in regard to invasive plant increase and spread are 

essentially the same as the current baseline situation. Since this alternative would result in no 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

158 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

new disturbance from logging, road work, or burning, Alternative 1 (No action) has the least risk 

of increasing or spreading invasive plants in the project area.

Because no new management activities would occur under the no action alternative, there will be 

no cumulative effects from additional activities.

TES Plant species 

Under Alternative 1, no activities would occur. Both known sites and possible undetected 

occurrences of threatened, endangered or sensitive plants would not be impacted by project 

activities. Sensitive species growing in partial shade in forest could lose habitat. Meadows and 

grasslands would be at risk for increased ingrowth of conifers and shrubs.

Aquatic habitat 

Fine sediment levels are generally above the 20% threshold in the analysis area. 

Under alternative 1, current management activities in the analysis area that are likely to be 

contributing to elevated fine sediment levels are livestock grazing and roads. Past wildfire has 

likely contributed to an elevated level of fine sediment in some streams in the project area.

The majority of the forested stands in the project area would be represented by a fuel model that 

is likely to exhibit moderate fire severities in the case of a wildfire. The likelihood of a fire start 

in the project area is high. Wildfires typically result in increases in fine sediment for three to five 

years, depending on the wildfire severity (Neary et al. 2005). Adverse impacts to aquatic habitat 

would likely occur where fine sediment levels exceed the 20% threshold. These levels would 

likely decrease spawning success for Snake River steelhead and redband trout, and a decrease 

survival of juvenile salmonids may occur.

Under alternative 1, the majority of the timbered stands would be represented by fuel loading 

that is likely to exhibit moderate to high fire intensities and severities. These conditions increase 

the likelihood of a large-scale wildfire in the project area. A wildfire in the area could elevate 

water temperatures for up to 10 years, depending on the wildfire severity (Dunham et al. 2007). 

If water temperatures exceeded 64oF for an extended period of time as a result of wildfire, 

survival of salmonids would likely be reduced.

Federally-listed species – fish 

Alternative 1 of the LJCRP would not affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical 

habitat (no effect).

Management indicator species – fish 

Alternative 1 of the LJCRP may impact individual redband trout and their habitat, but will not 

likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

Alternative 1 of the LJCRP may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat, but 

will not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

Watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition for the 

next 5 years. Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are 

above the 20% threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 159 

Regional Forester aquatic sensitive species 

Alternative 1 of the LJCRP will have no impact on Individual western ridge mussels and their 

Habitat (NI). Watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current 

condition for the next 5 years. Current aquatic habitat conditions in the analysis area are not 

likely limiting for western ridge mussels. 

Western ridge mussels would be vulnerable to impacts from large-scale wildfires that result in 

large increases in fine sediment and changes in peak flows. Western ridge mussels are adapted 

to habitats with fine sediment; however, large influxes of fine sediment could result in the 

burying of mussel beds and the death of individuals. Western ridge mussels require stable 

streambeds for mussel beds to develop. Increases in peak flows that scour streambed substrates 

destroy existing mussel beds. 

Wildlife 

Primary cavity excavators 

Because no harvesting or prescribed fire will occur in Alternative 1, snag habitat will not be 

altered. Snags would not be reduced for operational reasons or consumed during prescribed 

burning as in either Alternative 2 or 3. Stress in overstocked stands may lead to increased snag 

abundance but may also increase fuel loadings, increasing the likelihood of uncharacteristic 

stand replacement fires. Stand replacing fires would reduce snag habitat for those PCE’s 

associated with live closed canopied forests (e.g. pileated woodpecker), while increasing habitat 

for those PCE’s associated with post-fire conditions (e.g. Lewis’s woodpecker). Currently the 

abundance of post-fire habitat is below the HRV within the project area. 

Pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk 

Quantity of source habitat will not change. Source habitat abundance will remain within the 

HRV. No harvesting occurs within source habitat leaving habitat quality unchanged. Ongoing 

tree growth will continue to increase canopy closure and density of large trees and snags, thus 

increasing source habitat for pileated woodpeckers and goshawks. The abundance of open roads 

across the planning area will not change in Alternative 1, human disturbance will remain 

unchanged. Removal of snags for fire-wood and safety will continue at current levels across the 

planning area. Risk to large scale fire would continue to increase, large-scale stand replacing 

fires would not provide source habitat for pileated woodpecker or goshawks.

Tables 65 and 66 compare conditions of pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk source 

habitat by alternative, respectively. Alternative 1 would maintain source habitat within HRV, but 

would have higher habitat quality in the short-term compared to the action alternatives, where 

restoration treatments reduce canopy cover or large tree structure.

American marten 

Because management activities would not take place under Alternative 1, there would be no 

direct effects on marten source habitat in the short term. In the absence of large scale 

disturbances, the LJCRP area would continue to provide marten habitat in moist large tree -

closed canopy forests and with time potential habitat would transition into source habitat, 

moving these habitats closer to the HRV. Due to the continued alteration of forest structure, 

composition and fuels, the loss of habitat due to uncharacteristically severe wildfire may occur.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

160 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 65. Pileated woodpecker source habitat conditions by alternative 

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3 Comment

Source Habitat 

(acres) 7,330 8,037 6,406 

% HRV 16% 18% 14%

The current condition as well as the 

outcome of all alternatives, maintain 

source habitat within the HRV. The 

HRV for this species is about 1-

39%.

Acres source 

habitat with harvest 0 3,717 1,444 

Acres of pileated woodpecker

habitat that has been harvested are 

likely lower quality.

% source habitat 

with harvest 0 46% 23%

Acres of pileated woodpecker

habitat that has been harvested are 

likely lower quality. It is expected 

that within 10-30 years the habitats 

that were harvested and are of lesser 

quality will transition to higher 

quality source habitat

Acres of source 

habitat not 

commercially 

treated 7,330 4,320 4,962

Pileated woodpecker habitat that is 

not harvested, are likely higher 

quality habitat.

% HRV of source 

habitat not treated 16% 10% 11%

Untreated pileated woodpecker

habitat is within the HRV (1-39%). 

It is expected that within 10-30 

years the habitats that were 

harvested and are of lesser quality 

will transition to higher quality 

source habitat.

Acres of large 

(>=21” trees) 

potentially 

harvested 0 1,214 0

Loss of large trees will negatively 

affect the quantity and quality of 

current and future habitat for 

pileated woodpeckers.

Miles of road 

closed and/or 

decommissioned 23 3

The greater the reduction in open 

roads, the greater the benefit to 

pileated woodpeckers. Removal of 

snags an important habitat feature is 

greater along open roads.

Table 66. Northern goshawk source habitat conditions by alternative 

Northern 

Goshawk

Alternative 

1 (and 

current)

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Comment

Source Habitat 

(acres) 19,362 19,106 16,517 

% HRV 55% 55% 47%

The current condition as well as the 

outcome of all alternatives, maintain 

source habitat within the HRV (1-46%)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 161 

Northern 

Goshawk

Alternative 

1 (and 

current)

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Comment

Acres source 

habitat with 

commercial 

harvest

0 8205 2681

Acres of Northern goshawk habitat that 

has been commercially harvested are 

likely lower quality.

% source 

habitat with 

commercial 

treatment

0 43% 16%

Northern goshawk habitat that has been 

commercially harvested, are likely 

lower quality.

Acres of source 

habitat without 

commercial 

treatment

19,362 10,901 13,836

Northern goshawk habitat that has not 

been commercially harvested, are likely 

higher quality habitat.

% HRV of 

source habitat 

not treated

56% 31% 40%

Northern goshawk habitat that has not 

been commercially treated is within the 

HRV. It is expected that within 10-30 

years the habitats that were treated and 

are of lesser quality will transition 

(through growth) to higher quality 

source habitat.

Acres of source 

habitat with 

potential for 

trees >=21” 

dbh removed

0 3,984 0

Large trees provide an important habitat 

component for goshawks.

Rocky Mountain elk 

Without management activities, elk cover and forage habitat would not be altered and short-term 

disturbances (associated with treatment activities) to elk habitat would not occur. The overall 

area providing cover remains higher than either of the two action alternatives. Under alternative 

1, road densities would remain high and in Upper Cottonwood, Broady, Cougar, Davis, Lower 

Swamp, Peavine, and Rush and Sumac Creeks, and densities in MA 1 and the HCNRA would 

remain above the Forest Plan Standards (Table 46). 

Old growth management areas, late-old forest habitat, and connectivity corridors 

No mechanical vegetation treatments would occur under alternative 1, and fires would be 

suppressed. 

There will be no direct impacts to MA15, LOS habitat, or connectivity corridors under 

Alternatives 1. Indirectly, this alternative will forgo the opportunity to reduce the likelihood of a 

high intensity and/or stand-replacing fire through treatments. The current level of connectedness 

would persist, and would improve in quality in the absence of large scale disturbances. In the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

162 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

absence of silvicultural treatments that reduce tree stocking, the connective corridors will 

continue to increase in canopy closure and structural complexity. This condition in the moist 

upland forests would enhance connectivity for species associated with closed canopied forests. 

Although connectivity would be enhanced over time, susceptibility to insects, diseases, and 

wildfire would increase. 

Conversely, dry upland forests are inherently less structurally complex than cold and moist 

upland forests. In the absence of silvicultural treatments to reduce tree stocking, these stands 

would continue to allow the establishment of shade tolerant grand fir, increased canopy closure, 

and increased stress to competition for resources. In both the short and long-term (30+ years) 

these drier stands would be subjected to continued increased risks from wildfire, insects and 

diseases that would kill trees in numbers and distribution that could negatively affect 

connectivity between patches of dry LOS habitat. These negative effects could render the LOS 

and connective corridors unsuitable for some of the wildlife species that depend on them as 

habitat.

Landbird and migratory bird habitat 

In the absence of large scale disturbances, alternative 1 would provide long-term habitat for 

migratory birds at the same level that exists today (Table 67). Forest fuels would continue to 

accumulate as fuel reduction treatments are deferred. Alternative 1 would perpetuate and 

contribute further to increased fuel accumulations, increasing the risks to overstory trees when 

wildfires occur. Depending on the species and the scale and intensity of wildfires, some species 

habitats may be improved (e.g. white-headed woodpecker), while other species habitats may be 

reduced (e.g. Williamson’s sapsucker).

Table 67. Relative effects of the alternatives on landbird and migratory bird habitat. 

Common 

Name

Habitat 

Group Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Brown 

creeper

Cool/Mo

ist 

Forest; 

Medium/

Large 

Trees

These habitats are currently at 

the low end of the RV. Habitat 

would be provided at the same 

level that currently exists. At 

the landscape scale, the risk to 

uncharacteristic fire which 

would remove habitat for this 

species would continue to 

increase.

Prescribed harvest prescriptions are to 

maintain habitat abundance though the 

quality of the habitat in the short-term 

may be reduced due to loss of canopy 

cover. Alternative 2 proposes to harvest 

more habitat for species in this group 

than Alternative 3.Not harvesting within 

the RHCAs in Alternative 3 will benefit 

this species habitats. At the landscape 

scale, the risk to uncharacteristic fire 

which would remove habitat for this 

species would be reduced. 

Cassin’s 

Finch

All 

Forest 

Commun

ities; 

Medium/

Large 

Trees

Medium/large tree habitat 

(>15" dbh) is overall within the 

RV. In relation to the RV, 

moist forests are low in closed 

canopied conditions, while dry 

forests are low in open 

canopied conditions. 

Alternative 1 would provide 

Prescribed harvest prescriptions would 

reduce the canopy closure, the density of 

medium size trees, and the density of 

snags. Alt. 2 will reduce the density of 

large trees. Habitats or species 

associated with open canopies and/or 

shrubby understories especially in the 

dry forests will increase and will move 

Williamson's 

Sapsucker

Mountain 

chickadee
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 163 

Common 

Name

Habitat 

Group Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Ruffed 

Grouse

habitat at existing conditions. 

Snag habitat would remain 

unchanged. Shrubby understory 

habitats would likely remain 

suppressed particularly in the 

dry forests. At the landscape 

scale, the risk to 

uncharacteristic fire for this 

species would continue to 

increase ; these species would 

likely respond negatively to 

wildfire depending on the 

intensity.

closer to the RV. For species 

associated with closed canopies, habitat 

will be reduced. Alt. 2 will reduce the 

canopy closure, and snags on more acres 

than alternative 2. At the landscape 

scale, the risk to uncharacteristic fire 

would be reduced. A large scale and 

high intensity disturbance, would likely 

remove habitat for these species. 

Whiteheaded 

Woodpecker

Dry 

Forest; 

Medium/

Large 

Trees

Habitats for these species are 

below the RV. Snag habitat 

would not be reduced. Alt. 1 

would provide habitat at the 

same minimal level as current. 

At the landscape scale, the risk 

to uncharacteristic fire would 

continue to increase. A lower 

intensity or mixed severity fire 

may create source habitat for 

white-headed woodpeckers.

Prescribed harvest prescriptions would 

reduce canopy closure, the density of 

medium size trees, and the density of 

snags. Alt. 2 would reduce the density 

of large trees on 7163 acres in dry 

forests. The reduction of canopy will 

benefit these species. The loss of snags 

will decrease the quality of the habitat. 

Alt. 2 will increase the potential habitat 

for these species on more acres than Alt. 

3. Large trees and snags will be reduced 

on more acres in Alt. 2 than Alt 3. At 

the landscape scale, the risk to 

uncharacteristic fire would be reduced. 

Depending the scale and intensity of a 

disturbance, habitat may be created or 

reduced. Post-fire habitat can provide 

habitat for white-headed woodpeckers.

Flammulated Owl

Calliope 

hummingbird

All 

Forest 

Commun

ities; 

Open 

Forest

In relation to the RV, moist 

forests with medium and large 

trees and forests of early 

structure (<10") is low in the 

abundance of open canopied 

forests. Open-canopied 

habitats in dry forests are all 

below the RV. Alt. 1 would not 

change the current amount of 

habitat that overall is likely 

reduced. At the landscape scale 

the risk to uncharacteristic 

wildfire or disturbance would 

remain high. Lower intensity 

disturbance, may provide 

habitat for some of these 

species, especially the 

Townsend's solitaire.

Prescribed harvest will reduce canopy 

and likely increase habitat for these 

species. Likely shrub habitat will 

increase benefitting the Calliope 

hummingbird. Alt. 2 will reduce canopy 

on more acres than Alt. 3, likely 

improving habitat for these species 

more. At the landscape scale, the risk to 

uncharacteristic fire would be reduced. 

Depending on the scale and intensity of 

a disturbance, habitat may be created or 

reduced. Post-fire habitat can provide 

habitat for Townsend's solitaire.

Townsend’s 

solitaire

Dark-eyed 

junco
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

164 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Common 

Name

Habitat 

Group Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

American 

kestrel

Post-Fire 

Habitat; 

Open 

Forest

Post-fire habitat is currently 

below the RV. Under Alt. 1 

source habitat abundance would 

not be changed. At the 

landscape scle the risk to 

uncharacteristic wildfire or 

disturbance would remain high. 

High and moderate 

intensity/scale wildfire would 

likely increase habitat for these

species. 

In both Alt. 2 and 3, approximately 615 

and 107 acres respectively of forests 

that were within the Cache creek fire 

perimeter (2012-currently provide some 

post-fire habitat ) would be 

commercially harvested, large trees may 

be removed in alternative 2 and snags 

would be reduced likely reducing the 

quality of habitat for these species. At 

the landscape scale, the risk to 

uncharacteristic fire would be reduced. 

These species are associated with postfire conditions at a variety of scales and 

intensities.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Lewis's 

Woodpecker

Peregrine 

Falcon

Habitat 

Generalis

t

No activities are planned that 

will likely effect this species. 

No activities are planned that will likely 

effect this species.

Ferruginous 

Hawk

Woodlan

d/Grass/

Shrub

Prescribed fire is the only 

proposed activity planned in 

these habitats, in Alt. 1, no 

prescribed fire would occur. At 

the landscape scale the risk to 

uncharacteristic wildfire would 

continue to increase. 

Depending the scale and 

intensity of such a disturbance, 

the quality of these habitats 

could be improved or reduced. 

Prescribed fire may occur on these 

habitats in Alt. 2 and 3. Timing and the 

sizing and spacing of prescribed fire will 

effect species differently. Prescribed 

fire conducted prior to the nesting 

season in the early spring, may reduce 

nesting habitat for ground- and shrubnesting species. In the longer term, these 

habitats may flourish following burning.

Mourning 

dove

Black-billed 

magpie

Swainson's 

Hawk

Killdeer

Black Swift

Riparian

Habitats for these species 

would remain at the same level. 

Particularly in dry forests, 

canopy closure is above the RV 

and may be suppressing shrub 

development in some riparian 

areas. At the landscape scale 

the risk to uncharacteristic fire 

would continue to increase. 

Likely, in the short-term 

following a wildfire, habitat for 

these species would be reduced. 

In the longer-term wildfire may 

increase shrubs and habitats for 

some of these species.

In Alt. 2 proposed activities in these

habitats include harvest in XXXX acres 

of category 4 RHCA's. Additionally in 

Alt. 2 there are XX acres of harvest 

prescribed has meadow restoration in 

Category 1 RHCA in Swamp Ck. 

Harvest and prescribed fire in RHCA's 

may increase or decrease habitat for 

these species depending the species. In 

the immediate short-term, important 

shrubby understories may be reduced (if 

present) but in the longer term these 

understories may flourish more than if 

not treated.

Bald Eagle

Willow 

Flycatcher

Red-eyed

vireo

Yellow 

warbler

Barn 

swallow

Common 

snipe

Federally-listed and USFS R6 Sensitive species 

Alternative 1 would have No Effect (NE) to the Canada lynx because it is not considered present 

on the Forest (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Lynx Strategy Letter April 19, 2007).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 165 

Alternative 1 would also have No Impact on the tailed frog, spotted frog, bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon, grey wolf, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, or spotted bat.

White-headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker 

Under this alternative, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or disease/insect outbreaks would 

continue to increase naturally over time because there would be no changes to stand stocking 

levels or fuel loads from active management. This resulting post wildfire habitat may provide 

suitable habitat for these species. Wildfire would likely produce snags, and white-headed 

woodpeckers and Lewis’ woodpeckers are known to occur in recent post-fire habitat that has 

large pine snags (Wightman et al. 2010). The impact to habitat would depend on the size and 

severity of the disturbance. For these reason, there is No Impact (NI) to the white-headed 

woodpecker or the Lewis’ woodpecker or their habitat under Alternative 1.

The social environment 

Socioeconomics 

Financial Efficiency and Economic Impacts 

No direct effects on the local economy would occur under alternative 1 (No Action). Within the 

analysis area, economic conditions and trends (employment, labor income, unemployment, etc.) 

would not change relative to the LJCRP since no action would be taken. In addition, any 

potential revenue from the sale of timber would not be realized under alternative 1. Indirect 

effects on local economic conditions could occur as a result of alternative 1, however, estimates 

of these changes are not available. The lack of measurable direct and indirect effects translates to 

a lack of measurable cumulative effects to economic conditions under alternative 1. 

As discussed above, greater non-prescribed wildland fire related costs could result if fuels are 

left untreated under alternative 1. Potential threats and costs to human life, property and firefighter safety under alternative 1 would be greater than alternative 2 and 3. Fire suppression 

costs and risk to life and property should be less when wildland fires occur where hazardous 

fuels have been treated compared to areas where fuels have not been treated. This is commonly 

accepted since fires in non-treated areas generally burn hotter, flame length is higher, and fires in 

tree canopies are more likely. However, it is not possible to predict the level and costs of nonprescribed wildland fire under alternative 1. 

Social Impacts 

Under the No Action alternative, social impacts to livelihood, cultural values, and biological 

values would not change from the present. However, with a greater risk of wildland fire and 

unchanged conditions for forest health under alternative 1, the possibility of long-term effects to 

recreation may be greater under this alternative.

Timber Market and Forest Products 

Alternative 1 would not provide new timber for harvest and therefore is not anticipated to affect 

the timber market relative to the current condition. However, if the incidence of wildfire 

increases as a result of not completing restoration treatments, large fires could damage existing 

forest stocks and increase the amount of salvaged wood on the market, leading to decreases in 

delivered log prices. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

166 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Non-Market Values 

Under alternative 1, the impacts to ecosystem services may be more severe. For example, water 

quality enhancement in the long term may be minimal compared to the other alternatives. 

Without restoration treatments, the forest health could continue to decline along with the 

ecosystem services it provides (such as air quality, water quality, and biodiversity). Although 

these services are difficult to quantify, they should be considered. 

Environmental Justice 

As indicated in the Affected Environment section above, minority and low-income populations 

exist in the analysis area. While alternative 1 is not expected to have a disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities, increased 

susceptibility to wildfire could result. Consequently, additional unmeasurable indirect economic 

effects associated with increases in wildland fire-related costs are possible, which could result in 

impacts to local communities. However, there is no reason to suspect that any impacts will 

disproportionately affect minority and low income populations.

Heritage 

No treatment activities would occur, and the current biological and physical processes would be 

allowed to continue along their present paths with associated risks and benefits. For heritage 

resources, this means that all 46 eligible or unevaluated sites would not be threatened by 

inadvertent mechanical operations. 

Existing fuels in and around archaeological sites would continue to increase. This may result in 

more frequent or intense wildfires which could result in site and artifact damage such as spalling 

of rock features and cracking of artifacts as well as post-fire erosion. Fire suppression actions, 

especially bulldozer operations, may also damage or destroy surface and subsurface 

archaeological sites resulting in the loss of those resources and their research potential. 

Additionally, sites become more visible after wildland fire, especially high-intensity fires, and 

are much more vulnerable to vandalism.

Tribal 

Impacts on hunting, fishing and gathering 

Alternative 1 (No Action) presents the highest risk to the access and availability of hunting, 

fishing and gathering resources. There would likely be detrimental effects to what remains of 

the historically open fire dependent ecosystem needed to support healthy, and accessible, treaty 

resources and their habitats. Loss of fire dependent ecosystems now means stands are less 

resilient to disturbance, insects, and disease. Many traditional food plants, that also provide 

browse and forage for wildlife, are reliant on low intensity fire regimes for healthy reproduction 

(see table 48). 

Tribal input suggests that the No Action alternative may best address tribal uncertainty about 

scope, scale and pace of LJCRP restoration. Some tribal members may prefer to trust in “Mother 

Nature” (NPTEC, July 8, 2014) to do the restoration work in lieu of taking a risk on accelerated, 

broad scale treatments and timelines. 

Need to address the true value of the landscape over economics 

The LJCRP purpose and need considers both natural resource values and the contribution of the 

LJCRP to social and economic values. In the action alternatives, timber harvest would primarily 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 167 

be used as a tool to treat unhealthy stands to move landscapes toward desired, resilient 

conditions over time, while resulting merchantable timber may be sold through timber sales. No 

Action would mean that the opportunity to restore and enhance LJCRP landscape conditions 

would be lost or put on hold. 

Tribal comments state that conservation of forest landscapes should be valued over economic 

benefits. The belief is that past National Forest management created the current unhealthy 

landscape conditions through uneven age management practices (i.e. “clear cutting”) designed to 

maximize timber volume (NPTEC July 8, 2014). Therefore, for some tribal members who 

equate forest management with economic motivations, the effects of No Action would be 

preferred.

Maintain old growth legacy trees and conserve inventoried roadless areas 

Old growth stands and roadless areas are valued by the Tribe for their natural, ancient settings 

that provide sanctuary for people and wildlife. In the short term the effects of No Action on old 

growth and inventoried roadless areas (IRA), barring high intensity fires or other major 

disturbance, would be little change to their abundance or character. However, over the long term, 

old growth stands would continue to be encroached by smaller diameter trees (particularly in dry 

forest) that would out-compete the big trees resulting in diminished biological and structural 

diversity. Fuel loads would build, and create high risk of disease and stand replacement fire. 

Landscape conditions and settings associated with traditional uses, treaty resource habitat, and 

other values associated with old growth stands and IRAs would decline over the long-term. 

No Action negatively affects opportunities for proposed maintenance of legacy trees and 

establishment of new roadless areas compared to alternatives 2 and 3. Without active 

management, maintenance of old growth stands and conservation of IRA’s values may be lost. 

Resource risks of accelerated planning and restoration 

Conflicts exist between the risks of conventional forest management timelines verses the risks of 

“doing things differently” by increasing the pace and scale of treatments (i.e., acceleration 

restoration). Tribal members support “trying things differently as long as you don’t throw out 

the tried and true” management options (NPTEC July 8, 2014), but are skeptical about 

accelerated restoration. 

Alternative 1 would not risk any unintended adverse effects of “doing things differently”, but 

would also not move the landscape toward shared desired conditions (i.e., a trend toward a more 

natural range of variation), or take advantage of the opportunity to learn the lessons of 

accelerated restoration. Learning through monitoring, and using adaptive management strategies, 

could involve the tribe in a joint effort to increase understanding of the conflicts, risks and 

benefits to the traditional economy conservation outlined in the action alternatives. 

Impacts to traditional plant resources 

In the LJCRP traditional plant habitats (including scab lands, savanna, meadows, riparian areas, 

seeps, dry and moist forests) are being encroached by particularly shade-tolerant conifers, 

primarily as a result of fire exclusion (refer to table 48 for plant species, habitat, response to 

soil/ground disturbance and fire response). No Action poses high risk to traditional plant species 

and habitats; especially those that are shade intolerant or that respond well to low intensity fire. 

The majority of the plants listed in table 48 need forest openings and sun to thrive. Historically 

the Nez Perce tribe used fire to maintain camas, “cous” and huckleberry habitats (Marshall, 

1999).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

168 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Continued increased canopy cover and litter accumulation would further reduce habitat 

suitability for many of the species listed in table 48. Potential soil damage from a severe wildfire 

could reduce potential suitable habitat and, in the case of high intensity fire, kill plants outright.

No Action means that the opportunity to benefit LJCRP traditional plants through landscape 

level low intensity prescribed fire treatments, thinning of meadow and riparian encroachment, 

natural fire use, and creation of individual clumps and openings (Franklin et al, 2013) would be 

lost or delayed, compared to alternatives 2 and 3.

Traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and other traditional use areas 

Locations and specific information and concerns associated with traditional cultural properties, 

sacred sites and other traditional use areas, have not been shared by the Nez Perce Tribe. No 

Action poses unknown effects to these currently unidentified resources. However, it is assumed 

that the values associated with these types of cultural places, such as private settings, traditional 

use resources, or spiritual practices, would be at risk to high intensity wildfire and other 

unplanned disturbance. 

Recreation 

There would be no direct or indirect effects under alternative 1 (No Action). Vegetation densities 

or characteristics would not be modified and the forest would continue to be influenced by 

natural processes and limited management actions, such as fire suppression. Under alternative 1, 

no change is anticipated in the number of visitors, frequency or season use in dispersed 

recreation activities, developed recreation sites, trails, or permitted uses. Recreational visits 

within the project area would remain near the same levels as previous years and traditional use 

patterns and recreational opportunities would not be affected. Hunting, hiking and other 

dispersed recreation and permitted uses access and opportunities are expected to remain 

unchanged. 

In the long term, there would be increasing risk to forested areas by insect and disease epidemics 

and greater fuel loads, increasing the risk of large stand replacement fires. Long-term 

sustainability of some of the natural resource values that drive recreation use (e.g., see scenery 

section, below) would continue to diminish over time. 

Scenery 

The no action alternative (alternative 1) would not address the vegetation conditions that are 

outside the historic range of variability. Alternative 1 would not reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, which could cause undue effects to scenery, nor will it move the 

landscape toward the desired condition.

The no action alternative (alternative 1) would have no short term effects to scenic integrity, or 

scenic stability. Existing scenery integrity and scenic stability would remain the same. The 

indirect long term effects related to the existing conditions and trends could be substantial. The 

overstocked stands are under greater and greater stress which is likely to lead to insect and 

disease epidemics. Fuel loads within the stands increase the hazards of stand replacement fire. 

All of these conditions will continue to degrade the scenic stability. In the event of a stand 

replacement fire the scenic integrity would likely be greatly reduced by uncharacteristic fire.

The no action alternative (alternative 1) would maintain the existing Landscape Character, and 

range of Low to Very High Scenic Integrity (condition). In the short term, the landscape would 

remain as a mosaic pattern of natural appearing to slightly altered and altered landscape 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 169 

character and scenic condition as it currently exists. Vegetation would continue to grow through 

the pattern of natural succession with a high risk of future disturbance, primarily wildfire. 

Resiliency to fire, insects, and pathogens would continue to decline. The high fuel loadings have 

the potential to result in a sudden change to the landscape character that could result from a 

wildfire that would be seen as a burned off area or the landscape would continue to be affected 

by diseased tree and associated tree mortality. The current insect and disease infestations would 

continue to affect the landscape character visually and could result in changes from healthy 

green canopies to patches that are predominately brown. In the case of wildfire, the landscape 

character could dramatically change from a forested green setting to an area dominated by the 

visual evidence of wildfire. Fire intensity patterns would probably range from low to moderate 

to high viewed in the foreground and middleground from the travel routes, particularly in the 

IRAs, where mechanical treatment is limited to existing roads. Wildfire visual characteristics 

would be dominant and evident for 5 to 10 years or more; snags would be created as a result of 

wildfire. The snags would be dominant for at least 5 years, and then begin to fall and create a 

jackstraw effect viewed along the travel corridors and would appear visually out of character for 

a natural appearing landscape. In general, natural forest disturbances that result in extensive 

areas of dead or dying trees are perceived negatively. There would be some risk to losing the 

highly valued larger ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir if a wildfire were to occur. A sustainable 

green scenic forest may not be maintained over time because of this high disturbance risk related 

to high fuel loadings and potential for catastrophic wildfire.

Alternative 1 would be compliant with the Visual Quality Objectives of the Forest Plan, HCNRA 

CMP and Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

Research Natural Areas 

Under alternative 1, the Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock areas would remain as a 

proposed RNAs and continue to be protected from uses which would reduce suitability for RNA 

designation. This management direction is listed in the forest plan, Pages 4-84 and 4-85, and 

will remain in effect until there is a revised forest plan or there is an amendment to this portion 

of the forest plan.

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

There would be no decision to implement actions within Potential Wilderness Area, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, other undeveloped lands, or environmental organizations unroaded areas under 

Alternative 1. These areas would continue to depart from reference conditions in forest 

structure, composition, density and pattern due to current fire suppression and grazing policies. 

Potential Wilderness Areas identified during Forest Plan Revision will still meet the criteria 

identified in FSH 1909.12 Ch. 71 as no evidence of past harvest or roads would be created 

through selection of the no action alternative.

The forested landscape in these areas would continue to support increased density of fire 

intolerant species that create the potential for uncharacteristic fire severity and effects. Fire 

hazard would continue to increase with an associated increase of more intense fire occurring at 

severities and a scale than what would have occurred under reference conditions. This type of 

fire could cause a loss of important ecosystem components (such as large trees of seral species) 

and loss of a natural appearing landscape with high scenic quality. Alternative 1 would increase 

the risk to these characteristics.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

170 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Potential Wilderness Areas 

Alternative 1 would not affect any PWAs. All current opportunities for solitude would remain, 

all inherent characteristics of the area would be retained, and no impacts from temporary roads 

would occur. Indirectly, if a fire were to burn through the area, sight distance would increase and 

the visitor’s ability to experience solitude would decrease. Other characteristics important to 

these areas may be negatively affected by uncharacteristic fire.

Cumulative Effects 

Vegetation 

Alternative 1 would not contribute to moving forest composition, structure, density toward 

desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or size class distribution or improving trends in 

insect and disease susceptibility.

Air Quality 

There are no cumulative effects to air quality if Alternative 1 is selected as there are no direct 

effects. 

Disturbance and Fire Severity 

Past harvest, fuel treatment, fire suppression, and livestock grazing have shaped the current stand 

conditions and altered disturbance processes across the LJCRP area. Fire suppression and 

livestock grazing would continue to alter the disturbance processes and in general would 

increase the severity of those disturbances. The landscape would potentially lose the large, early 

seral, old trees on the landscape to fire or insect mortality as the forested stands would continue 

to increase density and favor late-seral species at the expense of early seral (ponderosa pine and 

larch) tree species regeneration. There is the potential to alter seed source availability and seed 

bed viability under this Alternative.

With the exception of the effects of fire suppression on increased forest and shrub densities, the 

no action alternative would not contribute to the cumulative effects of past and present activities. 

Past timber management activities including regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, 

precommercial thinning and salvage have resulted in fewer mature and old growth stands, with 

fewer large trees and large snags. These activities have favored wildlife and plant species (e.g., 

some Neotropical migratory bird species) that prefer early-seral stand conditions. Recreation, 

wood cutting, and roads would continue to lead to a reduction in snag habitat for species 

dependent on these habitat components in some areas. 

Tribal 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities primarily include administration of range 

allotments, timber harvest, vegetation management, motorized recreation, firewood cutting and 

dispersed recreation. Under alternative 1, including current tribal, social, cultural, biological and 

traditional practices would continue but these activities would likely be disrupted. Over time 

cumulative effects of No Action to the LJCRP would accrue; likely contributing to a higher risk 

of catastrophic disturbance and degraded ecological conditions. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 171 

Recreation 

Past projects and actions which have affected recreation uses include timber harvest, and road 

construction. Residual effects of past timber harvest influences dispersed recreation activities by 

displacing some uses (i.e. big game hunters may go to areas with more denser canopy covering, 

berry pickers may go to areas where plants are more abundant), whereas it may have encouraged 

other uses (i.e. open areas allow better viewing background scenery). Road construction has had 

both a positive and negative effect and has been viewed by some users as increasing access to 

areas, yet has had a negative affect for non-motorized users who may have previously used an 

unroaded area. The allowance of cross country travel has affected some non-motorized 

recreation activities due to sight, sound and emissions of vehicles. The establishment of 

dispersed camps has provided traditional camp sites by making user created routes to the sites 

and expanding areas for camping. These things would continue under the no action alternative; 

therefore there are no cumulative effects associated with the no action alternative.

Alternative 2: Direct and Indirect Effects

The physical environment 

Climate 

Relative comparisons of the degree of climate change adaptation between alternatives are based 

on evaluation of one or more of the following indicators:

 Acres available for planting (even-aged harvest) and providing opportunities to adapt tree 

species composition to changing climates

 Acres of designated wildlife corridors, which can reduce barriers to movement

 Acres of thinning to restore disturbance regimes and/or reduce uncharacteristically severe 

wildland fires

 Miles of roads with improved drainage and reduced sediment delivery, thus reducing 

hydrologic connectivity of the road system

 Miles of riparian restoration, which restores floodplain connectivity, flow regimes, and/or 

increases effective stream shade

 Acres of invasive plants treated

Alternative 2 would bring the LJCRP area closer to reference conditions in vegetation and 

disturbance regime in comparison to the No Action and Alternative 3, creating a more resilient 

and sustainable condition in the face of climate change. 

Soils 

Surface Erosion 

Surface erosion will increase under alternative 2, due to the following activities: temporary road 

construction, temporary increase in road traffic, road maintenance, road reconstruction, wildland 

fire and equipment operation. Surface erosion may affect site productivity and water quality. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

172 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Approximately 12.6 miles of temporary roads are proposed in alternative 2 (Map 9). Effective 

ground cover is often lost during the construction and use of temporary roads which destabilizes 

the surface and soil structure. In some instances, entire soil horizons may be mechanically 

displaced during temporary road construction. Mitigation Measures and Best Management 

Practices (Appendix J) are designed to minimize these effects. Approximately 20 acres of the 

178,000 acre analysis area on Forest Service lands will be directly affected by the construction 

and use of temporary roads in alternative 2.

Road traffic will likely increase under alternative 2, due to the proposed management activities. 

Vehicular traffic destabilizes material in unpaved travelways, cut slopes and fill slopes. 

Travelways are heavily compacted, and have low rates of infiltration which increases surface 

runoff. Increases in road use can increase sediment production rates by many orders of 

magnitude. (Reid and Dunne 1984, Ramos- Scharrón 2007). We used the Watershed Erosion 

Prediction Project (WEPP) model to characterize the potential increase in sediment yields, as a 

result of increasing road traffic across the entire haul system for the Joseph Canyon Restoration 

Project. Sediment yields due to increased traffic were static except for a moderate increase along 

the 4655 road in the northeast portion of the project area and along the 150 spur of the 4650 

road. These roads will be prioritized for erosion mitigation measures and evaluated for road 

improvments prior to haul. Any increases in sediment yield would persist at higher rates over the 

duration of project implementation but all increases in traffic are unlikely to be uniform over 

space and time and will depend largely on how implementation is phased for each portion of the 

analysis area. Improving the structure, stability and drainage of the haul road system will 

mitigate most of the erosion potential.

Road maintenance and road reconstruction will likely cause short-term increases in surface 

erosion by destabilizing compacted soil and sediment aggregates. By design, road maintenance 

and road reconstruction are intended to minimize road-related erosion and erosive potential 

throughout periods of increased road use. Improvements, such as culvert replacements, ditch 

cleaning outs, surface recontouring, roadside revegetation and reinforcing road foundations are 

likely to have positive effects by minimizing surface sediment yield, reducing the probability of 

road failure and improving hydrologic function. An additional 25 miles of roads are proposed for 

decommissioning in alternative 2. Some road decommissioning will decompact and destabilize 

the surface, increasing the susceptibility of surface erosion. After effective ground cover is 

reestablished and site is stable it will be lower threat for surface erosion. The time for as site to 

stabilize varies but can take anywhere from 3 months to 2 years. In alternative 2, 6 culverts will 

be upgraded to withstand a 100 year peak flow event, and 86 miles of road will be improved to 

limit road-related erosion and improve hydrologic function.

Decompacting the road surface during decommissioning or obliteration activities loosens the 

soil, thus making it more likely to be mobilized during the first significant run-off period unless 

the road is on relatively flat terrain, not near streams, or sufficient ground cover (mulch, woody 

debris, etc.) is provided. Since there is culvert removal associated with some of the proposed 

decommissioning activities there is the potential to deliver sediment into stream channels during 

project implementation. Active road decommissioning near streams will have short-term, 

construction-related effects. These projects may cause a short-term degradation of water quality 

due to sediment input and turbidity. Stream bank condition and habitat substrate may also be 

adversely affected in the short term. This would be a short-term effect since turbid conditions 

would dissipate soon after the in-stream work phase was completed, generally in a few hours. 

However with careful project design and mitigation measures such as erosion control, these 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 173 

effects are expected to be of a limited extent and duration. In addition to existing decisions in the 

LJCRP area, 25 miles of roads are proposed for decommissioning in alternative 2.

Project design criteria and associated BMPs for road obliteration and decommissioning would 

reduce the risk of sediment entering any stream course. The impacts to water quality caused by 

sedimentation due to temporary road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or road 

decommissioning, if any, would be short-term and undetectable at the watershed scale.

At the landscape scale, surface erosion may increase substantially in the event of a large scale 

disturbance. The treatments proposed in all action alternatives will mitigate some of this risk by 

restoring stand structures and species compositions (see Fire and Fuels Report). Vegetation 

management is proposed on 22,119 acres in alternative 2 that may reduce the intensity and scale 

of future landscape level disturbances that would subsequently increase surface erosion and mass 

wasting potential.

Sediment from harvest activities 

Thinning, particularly within RHCAs, is a potentially ground disturbing activity that has the 

potential to cause a temporary reduction in water quality by allowing sediment to enter stream 

channels from surface erosion or run-off. Tree falling, ground-based yarding methods, and to 

some extent cable yarding methods (when full suspension isn’t achieved) disturb soils that may 

result in minor erosion or displacement at the site level. Ground-based harvesting equipment 

and cable yarding does cause some direct soil displacement which would be mitigated through 

project design criteria. Most of the soil movement/erosion resulting from timber harvesting 

would travel short distances before being trapped by duff, woody materials, and other 

obstructions. The probability of overland surface runoff on uncompacted soil surfaces is also 

low for the soils in the project planning area.

Project design criteria would incorporate PACFISH riparian protection buffers along all 

intermittent streams in old forest structures. Buffer width design along intermittent streams 

would take into account the stream influence zone, steepness of slope, size and location of trees, 

orientation of the site to the sun (aspect), slope stability, and stream bank stability. Riparian 

protection buffers would include any buffer of hardwood vegetation occurring along the stream 

bank. To further reduce the risk of surface erosion entering streams as fine sediment, only low 

impact harvesting equipment such as, mechanical harvesters or skyline systems, which have 

minimal ground disturbance would be allowed within restricted distances outside of the no 

harvest buffer consistent as described in the LJCRP Implementation Plan. Mechanical 

harvesting equipment would be required to operate on slash-covered paths, and travel routes 

would be limited to one pass over a path whenever possible. Trees in this zone would be 

directionally felled away from the protection buffers to minimize the disturbance to the forest 

floor. 

These vegetative buffers would act as an effective barrier to any sediment being transported into 

stream channels by surface erosion or run-off and would minimize the risk of any channel or 

water quality impacts. The stream protection buffers on either side of the streams would likely 

retain any displaced and eroded soil before it is transported to the stream channel. These buffer 

widths would also allow soil infiltration between the unit and any water source. Surface 

roughness, vegetation, and duff in untreated buffers would filter most sediment coming off 

surfaces before reaching streams. The use of skyline or helicopter yarding systems on steeper 

ground within riparian reserves would reduce ground disturbance, thus lowering the probability 

of soil displacement within the project area. Seasonal restrictions on ground-based harvesting 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

174 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

operations would further reduce the risk of soil disturbance and run-off. Even if some soil 

movement occurred, the vegetated buffer strips along every perennial or intermittent channel 

would act as an effective barrier. The probability that measurable amounts of fine sediment 

would enter any stream within the project area as a direct result of logging activity is low (See 

WEPP analysis in the Physical Environment supporting documention).

Yarding will be accomplished utilizing a combination of mechanical harvester, processor, tractor, 

skyline, and helicopter logging systems. Project design criteria would minimize erosion by 

using techniques such as seasonal restrictions and stream protection buffers

All ground-based tractor operations will take place on slopes averaging less than 35% and may 

operate within 75 feet of any channel to avoid the risk of damage to soil and water resources 

(See LJCRP Implementation Plan) This restriction may be waived if soils are dry or frozen or if 

operators switch to skyline or other non-ground based systems. District or Forest Soil and 

Water specialists will be consulted in regard to any waiver pertaining to using ground-base 

logging systems outside the normal operating season. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders 

would be required to work on a layer of residual slash placed in the harvester path prior to 

advancing the equipment. 

Outside of the riparian protection buffers, additional restrictions may apply (See LJCRP 

Implemenation Plan). Only low impact, minimal ground disturbing harvesting equipment such 

as mechanical harvesters or skyline systems (suspension yarding) will be allowed. Trees in this 

zone would be directionally felled away from the no-harvest buffer to minimize the disturbance 

to the forest floor. 

All skyline yarding will incorporate one end or full suspension if needed, such as when yarding 

over a stream channel or seep. Trees cut in the units identified for skyline logging would be 

primarily yarded with the leading edge of the log suspended above the ground and the trailing 

end dragging along the ground surface. 

Some soil disturbance is expected to occur along skyline corridors in these units, making soil 

available for movement. Erosion control work following yarding activities would reduce the 

amount of soil that moves off site in the event surface runoff does occur. The fully vegetated 

riparian protection buffers will intercept most soil movement and greatly reduce the amount of 

sediment delivery to any stream. Implementation of these best management practices will result 

in a non-measureable amount of sediment being delivered to streams. 

Sediment from log haul 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Mass Wasting 

Mass wasting is a natural geomorphic process that supplies sediment and debris to streams for 

the structure and complexity needed for quality aquatic habitat. Human activity can intensify 

mass wasting to an extent that degrades habitat by destabilizing slopes through vegetation 

removal, water diversions and road construction.

A review of historic landslide data from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mining 

Industries (2014) does not indicate occurrences of recent shallow landslides within the Joseph 

Canyon analysis area. The floods during the winter of the 1996-1997 generated minor debris 

flows and incised many of the upland channels in the project area. The magnitude and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 175 

distribution of the effects associated with the floods of 1996-1997 are characteristic of 50 – 100 

year water event (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003a, US Geological Survey 2014). For all sediment 

modeling 30 and 50 year weather streams were used from the Wallowa weather station to 

statistically capture the 1996-1997 flood events. A Generic Erosion Potential model (Burnett 

2007) was used across the landscape which approximates mass wasting potential based on slope 

and slope convergence. Other site specific variables, such as soils (SSURGO, 2014), vegetative 

cover, climate and underlying geology were evaluated in the field and from the best available 

data. Based on this analysis, activities proposed in the action alternatives are unlikely to increase 

the timing, frequency or intensity of mass wasting events. Most risk is mitigated through the 

implementation of no-harvest buffers, equipment restrictions on steep or unstable ground and the 

lack of new permanent features, such as roads, to intercept surface water. In Alternative 2, there 

are 110 acres of ground based timber harvest proposed in areas of lower relative stability or 

approximately 1.5 percent of areas proposed for ground based harvest and 12.6 miles of 

temporary roads.

Project design features, such as no harvest buffers, equipment restrictions on steep or unstable 

areas and the hyrdrologic restoration of temporary roads and existing legacy travelways greatly 

reduces the risk of a mass wasting event being triggered as a result of the proposed management 

activities.

Soil Productivity 

Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) directly impact soil productivity by displacement, 

compaction, loss of organic matter, rutting, erosion and loss of porosity. Land management 

activities, such as road construction and heavy equipment operation have the greatest potential to 

create detrimental soil conditions. Land managers can reasonably predict that helicopter and 

skyline harvest activities will not degrade soil conditions below acceptable tolerances (Reeves et 

al. 2011). Therefore, temporary roads and ground based harvest activities will be the focus and 

measure of detrimental soil conditions.

Detailed investigations of similar harvest units in the area indicate pre-treatment DSCs ranging 

up to 20% with a median distribution of approximately 8%. An evaluation of aerial photography 

and field conditions for the LJCRP indicate similar conditions. Mitigation Measures are 

incorporated into project design to manage DSCs within the allowable Wallowa Whitman Forest 

Plan tolerances of 20%. This may include remediation of DSCs created as a result of proposed 

activities and remediation of affects from previous management activities, inside and outside 

planned activity units. Conditions existing outside of planned activity units that should be 

remediated through subsoiling and revegetation include legacy travel routes, user created routes, 

legacy skid trails and landing sites. In Alternative 2, ground based harvest and 12.6 miles of 

temporary road construction may directly contribute to DSCs at the management unit scale as a 

result of the proposed management activities. Project design criteria will be in place to mitigate 

much of the potential for DSCs and plan will be in place to remediate high priority areas affected 

by these activities. (See the LJCRP Implementation Plan and Appendix J, Best Management 

Practices and Project Design Criteria). 

Extensive soil degradation across a landscape may affect long-term productivity growing sites, 

limiting the potential to express vegetation as it would under unimpeded growing conditions 

(Grigal, 2000). Limiting site potential may compromise the potential of achieving a vegetative 

structural and species composition consistent with the historical range of variation, which, in 

turn, can effect wildlife species, natural resource economics and resilience to disturbances. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

176 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

However, the scope and extent of the actions proposed in the LJCRP, with or without 

remediation, are unlikely to have measurable effects on productivity beyond the site scale.

Air 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”, above. 

The biological environment 

Vegetation and disturbance regimes 

Table 68 lists the cutting treatments proposed under alternative 2, approximate acres for each 

treatment and the percent of the total treatment acres each treatment type represents. The 

following is a list and description of other treatments that are proposed for alternative 2 and are 

not listed in the description of treatment type table (above).

 Single Tree Selection in MA15 –similar to other single tree selection treatments with 

emphasis on old growth characteristics.

 Meadow Restoration – removal of young trees that have encroached onto meadow complex 

adjacent to Swamp Cr.

A total of 22,119 acres of cutting treatments are proposed. Moderate and high intensity single 

tree selection treatment types account for almost half of the treatment acres and stand 

improvement (non-sawlog) treatments add another 25 percent. Under this alternative, 

approximately 39 percent of the forested acres within the project area would have a cutting 

treatment.

Forest Cover Type 

Cover type percent by potential vegetation group and percent change from existing due to 

alternative 2 treatments are listed in Table 69. The prevalent effect in terms of movement toward 

RV would be in the ponderosa pine cover type. There would be a ten percent increase in the dry 

PVG and another 2 percent increase in the moist PVG. There would also be notable changes to 

the Douglas-fir cover type with a nine percent reduction in the dry PVG and a 2 percent 

reduction in the moist PVG. Overall, alternative 2 would move all cover types in both PVGs 

closer to RV with the exception of lodgepole pine in the moist PVG.

Forest Structural Stages 

Table 70 summarizes the forest structural stage percent by potential vegetation group and percent 

change from existing due to alternative 2 treatments. Highest movement toward RV would be in 

the OFSS structural stage with a six percent increase in the dry PVG and two percent increase in 

moist. The SE stage would experience movement away from RV in both PVGs. Overall, 

alternative 2 would result in movement toward RV in OFSS and SI and movement away from 

RV in all other stages. This is due to the time lag of development from the UR/YFMS structural 

stages to the OF structural stages and illustrates the need for continued management as the 

UR/YFMS stages mature in order to further move the percentage of dry PVG OFSS stage within 

RV.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 177 

Table 68. Alternative 2 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area 

Treatment Type Approxim

ate Acres

Percent of 

Treatment 

Acres 

(Percent of 

Forested 

Acres)

Stand Improvement – Stands Dominated by Seedlings and Saplings 3,562 16%

Stand Improvement – Stands Dominated by Poles 1,891 9%

Single Tree Selection – High Intensity 5,126 23%

Single Tree Selection – Moderate Intensity 5,819 26%

Single Tree Selection – Low Intensity 1,275 6%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Moderate Intensity 763 3%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Low Intensity 30 <1%

Group Selection – High Intensity 1,942 9%

Group Selection –Moderate Intensity 596 3%

Group Selection – Low Intensity 38 <1%

Intermediate Treatment – High Intensity 124 1%

Intermediate Treatment – Mod Intensity 123 1%

Intermediate Treatment – Low Intensity 89 <1%

Savanna* 558 3%

Meadow Restoration* (Swamp Creek) 58 <1%

Cutting Treatment Total (Forested Acres) 21,967 

(21,378)

100% 

(39%)

Forested Acres – No Cutting Treatment 33,980 (61%)

Total Forested Acres 55,365 (100%)

*Savanna and meadow restoration treatments are in areas that do not meet the definition of 

forested. 

Tree Density Class 

Table 71 displays the density class percent by potential vegetation group and percent change 

from existing due to alternative 2 treatments. Overall, alternative 2 would move or maintain all 

density classes within RV for both PVGs.

Pattern 

Alternative 2 would treat 21,378 acres using the Individuals, Clumps and Openings (ICO) 

approach to restoring forest spatial pattern.

Size Class Distribution 

Thinning treatments would result in an immediate increase in average tree diameter by favoring 

dominant and codominant trees. The treatments would also increase average tree diameter in the 

short term by reducing intertree competition and improving individual tree growth.

Table 72 displays the estimated post treatment size class distribution and the percent change 

from the existing distribution. For both the dry and moist PVGs, tree size class would be 

trending toward larger tree size classes with a nine and seven percent increase respectively in the 

>20 size class.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

178 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 69. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the LJCRP area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Range of 

variation (%) 

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa pine 16,226 38% (+10) 50-80

Douglas-fir 17,962 42% (-9) 5-20

Western larch 715 2% (+1) 1-10

Lodgepole pine 89 <1% (-<1) 0

Grand fir 6,983 16% (-2) 1-10

Engelmann spruce 0 0% (0) 0

Unknown 438 1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa pine 1,690 13% (+2) 5-15

Douglas-fir 5,591 43% (-2) 15-30

Western larch 763 6% (+2) 10-30

Lodgepole pine 173 1% (-1) 25-45

Grand fir 4,603 36% (-<1)) 15-30

Engelmann spruce 65 1% (-<1) 1-10

Unknown 64 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Table 70. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the LJCRP area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Range of variation 

(%) (Powell 2010)

Dry UF

OFSS 2,643 6% (+6) 40-60

OFMS 9,014 21% (+1) 5-15

YFMS 2,704

19,362

6%

46% (+1) 5-10

UR 16,658 39%

SE 3,712 9% (-9) 10-20

SI 7,464 18% (+1) 15-25

Unknown 184 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist UF

OFSS 215 2% (+2) 10-20

OFMS 4,261 33% (+3) 15-20

YFMS 1,811

4695

14%

36% (+<1) 10-20

UR 2,884 22%

SE 1,675 13% (-5) 20-30

SI 2,080 16% (+<1) 20-30

Unknown 23 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 179 

Table 71. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

Dry High 6,425 15% (-18) 5-15

Dry Mod 9,457 22% (-10) 15-30

Dry Low 26,292 62% (+28) 40-85

Unknown 206 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist UF

Moist High 3,283 25% (-20) 15-30

Moist Mod 5,092 39% (+11) 25-60

Moist Low 4,373 34% (+9) 20-40

Unknown 201 2%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Table 72. Alternative 2 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class 

(diameter range 

in inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 5,328 13% (-4)

5-10 2,946 7% (+5)

10-15 10,684 25% (+13)

15-20 12,526 30% (+2)

>20 10,711 25% (+9)

Unknown 176 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

<5 1,438 11% (-5)

5-10 1,425 11% (+5)

10-15 2,708 21% (-6)

15-20 3,394 26% (-2)

>20 3,920 30% (+7)

Unknown 64 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

180 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Disturbance and Fire Regime 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”, above. The action alternatives vary in effect 

based solely on intensity of treatment represented by the number of acres. Alternative 2 includes 

more acres of harvest and SI, thereby directly improving forest structure, density, and 

composition and associated fire regime characteristics.

Prescribed fire (planned and unplanned) 

Alternative 2 has more area identified as a high priority for prescribed fire (48,577 acres) than 

Alternative 3 (46,480 acres), primarily due to the relatively greater forest area treated 

mechanically, and thus needing activity fuels treatment. Alternative 2 has the largest beneficial 

impact on fire regime departure and landscape resiliency by burning approximately 4 to 6 

percent of the landscape per year compared to the reference of 6 – 15 percent and in high fire 

years approximately 5 – 10 percent is predicted to burn. This is within the reference fire regime 

and expected natural burn pattern insofar as the area adapting to and with fire as a disturbance 

process.

Activity Fuels 

There would be more activity fuels created with the implementation of Alternative 2 as 

compared to Alternative 3. The treatment of activity fuels in “Effects common to all action 

alternatives” remains the same. Disposition of activity fuels is a key part in ensuring that fire 

severity does not increase due to the additional accumulation of fuels as a result of silvicultural 

activity. There is no increased impact to fire risk under Alternative 2 when compared to 

Alternative 3. 

Fire Management Decision Space 

Alternative 2 creates the most decision space of the action alternatives to manage wildland fire 

(planned and unplanned ignitions). State-and-transition modeling for the LJCRP area (Appendix 

C) indicates that during a high fire year in the LJCRP area the amount of the landscape that 

burns is within the expected fire regime extent (6-15%/year). Although there is no difference 

between expected acres intentionally burned with planned and unplanned ignitions, (4 – 6%) 

depending on the year, there is a large benefit to managing unplanned ignitions under Alternative 

2 due to the active management of IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs. This 

creates an environment with less ecological and social risk of having unwanted fire effects such 

as uncharacteristically severe fire or fire affecting a large portion of the area (particularly within 

or adjacent to IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs) in one year such as to impact 

the character of forest succession and fire regime. Alternative 2 positively affects the ability of 

wildland fire to become a restorative process at an ecologically appropriate scale and severity.

Insects and Disease Susceptibility 

Table 73 lists the estimated, alternative 2 post treatment susceptibility ratings for the six insect 

and disease agents associated with the PVGs and cover types within the LJCRP area. The 

following is a comparison of expected post treatment ratings to existing ratings, as an indication 

of stand conditions that are conducive to improved forest health and trending toward the range of 

variation (RV). 

Dry PVG 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 181 

 Defoliators and Douglas-fir beetle would be outside RV for all ratings, with a higher 

percentage in the low and moderate ratings and lower percentage in the high rating than 

existing

 Fir engraver would be the same as existing for all ratings

 Bark beetles in ponderosa pine would continue to be outside RV for all ratings, with the low 

rating moving closer to RV.

 Douglas fir mistletoe would continue to be belowRV for the low rating, above RV for the 

high ratings and within RV for the moderate rating.

 Root diseases would continue to be within RV for the low and high ratings, the moderate 

rating would increase outside RV.

Moist PVG

 Defoliators would continue to be within RV for all ratings. The low rating is higher, the 

moderate rating is the same and high rating is lower than existing.

 Douglas-fir beetle would move toward RV for the low and high ratings and continue within 

RV for the moderate rating.

 Fir engraver would be outside RV for all ratings. The low and high rating would move 

toward RV..

 Bark beetle in ponderosa pine would move further below RV in the low rating, and above in 

the moderate rating and remain within RV for the high rating.

 Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe would be outside RV for the low and high ratings. The low 

rating would move up toward RV and the high rating would move down toward RV. 

 Root diseases would be outside RV for all ratings. The ratings would continue on the current 

trend of above RV for the low and moderate ratings and below RV for the high rating. 

Table 73. Alternative 2 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 31%+ 40-85% 45%+ 15-30% 24%- 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 17%+ 35-75% 53%+ 15-30% 29%- 10-25%

Fir Engraver 41%= 45-90% 45%= 10-25% 14%= 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 22%- 5-10% 59%+ 15-30% 19%- 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%= 25-55% 39%= 15-40% 46%= 20-35%

Root Diseases 34%+ 30-60% 52%+ 25-50% 14%- 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 10%+ 5-10% 29%= 20-30% 61%- 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 6%+ 30-60% 30%+ 20-40% 64%- 10-30%
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

182 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Fir Engraver 20%+ 30-70% 37%+ 20-35% 43%- 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 28%- 40-70% 64%+ 15-35% 8%- 5-25%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 12%+ 30-65% 33%= 20-45% 55%- 10-20%

Root Diseases 22%+ 5-15% 56%+ 20-50% 22%- 35-75%

+ increase from current; - decrease from current; = same as current. 

Dwarf Mistletoe and the Degree of Mistletoe Infestation - Design criteria common to all 

treatment types include discriminating against mistletoe infected trees, discriminating against 

host species (Douglas-fir) and creating conditions that minimize potential for spread to 

uninfected trees. This would result in a reduced mistletoe infection wherever mistletoe infections 

occur within the 21,378 acres of cutting treatment proposed under alternative 2. This includes 

336 acres of cutting treatment in moderate to heavily mistletoe infected stands.

Timber Resource 

There would be approximately 16,000 acres of harvest treatment (acres treated that remove 

timber volume) and there would be approximately 10,400,000 cubic feet of timber volume 

removed as a result of restoration treatments. This would be a direct beneficial effect of 

Alternative 2.

Rangelands and understory vegetation 

See “effects common to all action alternatives” for a general description of effects from LJCRP 

activities. Under alternative 2, 17,000 acres of dry upland forest are projected to be at or below 

40% canopy cover. The amount of forage depends on many factors, such as annual variations in 

precipitation, heat, soil, competing vegetation. Low to moderate intensity fire may increase fire 

resilient grass species such as pinegrass. Using a conservative estimate of 10% increase in forage 

for dry upland forest stands that are taken to low density, about 17% of the treated acres in 

allotments in alternative 2 (see map 17) would show increased forage production. 

Non-native invasive plants 

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3 in treatments, but Alternative 2 would treat areas in 

designated old growth (MA15) and Inventoried Roadless Areas, resulting in more acres of 

commercial harvest, and thinning. Table 74 compares the numbers of acres that would be treated 

under alternative 2 through commercial harvest and thinning that would be in areas with known 

noxious weeds. 

Table 74. Acres proposed for treatment in Alternative 2 through commercial harvest and thinning 

that would be in areas with known noxious weeds. 

Commercial Logging Thinning

Species A2_Treat A3_Treat A2_Treat A3_Treat

Centaurea maculosa 90 79 10 10

Centaurea diffusa 123 102 33 33

Cirsium arvense 38 38 15 13
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 183 

Commercial Logging Thinning

Species A2_Treat A3_Treat A2_Treat A3_Treat

Hieracium aurantiacum 0 0 3 3

Hieracium pratense 657 502 411 411

Onopordum acanthium 232 9 0 0

Potentilla recta 2 2 0 0

Senecio jacobaea 10 5 0 0

Total acres 1152 738 473 470

Alternative 2 would implement all previous decisions for road closures made by the WWNF and 

close some additional road segments. The overall differences by alternatives in miles of weeds 

along haul routes are displayed in Table 75. Alternative 3 implements the Wallowa County 

NRAC road plan, where very few road segments will be closed. External haul routes are 

common to both alternatives. 

Table 75. Miles of weeds along haul routes by alternative 

Scientific Name External 

Haul Rts

Alt 2 

Haul 

Rts

Alt 3 

Haul 

Rts

Temporary 

roads 

(Alts 2 and 

3)

Centaurea diffusa 4 7 8 0.02

Centaurea maculosa 1 5 7 0.02

Cirsium arvense 4 4 4 0

Hieracium pratense 0 8 8 0

Onopordum acanthium 0 1 1 0

Potentilla recta 0 0.3 0.3 0

Senecio jacobaea 0 0.2 0.2

Total Miles Infested 9 24 28

Planned temporary roads are common to both alternatives, while mileage appears to be low (12.6 

miles), the temporary roads would be constructed through weed populations and the risk of 

spread is high. 

TES Plant species 

Two Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus populations (grassland habitats, see Appendix F) 

are adjacent to units that will be treated in Alternative 2, but not treated in Alternative 3 (Table 

76).

Table 76. Calochortus populations adjacent to Alternative 2 forest thinning units that are not treated 

in Alternative 3 

FS Site ID Species Unit

0616020102 Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus 29

0616020106 Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus 52A
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

184 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

See section “Effects common to all action alternatives”, above for a description of forest 

management treatment effects on Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus. Direct and indirect 

effects to grasslands may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH).

There are no documented species from moist meadows, wet meadows, riparian areas, or springs 

and seeps. Suitable habitat for mesic TES plant species has limited potential to be directly 

impacted by the vegetation management activities proposed in alternative 2, because nearly all 

the riparian areas and other mesic features are protected by INFISH buffers. A very limited 

amount of timber harvest and log skidding would occur in RHCAs. RHCA harvest would occur 

only in the outermost portion of RHCAs, not within the riparian zone. Along Category 1 and 2 

streams, a minimum 100 foot buffer would be maintained. Category 4 RHCAs will be treated in 

alternative 2, but seeps and springs will be protected from logging and thinning activities, and 

there will be a 25 foot variable width no harvest and no equipment buffer established during 

implementation by a hydrologist or fisheries biologist. Direct and indirect effects are unlikely in 

these habitats.

Alternative 2 will have the most impact on lithosol habitat due to the greater extent of treatments 

in this habitat type compared to alternatives 1 and 3. Direct effects include crushing plants with 

machinery, burying plants during grading, landing construction, damaging plants during felling 

and yarding, and burying plants under slash piles. Indirect effects are soil compaction and spread 

of competitive noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses. Known populations will be flagged 

prior to road grading and other road improvements, and designation of parking areas and 

landings, with work overseen by a District Botanist. In addition, equipment operators will 

receive maps with known sites and instructions to avoid flagged areas. With mitigations, 

alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) in Lithosols in 

LJCRP. Table 77 summarizes the locations of lithosols with Wallowa ricegrass and the white 

fleabanes.

Table 77. Locations of lithosols with known populations of Wallowa ricegrass and white fleabanes 

relative to forest management activities that would be implemented in alternatives 2 and 3 

Previously known sites

(FS Site ID) Ground Helicopter Skyline Thin Roads

Achnatherum wallowaensis

616020255 x x

616020257 x x

616020500 x

616020501 x x

616020502 x

616020504 x

616020505

temp rd off 

460500

616020506 x x x 4600340

Erigeron disparipilus

616042401 x (Alt 2 only)

Erigeron engelmannii var. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 185 

Previously known sites

(FS Site ID) Ground Helicopter Skyline Thin Roads

davisii

616020243 x x

616020244 x

616020247 x x

616021354 x

616042086 x x x (Alt 2 only) x

4680, 4680219, 

4680220

Newly discovered sites

Achnatherum wallowaensis

120 X (Alt 2 only)

121 x x

205 x

206 x

Erigeron englemannii v. davisii

5 x

9 X (Alt 2 only)

12 x

13

X (Alt 2 

only)

16

X (Alt 2 

only)

18 x

24 x x x

Erigeron englemannii v. davisii Ground Helicopter Skyline Thin Roads

110 x x x

148 x

1074 X (Alt 2 only)

1134 X (Alt 2 only)

1136 X (Alt 2 only)

1137 X (Alt 2 only)

1139 X (Alt 2 only)

Aquatic habitat 

Commercial Thinning Activities 

Under alternative 2, RHCA buffer widths, as prescribed in PACFISH, would be utilized to 

protect aquatic and riparian habitats in the LJCRP area (see Design Criteria in Appendix J). 

These RHCA delineations would occur on Category 1, 2, and 3 streams, ponds and wetlands. 

Category 4 RHCAs would be delineated as prescribed by PACFISH, but would have a 

silvicultural treatment within the RHCA that would be used to maintain and restore RMOs for 

the Category 4 stream and RHCA. Only those Category 4 RHCAs that are not in old forest 

structural stage would be treated (approximately 1,822 acres). Those RHCAs that are in old 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

186 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

forest structure are assumed to be at the RMO for sediment and large wood debris recruitment. 

The silvicultural prescription would be similar to the upslope treatment prescription with the 

addition of a 25 foot variable width no treatment buffer on either side of the Category 4 stream 

channel. Mechanical thinning activities, skid trails, and landings would be located outside of 

RHCAs. Commercial thinning units will be logged using a combination of ground-based and 

aerial logging systems. 

Under alternative 2, commercial thinning activities using mechanical equipment would occur 

over about 16,666 acres. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid 

trails and landings) would be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. 

No effect to stream temperature from the Category 4 RHCA treatments would be realized. 

With no site specific stand data on category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there will be no harvest treatment 

proposed in any alternative for those RHCAs, except for Swamp Creek. Any proposed treatment 

prescriptions for category 4 RHCAs would follow a minimum 25 foot variable width no 

treatment buffer on either side of the channel. This would provide protection from equipment 

disturbance to the channel banks and maintain the existing supply of large woody debris to the 

channel. The treatment outside the no treatment buffer would follow the treatment prescription 

for the upslope area. The area from 25 to 100 feet is similar in species composition and stand 

structure, as well as the range of variation, to the upslope area. This treatment would provide the 

long term stand conditions for the RHCA to provide for the maintenance of the site specific 

riparian management objectives. This treatment would reduce the influence of uncharacteristic 

wildfire on stand structure and composition, and potentially reduce the effects of climate change 

on stand structure (and in-turn stream flow), and the effects of insect infestations on the stand. 

Additionally, thinning would result in faster growth of residual trees due to reduced competition, 

thus increasing the size of potential course woody debris. In this manner it would provide for 

resilience to the vegetation in the likely event of future disturbance.

Only 58 acres of Swamp Creek (31 acres of grassland, and 27 acres of upland treatments), in a 

Category 1 stream (located in upper Swamp Creek), would be treated. These acres would be 

treated to remove some existing shade producing trees (all trees over 15 in dbh would be left) but 

in the long term serve to restore the meadow storage capacity thereby reducing water exposure to 

direct solar radiation and reducing stream temperatures in the long term.

For all other Category 1 and 2 streams, restricting activities to areas outside of RHCAs would 

prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along perennial streams in the aquatic effects 

analysis area. The RHCA width adjacent to these streams, 300 feet for Category 1 streams and 

200 feet for Category 2 streams, are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that provide stream 

shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures would not result from 

proposed thinning activities.

Road Activities 

Fine sediment levels in streams have been shown to increase as the density of roads in a 

watershed increase (Cederholm and Reid 1987). To access units no new road construction would 

be needed for the LJCRP. Road reconstruction would need to take place on 82.6 miles of road in 

the LJCRP area (Table 78). The WEPP-Road Model estimates that soil eroded off the road 

segments used for haul routes would be unlikely to reach the nearest stream channels (see 

Physical Scientist’s specialist’s report). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 187 

The road density for both watersheds in the LJCRP area are under the requirements of the 1998 

Biological Opinion for Snake River LRMPs for Snake River Steelhead (2 miles per square mile 

of total roads). There are a number of subwatersheds that contain Snake River steelhead that 

have elevated road densities (Tables 79 and 80). The higher road densities, which are an 

indication of fine sediment delivery to fish bearing streams, would have an effect on steelhead 

and redband trout production. These higher densities are found in three subwatersheds in the 

LJCRP area. 

Table 78. Miles and acres of road reconstruction and temporary roads by alternative. 

Alternative

Road Reconstruction Temporary Road Construction

Miles Acres Disturbed Miles Acres Disturbed

2 82.6 182 12.6 27.7

3 82.6 182 12.6 27.7

Table 79. Total Road Density by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by Alternative 

Subwatershed Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total 

Rd 

Density

Broady Creek 53.0 2.50 45.8 2.16 45.6 2.15

Horse Creek 25.4 1.32 15.6 1.32 15.6 1.32

Rush Creek 43.9 1.37 22.8 1.32 23.1 1.33

Lower Cottonwood Creek 7.2 0.69 7.2 0.69 7.2 0.69

Upper Cottonwood Creek 25.8 1.28 25.8 1.28 25.8 1.28

Peavine Creek 26.03 1.38 24.9 1.33 25.2 1.35

Watershed Total: 185.7 1.46 184.6 1.45 184.8 1.45

Table 80. Total Road Density by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed Alternative 

Subwatershed Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Road

s

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total 

Rd 

Density

Cougar Creek 55.4 2.64 54.3 2.59 54.5 2.60

Sumac Creek 54.6 3.21 54.6 3.21 54.6 3.21

Lower Swamp Creek 41.5 1.76 41.5 1.76 41.5 1.76

Davis Creek 33.6 2.90 33.6 2.90 33.6 2.90

Watershed Total: 152.0 1.26 141.9 1.20 143.2 1.20
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

188 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Temporary roads would be constructed to access commercial thinning units. An estimated 12.6 

miles of temporary roads would be constructed. The temporary roads would not be constructed 

in RHCAs, except at four stream crossings, for a total of 800 feet and 0.027 acres. The 

temporary roads would be decommissioned following completion of haul activities. Analyses 

conducted in WEPP indicate a low probability of measurable sediment delivery. (see the Physical 

Environment supporting documentation).

The combination of road re-construction, temporary road construction and road 

decommissioning, opening and use of closed roads, and log haul traffic would likely result in an 

increase in erosion rates in the analysis area. Increases in erosion rates would occur in the shortterm and then trend towards background levels. RHCAs would likely moderate much of the 

increase and the amount of sediment reaching stream channels and would likely result in an 

immeasurable increase in fine sediment levels (see hydrologist specialist’s report).

PACFISH standards and guideline for timber harvest activities and RHCAs were developed to 

limit impacts to aquatic habitat from timber harvest activities. There is a low likelihood that 

increases in fine sediment resulting from the proposed timber harvest activities would result in 

measureable increases in fine sediment in fish bearing streams in the analysis area.

Prescribed Fire Activities 

Burning activities would occur in RHCAs in accordance with Blue Mountains PDCs. The use of 

backing fires in RHCAs would reduce fire intensities while reducing fuel loading. Reduced fire 

intensities in RHCAs would 1) reduce the potential for mortality of trees that provide shade, 2) 

reduce the amount of downed woody material consumed, and 3) reduce the amount of burned 

area in the RHCAs thus reducing the amount of ground cover loss. Typically, only about 40 to 

60% of the area in an RHCA is actually burned due to the use of backing fires and higher fuel 

moistures. See the disturbance specialist’s report for a more detailed description of the expected 

post-burn conditions. 

Majority of the burned areas in RHCAs would be concentrated along the outer edges of the 

RHCAs where fuel moisture levels would be lower compared to areas closer to stream channels. 

Prescribed burning would result in a greater area of ground cover consumption in RHCAs 

adjacent to intermittent streams due to lower fuel moistures levels compared to perennial 

streams. 

The burn prescription would target consumption of woody material 3 inches and smaller with 

nearly all material in this size class consumed. Therefore, fire severity would not be high 

enough to consume significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine 

sediment on hill slopes, in intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover 

would be consumed but would be quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following 

burning and herbaceous plants recover in the second year following burning. A measurable 

increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result of burning activities is unlikely due to the 

combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in RHCAs and typical recovery of ground 

cover within two years of prescribed burning. 

Proposed burning activities would result in a low severity fire in RHCAs adjacent to perennial 

streams in the project area. This would be accomplished by burning when fuel moisture levels 

are high and allowing fires to back into RHCAs from adjacent upslope areas. These techniques 

result in low intensity fires that burn in a patchy distribution of burned and unburned areas in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 189 

RHCAs. Trees killed by prescribed fire in RHCAs would primarily be understory trees (< 8” 

dbh). Understory trees of this size typically do not provide significant levels of stream shading. 

Few riparian shrubs are also expected to be killed as a result of the proposed burning because 

they are present in the moister riparian areas. Where the above ground portions of riparian 

shrubs are killed, they would likely sprout back relatively quickly because the low severity fire 

will not be hot enough to kill the roots. 

The proposed burning in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing 

stream temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. 

Based on these factors, the LJCRP is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water 

temperature and a degradation of water quality in streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. 

Federally listed species – fish 

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat 

and likely adversely affect the species and its designated critical habitat. Impacts to Snake River 

steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see 

effects to aquatic habitat section). This short term increase in fine sediment relative to the 

existing fine sediment levels would cause the affect to be adverse for listed Snake River 

steelhead.

Management indicator species – fish 

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual redband trout and their habitat (MIIH), but 

will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. 

Impacts to redband trout may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine 

sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat 

(MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species. 

Impacts to Snake River steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in 

fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are below the 20% 

threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids. In these areas short-term potential 

increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely 

to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. 

Most streams in the analysis area currently exceed the 20% threshold offine sedment. 

Commercial thinning activities are limited to about 1822 acres. Prescribed burning activities 

would occur in a larger area but the effects relative to sediment will be mitigated by 

implementation of the project PDCs. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from 

proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases 

in fine sediment in streams in the LJCRP area.

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 2 may result in short-term degradation of 

habitat for Snake River steelhead and redband trout. However, anticipated immeasurable 

increases in both fine sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for steelhead 

and redband trout.

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual western ridge mussels and their habitat 

(MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

190 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

or species. Impacts to western ridge mussels may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable 

increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Cumulatively, aquatic habitat should improve over time in the analysis area. Fine sediment 

levels should decrease through time as a result of improved road closures and decommissioning 

activities. Alternative 2 may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment resulting from 

prescribed burning activities.

In the long-term, the proposed action will improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural 

fire regime in the project area which will have beneficial impacts to western ridge mussels and 

their habitat.

Wildlife 

Primary cavity excavators 

The vegetation treatments proposed would negatively impact current and future dead and 

defective wood habitat. Harvest treatment is proposed on about 40% of the forested landscape. 

It can be assumed that within treatment areas there would be a reduction in snags and logs due to 

skid trails, landings, safety reasons and prescribed burning. Proposed activities (tree harvest and 

prescribed burning) are expected to help create habitat for primary cavity excavators (PCEs) that 

use open forests (e.g. white-headed woodpeckers) and reduce habitat for those PCEs using dense 

forests (e.g. pileated woodpeckers). 

The potential removal of trees >=21” dbh on up to 7,466 acres in alternative 2 may negatively 

affect the long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these trees would no longer be available as 

potential snags (no trees >= 21” would be cut in alternatives 1 and 3).

The closing of roads will positively affect the abundance of snag and down wood habitat; 

therefore alternative 2 would have a less negative impact than alternative 3 because fewer roads 

would be open to the public. Bate et al. (2007) and Wisdom and Bate (2008), found that snag 

numbers were lower adjacent to roads due to removal for safety considerations, removal as 

firewood, and other management activities (Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, 

Hollenbeck et al. 2013).

Pileated woodpecker 

Table 65 compares conditions of pileated woodpecker source habitat by alternative. Alternative 

2 would maintain source habitat within HRV, but would have lower habitat quality compared to 

Alternative 1 and 3 since it includes a greater extent of commercial harvests.

Alternative 2 allows for cutting of trees >21”across about 47% of the area treated (Table 81), 

where the other alternatives allow none. The loss of large (>21”) trees in alternative 2 will more 

negatively affect pileated woodpeckers and other cavity nesting and large tree dependent wildlife 

species than alternatives 1 and 3. 

Under alternative 2, the abundance of open roads across the planning area would be reduced by 

20 miles compared to the No Action alternative. As compared to alternatives 1 and 3, this 

reduction in the amount of open roads will have the greatest positive impact of any of the 

alternatives. The potential for removal of snags for firewood and safety will be reduced across 

the planning area on approximately 20 miles.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 191 

Though some current source habitat will be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be 

reduced, overall, source habitat will remain within the RV for this species in this project area. 

Therefore, the LJCRP will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for the 

pileated woodpecker.

Table 81. Percentage of treated forest in alternative 2 where trees >21” could potentially be 

removed. 

Harvest acres

Acres with trees >=21" 

potentially removed

% Harvest Area with 

trees >=21" 

potentially removed 

Dry forest PVG 12,509 7,163 45

Moist forest PVG 3,423 303 2

Total Commercial 

Harvest 15,932 7,466 47

American marten 

The potential removal of trees >=21” dbh on 7,466 acres in alternative 2 may negatively affect 

the long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these trees will no longer be available as potential 

snags and down wood. Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Proposed commercial harvest in the moist forests is 3,423 acres, of which 831 acres is within 

what currently qualifies as marten source habitat (moist – large tree – closed canopy). These 831 

acres represent about 38% of the current source habitat for marten in the project area. The 

design criteria for these prescriptions is to maintain >60% canopy closure, and multi-story 

conditions; and no trees >=21” would be harvested. It is assumed that post-harvest these stands 

would be maintained as source habitat. It is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum 

qualifications as source habitat but the quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced 

complexity and tree density, and potential loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and 

safety. 

As discussed in the PCE section above, densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh) in moist forest 

are below reference conditions in the snag density classes that provide habitat for American 

marten (Figure 2). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for marten in these habitat types. 

Harvesting on 3,423 acres will add to a reduction in snag habitat, further declining potential and 

future habitat quality for marten in this area.

In alternative 2 on 114 acres of the marten habitat that is being commercially harvested, is in the 

prescription ‘GS_Mod’ (group selection – moderate). Group selections can include openings 

that are 1/2-4 acres. Martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat fragmentation (Hargis 

et al. 1999), it may be that openings as large as 4 acres will reduce the quality of the habitat for 

marten. In the longer-term, as trees continue to grow, American marten would continue to use 

these harvested areas for some or all of their life history functions. 

The potential removal of trees >=21” dbh on 303 acres of moist forest not currently source 

habitat for marten in alternative 2 may negatively affect the long-term recruitment of snag 

habitat, as these trees will no longer be available as potential snags and down wood. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

192 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Additionally the harvest of large trees within the moist forest may lead to a delay in development 

of source habitat and or lower the quality of potential source habitat in the longer term. 

The additional road closure of 20 miles proposed in this alternative relative to the No Action 

alternative would likely benefit marten. Open roads can contribute to a loss of quality of habitat 

through loss of snags and downed wood due to firewood harvest and safety, and can reduce 

habitat quality for marten (Godbout and Ouellet 2008). 

The vegetation treatments proposed are assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the effects 

of a stand replacement event, thereby potentially retaining source habitat in the long-term.

Northern Goshawk 

Through harvest under alternative 2, the abundance of source habitat for goshawks would be 

reduced by 256 acres. The amount of source habitat remains within HRV (1-46%). About 8,200 

of the 19,106 acres defined as source habitat will be treated with a variety of harvest treatments. 

These treatments will result in stands that are >=15” dbh, and a canopy closure of >=40% in the 

dry forests, and >= 60% in the moist forests, which meet the definition of source habitat. On 

approximately 4,000 acres of source habitat that is harvested, trees >=21” dbh may be harvested. 

Source habitat that has been harvested would likely be of lower quality due to the loss of canopy 

closure, loss of large trees, and loss of large snags and logs due to safety and logging systems.

Although trees with mistletoe are likely to be removed in all harvest units, especially in the 

‘Intermediate Treatment’ prescription (153 acres), the loss of mistletoe may also reduce the 

quality of source habitat. The removal of trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms may be detrimental 

to northern goshawk and other species that nest in mistletoe brooms (Bull et al. 1997).

The closure of an additional 23 miles above existing decision (alternative 1) should benefit 

northern goshawks, as human disturbance has been documented to negatively affect this species.

Rocky Mountain elk 

Table 46 summarizes forest plan standards for road density by management area, and alternative. 

The HEI standard of >=0.5 on MA1 is met in both the Lower and Upper Joseph watersheds. The 

percent cover on the summer ranges remains above 30%, the forest plan direction, though is 

reduced to 33% in the Upper Joseph watershed. The reduced cover may increase forage quantity 

and quality especially in the spring. However, this reduced cover may decrease hiding cover 

(>=40% canopy closure), particularly in the Upper Joseph watershed and the entire winter range 

habitat. In the Lower Joseph watershed, on the winter ranges, the percent cover is reduced to 

16% (also see Table 45).

Alternative 2 removes the most area with a reduction of areas in marginal and/or satisfactory 

cover on in the Lower Joseph – timber emphasis (summer range) on approximately 2,273 acres. 

Both, harvest treatment and prescribed burning may also contribute an increase in forage 

quantity and quality, especially in the spring. 

Additionally this project would temporarily increase road density in the analysis area by 

constructing 12.6 miles of temporary roads. Combined with the loss of cover to harvest, there 

would likely be a short-term negative impact to habitat effectiveness for elk. The post-project 

road densities would also be above forest plan standards in some subwatersheds. Additionally of 

concern within the analysis area is the unregulated OHV and full-sized vehicle use of closed 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 193 

roads, which has been shown to negatively affect elk and elk habitat. Together with the loss of 

cover and higher road densities particularly in the Davis, and Lower Swamp Creek 

subwatersheds, elk distribution and habitat effectiveness may be negatively affected.

To reduce disturbance to big game on winter ranges, timber sale activities, including log haul, 

would be implemented in ways to minimize activities during periods of low temperatures and 

accumulated snow depths, typically from December 15 through March 31st.

Old growth management areas, late-old forest habitat, and connectivity corridors 

Alternative 2 includes commercial harvest within portions of 11 DOGMAs, on 793 acres (Table 

66). Prescribed fire treatments would follow all mechanical treatments. Prescribed fire would 

also be applied to untreated stands, with dry forest being the highest priority for burning. 

Thinning treatments would result in an immediate increase in average tree diameter by favoring 

dominant and codominant trees. The treatments would also increase average tree diameter by 

reducing inter-tree competition and improving individual tree growth. Table 70 displays the 

estimated post treatment size class distribution and the percent change from the existing 

distribution. For both the dry and moist PVGs, tree size class is trending toward larger tree size 

classes with a nine and seven percent increase respectively in the >20 size class. Treatment 

within the DOGMAs is primarily in the dry forest PVG (742 acres, with increases in primarily 

OFMS and UR, with declines in YFMS and SE.) The area in OFSS remains unchanged (Table 

44; see Figure 5 for descriptions of structural stages). In harvested areas, the canopy will be 

reduced, favoring those species associated with more open canopies but the prescriptions would 

generally maintain canopy closure >40% while also adhering to the direction to maintain old 

forest characteristics.

Map 7 (Appendix A), and Table 96 shows commercial treatment within LOS and MA15 

connectivity corridors for alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 2 would reduce the quality of 

connectivity corridors on 4,155 acres by reducing the canopy closure and structural complexity. 

The prescriptions in the proposed treatment units within the connectivity corridors have been 

designed to provide canopy closure at >=40% in the dry forest PVG, and >=50% in the moist 

forest PVG. Although canopy closure and structural complexity may be reduced, these stands 

are expected to maintain the function and objectives of connectivity as described in the Eastside 

Screens. This level of tree stocking would reduce competition between residual trees, increase 

tree growth rates, and increase trees’ ability to defend against insects and diseases, while 

retaining levels of canopy closure and structural complexity to facilitate movement of wildlife 

between LOS habitat patches. 

Alternative 2 would allow for prescribed fire across much of the planning area, and 1,214 acres 

of treatment in seedling/sapling and pole stands within connectivity corridors. Some snags and 

logs may be consumed by prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire-killed 

trees. The burning, and small tree thinning in connective corridors will not have a measurable 

negative effect on the quality or function of the corridors. 

Landbird and migratory bird habitat 

Effects from this project to migratory birds would be variable depending on the species. 

Alternative 2 would harvest more acres harvested and prescribed burned than alternative 3. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

194 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Therefore, canopy cover would be reduced more, large trees would be harvested, snags would be 

reduced more, and riparian areas would be altered. See table 67 .

Road densities will be reduced more in alternative 2 which will likely benefit all of these 

migratory birds. Road-associated factors that negatively affect some species of migratory and 

resident birds include: snag and log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, negative edge 

effects, harassment or disturbance, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and chronic negative 

interactions with humans (Penninger 2009). Also see “effects common to all action 

alternatives”.

Table 82. Existing distribution of structural stages in old growth management areas (MA15), and 

distribution by alternative for the LJCRP area. See Figure 7 for a description of structural stages. 

Existing Condition/Alternative 1/Alternative 3 

Designated Old Growth Management Areas (MA 15 Acres)

OFMS OFSS YFMS UR SE SI Total

Dry Forest 

913 

(49%)

142 

(8%)

397 

(21%)

417 

(22%) 0 1,869

Moist Forest

567 

(52%)

14 

(<1%) 65 (6%) 281 (26%)

174 

(16%) 0 1,101

Total 

DOGMA

1481 

(50%

14 

(<1%)

206 

(7%)

678 

(23%)

592 

(20%) 0 2,970

Alternative 2 - Designated Old Growth Management Areas (MA 15 Acres)

OFMS OFSS YFMS UR SE SI Total

Dry Forest 

1032 

(55%) 2 (<1%) 47 (3%) 490 (26%)

296 

(16%) 0 1,869

Moist Forest

567 

(52%)

15 

(<1%) 65 (6%) 315 (29%)

140 

(13%) 0 1,101

Total 

DOGMA

1599 

(54%)

17 

(<1%)

111 

(4%)

805 

(27%)

436 

(15%) 0 2,970

The social environment 

Socioeconomics 

See table 68 for the area proposed for thinning under alternative 2 over the 10-year span of the 

LJCRP. No treatments would occur in categories 1, 2 or 3 riparian habitat conservation areas 

(RHCA), with the exception of Swamp Creek (Category 1 RHCA), or any RHCAs that are 

currently in an old forest structural condition. Silviculture treatments in category 4 RHCAs 

(intermittent, non-fish bearing streams) would only be applied where they support attainment of 

RMOs, and would generally parallel adjacent upland treatments. No trees greater than 21 inches 

in diameter would be harvested in Management Area (MA) 15. Prescribed burning would occur 

using planned and unplanned ignitions of natural fuels on up to 90,000 acres based on needs to 

restore forest resilience. Activities under this alternative, such as timber harvest and restoration, 

will have economic consequences depicted below. The existing economic conditions related to 

timber harvest and restoration are depicted above (for example, Table 84 depicts employment 

and specialization in logging and wood products manufacturing).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 195 

Financial efficiency 

Table 83 summarizes the financial efficiency for alternative 2. The PNV indicates the financial 

efficiency of the timber sale and restoration activities, including all costs (that are not included in 

the stumpage rate) and revenues associated with the activities and required design criteria 

(information obtained from Timber specialist assigned to the project). Restoration activities 

examined under this alternative include (among others) resiliency treatments, prescribed fire, and 

planting (assuming all group selections may potentially be planted, although in practice natural 

regeneration would be used wherever possible). A 4 percent discount rate was used over a period 

of 10 years (2014–2023), the estimated time required for full implementation of the project. 

Table 83 indicates that alternative 2 is not financially efficient for the timber harvest and required 

design criteria, as well as for all restoration activities noted above, as indicated by the negative 

PNV, -$5.9 million. This addresses the concern of community members that indicated it is 

important to have product pay for the project and be financially efficient. However, since the 

PNV does not include non-market values, such as ecosystem services as discussed above, the 

benefits are likely an underestimate. The estimated costs of treatment are the highest under 

alternative 2 since the restoration treatments are the most intensive. Therefore, the expected nonmarket values derived from alternative 2 will likely be greater than alternatives 1 and 3.

Indirect effects on financial efficiency could occur as a result alternative 2, however, estimates of 

these changes are not available. It is anticipated that fuels treatments under this alternative would 

contribute to fuels conditions that would have more resistance to wildland fire. This would tend 

to decrease wildland fire related costs such as property loss, lost revenues and suppression costs. 

Table 83. Present Net Value for alternative 2. 

Proposed Action Alternative Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

BENEFITS

Revenue from commercial timber 

volume

$1,940,126 

COSTS

Non-Mechanical $4,576,354

Mechanical $1,192,525

Commercial timber harvest $2,088,231

Sum of discounted benefits and 

costs

$1,940,126 $7,857,110

Present Net Value $(5,916,984)

Economic Impacts 

Alternative 2 results in restoration activities with commercial timber production of 10,400 ccf 

per year for 10 years; mechanical, pre-commercial, stand treatment on 820 acres per year; 404 

acres of restoration treatment by hand labor; and a variety of road projects. Implementation of 

alternative 2 is projected to support 55 jobs and $2.9 million in labor income in Wallowa and 

Union counties annually over 10 years. Those impacts in the local area include the jobs 

supported directly by completion of restoration treatments and processing of the commercial 

timber and the indirect and induced jobs related to those activities. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

196 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

The implementation of alternative 2 would yield employment changes in many economic sectors 

within Wallowa and Union counties. The greatest number of jobs supported would accrue to the 

Manufacturing and Agriculture and Forestry sectors. Other sectors affected by the LJCRP 

include Retail Trade, Construction, Professional Services, and Health Care. 

Table 84. Projected employment by major industry for the proposed alternative 

Industrial sector Jobs supported

Manufacturing 19

Agriculture and forestry 16

Professional, scientific, and technical services 2

Retail trade 2

Health care and social assistance 2

Accommodations and food services 2

Construction 2

Other industrial sectors (8) 10

Total 55

Social Impacts 

In addition to effects on the local economy, activities under the LJCRP have the potential to 

affect the livelihood, cultural values, and biological values of people in the analysis area. The 

social consequences are measured qualitatively, with a particular focus on access, recreation 

uses, environmental justice and non-market values. 

Livelihood 

The jobs and income, as detailed above under the economic impacts section, that alternative 2 is 

expected to support would likely improve the livelihood of area residents. These jobs and income 

are expected to be generated over the next ten years, which is the life of the project. The increase 

in jobs and labor income in the analysis area from alternative 2 would likely increase the tax 

base, public services, funding for schools, capital maintenance projects, and reduce poverty. 

Since the increase in jobs and income is greater under the Proposed Action alternative, the 

expected increase in the public services will be greater than under the other alternatives.

The tax rates on timber harvested during 2014 under the Forest Products Harvest Tax (FPHT) is 

$3.53 per thousand board feet (MBF). The receipts from this tax program are dedicated to the 

partial funding of state-run programs that promote forest research, fire prevention and fire 

suppression, forest practices act administration, and improve public understanding of Oregon's 

forest resources (State of Oregon 2014). However, the funding for schools and other public 

services are more likely to come from personal income taxes (from 5 to 9.9 percent of taxable 

income) and property taxes. With increases in labor income, as detailed in the economic impacts 

section above, the state tax base and therefore public services could also increase.

Additionally, with more jobs and income in the area under alternative 2, there may be more 

opportunities for younger generations. In turn, youth may choose to stay in the area and improve 

the age diversity. With a more balanced age composition, the economy will be more sustainable 

in the long-term.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 197 

Commenters raised the issue of access to public lands. Alternative 2 would decommission 23 

miles and close 15 miles of roads over the 10-year span of the project and will therefore have a 

greater negative impact on access to WWNF land compared to alternative 3, which proposes no 

new decommissioning or closing of roads. Since many community members value access to 

public lands, alternative 2 would negatively affect this value. In addition to closure of roads, 

public access could be impacted by short-term increases in traffic but these effects will be 

intermittent during restoration. The potential increase in traffic is based on treatments in 

association with the timber sale. Under alternative 2, there are more treated acres, and therefore 

greater short-term effects to traffic.

Cultural Values 

As discussed in the Affected Environment section above, residents in the LJCRP area value the 

land mostly for recreation uses, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, wildlife 

viewing and scenery, among others. See the Tribal report for effects to subsistence uses. These 

recreation uses are also linked to access, as discussed in the previous section. With more roads 

decommissioned, this limits access to public lands for recreation purposes. Since alternative 2 

decommissions and closes more miles of roads than alternative 3, the effects to recreation access 

will be greater under alternative 2. There could also be intermittent disruption of access to the 

LJCRP area for treatments and therefore disturbance during hunting season. This effect is greater 

under alternative 2 than 3 since there are more acres likely to be treated.

Under alternative 2, the positive effects to recreation uses for fishing, gathering special forest 

products, and hunting are greater in the long term since there will be more restoration treatments 

and a corresponding lower risk of wildfire. As noted in the wildlife section, prescribed burning in 

alternatives 2 and 3 would generally benefit elk habitat through forage enhancement. With 

improved ecosystem services from restoration, this will likely positively impact fish and wildlife 

habitat, water and air quality and plant diversity for recreation uses by people in the analysis 

area. As detailed in the aquatics section, there is a low likelihood that the proposed timber 

harvest activities will result in measureable increases in fine sediment in fish bearing streams in 

the analysis area that would degrade habitat for redband trout. However, since more treatments 

are proposed under this alternative, effects to recreational fishing are higher than under 

alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 2 may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment resulting 

from prescribed burning activities. In the long-term, alternative 2 would improve vegetative 

conditions and maintain the natural fire regime in the project area which will have beneficial 

impacts to redband trout and their habitat and provide greater opportunities for recreational 

fishing. However, under the No Action alternative and Alternative 3, negative recreation effects 

could be greater as the risk of fire is expected to be greater without any or less restoration 

treatment. For more information on the effects to the specific resources, see the other specialist 

reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany analyses). 

Vegetation management is needed to return these landscapes to a more natural appearance and 

higher scenic quality for recreation. More natural, park-like stands, which are substantially less 

abundant across the landscape than historically, have little likelihood of returning without 

mechanical restoration treatments to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. Alternative 2 meets the 

purpose and need to a much greater extent than the other alternatives. 

In the short-term, while prescribed burning treatments take place, smoke could affect the ability 

to recreate and enjoy the scenery in the Lower Joseph Creek area. With more acres to be treated 

under alternative 2, the short-term impacts are higher than the other alternatives. However, the 

FS is not planning to burn during peak visitor season so the impacts are expected to be minimal.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

198 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Biological Values 

Commenters revealed that they value air and water quality, wildlife, and old growth trees, among 

others. Due to increased restoration under the Proposed Action, improved ecosystem services 

and decreased risk of wildfire, these biological values will likely be improved in the analysis 

area. The value for old growth trees is preserved under all alternatives because there is no old 

growth harvest proposed. Rather than positively impacting this value (it is impossible to 

increase the amount of old growth trees in the short-term), by not harvesting old growth trees, 

the value is maintaining its integrity in the community. People will benefit from knowing that the 

trees exist and are continuing to provide biological services to the forest ecosystem. For more 

information on the effects to the specific biological resources, see the other specialist reports 

(Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany analyses). 

Timber Market and Forest Products 

Alternative 2 would add timber to the regional supply and is expected to have positive impacts 

on the current timber market. The timber mills in the area might increase their employment in 

response to increased supply from the LJCRP. American Forest Resources Council ((AFRC) and 

Loggers 2014)(Appendix A) estimated that the ten mills in the area are operating at an average of 

39 percent capacity and therefore have the capacity to process sawtimber in alternative 2. 

Contacts from the local logging industry believe that the demand for timber products in the 

region is expected to increase as the products are shipped around the world. Under alternative 2, 

this distance and relevant transportation costs could decline as the industry receives more wood 

from the LJCRP. 

Non-Market Values 

Under alternative 2, forest health is expected to improve the most compared to the other 

alternatives. Alternative 2 would also decrease the likelihood of crown fire relative to existing 

conditions more than the other alternatives. Over time, forest restoration treatments would 

decrease fuel load and decrease potential smoke emissions from both planned and unplanned 

ignitions. The proposed activities under this alternative would protect ecosystem services and 

other social values, such as recreation opportunities and subsistence uses. Therefore, ecosystem 

functionality is expected to improve and contribute to community members’ non-market values 

the most. For more details on other social values, see the Social Impacts section above. 

Environmental Justice 

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, alternative 2 is not expected to 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these 

communities. The environmental justice communities expected to be impacted the most are 

within the Nez Perce tribe. Since this community uses the Lower Joseph area for cultural and 

religious practices as well as for subsistence uses, they are more vulnerable to changes in the 

area’s natural resources due to the LJCRP. In the long-term, alternative 2 is expected to improve 

natural resource conditions. However, in the short-term, the natural resource uses will be affected 

the most under the Proposed alternative since it involves the greatest amount of treatment. These 

effects are addressed in greater detail in the Tribal and Heritage report. 

The low income populations in the LJCRP analysis area could be affected by the access to 

recreation opportunities and resource use. Under alternative 2, 23 miles of roads will be 

decommissioned and 15 miles of roads will be closed over the 10 year span of the project, 

compared to no miles of decommissioned or closed roads under Alternative 3. If the low-income 

populations have to travel greater distances to access recreation, they could incur extra costs 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 199 

since it is more expensive to reach the forest in indirect ways. However, decommissioning 23 

miles and closing 15 miles of roads is not expected to have significant and disproportionate 

effects on these communities. 

Through public meetings, community members and representatives expressed that they expect 

the LJCRP to improve current environmental justice conditions, specifically related to lowincome and children populations. With increased job opportunities for parents, they will be able 

to provide better opportunities for their children and the expected increase in the tax base under 

alternative 2 would presumably provide more support for schools. An increase in the tax base 

could also potentially increase social services for low-income populations and help alleviate 

poverty.

Heritage. 

Eligible and unevaluated sites are known to be located in, or within 200 feet of treatment unit 

boundaries. Potential effects will be mitigated via monitoring and site protection design features 

that will be implemented prior to ground disturbance. 

The greatest threat to heritage resources is ground disturbing activities associated with 

mechanical treatments. Alternative 2 mechanically treats 42% more area than Alternative 3 (see 

Tables 66 and 89)

Mechanical treatments involve ground based, sky line and helicopter logging systems that 

include skidding, yarding construction of temporary roads and landings. Impacts to undiscovered 

sites could include rutting, erosion, dislocation, or breakage of artifacts and features, and 

destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. 

Harvesting trees greater than 21” within old growth areas or IRAs has the potential to impact 

historic features such as cambium peeled trees and dendroglyphs. In addition, Inventoried 

Roadless, Riparian Habitat Conservation and Old Growth Management areas may be more likely 

to contain buried sites with high archaeological integrity due to less past management and 

ground disturbance.

For both alternative 2 and 3, large scale prescribed fire treatments will be implemented over 

several years. The majority will entail hand treatment. However, prescribed fire does have the 

potential to affect fire sensitive sites, and ground disturbance associated with fire lines may 

occur. Initial reduction of heavy fuels may lead to an increase in site visibility, public visitation, 

and possible vandalism. These issues would be reduced through management actions that include 

project specific as well as long-term monitoring. Initial entry prescribed burns would be 

periodically revisited and burned to reduce natural fuel accumulation, and archaeological site 

monitoring would be part of that process

These potential effects will be addressed through site avoidance and monitoring strategies by 

implementing the site protection measures listed in the “Pacific Northwest Region Programmatic 

Agreement between the R6 Forest Service and the Oregon State Historicic Preservation Office” 

(2004citation).

Low intensity prescribed fire could be a benefit to heritage resources as it will reduce current 

fuel loads which would then assist in preventing extensive heat damage during wildfires. There 

would be less need for fire suppression activities, consequently reducing the threat of grounddisturbing activities like bulldozer fire line construction and include a reduction of unnatural fuel 

loading in and around heritage site where high ground temperatures adversely affect 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

200 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

archaeological values. In addition, uncharacteristic fire behavior should also be reduced 

resulting in less overall risk to heritage sites.

Tribal 

Impacts on hunting, fishing and gathering and resource risks of accelerated restoration

The Tribe believes the risk to treaty resources and their habitats resulting from an accelerated 

pace and scale of restoration is high; especially where treatments involve mechanical operations 

used for timber harvest. In addition, decommissioning of 23 miles of roads is viewed negatively 

by those tribal members who believe decommissioning may restrict access to treaty resources. 

On the other hand, some tribal members view decommissioning positively if it restores resource 

values such as water quality. 

Conflict remains regarding attitudes concerning needs for the conservation of treaty resources. 

Effects from accelerated restoration on hunting, fishing and gathering, as encompassed by the 

activities proposed in alternative 2, would be positive as treatments are expected to promote 

landscape resiliency and move treaty resource conditions closer to HRV.

Concern for value of landscape over economic values

The Tribe believes that economic values often drive forest management projects, including the 

LJCRP, at the expense of landscape resource values. The estimated economic net value from 

timber harvest for Alternative 2 is -$5.9 million, demonstrating that positive economic net value 

is not a motivation for this alternative to be the preferred alternative. 

Based on the estimation that alternative 2 is projected to support 55 jobs and $2.9 million in 

labor income in Wallowa and Union counties annually over 10 years, the economic worth of 

Alternative 2 on Wallowa County communities would be positive. However, economic benefits 

to Nez Perce tribal members would likely be neutral as most tribal members live outside 

Wallowa County (see Socioeconomic Specialist Report). 

Maintain old growth legacy trees and conserve inventoried roadless areas

Vegetation treatments proposed in alternative 2 in designated old growth (MA15) and IRAs 

would likely be considered a negative effect to the tribe. While there may potentially be 

unanticipated adverse effects of mechanical thinning in old growth and roadless areas, there is 

conversely the risk of losing old trees to uncharacteristic fire if these treatments are not done. 

These treatments assume that mechanical disturbance of these systems for the purposes of 

restoring the RV in structure and composition would result in greater beneficial than adverse 

effects. Protection of the “largest of the large” trees across 793 acres of ground may pose higher 

risk to legacy trees. 

Short term impacts to the forest setting would be evident. However, long term benefits from 

maintenance of all old trees, and increasing stand resilience may be realized as a positive effect.

Impacts to traditional plant resources 

Eight of the twelve traditional plants listed in Table 48 are either fire dependent, respond well to 

low intensity fire, and/or are at low risk from fire due to location in rocky habitats or seasonal 

timing of the establishment of the tap root. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 201 

Proposed prescribed burning, thinning of hazardous fuels and/or meadow or riparian 

encroachment, where ecologically appropriate, would reduce fuel loads, increase understory 

productivity and diversity of many traditional plants, and allow fire to perform its natural 

ecological role. In addition, 741 acres of savanna and grassland habitat will be restored, 

benefiting plants including Indian Hemp, Balsam Root, Lily, Camas, Bitter root and various 

Lomatiums, including “cous”.

Indirectly, since most of the plants in Table 48 are early to mid-successional and/or shadeintolerant, alternative 2 would improve plant habitat by opening stands and removing fuels. On 

the other hand, yew and currant (Ribes spp.) are affected negatively by canopy opening but could 

be protected through the development of design criteria (See Botany Specialist report).

Overall, alternative 2 is expected to have a beneficial effect to traditional plants and their 

habitats. This positive response would not be realized if plant structures, seeds, and habitats are 

put at risk from severe or intense fire. Ability to withstand or benefit from fire depends on the 

species-specific response, prescribed burn technique, burning season, and environmental factors.

Most of the plants in Table 48 have probably not benefited as a result of past actions that 

removed large overstory trees from the stand and promoted growth of numerous small trees and 

accumulation of litter and woody fuels. While alternative 2 alone cannot entirely correct the 

current condition, it is expected to improve habitat for understory plants while the No Action 

Alternative poses greater risk to plant habitat. 

Traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and other traditional use areas

In the long term, compared to No Action and Alternative 3, Alternative 2 may have more 

potential to protect traditional use area values from stand replacing fire and other unplanned 

disturbance. However, in the short term, the 42% higher treatment acres as compared to 

alternative 3 poses a higher level of risk for direct mechanical effects on use areas, settings, and 

traditional cultural properties. 

Implementation of design criteria (Appendix J) and implementation plans would be used to 

mitigate adverse effects. 

Recreation 

See effects common the all action alternatives. 

Approximately 21 more miles of road would be closed in alternative 2 as compared to 

Alternative 1. Road closures proposed in alternative 2 would increase the recreation 

opportunities that are free of motor-vehicle disturbance of noise and vehicle interactions for 

hikers, mountain bikers, and stock users. Whereas, additional road closures would decrease 

vehicle access to some dispersed campsites, wildlife viewing sites, and firewood opportunities. 

Whereas, additional road closures would decrease access to some dispersed campsites, wildlife 

viewing sites, and firewood opportunities, road closures would have mixed effects on activities 

such as mushroom pickers, as some prefer areas without the interference of roads while others 

prefer the convenience of roads nearby.

Scenery 

Scenery effects are presented by viewshed, below. Overall, Alternative 2 would move stands 

toward desired future conditions, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, while keeping 

effects to scenic integrity at a high level. Alternative 2 would treat 22 percent of the project area 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

202 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

(39% of forested acres), which would improve scenic stability from low (dry forest PVG) or 

moderate (moist forest PVG) to high stability, largely by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic 

disturbance. The appearance of the stands would be improved by making them appear healthier. 

This treatment would create stumps, and slash, and soil disturbance would be visible from 

foreground views. These effects would be minor within the first one to two years. As regrowth 

of shrubs and grasses occur these effects would be significantly reduced. This treatment would 

not create openings that area visible from middleground or background distances. The effects of 

this prescription would not reduce the scenic integrity of the viewshed as they are expected to be 

negligible within 2-3 years. These prescriptions would improve the scenic character by moving 

stands toward the historic range of variability. More open stands of species compositions that 

are more fire resistant will improve the scenic stability. The treatments that reduce ladder fuels 

indirectly reduce flame lengths when a fire does occur. These treatments would indirectly affect 

the size and severity of fire events thus reducing the effects to scenery resources. It is expected 

that it would be much more likely that effects of fires in this area would remain within the size 

and severity characteristic to the historical range.

Alternative 2 would reduce the high amount of open road densities by closing some open roads 

and decommissioning X already closed roads. Road maintenance would bring existing roads to a 

minimum maintenance standard. Numerous closed roads would be temporarily opened for 

commercial material access and removal and re-closed after harvest operations are complete. 

Also see effects common to all action alternatives.

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook 

The immediate foreground (up to 300’ distance zone) and FG (up to 1⁄2 mile distance zone) of the 

Oregon Highway 3 travel route is highly sensitive for any new visual impacts, maintaining large 

trees along the travel route, and the foreground, middleground, and background visible from the 

Joseph Creek Overlook. Alternative 2 would increase visibility into stands along the eastside of 

Oregon Highway 3 in limited cases through single tree selection, savanna treatments, and stand 

improvement by removing trees in the foreground, enhancing large tree character, opening up the 

mid canopy, and creating greater foreground diversity. The landscape slopes down from 

highway 3 to the east, so visibility of treatment units would be limited to the immediate 

foreground, if at all. The commercial thinning treatments would leave the pine and larch species 

that have the desired large tree character, and greater fire resiliency. This effort would improve 

the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. Landscape character changes would be 

seen as thinned out stands of trees and a more open forested canopy character. Alternative 2 

would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. 

One unit (#193) is partially in the background view of Highway 3 (50 acres within the visual 

quality objective of retention). Restoration treatments include low intensity single tree selection 

and intermediate treatment, and would not change the density class of the stands. These 

treatments would not be visibly evident from the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

No roads would be decommissioned in foreground, middle ground, or background visible from 

Oregon Highway 3 or the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

The Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridor is highly sensitive for any new visual 

impacts. The visual quality objective of the river corridor is Preservation. No treatments would 

occur in the river corridor, except the use of planned and/or unplanned fire, consistent with 

natural fire frequency and intensity. One forest restoration unit (#193) is partially in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 203 

middleground view of the WSR (50 acres) with a visual quality objective of retention. These 

restoration treatments include low intensity single tree selection and intermediate treatment, and 

would not change the density class of the stands. These treatments would not be visibly evident 

from the WSR, or the Swamp Creek or Joseph Creek trails. 

In the middleground view, with a visual quality objective of Partial Retention (in the Table Rock 

area), there would be 684 acres of restoration treatments. Sixty percent (403 acres) of these 

treatments would be intermediate, non-commercial (stand improvement), or savanna treatments, 

and 40% (281 acres) would be single tree selection treatments. All of these treatments would 

maintain structural diversity and the natural mosaic landscape character, and appear unaltered to 

slightly altered in the short-term, and unaltered in the long-term when viewed from the WSR. 

The single tree selection treatments would leave the pine and larch species that have the desired 

large tree character, and greater fire resiliency. This effort would improve the scenic character 

and the scenic stability of the area. Landscape character changes would be seen as thinned out 

stands of trees and a more open forested canopy character. Alternative 2 would improve species 

composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. 

Table Mountain 

Table Mountain has been identified as a valued place by local residents to view scenery. 

Alternative 2 would increase visibility into stands along FS Road 4650, and 4650120 through 

4650170 through single tree selection, intermediate, savanna, and stand improvement by 

removing trees in the foreground and middleground, enhancing large tree character, opening up 

the mid canopy, and creating greater foreground diversity. Sixty percent (403 acres) of these 

treatments would be intermediate, non-commercial (stand improvement), or savanna treatments, 

and 40% (281 acres) would be single tree selection treatments. Over the long-term, all of these 

treatments would maintain structural diversity and the natural landscape mosaic, improve the 

scenic character and the scenic stability of the area, and appear slightly altered in the short-term 

when viewed in the middleground.

One unit (#193) is partially in the background view of Highway 3 (50 acres within the visual 

quality objective of retention). Restoration treatments include low intensity single tree selection 

and intermediate treatment, and would not change the density class of the stands. These 

treatments would not be visibly evident from the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

No roads would be decommissioned in foreground, middle ground, or background visible from 

Table Mountain. There would not be any new roads that would result in introducing new linear 

corridors in the viewshed.

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680 

Forest Road 46 is the main travelway through the project area, from Oregon Highway 3 to Cold 

Spring Ridge within HCNRA. It has a visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the 

foreground, and generally Modification in the middleground. All treatments proposed in the 

foreground, middleground and background along this travelway (single tree selection, group 

selection, intermediate, savanna, and stand improvement) would meet Partial Retention visual 

quality objectives. One small portion of the middleground on the western side of Cold Spring 

Ridge, within the Inventoried Roadless Area has a visual quality objective of Partial Retention in 

the middleground. In alternative 2, only stand improvement treatments would occur in this area, 

and would only slightly alter the appearance in the short-term. Over the longer-term, scenic 

integrity and stability would be improved throughout this viewshed.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

204 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

There would be decommissioned roads located off Forest Road 46 in the foreground and middle 

ground of this viewshed (FS Roads 4600425, 447, 555, 570, 572, 574, 575, and 578). 

Decomissioning roads would improve scenic integrity by restoring the landscape back to a more 

natural appearing character by reducing linear corridors and allowing vegetation to become 

reestablished. There would not be any new roads that would result in introducing new linear 

corridors in the landscape.

It is expected that alternative 2 would not reduce the scenic integrity and retain the existing 

visual quality objective standards established in the Forest Plan, CMP (HCNRA) and the Imnaha 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

To address the extent of the effects, acres will be used. Table 85 summarizes the acres treated in 

each IRA. There would be no temporary road construction proposed within the IRA under 

Alternative 2.

Table 85. Acres of harvest and stand improvement treatment by IRA in Alternative 2.

IRA Name Acres of harvest in 

proposed action

Acres of stand 

improvement (SI) 

proposed action

Acres prescribed fire 

proposed action (high

priority)

Joseph Canyon 699 260 8,600

Wildhorse 2,118 2,167 8,900

Cook Ridge 37 207 400

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure 

Proposed treatments within IRAs are designed to create landscape resiliency by using reference 

landscape conditions as a guide for forest vegetation (structure, density, composition) and 

pattern, thus providing for a reduction of wildfire behavior that is closer to natural disturbance 

regimes for this area. Prescriptions are designed to move the stands closer to historic structure 

and composition and reduce fire behavior such that planned and unplanned ignitions can be more 

effectively managed to reduce the potential loss of roadless area characteristics regardless of 

ignition source. 

The direct effect of harvest and stand improvement under Alternative 2 would be to increase the 

distance between tree crowns, reduce density of fire intolerant species that would likely serve as 

ladder fuels, reduce ground fuel loads, and allow fire to perform its natural ecological role within 

and outside of silvicultural treatment areas.

Fuels associated with silvicultural treatments (activity fuels) would be treated with a suite of 

available tools including, but not limited to, mastication, removal, pile and burn (hand or 

grapple), cutting and scattering limbs, or prescribed fire.

Implementing the targeted silvicultural actions described in Alternative 2 within IRAs would 

create opportunity for fire managers and line officers to use more benign approaches to fire 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 205 

suppression and manage undesirable fire behavior that potentially places roadless area 

characteristics at risk.

Maintain or Improve Roadless Area Characteristics 

Treatments within IRAs are designed to more closely represent historic stand structures and 

disturbance regimes, reduce adverse fire effects, and/or increase the ability and decision space to 

manage characteristic fire or reduce the adverse effects of an uncharacteristic fire that threaten 

roadless area characteristics. Treatment areas provide a larger range of options for fire managers 

to assess fire’s affect to IRA characteristics in terms of suppression tactics or managing 

unplanned ignitions to maintain or improve roadless area characteristics. The impacts of large 

fires with uncharacteristic severity, intensity, or extent have the potential to negatively impact 

roadless characteristics because the effects are outside of reference landscape conditions (PNWGTR_315 as an example, FPR IRA characterization in project record). Reducing the potential 

for these events through silvicultural treatments designed to represent historic stand structure and 

disturbance patters will help maintain the presence of these characteristics.

Generally Small Diameter 

Within IRAs, Alternative 2 proposes prescriptions that include harvesting and stand 

improvement along with recognition that fire is an important tool for restoration of reference 

conditions and landscape resilience. The biological environment regarding vegetation and 

disturbance describes these prescriptions in detail. Collection of stand level data to determine the 

change in quadratic mean diameter (QMD) is occurring in September and the data will be 

incorporated as soon as it is collected. This data will be analyzed to show that the prescriptions 

increase the overall QMD within the treated stands by IRA. Tables 82-84 show the existing 

QMD compared to the post-treatment QMD.

Cutting, Sale, or Removal of Timber is Infrequent 

The purpose of this project is to enable the dominant forest regulatory process (fire) to function 

naturally while enhancing and maintaining roadless area characteristics. Cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber under Alternative 2 is expected to allow a broader more informed decision 

process to occur in regards to overall fire management in this fire dependent system. The 

previous time there had been cutting, sale, or removal of timber in Wildhorse or Cook Ridge 

IRAs was following the Teepee Butte fire in 1988 and fire salvage harvest occurred. It has been 

approximately 26 years since this activity has occurred and that would be considered infrequent. 

Proactive restoration could facilitate natural regulation of forest structure, reducing future needs 

for mechanical treatments in these areas, and reduce the incidence of uncharacteristic fires and 

the need for salvage treatments

Joseph Canyon IRA 

Under Alternative 2, 699 acres of harvest and 260 acres of stand improvement would occur. This 

equates to approximately 4% of the IRA being managed with some type of cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber. Alternative 2 improves fire resiliency of these stands and decreases the risk 

of uncharacteristic fire effects through reduction of density and fuel ladders on these acres and 

the inclusion of managing planned and unplanned ignitions throughout the project area (8,600 

acres of high priority prescribed fire is identified for the Joseph Canyon IRA). This helps to 

restore reference conditions especially allowing fire to perform an ecologically important role in 

forest and grassland systems both directly to the treated stands and within the entire IRA.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

206 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

As indicated above, the intent would be to leave a larger QMD following treatment under 

Alternative 2 by removing generally small diameter trees. Stand data is currently being collected 

in the field in IRAs in the LJCRP area. The FEIS will include results of these surveys relative to 

current, and projected post-treatment QMD. 

Cook Ridge IRA 

Under Alternative 2, 37 acres of harvest and 207 acres of stand improvement would occur. This 

equates to approximately 1% of the IRA being managed with some type of cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber. Alternative 2 improves fire resiliency of these stands and decreases the risk 

of uncharacteristic fire effects through a reduction of density and fuel ladders on these acres and 

the inclusion of managing planned and unplanned ignitions throughout the project area (400 

acres of high priority prescribed fire is identified for the Cook Ridge IRA). This helps restore 

reference conditions especially allowing fire to perform an ecologically important role in forest 

and grassland systems both directly to the forest stands and the within the entire IRA.

As indicated above, the intent would be to leave a larger QMD following treatment under 

Alternative 2 by removing generally small diameter trees. Stand data is currently being collected 

in the field in IRAs in the LJCRP area. The FEIS will include results of these surveys relative to 

current, and projected post-treatment QMD. 

Wildhorse IRA 

Under Alternative 2, 2,118 acres of harvest and 2,167 acres of stand improvement would occur. 

This equates to approximately 21% of the IRA being managed with some type of cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber. Alternative 2 improves fire resiliency of these stands and decreases the risk 

of uncharacteristic fire effects through reduction of density and fuel ladders on these acres and 

the inclusion of managing planned and unplanned ignitions throughout the project area (8,900 

acres of high priority prescribed fire is identified for the Wildhorse IRA). This helps to restore 

reference conditions especially allowing fire to perform an ecologically important role in forest 

and grassland systems both directly to the treated stands and within the entire IRA.

As indicated above, the intent would be to leave a larger QMD following treatment under 

Alternative 2 by removing generally small diameter trees. Stand data is currently being collected 

in the field in IRAs in the LJCRP area. The FEIS will include results of these surveys relative to 

current, and projected post-treatment QMD. 

Potential Wilderness Areas 

Direct effects are those that would occur immediately following activity at the stand scale, while 

indirect effects are those that would occur in the future both at the stand and Potential Wilderness 

Area scale.

The Joseph and Wildhorse PWAs would be affected under Alternative 2. Table 86 shows 

affected acres in Potential Wilderness Areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 207 

Table 86. Affected acres in Potential Wilderness Areas. 

Potential 

Wilderness 

Areas

Acres within 

Lower Joseph 

Project Area

Alternative 2 Proposed Acres Remaining Area Meeting 

PWA Criteria*

Harvest SI

Joseph 6,481 70 0 6,411

Wildhorse 15,409 1,633 366 13,776

Total 21,890 1703 366 20,187

Stand improvement and prescribed burning would generally be substantially unrecognizable to 

the general forest visitor as managed acres. The nature of these treatments would only leave 

small stumps that would deteriorate or be covered by forest vegetation in a relatively short 

amount of time. For this analysis it assumed that SI and prescribed fire treatments would not 

affect the area from future consideration as potential wilderness. 

Harvest treatments generally involve implementation of the Individuals, Clumps, Openings 

(ICO) method of harvest creating heterogeneity in these areas. Stumps and skid roads would 

remain visible for a longer period than those associated with SI. Harvest would result in 

reducing the area meeting PWA criteria per FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70.

No temporary roads would be constructed in PWAs under any alternative; therefore, there would 

be no effect due to temporary road construction to areas meeting PWA criteria.

Other Undeveloped Lands 

Direct effects are those that would occur immediately following activity at the stand scale, while 

indirect effects are those that would occur in the future both at the stand and other undeveloped 

lands scale.

Harvest would occur on approximately 6,577 (1,297 in IRA and 6,577 outside IRA) acres of 

other undeveloped lands under Alternative 2. Stand improvement would occur on approximately 

728 acres (379 in IRA and 349 outside IRA) of other undeveloped lands under Alternative 2. 

Management of planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignition would occur on approximately 

17,915 acres identified as high priority for treatment.

Social values (apparent naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness)

Proposed harvest and stand improvement activity in other undeveloped lands would create 

stumps which would reduce the size of undeveloped polygons. The lands would appear 

managed and developed. This effect would be less noticeable and for a shorter duration in stand 

improvement treatments due to the general small size of material treated. Prescribed fire in 

general would maintain the character of natural disturbance therefore it is assumed there would 

be minimum effect due to managing fire in these areas. 

The sights, sounds, and changes in vegetation from activities and use would further decrease the 

apparent naturalness and sense of solitude within harvest units and along roads during logging 

operations. All treated stands would remain forested and skid trails, stumps, and landings would 

be evident. Impacts to social integrity and sense of naturalness would likely be evident until 

stumps, skid trails, or temporary roads are no longer substantially recognizable (approximately 

75 – 100 years, maybe less considering the character of younger trees, dependent upon 

deterioration of stumps due to decay or fire). The sounds of machinery from activity would 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

208 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

reduce the sense of naturalness and solitude during implementation but would not persist in the 

long term. Other impacts, such as tree marking paint and logging slash would be visible in the 

short term (5 to 10 years). Impacts such as skid trails and tree stumps would be evident for a 

longer period. The increased number of stumps and reduced stand density would likely be the 

most apparent visual change resulting from implementation.

Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

The character and intrinsic value of other undeveloped lands outside of treatment units under 

Alternative 2 would retain those characteristics (physical, biological, and social values) as 

described in the affected environment. They would remain free of developments such as skid 

trails, temporary roads, or harvest created stumps. 

All 6,944 acres of other undeveloped lands identified for harvest or stand improvement would 

continue to not meet PWA inventory criteria. Table 87 is a summary of changes in acres for 

other undeveloped land in Alternative 2. Table 88 shows the change in size class distribution for 

other undeveloped land in Alternative 2.

Table 87. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2. 

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Land

Acres affected by 

Harvest or SI

Acres Remaining Percent Change

IRA 16,054 1,676 14,378 -10%

Non-IRA 24,865 5,268 19,597 -21%

 

Table 88. Change in size class distribution acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2. 

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

Existing Alternative 2 Existing Alternative 2

253 246 1 to 99 acres 3,826 3,133

30 25 100 to 499 acres 5,747 5,325

7 6 500 to 999 acres 5,249 4,182

11 9 1,000 to 4,999 acres 26,097 21,335

0 0 5,000+ acres 0 0

301 289 Total 40,919 33,975

Areas identified as Unroaded by Environmental Organizations (UEO) 

Direct effects are those that would occur immediately following activity at the stand scale, while 

indirect effects are those that would occur in the future both at the stand and areas identified as 

unroaded by environmental organizations scale.

The effects to the 44,119 acres of UEO that intersects Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas 

are similar to that disclosed in the IRA section. Likewise the effects to the 21,836 acres of UEO 

that intersect areas that meet Potential Wilderness criteria are disclosed in the PWA section. An 

additional 30,069 acres intersect the Forest Service’s identification of other undeveloped land 

and the effects to those areas are disclosed in the Other Undeveloped Land section. Table 57 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 209 

shows the acres of harvest and stand improvement within the UEO. The change in acres for the 

remaining 6,821 acres of UEO is shown in Table 89 as well as the acres affected by past harvest 

or existing road influence areas (approximately 300 feet either side of system roads). After 

consideration of past harvest and the Forest Service’s road influence area there is only 7 acres of 

UEO disbursed in very small polygons of what could be considered outside the effects disclosed 

in other sections of this document. Areas that contain past harvest or system roads would not be 

considered for Potential Wilderness Area and will remain unavailable for the duration of the 

LJCRP. 

Table 89. Change in acres of areas identified as unroaded by environmental organizations (UEO) 

and influence of past harvest and system roads. 

Environmental 

Organizations 

Unroaded Area 

Name

Acres 

outside of 

IRA, PWA, 

and other 

undeveloped 

land

Acres outside 

(IRA, PWA other 

undeveloped 

land) intersecting 

past harvest 

(1974 – 2009) 

FACTS Database

Acres outside (IRA, 

PWA, other 

undeveloped land 

and past 

harvest)intersecting 

300’ road influence 

zone

Acres outside 

treated with 

Harvest/SI –

Alternative 2

Harvest SI

Joseph Canyon 4,628 3,761 6 1,480 500

Cottonwood 

Creek – Broady 

Creek

1,456 850 1 376 211

Sumac Creek 235 13 0 50 0

Yew Wood 

Springs

329 127 0 170 1

Boner Gulch 173 26 0 46 0

Total 6,821 4,778 7 2,122 712

Cumulative Effects 

Air Quality 

Past harvest, fuels treatments, prescribed fire and wildfire has occurred over the past 10 years. 

These past treatments generally reduced forest fuel loading and altered their characteristics such 

that wildland fire would behave more similar to what would be expected under a natural fire 

regime. The cumulative effects of these past treatments would serve to reduce the amount of 

particulates released into the atmosphere. Ongoing activities such as cattle grazing and fire 

suppression alter the natural disturbance regime allowing increased fuel accumulation (fire 

suppression and grazing) or a re-arrangement of fuels such that the area burned would be 

different than historical (grazing). 

Air resources are somewhat unique in that past impacts to air quality (past wildland fire or 

prescribed burns) are usually not evident. Smoke emissions during the spring and fall months 

primarily result from Federal prescribed fire activities in northeast Oregon and western Idaho. 

Federal land managers currently coordinate to manage the cumulative effects of prescribed 

burning across these ownerships. Private landowners also treat fuels on their property and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

210 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

activities are coordinated with Oregon Department of Forestry subject to the Department’s 

smoke management rules. 

Other sources of emissions come from summer wildfire, agricultural burning, and home heating 

around local communities. Wildfires and agricultural burning typically coincide in mid to latesummer. Home heating is normally limited to winter months. These occurrences generally 

produce small additive emissions and are not expected to impact air quality at the time 

prescribed fire activities are planned.

Vegetation 

Alternative 2 restoration treatments would contribute an additional 21,967 acres toward moving 

forest composition, structure, density toward desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or 

size class distribution or improving trends in insect and disease susceptibility.

Disturbance and Fire Regime 

Past harvest, fuels treatment, prescribed fire and wildfire have influenced the character of the 

natural fire regimes found in LJCRP. In general each of these activities helped shape the affected 

environment and existing conditions for this project area, along with past grazing and fire 

suppression. In general the cumulative effect of past harvest (assuming that it was not overstory 

removal of early seral species) have served to promote restoration objectives by predominantly 

reducing density and associated mortality effects. In some cases group selection was used as a 

harvest method which would facilitate the ability of early seral regeneration. Fuels treatments 

and prescribed fire are targeted to reduce the probability of high severity fire and restore natural 

disturbance regimes. Wildfire is generally of higher severity than the natural regimes, except for 

the case of non-forest areas within the project, therefore wildfires influence often further departs 

from the range of variability of forest structure, density, and composition by simplifying at 

multiple scales (landscape and stand). 

The treatments proposed in the LJCRP in conjunction with past beneficial and past adverse 

treatments would promote the re-introduction of fire at a natural and ecologically appropriate 

scale and severity.

Fire Management Decision Space 

Past management actions and wildfires cumulatively affect fire managers’ ability to confidently 

return fire as an ecological process. Utilizing areas of reduced fire behavior, typically identified 

by past treatment and wildfire, can often decrease the risk (safety, social and ecological) of 

allowing an unplanned ignition to perform an ecologically important role and restore a natural 

disturbance regime. These past actions alongside treatments identified in Alternative 2 would 

facilitate the increased acceptance of characteristic wildland fire and its ecological role in 

restoring disturbance processes in the LJCRP area.

Wildlife 

The vegetation treatments proposed in alternative 2 would negatively impact current and future 

dead and defective wood habitat to a greater degree than alternative 3. The thinning and fuels 

treatments proposed, are additive to other similar projects in the larger cumulative effects area. 

These treatments add to the needs for hazard tree falling along roads and will alter or remove 

dead and defective wood habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 211 

Physical Environment 

The actions proposed in Alternative 2 would have the potential to contribute to the cumulative 

adverse effects to water quality, water quantity, site stability and site productivity. However, 

these potential contributions, as discussed previously in the effects analysis, are unlikely to be 

measurable beyond the site scale. The magnitude of the existing disturbance in the analysis area 

due to high road densities, livestock management and grazing greatly diminish the potential 

influence of the proposed management. Furthermore, the proposed management in Alternative 2 

will improve the physical environment by reducing road densities, improving the capacity at 6 

compromised stream crossings, decompacting legacy management soils impacts and mitigating 

sources of road sedimentation through road maintenance activities. Future vegetation 

management through fire will occur and will have the potential to have direct adverse effects to 

the physical environment. However, effective fire management and the implementation of Best 

Management Practices and Project Design Features will mitigate much of the direct effects and 

will reduce the probability of uncharacteristic disturbance events. The proposed mechanical 

vegetation management activities will facilitate the effectiveness of future fire management. 

There is no additional programmed harvest or mechanical vegetation management activities 

within the LJCRP analysis area and new permanent roads will be constructed in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. The implementation of Alternative 2 will reduce adverse cumulative effects to 

the physical environment and the risk of future adverse effects.

Socioeconomics 

Access: Effects to access to WWNF land was an issue brought up through public comments and 

meetings. The attitude towards the LJCRP from a subsection of the community is generally 

negative because, although it may not contain significant access restrictions, the LJCRP is seen 

as an addition to the previous restrictions put in place and is viewed as a trend towards limiting 

access to public lands. Travel management planning on the WWNF is on-going and this could 

change cross-country travel and the existing network of roads on the Forest. If some roads on the 

WWNF are closed in the future for cross-country travel, commenters expressed that the value of 

maintained roads would increase. Under alternative 2, the cumulative effects on access to FS 

lands are greater than the effects from Alternative 3 since 23 miles of roads would be 

decommissioned and 15 miles would be closed. 

Treatment and Restoration: The effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable treatment 

activities in the project area would improve forest health relative to existing conditions even 

without the implementation of LJCRP. According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, 

approximately 1,320 acres have been commercially harvested in the Lower Joseph area. Under 

alternative 2, 15,925 acres are expected to be commercially harvested over the ten year span of 

the project. Under alternative 2, the activity in the forest sector would be higher than the present 

situation and the associated local economic impact of current and future restoration activities 

would increase from the present conditions. The estimated employment and income 

consequences of non-LJCRP treatment activities, therefore, are likely underestimated in the 

related environmental compliance documents if they depend on present conditions for those 

analyses. 

The LJCRP treatments and other ongoing and foreseeable treatments could increase exposure to 

smoke emissions, which could cause cumulative effects to health and quality of life for 

individuals who are sensitive to smoke. According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, 

approximately 592 acres have been broadcast burned and 23,752 acres have incurred wildfire in 

the Lower Joseph area. Under alternative 2, up to 50,000 acres are expected to be broadcast 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

212 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

burned over the ten year span of the project. However, the cumulative effect of these treatments 

would be to decrease the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, which would decrease the probability 

of smoke emissions associated with these events. 

Recreation: Other on-going and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the project area 

would reduce the opportunities for substitute behavior when the preferred recreation site is 

unavailable. As a result, individuals may choose to stay home, which would decrease visitor 

spending and consumer surplus to a greater extent than estimated in the direct and indirect 

effects analysis. However, the cumulative effects to the social and economic impacts from 

recreation cannot be precisely described. Based on the available information, the effect to visitor 

spending and consumer surplus from on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions is not 

expected to change. Although alternative 2 would likely have more short-term disturbances to 

recreation (from smoke and limited access), the long term effects to recreation would be 

improved viewsheds and opopportunities to recreate in a healthy forest with reduced risk of 

wildfire.

Heritage 

Relatively speaking, alternative 2 may pose a higher cumulative risk to heritage values over time 

than alternative 3 as it proposes twice the number of mechanical treatments, and will most likely 

be implemented further into the future than Alternative 3. However, overall, the cumulative 

effects on heritage resources as a result of Alternative 2 is not considered to be adverse due to 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the 2004 Programmatic 

Agreement, design criteria, and mitigation and development of site protection implementation 

plans.

Tribal 

See hydrology, wildlife, botany and fisheries sections for complete cumulative effects analysis 

relative to these treaty resources.

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Past salvage harvest occurred in Wildhorse and Cook Ridge IRAs following high severity 

wildfire (Teepee Butte) in 1988. Past harvest and salvage also occurred in the Joseph Canyon 

IRA in the late 1980’s much of this was helicopter logged and largely maintained the IRA in an 

unroaded state. The Teepee Butte and Joseph Canyon Fire had uncharacteristically severe effects 

in much of the fire footprint within the IRAs. This led to the continued difficulty for natural 

regeneration of conifer species due to competition of non-forest vegetation, availability of seed 

source, and increased harshness of the site following the fires. Planting occurred in the early 

1990’s in the Cook Ridge and Wildhorse IRAs. While salvage harvest reduced the rate of large 

woody fuel recruitment post stand replacement fire, the type of green tree harvest that occurred 

generally removed the large, old, and early seral trees from the sale units. This situation along 

with ongoing fire suppression led to an increase in departure from reference density, structure, 

composition, pattern, and natural disturbance regimes. It is reasonable to assume that fire 

suppression would occasionally occur in the IRAs and grazing would continue. Past actions in 

general have added to the departure from reference conditions that this action is aimed at 

restoring to create forest resiliency and maintain and restore characteristics of ecosystem 

structure and roadless area characteristics. The combination of past projects with 

implementation of Alternative in the LJCRP, plus continued fire suppression and grazing, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 213 

constitutes a minor cumulative effect to vegetation in the IRAs. Past activities and ongoing fire 

suppression and grazing continue to add to the departure in density, composition, structure and 

characteristic disturbance regimes, while the actions proposed under this project are designed to 

restore that departure and disturbance. The overall effect would be beneficial as the LJCRP 

would provide additional decision space to make more ecologically informed fire management 

decisions, increase acceptance in the use of characteristic fire and help maintain ecosystem 

composition and structure as described in RACR. 

Potential Wilderness Areas 

Since the boundaries of PWAs were delineated based on current system roads and past timber 

harvest activity there are no past actions that affect these areas. Currently there are no additional 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would remove any portion of these areas from 

consideration as potential wilderness. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects associated with 

PWAs.

Other Undeveloped Land 

The LJCRP boundary provides the geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative effects to 

other undeveloped land. This boundary is appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that 

the direct/indirect effects resulting from LJCRP are not expected to interact with any similar 

effects that might occur elsewhere. The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 

10 years. The effects to the intrinsic values of these lands would be limited to activities are 

occurring for the LJCRP. 

For other undeveloped land in which the project activities would occur, cumulative effects to the 

physical (climate, soil, minerals,water quality, air quality) biological (vegetation, disturbance, 

wildlife, fisheries, botany), and social environments (heritage, recreation, scenery, 

transportation) are disclosed in other sections and will not be reiterated here. Cumulative effects 

for other undeveloped land within IRA are described in that section. Cumulative effects for 

other undeveloped lands outside the IRA would be similar to those disclosed in the IRA section 

of this document. 

Cattle grazing, dispersed camping, and road use would present a minor cumulative impact to 

apparent naturalness, solitude, and remoteness. Overall cumulative impacts to characteristics 

associated with other undeveloped lands would be minor in proportion to the anticipated direct 

and indirect effects.

Areas identified as Unroaded by Environmental Organizations (UEO) 

Because UEO areas contain similar intrinsic social values as IRA, PWA, or Other Undeveloped 

Land the cumulative effect to UEO would not differ from previously disclosed effects for those 

sections. 

Cumulative Effects – Present and Foreseeable Vegetation 

Management Activities 

There are no vegetation management, fuels treatment and prescribed burning activities that are 

ongoing (as of 2014) or are foreseeable within the project area.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

214 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Alternative 3: Direct and Indirect Effects

The physical environment 

Climate 

Relative comparisons of the degree of climate change adaptation between alternatives are based 

on evaluation of one or more of the following indicators:

 Acres available for planting (even-aged harvest) and providing opportunities to adapt tree 

species composition to changing climates

 Acres of designated wildlife corridors, which can reduce barriers to movement

 Acres of thinning to restore disturbance regimes and/or reduce uncharacteristically severe 

wildland fires

 Miles of roads with improved drainage and reduced sediment delivery, thus reducing 

hydrologic connectivity of the road system

 Miles of riparian restoration, which restores floodplain connectivity, flow regimes, and/or 

increases effective stream shade

 Acres of invasive plants treated

Treatments in alternative 3 would move the project area closer to the reference condition in 

vegetation and disturbance regime, creating a more resilient and sustainable condition in the face 

of climate change when compared to the No Action, but to a lesser degree than alternative 2. 

Soils 

See detailed descriptions of effects under Alternative 2: Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface Erosion 

The potential for surface erosion as a direct result of the proposed management activities in 

alternative 3 will be lower than in alternative 2 because there will be fewer stands treated and 

therefore less disturbance. Additionally, fewer roads would be decommissioned under alternative 

3 so there would be a lower potential for surface erosion from this disturbance. However, 

indirectly, there is greater potential for long term surface erosion and sediment production under 

Alternative 3 because fewer are being conditions and the proposed treatments will be less 

effective at moving the landscape toward a more resilient condition. Alternative 2 and 3 have the 

same proposed temporary road system (12.6 miles). 

Road traffic will likely increase under alternative 3 but would not be measurably different from 

alternative 2. 

Sediment from log haul 

See ”Effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Mass Wasting 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 215 

Soil Productivity 

In alternative 3 there would be ground based harvest and 12.6 miles of temporary road 

construction that may directly contribute to DSCs at the management unit scale as a result of the 

proposed management activities. Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed temporary road 

system. 

See detailed descriptions of indirect effects under Alternative 2: Direct and Indirect Effects.

Air quality 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

The biological environment 

Vegetation and disturbance regimes 

Table 90 lists the cutting treatments proposed under alternative 3, approximate acres for each 

treatment and the percent of the total treatment acres each treatment type represents. A total of 

12,778 acres of cutting treatments are proposed. Moderate and high intensity single tree selection 

treatment types account for 62 percent of the treatment acres and stand improvement (nonsawlog) treatments add another 20 percent. Under this alternative, approximately 23 percent of 

the forested acres within the project area would have a cutting treatment.

Compared to the modified proposed action (alternative 2), alternative 3 proposes 2,840 less acres 

of stand improvement, 6,045 less acres of STS/GS/IT treatments, 273 less acres of Savanna 

treatments, and 0 acres of meadow restoration. 

Table 90. Alternative 3 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area 

Cutting Treatment Type Approximate Acres

(Change from Alt. 2)

Percent of 

Treatment Acres 

(Percent of Forested 

Acres)

Stand Improvement – Stands Dominated by 

Seedlings and Saplings 1,024 (-2538) 8%

Stand Improvement – Stands Dominated by Poles 1,589 (-302) 12%

Single Tree Selection – High Intensity 3,757 (-1369) 29%

Single Tree Selection – Moderate Intensity 4,251 (-1568) 33%

Single Tree Selection – Low Intensity 804 (-471) 6%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Moderate Intensity 0 (-763) 0%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Low Intensity 0 (-30) 0%

Group Selection – High Intensity 397 (-1545) 3%

Group Selection –Moderate Intensity 451 (-145) 4%

Group Selection – Low Intensity 31 (-7) <1%

Intermediate Treatment – High Intensity 70 (-54) 1%

Intermediate Treatment – Mod Intensity 36 (-87) <1%

Intermediate Treatment – Low Intensity 83 (-6) 1%

Savanna* 285 (-273) 2%

Meadow Restoration* (Swamp Creek) 0 (-31) 0%
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

216 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Cutting Treatment Type Approximate Acres

(Change from Alt. 2)

Percent of 

Treatment Acres 

(Percent of Forested 

Acres)

Cutting Treatment Total (Forested Acres) 12,778 (12493) 100% (23%)

Forested Acres – No Cutting Treatment 42,872 (77%)

Total Forested Acres 55,365 (100%)

*Savanna and meadow restoration treatments are in areas that do not meet the definition of 

forested. 

Forest Cover Type 

Cover type percent by potential vegetation group and percent change from existing due to 

alternative 3 treatments are listed in Table 91. The prevalent effect in terms of movement toward 

RV would be in the ponderosa pine cover type. There would be a seven percent increase in the 

dry PVG and another one percent increase in the moist PVG. There would also be notable 

changes to the Douglas-fir cover type with a six percent reduction in the dry PVG and a one 

percent reduction in the moist PVG. Overall, alternative 3 would move all cover types in both 

PVGs closer to RV with the exception of lodgepole pine in the moist PVG.

Table 91. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 14,640 35% (+7) 50-80

Douglas-fir 19,179 45% (-6) 5-20

Western larch 607 1% (+<1) 1-10

Lodgepole pine 197 <1% (-<1) 0

Grand fir 7,347 17% (-1) 1-10

Engelmann 

spruce

0 0% 0

Unknown 438 1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 1,580 12% (+1) 5-15

Douglas-fir 5,713 44% (-1) 15-30

Western larch 729 6% (+2) 10-30

Lodgepole pine 177 1% (-<1) 25-45

Grand fir 4,606 36% (-<1) 15-30

Engelmann 

spruce

89 1% (-<1) 1-10

Unknown 64 <1%
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 217 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Forest Structural Stages 

Table 92 summarizes the forest structural stage percent by potential vegetation group and percent 

change from existing due to alternative 3 treatments. Highest movement toward RV would be in 

the OFSS structural stage with a five percent increase in the dry PVG and two percent increase 

in moist. The SE stage would experience movement away from RV in both PVGs. Overall, 

alternative 3 would result in a similar pattern in relation to RV as compared to alternative 2 at 

slightly lesser amount due to less acres treated. 

Table 92. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage

Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Dry UF

OFSS 1,952 5% (+5) 5% (+5)

OFMS 8,283 20% (-<1) 20% (-<1)

YFMS 2,969 7%

(-1)

38%

(+1)

7% (-1)

45% 

(0)

UR 5-10

16,192 38%

(+1)

SE 3,696 13% (-5) 13% (-5)

SI 7,131 17% (+<1) 17% (+<1)

Unknown 184 <1% <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100% 100%

Moist UF

OFSS 209 2% (+2) 2% (+2)

OFMS 4,188 32% (+2) 32% (+2)

YFMS 1,838 14%

(-1)

21%

(+1)

14%

(-1) 35%

(-1) 10-20

UR 2,743 21%

(+1)

SE 1,883 15% (-3) 15% (-3)

SI 2,074 16% (+<1) 16% (+<1)

Unknown 23 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

218 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Tree Density Class 

Table 93 displays the density class percent by potential vegetation group and percent change 

from existing due to alternative 3 treatments. Overall, alternative 3 would move or maintain all 

density classes within RV for both PVGs with the exception of dry high, which would remain 

outside RV.

Table 93. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class Acres

Percentage of 

Potential Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

Dry High 10,115 24% (-9) 5-15

Dry Mod 10,168 24% (-8) 15-30

Dry Low 21,918 52% (+18) 40-85

Unknown 206 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist UF

Moist High 3,785 29% (-16) 15-30

Moist Mod 4,774 37% (+9) 25-60

Moist Low 4,198 32% (+7) 20-40

Unknown 201 2%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Pattern 

Alternative 3 would treat 12,493 acres using the Individuals, Clumps and Openings (ICO) 

approach to restoring forest spatial pattern.

Size Class Distribution 

Similar to alternative 2, thinning treatments would result in an immediate increase in average 

tree diameter by favoring dominant and codominant trees. The treatments would also increase 

average tree diameter in the short term by reducing intertree competition and improving 

individual tree growth.

Table 94 displays the estimated post treatment size class distribution and the percent change 

from the existing distribution. For both the dry and moist PVGs, tree size class would be 

trending toward larger tree size classes with a five and six percent increase respectively in the 

>20 size class.

Table 94. Alternative 3 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size 

Class 

(diameter 

range in 

inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 6,616 16% (-1)

5-10 1,325 3% (+1)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 219 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size 

Class 

(diameter 

range in 

inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

10-15 13,098 31% (-7)

15-20 12,313 29% (-1)

>20 8,871 21% (+5)

Unknown 184 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,407 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

<5 1,965 15% (-1)

5-10 892 7% (+1)

10-15 2,913 22% (-5)

15-20 3,508 26% (+2)

>20 3,716 29% (+6)

Unknown 64 <1%

Moist UF Total 12,958 100%

Grand Total 55,365

Disturbance and Fire Regime 

The effects of harvest, SI, and prescribed fire are described in “Effects common to all action 

alternatives”, above. The action alternatives vary in effect based solely on intensity of treatment 

represented by the number of acres. Alternative 3 includes less acres of harvest and SI thereby 

improving forest structure, density, and composition and associated fire regime characteristics to 

a lesser degree than under Alternative 2.

Prescribed fire (planned and unplanned) 

Alternative 3 has less area identified as a high priority for prescribed fire (46,480 acres) than 

Alternative 2 (48,577 acres), primarily due to the relatively lower forest area treated 

mechanically, and thus needing activity fuels treatment. Alternative 3 has similar beneficial 

impact on fire regime departure and landscape resiliency by burning approximately 4 to 6 

percent of the landscape per year compared to Alternative 2 (modeled results, see Appendic C). 

Where Alternative 3 departs from Alternative 2 in that benefit occurs during high fire years 

where approximately 15– 25 percent is predicted to burn. This is outside the reference fire 

regime and expected natural burn pattern insofar as the area moving toward fire as a natural 

disturbance process. During high fire years, even with treating approximately 4 to 6 percent/year 

with prescribed fire, Alternative 3 further departs from reference and desired landscape 

conditions and is relatively similar to conditions under the no action alternative.

Activity Fuels 

There would be less activity fuels created with the implementation of Alternative 3 as compared 

to Alternative 2. The treatment of activity fuels in “Effects common to all action alternatives” 

remains the same. Disposition of activity fuels is a key part in ensuring that fire severity does 

not increase due to the additional accumulation of fuels as a result of silvicultural activity. There 

is no increased impact to fire risk under Alternative 3 when compared to Alternative 2. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

220 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Fire Management Decision Space 

Alternative 3 creates limited decision space to manage wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions). State-and-transition simulation modeling (Appendix C) indicates that during a high 

fire year in the LJCRP area the amount of the landscape that burns is departed (greater) than the 

expected fire regime extent (6-15%/year). Although there is no difference between expected 

acres intentionally burned with planned and unplanned ignitions, (4 – 6%) depending on the 

year, there is limited benefit to managing unplanned ignitions under Alternative 3 due to not 

actively managing IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs. This creates an 

environment similar to the no action in terms of ecological and social risk of having unwanted 

fire effects such as uncharacteristically severe fire or fire affecting a large portion of the area 

(particularly within or adjacent to IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs) in a given 

year such as to impact the character of forest succession and fire regime. Alternative 3 has 

limited effect to areas around and within IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs on the 

ability of wildland fire to become a restorative process at an ecologically appropriate scale and 

severity without active management in those areas.

Insects and Disease Susceptibility 

Table 95 lists the estimated, alternative 3 post treatment susceptibility ratings for the six insect 

and disease agents associated with the PVGs and cover types within the LJCRP area. The ratings 

and trends are similar to alternative 2 with the following exceptions. 

Dry and Moist PVG 

 Douglas fir mistletoe would be outside RV for the low and high ratings and within RV for 

the moderate rating. The low is the same as existing with the moderate rating higher than 

existing and the high rating lower than existing.

Table 95. Alternative 3 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 29%+ 40-85% 40%+ 15-30% 31%- 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 15%= 35-75% 50%+ 15-30% 35%- 10-25%

Fir Engraver 40%= 45-90% 45%= 10-25% 14%= 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 22%- 5-10% 58%+ 15-30% 19%- 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%= 25-55% 40%+ 15-40% 46%- 20-35%

Root Diseases 31%= 30-60% 51%+ 25-50% 18%- 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 9%+ 5-10% 28%- 20-30% 62%- 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 5%= 30-60% 27%+ 20-40% 67%- 10-30%

Fir Engraver 20%+ 30-70% 35%+ 20-35% 45%- 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 30%- 40-70% 61%+ 15-35% 10%- 5-25%
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 221 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 11%= 30-65% 34%+ 20-45% 55%- 10-20%

Root Diseases 17%+ 5-15% 55%+ 20-50% 27%- 35-75%

+ increase from current; - decrease from current; = same as current. 

Dwarf Mistletoe and the Degree of Mistletoe Infestation - Design criteria are the same as for 

alternative 2, but alternative 3 would result in a reduced mistletoe infection on fewer acres of 

cutting treatment (12,493 acres versus 21,378 acres for alterative 2). This includes 189 acres of 

cutting treatment in moderate to heavily mistletoe infected stands (versus 336 acres under 

alternative 2).

Timber Resource 

There would be approximately 10,200 acres of harvest treatment (acres treated that remove 

timber volume) and there would be approximately 6,600,000 cubic feet of timber volume 

removed as a result of restoration treatments. This would be a direct beneficial effect of 

alternative 3, but lower than alternative 2.

Rangelands, understory vegetation, and TES plant species 

See Effects common to all action alternatives. Tables comparing variations in noxious weed 

infestations can be found under the Alternative 2 Effects sections for “Range and understory 

Vegetation”. Alternative 3 has slightly less impact on Snake River daisy, Davis fleabane and 

Wallowa ricegrass because there would be no treatments in IRAs or MA15s in Alternative 3.

Aquatic habitat 

Although difficult to quantify, the effects to aquatic habitat from fine sediment may be less than 

those described in Alternative 2 because of the exclusion of tree removal in the RHCAs under 

Alternative 3. However, modeling indicates a negligible difference in sediment delivery to 

streams between the action alternatives when Best Management Practices and Project Design 

Features are implemented. In addition there would be no commercial harvest in Category 4 

RHCAs. Thus the overall short-term increase in erosion rates in the analysis area is likely to be 

smaller compared to Alternative 2 (see the Physical Environment supporting documentation). 

For Alternative 3, commercial thinning activities would not occur in RHCAs adjacent to 

Category 1 (fish bearing) and Category 2 (nonfish-bearing perennial) streams or Category 4 

(intermittent). Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs of Category 1 and 2 

streams would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along streams in the analysis 

area. The RHCA widths adjacent to Category 1 streams (300 ft on either side) and Category 2 

streams (200 ft on either side) are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that provide stream 

shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures would not result from 

proposed thinning activities.

Burning activities under Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to Alternative 2 based on 

acres treated. With a reduction in activity fuels treatments the possibility of impacting large 

shade producing trees would be reduced thereby reducing the effects of the alternative on water 

temperature.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

222 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Federally listed species – fish 

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat 

and is not likely to adversely affect the species and its designated critical habitat. Impacts to 

Snake River steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine 

sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat section). This short term increase in fine sediment 

relative to the existing fine sediment levels would be immeasurable and be a result of the 

reduction in acres treated, RHCAs treated, reduced road.

Management indicator species – fish 

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual redband trout and their habitat (MIIH), but 

will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. 

Impacts to redband trout may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine 

sediment and water temperature (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat 

(MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species. 

Impacts to Snake River steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in 

fine sediment and water temperature (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are below the 20% 

threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids. In these areas short-term potential 

increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely 

to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. 

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of 

habitat for Snake River steelhead and redband trout. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both 

fine sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for steelhead and redband 

trout.

Cumulatively, aquatic habitat should improve over time in the analysis area. Fine sediment 

levels should decrease through time as a result of improved road closures and decommissioning 

activities. Alternative 3 will likely not result in a short-term slowing of recovery of aquatic 

habitat in the analysis area.

In the long-term, alternative 3 would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire 

regime in the project area which will have beneficial impacts to Snake River steelhead and 

redband trout and their habitat

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual western ridge mussels and their habitat 

(MIIH), but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population 

or species. Impacts to western ridge mussels may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable 

increases in fine sediment and water temperature (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are below the 20% 

threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids and likely the western ridge mussel. In 

these areas short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and 

thinning activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in 

the analysis area. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 223 

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of 

habitat for western ridge mussels. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and 

water temperature are within habitat tolerances for western ridge mussels.

Cumulatively, aquatic habitat should improve over time in the analysis area. Fine sediment 

levels should decrease through time as a result of improved road closures and decommissioning 

activities. Alternative 3 would likely not result in a short-term slowing of recovery of aquatic 

habitat in the analysis area.

In the long-term, alternative 3 would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire 

regime in the project area which will have beneficial impacts to western ridge mussels and their 

habitat.

Wildlife 

Primary cavity excavators 

It is expected that population decreases in MIS for dead and defective wood habitat would be 

expected to occur. While additive cumulative effects may be anticipated, projects are consistent 

with forest plan objectives. 

The vegetation treatments proposed will negatively impact current and future dead and defective 

wood habitat. Harvest treatment is proposed on about 23% (12,800 acres) of the forested 

landscape. It can be assumed that within treatment areas there would be a reduction in snags and 

logs due to skid trails, landings, safety reasons and prescribed burning. Proposed activities (tree 

harvest and prescribed burning) are expected to help create habitat for PCEs using open forests 

(e.g. white-headed woodpeckers) and reduce habitat for those PCEs using dense forests (e.g. 

pileated woodpeckers). 

The closure of roads would positively affect the abundance of snag and down wood habitat. 

However, this alternative maintains the most open miles of roads, which would be open to the 

public. Thus, there would be the greatest potential for continued loss of snags across the 

landscape due to safety and firewood harvesters.

Pileated woodpecker 

Table 65 compares conditions of pileated woodpecker source habitat by alternative. Alternative 

3 would maintain source habitat within HRV, but due to commercial harvest, would have lower 

habitat quality and quantity compared to alternative 1. Alternative 3 also results in less area in 

source habitat than Alternative 2. The non-harvested area that meets the qualifications of source 

habitat for pileated woodpeckers is approximately the same in both alternatives (10-11%), which 

is within the HRV for this species. Alternative 3 does not allow for cutting of trees >21”, and 

hence, would have a less of a direct negative effect than alternative 2 on pileated woodpeckers 

and other cavity nesting and large tree dependent wildlife species by maintaining higher quality 

habitat on areas treated.

Though some current source habitat will be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be 

reduced, overall source habitat will remain within the RV for this species in this project area. 

Therefore, alternative 3 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for 

the pileated woodpecker.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

224 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Northern goshawk 

Through harvest, the abundance of source habitat for goshawks is reduced by 2,845 acres. The 

amount of source habitat remains within the HRV (1-46%). Although the overall area harvested 

in alternative 3 is less than in alternative 2, the resulting amount of source habitat for goshawks 

appears to be lower. In alternative 2 more acres of vegetation that is currently in the size class of 

medium (10-15”), moves to the next size class (15-20” dbh) post-harvest (the mean diameter of 

remaining trees increases), while also maintaining >40% canopy closure. As described in 

alternative 2, although these stands meet the definition of source habitat, it is likely the quality of 

the habitat is reduced. 

Within the area that is defined by tree size and canopy closure as source habitat, after 

implementation of alternative 3 about 2,681 acres would be treated by commercial harvest but 

still meet the definition of source habitat. In alternative 3, no trees >=21” dbh may be harvested 

which would provide for higher quality habitat within the treated areas, as large trees are an 

important habitat component for goshawks. Source habitat that has been harvested would likely 

be of lower quality due to the loss of canopy closure, and loss of large snags and logs due to 

safety and logging systems. 

Although trees with mistletoe are likely to be removed in all harvest units, especially in the 

‘Intermediate Treatment’ prescriptions (38 acres), the loss of mistletoe may also reduce the 

quality of source habitat. The removal of trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms may be detrimental 

to northern goshawk and other species that nest in mistletoe brooms (Bull and others 1997).

The closure of an additional 3 miles of road above existing decisions (alternative 1) should 

benefit northern goshawks, as human disturbance has been documented to negatively affect this 

species.

American marten 

Under alternative 3, proposed commercial harvest in moist forests would be 2,705 acres, of 

which 742 acres is within what currently qualifies as marten source habitat (moist – large tree –

closed canopy). These 742 acres represents about 34% of the current source habitat for marten 

in the project area. The prescription on these 742 acres is a combination of GS_Mod (108 acres), 

STS_High (122 acres), and STS_Mod (512 acres). The design criteria for these prescriptions is 

to maintain >60% canopy closure, and multi-story conditions; no trees >=21” would be 

harvested. It is assumed that post-harvest these stands would be maintained as source habitat. It 

is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum qualifications as source habitat but the 

quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced complexity and tree density, and potential 

loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and safety. 

As discussed in the PCE section above, densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh) in moist forest 

are below reference conditions in the snag density classes that provide habitat for American 

marten (Figure 2). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for marten in these habitat types. 

Harvesting on 2,705 acres would add to a reduction in snag habitat, further declining habitat 

quality for marten in this area. However, in alternative 3 there would be no removal of trees 

>=21” dbh which should be beneficial in long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these trees 

would be available as potential snags and down wood. 

In alternative 3, 108 acres of the marten habitat that is being commercially harvested is in the 

prescription ‘GS_Mod’ (group selection – moderate). Group selections can include openings 

that are 1/2-4 acres. As described above, martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 225 

fragmentation (Hargis et al. 1999). Openings as large as 4 acres may reduce the quality of the 

habitat for marten. In the longer-term, as trees continue to grow, American marten would 

continue to use these harvested areas for some or all of their life history functions. Vegetation 

treatments in both action alternatives are assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the effects 

of an uncharacteristic stand replacement event, thereby potentially retaining source habitat in the 

long-term.

Open roads can contribute to a loss of quality of habitat through loss of snags and downwood 

due to firewood harvest and safety, and can reduce habitat quality (Godbout and Ouellet 2008).

Rocky Mountain elk 

Table 46 summarizes forest plan standards for road density by management area, and alternative. 

Similar to alternative 2 the forest plan standards for HEI and percent cover in MA1 areas would 

be met. The HEI standard of >=0.5 on MA1 is met in both the Lower and Upper Joseph 

watersheds. The percent cover on the summer ranges remains above 30%. The reduced cover 

may increase forage quantity and quality especially in the spring. However, this reduced cover 

may decrease hiding cover (>=40% canopy closure), particularly in the Upper Joseph watershed 

and the entire winter range habitat. The reduced harvest in alternative 3 provides for more cover 

across the planning area than in alternative 2.

Alternative 3 changes about 7,000 acres of cover to forage across the entire planning area (about 

40% fewer acres than alternative 2). Both harvest treatments and prescribed burning may also 

contribute an increase in forage quantity and quality, especially in the spring.

Alternative 3 proposes higher miles of open road than in alternative 2. The project would 

temporarily increase open roads by about 12.6 miles. Post-project road densities in 6 out 10 

subwatersheds remain above Forest standards, and there is little change from the existing 

condition. Excessive open roads have negative effects on habitat effectiveness by taking land out 

of production, reducing the effectiveness of cover, and increasing disturbance to elk. 

Additionally of concern within the analysis area is the unregulated OHV and full-sized vehicle 

use of closed roads which has been shown to negatively affect elk and elk habitat. Together with 

the loss of cover and higher road densities particularly in the Davis, Lower Swamp Creek 

subwatersheds, elk distribution and habitat effectiveness may be negatively affected.

To reduce disturbance to big game on winter ranges timber sale activities, including log haul, 

would minimize activities during periods of low temperatures and accumulated snow depths, 

typically from December 15 through March 31st.

Old growth management areas, late-old forest habitat, and connectivity corridors 

Forest treatments in MA15 areas in alternative 2 aim to restore dry forest old growth 

characteristics, which would not occur under alternative 3. While current old forest conditions 

would be conserved into the long term, there would be a higher risk of loss due to 

uncharacteristic fire under alternative 3 than alternative 2, particularly in dry forest.

Table 96 summarizes commercial forest vegetation treatments within LOS and MA15 

connectivity corridors for alternative 3. Alternative 3 would reduce the quality of connectivity 

corridors on 2,118 acres by reducing the canopy closure and structural complexity. The 

prescriptions in the proposed treatment units within the connectivity corridors have been 

designed to provide canopy closure at >=40% in the dry forest PVG, and >=50% in the moist 

forest PVG. Although canopy closure and structural complexity may be reduced, these stands 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

226 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

are expected to maintain the function and objectives of connectivity as described in the Eastside 

Screens. This level of tree stocking would reduce competition between residual trees, increase 

tree growth rates, and increase trees’ ability to defend against insects and diseases, while 

retaining levels of canopy closure and structural complexity to facilitate movement of wildlife 

between LOS habitat patches. 

Table 96. Acres commercially harvested within connectivity corridors by alternative for the LJCRP. 

Acres of 

Connectivity

Alt 1 Commercial 

Harvest (% of total 

Connectivity)

Alt 2 Commercial 

Harvest (% of 

total Connectivity)

Alt 3 

Commercial 

Harvest (% of 

total 

Connectivity)

Total 12,326 0 4,155 (34%) 2,118 (17%)

Dry Forest 

PVG 9,829 0 3,522 (36%) 1,736 (18%)

Moist Forest 

PVG 2,497 0 633 (25%) 382 (15%)

Alternative 3 would allow for prescribed fire across much of the planning area, and 413 acres of 

treatment in seedling/sapling and pole stands within connectivity corridors. Some snags and logs 

may be consumed by prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire-killed 

trees. The burning, and small tree thinning in connective corridors will not have a measurable 

negative effect on the quality or function of the corridors. 

Landbird and migratory bird habitat 

Effects from this project to migratory birds would be variable depending on the the species 

(Table 67). Alternative 3 would harvest fewer acres than alternative 2. Therefore, canopy cover 

and snags would be reduced on fewer acres than alternative 2. Additionally, riparian areas would 

not be directly altered, nor would trees >=21” be removed.

Higher road densities in alternative 3 compared to alternative 2 would likely be more adverse for 

all of these migratory birds. Road-associated factors that negatively affect some species of 

migratory and resident birds include: snag and log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, 

negative edge effects, harassment or disturbance, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and 

chronic negative interactions with humans (Penninger 2009). Also See “effects common to all 

action alternatives”

The social environment 

Socioeconomics 

Under Alternative 3, there would be no treatments in MA15, IRAs, and PWAs. Small diameter 

thinning could occur in category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs as per Blue Mountains Project Design 

Criteria. No trees greater than 21 inches would be harvested, except for safety or administrative 

reasons. In IRAs, there would also be no non-commercial treatments. Activities under this 

alternative, such as timber harvest and restoration, would have the economic consequences 

described below. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 227 

Financial efficiency 

Table 97 summarizes the financial efficiency for Alternative 3. The PNV indicates the financial 

efficiency of the timber sale and restoration activities, including all costs (that are not included in 

the stumpage rate) and revenues associated with the activities and required design criteria 

(information obtained from Timber specialist assigned to the project). Restoration activities 

examined under this alternative include (among others) resiliency treatments, prescribed fire, and 

planting. A 4 percent discount rate was used over a period of 10 years (2014–2023), the 

estimated time required for full implementation of the project. 

Table 97 indicates that alternative 3 is not financially efficient for the timber harvest and required 

design criteria, as well as for all restoration activities noted above, as indicated by the negative 

PNV, -$5.1 million. However, since the PNV does not include non-market values, such as 

ecosystem services as discussed above, the benefits are likely underestimated. The estimated 

costs of treatment under alternative 3 are less than alternative 2 since the restoration treatments 

are less intensive. Therefore, the expected non-market values derived from alternative 3 will 

likely be less than alternative 2 and greater than alternative 1.

Indirect effects on financial efficiency could occur as a result of alternative 3, however, estimates 

of these changes are not available. It is anticipated that fuels treatments under this alternative 

would contribute to fuels conditions that would have more resistance to wildland fire. This 

would tend to decrease wildland fire related costs such as property loss, lost revenues and 

suppression costs. 

Table 97. Present Net Value for alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

BENEFITS

Revenue from commercial timber 

volume

$1,231,234 

COSTS

Non-Mechanical $4,168,676 

Mechanical $852,394

Commercial timber harvest $1,369,119

Sum of discounted benefits and 

costs

$1,231,234 $6,390,190

Present Net Value $(5,158,956)

Economic Impacts 

Alternative 3 would result in restoration activities with commercial timber production of 6,600 

ccf per year for 10 years; mechanical, pre-commercial stand treatment on 584 acres per year; 142 

acres of restoration treatment by hand labor; and some temporary road construction and road 

maintenance. Implementation of alternative 3 is projected to support 34 jobs (Table 98) and $1.9 

million in labor income in Wallowa and Union counties annually over 10 years. Those impacts in 

the local area include the jobs supported directly by completion of restoration treatments and 

processing of the commercial timber and the indirect and induced jobs related to those activities. 

The economic effect resulting from restoration activities would be less under Alternative 3 than 

under alternative 2. The implementation of alternative 3 would also yield employment changes 

in many economic sectors within Wallowa and Union counties. The greatest number of jobs 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

228 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

supported would accrue to the Manufacturing and Agriculture and Forestry sectors. Other sectors 

affected by the LJCRP include Retail Trade, Construction, Professional Services, and Health 

Care. 

Table 98. Projected employment by major industry for alternative 3 

Industrial sector Jobs supported

Manufacturing 12

Agriculture and forestry 11

Professional, scientific, and technical services 2

Retail trade 2

Health care and social assistance 1

Accommodations and food services 1

Construction 1

Other industrial sectors (8) 4

Total 34

Social Impacts 

In addition to effects on the local economy, activities under alternative 3 have the potential to 

affect the livelihood, cultural values, and biological values of people in the analysis area. The 

social consequences are measured qualitatively, with a particular focus on access, recreation 

uses, environmental justice and non-market values. 

Livelihood 

The jobs and income, as detailed above under the economic impacts section, that alternative 3 

are expected to generate would likely improve the livelihood of area residents more than 

alternative 1 but less than alternative 2. These jobs and income are expected to be generated over 

the next ten years, the life of the project. The increase in jobs and labor income in the analysis 

area from alternative 3 would likely increase the tax base, public services, funding for schools, 

capital maintenance projects, and reduce poverty. Since the increase in jobs and income is less 

under alternative 3 than alternative 2, the expected increase in the public services would be less 

than under alternative 2.

The tax rates on timber harvested during 2014 under the Forest Products Harvest Tax (FPHT) is 

$3.53 per thousand board feet (MBF). The receipts from this tax program are dedicated to the 

partial funding of state-run programs that promote forest research, fire prevention and fire 

suppression, forest practices act administration, and improve public understanding of Oregon's 

forest resources (State of Oregon 2014). However, the funding for schools and other public 

services are more likely to come from personal income taxes (from 5 to 9.9 percent of taxable 

income) and property taxes. With increases in labor income, as detailed in the economic impacts 

section above, the state tax base and therefore public services could also increase.

Additionally, with more jobs and income in the area under alternative 3 relative to alternative 1, 

there likely would be more opportunities for younger generations. In turn, youth may choose to 

stay in the area and improve the age diversity. With a more balanced age composition, the 

economy would be more sustainable in the long-term. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 229 

Alternative 3 would not close or decommission any roads over the 10-year span of the project 

and would therefore have no impact on access to WWNF public lands compared to the other 

alternatives. Many community members value access to public lands, but alternative 3 would not 

affect this value. Public access could be impacted by short-term increases in traffic but these 

effects would be intermittent during restoration. The potential increase in traffic is based on 

treatments in association with the timber sale. Under alternative 3, there are less treated acres 

than alternative 2, and therefore less short-term effects to traffic.

Cultural Values 

As discussed in the Affected Environment section above, residents in the LJCRP area value the 

land mostly for recreation uses, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, wildlife 

viewing and scenery, among others. See the Tribal report for effects to subsistence uses. These 

recreation uses are also linked to access, as discussed in the previous section. With more roads 

decommissioned, this limits access to public lands for recreation purposes. Since alternative 3 

has no new decommissioned or closed roads, there would be no change of effects relative to the 

existing condition, therefore the effects would be less than effects to access under alternative 2. 

However, under alternative 3, there could be intermittent disruption of access to the LJCRP area 

for treatments and therefore disturbance during hunting season. This effect is lower under 

alternative 3 than alternative 2 since there are fewer acres likely to be treated.

Under alternative 3, there could be greater detrimental effects to recreation uses for fishing, 

gathering special forest products, and hunting in the long term than alternative 2 since there 

would be less restoration treatments and a corresponding higher risk of wildfire. As noted in the 

Wildlife section, prescribed burning in alternatives 2 and 3 would generally benefit elk habitat 

through forage enhancement. With fewer improvements to ecosystem services from restoration, 

this would likely have greater impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, water and air quality and 

plant diversity for recreation uses by people in the analysis area. Effects to the fine sediment 

aquatic habitat and water temperature under alternative 3 would be less compared to alternative 2 

because of a reduction in commercial thinning acres, burning activities, road reconstruction, and 

temporary road construction. Therefore, effects to recreational fishing are lower under alternative 

3 since the activities proposed are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for redband trout. 

Under alternatives 1 and 3, negative recreation effects could be greater as the risk of fire is 

expected to be greater without any or less restoration treatment. For more information on the 

effects to the specific resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany 

analyses). 

Vegetation management is needed to return these landscapes to a more natural appearance and 

higher scenic quality for recreation. More natural, park-like stands, which are substantially less 

abundant across the landscape than historically, have little likelihood of returning without 

mechanical restoration treatments to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. Alternative 3 meets the 

purpose and need to a much lesser extent than the alternative 2.

In the short-term, while prescribed burning treatments take place, smoke could affect the ability 

to recreate and enjoy the scenery in the Lower Joseph Creek area. With fewer acres to be treated 

under alternative 3, the short-term impacts are less than alternative 2. However, the FS is not 

planning to burn during peak visitor season so the impacts are expected to be minimal.

Biological Values 

Commenters revealed that they value air and water quality, wildlife, and old growth trees, among 

others. Due to restoration under alternative 3, improvements to ecosystem services and decreased 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

230 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

risk of wildfire are less than under alternative 2. These biological values would likely be 

improved more than under alternative 1 but less than under alternative 2 in the long term with 

less restoration treatments. However, the value for old growth trees is preserved under all 

alternatives because there is no old tree harvest. Rather than positively impacting this value (it is 

imposible to increase the amount of old growth trees in the short-term), by not harvesting old 

growth trees, the value is maintaining its integrity in the community. People will benefit from 

knowing that the trees exist and are continuing to provide biological services to the forest 

ecosystem. These non-market values are not included in the quantitative analysis yet have a 

strong hold in the local communities. For more information on the effects to the specific 

biological resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany analyses). 

Timber Market and Forest Products 

Alternative 3 would add timber to the regional supply and is expected to have positive impacts 

on the current timber market, though less than the Proposed Action. The timber mills in the area 

could increase their production within their current mill capacities. AFRC (2014) estimated that 

the ten mills in the area are operating at an average of 39 percent capacity. 

Contacts from the local logging industry believe that the demand for timber products in the 

region is expected to increase as the products are shipped around the world. Under Alternative 3, 

this distance and relevant transportation costs could decline as the industry receives more wood 

from the LJCRP.

Non-Market Values 

Under Alternative 3, forest health is expected to improve more than alternative 1 but less than 

alternative 2. Alternative 3 would decrease the likelihood of crown fire relative to existing 

conditions more than alternative 1, but less than alternative 2. Over time, forest restoration 

treatments would decrease fuel load and decrease potential smoke emissions from both planned 

and unplanned ignitions. The proposed activities under this alternative would protect ecosystem 

services and other social values, such as recreation opportunities and subsistence uses. Therefore, 

ecosystem functionality is expected to improve and contribute to community members’ nonmarket values more than alternative 1, but less than alternative 2. For more details on other 

social values, see the Social Impacts section above.

Environmental Justice 

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, Alternative 3 is not expected to 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these 

communities. The environmental justice communities expected to be impacted the most are 

within the Nez Perce tribe. Since this community uses the Lower Joseph area for cultural and 

religious practices as well as for subsistence uses, they are more vulnerable to changes in the 

area’s natural resources due to the LJCRP. In the long-term, Alternative 3 is expected to improve 

natural resource conditions less than alternative 2. However, in the short-term, the natural 

resource uses will be affected less under Alternative 3 than alternative 2 since it involves less 

treatment. These effects are addressed in the Tribal and Heritage report. 

The low income populations in the LJCRP analysis area could be affected by the access to 

recreation opportunities and resource use. Under Alternative 3, no roads would be 

decommissioned or closed over the 10 year span of the project, compared to the 23 miles of 

decommissioned and 15 miles of closed roads under alternative 2. If the low-income populations 

have to travel greater distances to access recreation, they could incur extra costs since it is more 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 231 

expensive to reach the forest in indirect ways as access decreases. However, since no roads 

would be decommissioned or closed under this alternative there are no significant and 

disproportionate effects on these communities. 

Through public meetings, community members and representatives expressed that they expect 

the LJCRP to improve current environmental justice conditions, specifically related to lowincome and children populations. With increased job opportunities for parents, they will be able 

to provide better opportunities for their children and the expected increase in the tax base under 

the proposed action alternative will presumably provide more support for schools. An increase in 

the tax base could also potentially increase social services for low-income populations and help 

alleviate poverty.

Heritage 

Eligible and potentially eligible sites are located in, or within 200 feet of unit boundaries. 

Potential effects will be mitigated via monitoring and site protection design features that will be 

implemented prior to ground disturbance. As for Alternative 2, the greatest threat to heritage 

resources is ground disturbing activities associated with mechanical treatments. Alternative 3 

mechanically treats 3479 acres, which is 40% less than Alternative 2. Therefore, there is less 

risk to Heritage values under Alternative 3 (see Tables 68 and 90). 

Mechanical treatments are the same as Alternative 2; involving ground, sky line and helicopter 

(?) logging systems that include skidding, construction of temporary roads and landings. Again, 

Impacts to undiscovered sites could include rutting, erosion, dislocation, or breakage of artifacts 

and features, and destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. 

This alternative provides the greatest degree of public road access involving increased levels of 

off road uses and dispersed camping increasing the risk of damage to the integrity of heritage 

resources. Road activities causing rutting and erosion may expose artifacts making them more 

vulnerable to looting and breakage. 

Prescribed fire effects would be the same as alternative 2. 

No treatments in IRAs, RHCA and MA15 may mean less potential effects to Cambium Peeled 

trees and dendroglyphs.

Tribal 

Impacts on hunting, fishing and gathering and resource risks of accelerated restoration 

Generally, effects would be the same as alternative 2, but involves approximately half the acres 

of restoration treatment. In addition, there would be less road decommissioning and there would 

be an emphasis on meeting public road access needs. The effects of less road decommissioning, 

along with emphasis on public road access, would be a positive effect for some tribal members 

who value greater access. Tribal members, concerned more about road impacts to resource 

values, would likely view alternative 3 as having a greater negative effect than alterantive 2. 

Concern for value of landscape over economic values 

Generally, the effects would be the same as alternative 2, but the estimated economic net value 

from timber harvest for alternative 3 would be -$5.1 million, compared to -$5.9 million for 

alternative 2. This demonstrates that positive economic net value is not a motivation for this 

alternative. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

232 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Maintain old growth legacy trees and conservation of inventoried roadless areas 

Alternative 3 would not allow harvest in MA15 stands or IRAs, and does not remove trees 

greater than 21 inches in diameter. Based on meetings with tribal staff (See Project Record for 

Tribal Consultation and Coordination Log) effects of alternative 3 on tribal values and concerns 

are expected to be positive. However, in the long term, threats to old growth and IRA values will 

likely increase without treatment designed to create resilient landscapes and biological and 

structural diversity. 

Resource risks of accelerated restoration 

Generally, the effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2 regarding tribal 

concerns but potential effects are commensurate with the smaller extent of proposed vegetation 

treatments. Effects to tribal values in the long term may be more adverse due to reduction of 

restoration acres treated; including no treatment of threatened old growth and IRAs. 

Impacts to traditional plant resources 

Generally, the effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2, but less acres of plant 

habitat will be restored, possibly resulting in declining plant diversity and resiliency. 

Traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and other traditional use areas, may be at risk from 

implementation of the LJCRP 

Generally, the effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2, but at a lesser scale of 

risk.

Recreation 

See effects common to all action alternatives. 

Alternative 3 would close approximately 3 more miles of open road as compared to Alternative 

1, which would likely lead to no significant difference in recreational use compared to 

alternative 2.

Scenery 

The overall effects of alternative 3 would be similar to alternative 2. Alternative 3 would move 

stands toward desired future conditions, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, but to a 

lesser degree than alternative 2. Effects to scenic integrity would be kept to a minimum, meeting 

all Forest Plan, HCNRA CMP, and Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

standards.

Alternative 3 would treat 13 percent of the project area (23% of forested acres) to improve 

species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. These 

treatments would improve scenic stability from low (dry forest PVG) or moderate (moist forest 

PVG) to high, but to a lesser degree than alternative 2. The following discussion discloses 

effects of alternative 3 by viewshed.

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook 

The direct effects of alternative 3 in this viewshed are the same as alternative 2, except no forest 

treatments would occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21” would be cut. Alternative 3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 233 

would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure to 

a slightly lesser degree than alternative 2. 

The one unit (#193) partially in the background view of Highway 3 would not have a single tree 

selection harvest, but the intermediate treatment would occur on approximately 10 acres. This 

treatment would not change the density class of the stand, and would not be visibly evident from 

the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

The direct effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2, except no forest treatments 

would occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21” would be cut. There would be 10 fewer 

acres treated in the middleground view (visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the Table 

Rock area) than alternative 2. This effort would improve the scenic character and the scenic 

stability of the area to generally the same degree as alternative 2. 

Table Mountain 

The effects of alternative 3 would generally be the same as alternative 2, except no forest 

treatments would occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21” would be cut. There would be 

10 fewer acres treated in this area than alternative 2, and there would be a slightly lower 

reduction in risk of uncharacteristic fire where more trees are left on the landscape due to the 21” 

dbh cutting limit. The scenic character and the scenic stability of the area would be improved to 

a slightly lower level in this viewshed than alternative 2. 

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680 

The direct effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2, except no forest treatments 

would occur in MA15, IRAs, or RHCAs, no trees greater than 21” would be cut, and FS Road 

4600570 would not be decommissioned. These differences would result in very little difference 

in effect on visual quality, except in the case of scenic stability. Leaving more trees on the 

landscape, and not breaking up the horizontal homogeneity and ladder fuels of the IRAs, MA15, 

and RHCA areas would result in higher risk of uncharacteristic stand replacement fire compared 

to alternative 2, but lower risk relative to alternative 1 (no action).

It is expected that alternative 3 would not reduce the scenic integrity and thus retain the existing 

visual quality objective standards established in the Forest Plan, CMP (HCNRA) and the Joseph 

Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

Potential Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas 

See effects for Alternative 1 as no treatment is proposed in PWA or IRA.

Other Undeveloped Land 

See effects analysis for Alternative 2 with the following change in acres affected for Alternative 

3 (Tables 99 and 100) The description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the 

intensity (number of acres affected) is slightly less because less harvest and SI would occur in 

Alternative 3.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

234 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Table 99. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 3 

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Land

Acres affected by 

Harvest or SI

Acres Remaining Percent Change

IRA 16,054 0 16,054 0%

Non-IRA 24,865 4,086 20,779 -16%

Table 100. Change in size class distribution acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 3. 

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

Existing Alternative 3 Existing Alternative 3

253 255 1 to 99 acres 3,826 3,646

30 26 100 to 499 acres 5,747 5,286

7 8 500 to 999 acres 5,249 5,570

11 9 1,000 to 4,999 acres 26,097 22,594

0 5,000+ acres 0 0

301 297 Total 40,919 37,096

Areas Identified as Unroaded by Environmental Organizations 

See effects analysis for Alternative 2 with the following change in acres affected for Alternative 

3 (Table 101). The description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the intensity 

(number of acres affected) is slightly less because less harvest and SI would occur in Alternative 

3.

Table 101. Change in acres of areas identified as unroaded by environmental organizations (UEO) 

and influence of past harvest and system roads. 

Environmental 

Organizations 

Unroaded Area 

Name

Acres 

outside of 

IRA, PWA, 

and other 

undeveloped 

land

Acres outside 

(IRA, PWA other 

undeveloped 

land) intersecting 

past harvest 

(1974 – 2009) 

FACTS Database

Acres outside (IRA, 

PWA, other 

undeveloped land 

and past 

harvest)intersecting 

300’ road influence 

zone

Acres outside 

treated with 

Harvest/SI –

Alternative 3

Harvest SI

Joseph Canyon 4,628 3,761 6 1,202 450

Cottonwood 

Creek – Broady 

Creek

1,456 850 1 197 43

Sumac Creek 235 13 0 40 0

Yew Wood 

Springs

329 127 0 156 1

Boner Gulch 173 26 0 43 0

Total 6,821 4,778 7 1638 494
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 235 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 3 restoration treatments would contribute an additional 12,493 acres toward moving 

forest composition, structure, density toward desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or 

size class distribution or improving trends in insect and disease susceptibility.

Physical environment 

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be essentially the same as for alternative 2, but 

they would be proportional to the area treated in the short term (less area treated in alternative 3 

than 2). Over the long term, relative effects between alternatives 2 and 3 would be proportional 

to the area effectively restored toward HRV (alternative 3 less than alternative 2).

Air Quality 

See cumulative effects under Alternative 2.

Disturbance and Fire Regime 

Past harvest, fuels treatment, prescribed fire and wildfire have influenced the character of the 

natural fire regimes found in LJCRP depending on their objectives and outcomes. In general 

each of these activities helped shape the affected environment and existing conditions for this 

project area, along with past grazing and fire suppression. In general the cumulative effect of 

past harvest (assuming that it was not overstory removal of early seral species) have served to 

promote restoration objectives by predominantly reducing density and associated mortality 

effects. In some cases group selection was used as a harvest method which would facilitate the 

ability of early seral regeneration. Fuels treatments and prescribed fire are targeted to reduce the 

probability of high severity fire and restore natural disturbance regimes. Wildfire is generally of 

higher severity than the natural regimes, except for the case of non-forest areas within the 

project, therefore wildfires influence often further departs from the range of variability of forest 

structure, density, and composition by simplifying at multiple scales (landscape and stand). 

The treatments proposed in the LJCRP in conjunction with past beneficial even with past adverse 

treatments would promote the re-introduction of fire at a natural and ecologically appropriate 

scale and severity.

Fire Management Decision Space 

Past management actions and wildfires cumulatively affect fire managements’ ability to 

confidently return fire as an ecological process. Utilizing areas of reduced fire behavior, 

typically identified by past treatment and wildfire, can often decrease the risk (safety, social and 

ecological) of allowing an unplanned ignition to perform an ecologically important role and 

restore a natural disturbance regime. These past actions alongside treatments identified in 

Alternative 3 would facilitate somewhat limited acceptance of characteristic wildland fire and its 

ecological role in restoring disturbance processes in the LJCRP area. This is due in part to the 

large areas of untreated and ecologically important land that would continue to depart from 

historic disturbance severity and behavior. Adverse effects to these areas may not be socially or 

ecologically desirable given the expected effects of wildfire therefore the decision space is 

narrowed when fire occurs within or around these specific areas.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

236 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Wildlife 

The vegetation treatments proposed in alternative 2 would negatively impact current and future 

dead and defective wood habitat to a greater degree than alternative 3. The thinning and fuels 

treatments proposed, are additive to other similar projects in the larger cumulative effects area. 

These treatments add to the needs for hazard tree falling along roads and will alter or remove 

dead and defective wood habitat.

Socioeconomics 

Access: Effects to access to WWNF land was an issue brought up through public comments and 

meetings. The attitude towards the LJCRP from a subsection of the community is generally 

negative because, although it may not contain significant access restrictions, the LJCRP is seen 

as an addition to the previous restrictions put in place and is viewed as a trend towards limiting 

access to public lands. Travel management planning on the WWNF is on-going and this could 

change cross-country travel and the existing network of roads on the Forest. If some roads on the 

WWNF are closed in the future for cross-country travel, commenters expressed that the value of 

maintained roads would increase. Under Alternative 3, the cumulative effects on access to FS 

lands are less than the effects from alternative 2 since there are no new closures or 

decommissioned roads. 

Treatment and Restoration: The effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable treatment 

activities in the project area would improve forest health relative to existing conditions even 

without the implementation of LJCRP. From 2004 to 2013, approximately 1,320 acres have been 

commercially harvested in the Lower Joseph area. Under Alternative 3, 9,880 acres are expected 

to be commercially harvested over the ten year span of the project. Under Alternative 3, the 

activity in the forest sector would be higher than present and the associated local economic 

impact of current and future restoration activities would increase from the present conditions. 

The estimated employment and income consequences of non-LJCRP treatment activities, 

therefore, are likely underestimated in the related environmental compliance documents if they 

depend on present conditions for those analyses. 

The LJCRP treatments and other ongoing and foreseeable treatments could increase exposure to 

smoke emissions, which could cause cumulative effects to health and quality of life for 

individuals who are sensitive to smoke. From 2004 to 2013, approximately 592 acres have been 

broadcast burned and 23,752 acres have incurred wildfire in the Lower Joseph area. Under 

Alternative 3, up to 50,000 acres are expected to be broadcast burned over the ten year span of 

the project. However, the cumulative effect of these treatments would be to decrease the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, which would decrease the probability of smoke emissions associated 

with these events. 

Recreation: Other on-going and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the project area 

will reduce the opportunities for substitute behavior when the preferred recreation site is 

unavailable. As a result, individuals may choose to stay home, which would decrease visitor 

spending and consumer surplus to a greater extent than estimated in the direct and indirect 

effects analysis. However, the cumulative effects to the social and economic impacts from 

recreation cannot be precisely described. Based on the available information, the effect to visitor 

spending and consumer surplus from on-going and reasonably foreseeable actions is not 

expected to change. Although Alternative 3 will likely have less short-term disturbances to 

recreation (from smoke and limited access) than the Proposed Action, the long term effects to 

recreation will be also be less improved viewsheds and opportunities to recreate in a healthy 

forest with reduced risk of wildfire.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 237 

Heritage 

Relatively speaking, alternative 3 may pose a lower cumulative risk to heritage values over time 

as it proposes about half of the area of mechanical treatments, and will most likely be 

implemented not as far into the future as Alternative 2. However, overall, the cumulative effects 

on heritage resources as a result of alternative 3 is not considered to be adverse due to 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (cite), the 2004 

Programmatic Agreement (2004) design criteria, and mitigation and development of site 

protection implementation plans .

Tribal 

See hydrology, wildlife, botany and fisheries sections for complete cumulative effects analysis 

relative to these treaty resources.

Potential Wilderness Area, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and other Undeveloped 

Lands 

Cumulative effects for PWAs and IRAs would be the same as disclosed in Alternative 1. 

Cumulative effects to other undeveloped lands and UEO would be the same as disclosed in 

Alternative 3. The description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the intensity 

(number of acres affected) is slightly less because less harvest and SI would occur in Alternative 

3.

Cumulative Effects – Present and Foreseeable Vegetation Management 

Activities 

There are no vegetation management, fuels treatment and prescribed burning activities that are 

ongoing (as of 2014) or are foreseeable within the project area.

Unavoidable adverse effects 

No unavoidable adverse effects have been identified.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources would occur as a result of this project.

Alternative 2 and 3 – Effects of Not Amending the Forest 

Plans

The following is a description of how the forest plan amendments under this EIS would modify 

the forest plans standards and guidelines and what the effects to the vegetation resource would be 

if the amendment did not occur.

• Alternative 2 - Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s 

Amendment # 2 for the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan)). 

The amendment would authorize: a) Some of the large, but young, Douglas-fir, and grand fir 

trees that are ≥ 21 inches dbh, but less than 150 years in age (at breast height), would be 

removed from any of the structural stages being treated, except for units classified as the old 

forest single stratum structural stage (OFSS; this stage is called “single stratum with large trees” 

in the Screens); b) Thinning treatments would occur in OFSS.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

238 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o If the amendment did not occur: a) Restoration treatments would be limited to a 

maximum of 21” dbh thereby reducing the ability to restore forest structure and composition 

toward reference conditions (HRV), particularly to increase the abundance of shade-intolerant 

tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe fire 

and insect and disease outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural disturbance and climate 

change; b) Restoration treatments would not occur in the OFSS structural stage thereby negating 

the ability ensure maintenance and persistence of the large tree component into the future (in 

terms of improved tree vigor and resistence to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk 

or resiliency to climate change); contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP; 

contribute to density objectives for the LJCRP.

• Alternative 3 - - Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s 

Amendment # 2 for the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan)). 

The amendment would authorize: a) Thinning treatments would occur in OFSS.

o If the amendment did not occur: a) Restoration treatments would not occur in the OFSS 

structural stage thereby negating the ability ensure maintenance and persistence of the large tree 

component into the future (in terms of improved tree vigor and resistence to western pine beetle 

attack and future wildfire risk or resiliency to climate change); contribute to species composition 

objectives for the LJCRP; contribute to density objectives for the LJCRP.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 239 

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact 

statement:

U.S. Forest Service Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Interdisciplinary Team 

Member Title Responsible Sections

Paul Boehne Fisheries Biologist Aquatics, Transportation

Michael Brown Physical Scientist Soils, Watershed, Minerals, 

Lands, GIS

Linda Dillavou Support Assistant Administrative support.

Jenifer Ferriel Ecologist/Botanist Ecology, Range, Native and 

Invasive Plants

Amy Gowan Social Scientist Tribal, Socioeconomics, 

Heritage

Miles Hemstrom Scientist, Institute for Natural 

Resources

Ecological Modeling

Jodi Kramer Public Affairs Officer, 

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest 

External Communication

Kristen Loughery (TEAMS) Economist Socioeconomics

John Manderscheid Civil Engineering Technician Travel Access

Neil McCusker Silviculturist Silviculture, Climate Change

Lonnie Ruchert Civil Engineering Technician Travel Access

Glen Sachet Public Affairs Specialist, R6 Communications

Ayn Shlisky Team Lead Team Management, 

Environmental Coordination

Brian Spradlin Disturbance Ecologist Fire Ecology, Fuels, Air, 

Wilderness, IRAs, 

Environmental Coordination

Kris Stein District Ranger Oversight, Direction

Barb Wales Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Recreation

Eric White Research Associate 

(Ecosystem Workforce 

Program, Univ. of Oregon

Socioeconomics

Darcy Weseman Support Services Supervisor Administrative support

Chris Zanger Forest Analyst 

(The Nature Conservancy)

Fire Modeling

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Tribes 

Nez Perce Tribe
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

240 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Index

air quality, 32, 128, 157, 167, 172, 199, 211, 

212, 215, 231, 257, 427, 430 

aquatic habitat, 53, 86, 137, 138, 146, 160, 

187, 223 

Best Management Practices, viii, 124, 126, 

127, 130, 173, 177, 213, 223, 323, 377 

climate change, 6, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 46, 

47, 53, 104, 150, 151, 152, 156, 173, 188, 

215, 216, 239, 250, 313, 348, 386, 387 

DecAID, iv, 5, 90, 91, 249 

economics, 104, 168, 177, 265, 348 

elk habitat, xii, 9, 95, 97, 122, 149, 163, 

194, 199, 227, 231 

endangered species, v, 261, 266, 321, 326, 

334 

fisheries, 22, 36, 120, 133, 186, 214, 215, 

238, 258, 340, 373, 381, 428, 430 

historical range of variation, 5, 61, 177 

Insects and Disease, 61, 71, 145, 159, 182, 

222, 322, 325 

Inventoried Roadless areas, 110, 373 

management indicator species, viii, 4, 7, 5, 

6, 9, 33, 88, 95, 275, 279, 340 

National Historic Preservation Act, v, 3, 34, 

142, 214, 238, 313 

Nez Perce Tribe, ix, 3, 5, 22, 30, 32, 45, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 105, 143, 170, 241, 250, 

252, 313, 326, 371, 381 

old growth, iii, iv, ix, x, 2, 9, 11, 25, 29, 37, 

39, 77, 91, 92, 94, 95, 103, 104, 115, 130, 

139, 143, 152, 169, 172, 178, 184, 196, 

199, 201, 202, 227, 231, 233, 277, 324, 

346, 347, 351, 384 

PACFISH, 3, 20, 36, 54, 55, 56, 127, 128, 

137, 138, 149, 175, 187, 190, 254, 284, 

313, 323, 334, 340, 345, 346, 390, 392, 

397, 440 

pileated woodpecker, 4, 9, 45, 89, 91, 92, 

94, 135, 161, 162, 192, 225, 243, 345 

potential wilderness areas, viii, 31, 33, 37, 

376 

prescribed burning, 31, 33, 42, 80, 102, 

131, 133, 140, 142, 144, 145, 150, 153, 

157, 161, 190, 191, 192, 194, 199, 202, 

209, 211, 215, 224, 225, 226, 231, 239, 

307, 314, 316, 378, 428 

redband trout, 4, 55, 58, 87, 88, 149, 160, 

189, 191, 199, 223, 224, 231, 291 

resiliency, iv, 5, 7, 27, 28, 37, 104, 120, 129, 

142, 182, 196, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 214, 221, 228, 233, 239, 261, 300, 

416 

riparian habitat conservation area, 40, 351 

scoping, iv, 8, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42, 

101, 258, 298 

Snake River steelhead, 4, 36, 45, 86, 87, 

147, 149, 160, 188, 191, 223, 224, 340 

timber volume, 22, 30, 61, 159, 168, 184, 

197, 222, 229, 350 

tree density, ix, x, xi, 6, 35, 60, 67, 73, 134, 

157, 181, 193, 219, 226, 382, 384 

tree size class, ix, x, xi, 61, 67, 68, 181, 220 

Wallowa County, iii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 21, 22, 

24, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 56, 75, 79, 84, 

85, 100, 101, 113, 123, 185, 202, 254, 

255, 314, 355, 372, 373, 375 

wolf, xii, 4, 13, 15, 136, 166, 246, 249, 326 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 241 

Bibliography

AFRC . 2014. Forest Sector Infrastructure in Northeast Oregon's Blue Mountains. 

Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. Page Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Abella, S. R., C. W. Denton, R. W. Steinke, and D. G. Brewer. 2013. Soil development in 

vegetation patches of Pinus ponderosa forests: Interface with restoration thinning and 

carbon storage. Forest Ecology and Management 310:632-642. 

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Agee, J. K., and K. R. Maruoka. 1994. Historical fire regimes of the Blue Mountains. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, 

La Grande, OR. 

Anderson, R. 1998. A Preliminary Assessment of bats along Snake River, Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. Page 85 in H. C. c. F. N. Bonneville Power Administration, editor. 

Averill, R. D., L. Larson, J. Saveland, P. Wargo, and J. B. Williams, Melvin. 1995. Disturbance 

processes and ecosystem management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

[Washington, DC]. 

Barbour, M. G., Jack H Burk, Wanna D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Pages 162-168 

Terrestrial Plant Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, 

CA. 

Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. Hann, C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. Demeo, L. Hutter, 

and J. Menakis. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0. 

http://www.frcc.gov/. 

Barrett, S. W., S. F. Arno, and J. P. Menakis. 1997. Fire episodes in the Inland Northwest (1540-

1940) based on fire history data. Page 17 p. General Technical Report INT-GTR-370. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 

Bate, L. J., M. J. Wisdom, and B. C. Wales. 2007. Snag densities in relation to human access and 

associated management factors in forests of Northeastern Oregon, USA. Landscape and 

Urban Planning 80:278-291. 

Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). 

University of California Publication of Zoology 92:1-100. 

Boyd, D. K., R. R. Ream, D. H. Pletscher, and M. W. Fairchild. 1994. Prey taken by colonizing 

wolves and hunters in the Glacier National Park area. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 58:289-295. 

Brooks, P. J. 2009. Rare White Erigeron Identification Project. Interagency Special Status and 

Sensitive Species website. 

Bull, E. L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management 51:472-481. 

Bull, E. L. 2000. Seasonal and sexual differences in American marten diet in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwest Science 74. 

Bull, E. L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. Page 46 p. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

242 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Bull, E. L., and A. K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and Their 

Prey. Page 12. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Bull, E. L., and B. E. Carter. 1996. Tailed frogs: distribution, ecology, and association with timber 

harvest in northeastern Oregon. Page 11 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Bull, E. L., A. A. Clark, and J. F. Shepherd. 2005a. Short-term effects of fuel reduction on pileated 

woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon—a pilot study. Page 17. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American martens in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74:179-185. 

Bull, E. L., T. W. Heater, and J. F. Shepherd. 2005b. Habitat selection by the American marten in 

Northeastern Oregon. Pages 37-43. Northwest Science. 

Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

Northeastern Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345. 

Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen, and M. G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers 

in Northeastern Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management 56:786-793. 

Bull, E. L., and D. B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high 

elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76:240-248. 

Bull, E. L., N. Nielsen-Pincus, B. C. Wales, and J. L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance 

events on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management 243:320-329. 

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Page 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Burnett, D. J. M. a. K. M. 2007. Effects of forest cover, topography, and sampling extent on the 

measured density of shallow, translational landslides. Water Resources Research 43. 

Busing, R. T. C. B. H., T.A. Spies. 1995. Ecology of Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia) in Western 

Oregon and Washington. Conservation Biology 9:1199-1207. 

Busse, M. D., Ken R. Hubbert, and Emily E. Y. Moghaddas. 2014. Fuel Reduction Practices and 

Their Effects on Soil Quality. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-241, USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Cansler, C. A., and D. McKenzie. 2014. Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire 

severity and spatial pattern in the northern Cascade Range, USA. Ecological 

Applications 24:1037-1056. 

Caraher, D. L., J. Henshaw, F. Hall, W. H. Knapp, B. P. McCammon, J. Nesbitt, R. J. Pedersen, I. 

Regenovitch, and C. Tietz. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains: a report 

to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, [Portland, OR]. 

Cederholm, C. J., and L. M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: a project 

summary. Pages 373-397 in E. O. Salo and T. W. Gundy, editors. Streamside 

management forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution No. 57. University of 

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. 

Chambers, C. L., and M. J. Herder. 2005. Species accounts Euderma maculatum spotted bat. 

Page 5 p. Developed for 2005 Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat Working 

Group. Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, SD. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 243 

Charles C. Rhoades , D. E. a. D. B. 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on 

streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire, 

Colorado. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20:430-442. 

Churchill, D. J., A. J. Larson, M. C. Dahlgreen, J. F. Franklin, P. F. Hessburg, and J. A. Lutz. 2013. 

Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions 

and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management 291:442-457. 

Cochran, P. H., J. M. Geist, D. L. Clemens, R. R. Clausnitzer, and D. C. Powell. 1994. Suggested 

stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 

Cook, R. C., J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, S. M. Mccorquodale, L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. 

L. Irwin, S. L. Murphie, and B. L. Murphie. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of 

nutritional condition and reproduction in elk. Wildlife Monographs 184:1-45. 

Countryman, B., D.K. Swanson, S. Mellmann-Brown. 2012. Rangeland Condition and Trend for 

the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision - Final.in B. M. F. P. Revision, editor. WallowaWhitman National Forest, Baker City, OR. 

Crane, M. F., and W. C. Fischer. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 

Crowe, E. A., and a. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the 

Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. R6-NR-ECOL-TP_22-97, 

USDA Forest Service PNW Region, Portland, OR. 

Davis, R., and K. Weever. 2011. Johnson’s hairstreak surveys in Oregon and Washington (2010). 

Page 19 p. Unpublished report prepared for the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive 

Species Program (ISSSSP). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Portland, OR. 

DeBano, L. F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland 

environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology 231–232:195–206. 

Dewey, R. 2013. Conservation Assessment For Henderson's Needlegrass (Achnatherum 

hendersonii) and Wallowa Needlegrass (Achnatherum wallowaense). Interagency 

Special Status and Sensitive Species website. 

Diaz, N., and D. Apostol. Forest Landscape, Analysis and Design. 

Dixon, R. D. 1995. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use and 

behaviour of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, 

Oregon. Page 70 pages Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Nongame Rep. 93-3-01, 

Portland. 

Dodson, E. K., D. W. Peterson, and R. J. Harrod. 2008. Understory vegetation response to 

thinning and burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests of the eastern 

Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3130-3140. 

Dunham, J. B., Rosenberger, A.E., Luce, C.H., Rieman, B.E. 2007. Influences of wildfire and 

channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and 

the distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10:335-346. 

Everest, F. H., and R. D. Harr. 2008. Influence of forest and rangeland management on 

anadromous fish habitat in western North America: Silvicultural Treatments. Page 19 p. 

in P. F. a. R. E. S. USDA Forest Service, editor., Portland, OR. 

Ewing, C. 1939. Umatilla National Forest History. USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest. 

Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American 

Foresters, Washington, DC. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

244 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Foltz, S. 2009. Species fact sheet: intermountain sulphur Colias occidentalis pseudochristina = 

Colias christina pseudochristina. Page 5 p. Unpublished report prepared for the 

Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). Washington Department 

of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 

Franklin, J. F., M. A. Henstrom, R. Van Pelt, J. B. Buchanan, and S. Hull. 2008. The Case for Active 

Management of Dry Forest Types in Eastern Washington: Perpetuating and Creating 

Old Forest Structures and Functions. Page 105 in W. D. o. N. Resources, editor. 

Franklin, J. F., K. N. Johnson, D. J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013a. 

Restoration of dry forests in eastern Oregon: A field guide.in T. N. Conservancy, editor. 

The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 

Franklin, J. F., K. N. Johnson, D. J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013b. 

Restoration of dry forests in eastern Oregon: A field guide. Nature Conservancy, 

Portland, OR. 

Frederick, G. P., and T. L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of white-headed woodpecker 

(Picoides albolarvatus) in west central Idaho. Page 53 pages. Conservation Data Center, 

Nongame and Endangered. Wildlife Program, Bureau of Wildlife, Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Frenzel, R. W. 2002. Nest sites, nesting success and turnover rates of white-headed 

woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forest, Oregon in 2002. Page 45 

pages Oregon Natural Heritage Program. The Nature Conservancy, Portland. 

Fritts, S. H., E. E. Bangs, and J. F. Gore. 1994. The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat 

conservation and biodiversity in the northwestern United States. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 28:23-32. 

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 

Forests. Page 79 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Garrett, K. L., M. G. Raphael, and R. D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides 

albolarvatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252. Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Gast, W. R., Jr., D. W. Scott, C. Schmitt, D. Clemens, S. Howes, C. G. Johnson, Jr., R. Mason, F. 

Mohr, and R. A. Clapp. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: "new perspectives in 

forest health". U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman national forests, Portland, OR.

Godbout, G., and J.-P. Ouellet. 2008. Habitat selection of American marten in a logged 

landscape at the southern fringe of the boreal forest. Ecoscience 15:332-342. 

Griffin, A. A. 1918. Swamp Creek Timber Survey Project on Wallowa National Forest. Page 18 p. 

in U. F. Service, editor. 

Grigal, D. F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology 

and Management. Pages 167–185. 

Gruver, J. C., and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a 

technical conservation assessment. Page 93 pages [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. 

Gunderson, L. H. 2000. Ecological resilience – in theory and application. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 31:425-439. 

Hall, F. C. 1977. Ecology of natural underburning in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 245 

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R. E. Kean, D. G. Long, J. P. Menakis, C. H. 

McNicoll, S. G. Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier, and B. G. Smith. 1997. An assessment of 

ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins. Vol. II. Landscape dynamics of the basin. USDA Forest Service. 

Hardy, C. C., K. M. Schmidt, J. P. Menakis, and R. N. Sampson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire 

planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372. 

Hargis, C. D., J. A. Bissonette, and D. L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and 

landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172. 

Harrod, R. J., D. W. Peterson, N. A. Povak, and E. K. Dodson. 2009. Thinning and prescribed fire 

effects on overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior 

Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 258:712-721. 

Hayes, G. E., and J. B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the peregrine falcon. 

Page 87. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

Hays, D. W., and R. L. Milner. 2004. Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus. Pages 11:11-14 in E. 

Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for 

Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. 

Hessburg, P. F., R. G. Mitchell, and G. M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and 

pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. SAlter, c. H. McNicoll, and W. J. Hann. 

1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the Interior Columbia River 

Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Page 60 in F. S. US Department fo 

Agriculture, PNW Research Station, editor. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

Heyerdahl, E. K. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regimes of the Blue 

Mountains, Oregon and Washington: the influence of climate. Doctor of Philosophy. 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Heyerdahl, E. K., and J. K. Agee. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four sites in the Blue Mountains, 

Oregon and Washington. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, 

Seattle, WA. 

Hollenbeck, J. P., L. J. Bate, V. A. Saab, and J. F. Lehmkuhl. 2013. Snag distributions in relation to 

human access in ponderosa pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:256-266. 

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural 

resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337. 

Huff, M. H. e. a. 1995. Historical and Current Forest Landscapes in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Page 50 pp. in U. F. Service, editor. 

Industries, O. D. o. G. a. M. 2014. Landslide Hazards in Oregon. 

Jaindl, R. G., and T. M. Quigley. 1995. Search for a solution: sustaining the land, people, and 

economy of the Blue Mountains. American Forests, Washington, DC. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America: biology and natural history. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson, C. G., Jr. 1998. Common Plants of the Inland Pacific Northwest. USDA USFS PNW 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Johnson, C. G., Jr and D.K. Swanson. . 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and 

Ochoco Mountains: a guide for managers. 

Johnson, C. G., Jr and S.A. Simon. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province. Page 

400 in W. W. N. Forest, editor. R6 Ecology Program, Portland, OR. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

246 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Johnson, C. G., Jr., and S. A. Simon. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake province, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 

Kaufmann, M. R., R. T. Graham, D. A. Boyce, Jr., W. H. Moir, L. Perry, R. T. Reynolds, R. L. 

Bassett, P. Mehlhop, C. B. Edminster, W. M. Block, and P. S. Corn. 1994. An ecological 

basis for ecosystem management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment 

Page 63 pages [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Kolb, P. F. 1999. Forestland Grazing: Understory forage management. Montana Forest Owners 

Association Newsletter. 

Kolb, T. E., K. M. Holmberg, M. R. Wagner, and J. E. Stone. 1998. Regulation of ponderosa pine 

foliar physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree 

Physiology 18:378-381. 

Korol, J. J., M. A. Hemstrom, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. Snags and Down Wood in 

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Pages 649-663 in L. Jr., W. 

F., P. J. Shea, B. E. Valentine, C. P. Weatherspoon, and T. E. Lisle, editors. Proceedings of 

the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in Western Forests. 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 

Reno, NV. 

Kozma, J. M. 2011. Composition of forest stands used by white-headed woodpeckers for 

nesting in Washington. Western North American Naturalist 71:1-9.

Krueger, W. C. 1981. How a Forest Affects a Forage Crop. Rangelands 3:70-71.

Kunkel, K. E., T. K. Ruth, D. H. Pletscher, and M. G. Hornocker. 1999. Winter prey selection by 

wolves and cougars in and near Glacier National Park Montana. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:901-910. 

Kunz, T. H., and R. A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species:1-6.

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9:1179-1188. 

Larsen, E., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner. 1995. Management recommendations for Washington’s 

priority species, Volume I: invertebrates. Page 82 p. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 

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

North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for 

designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 

267:74-92.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., P. F. Hessburg, R. L. Everett, M. H. Huff, and R. D. Ottmar. 1994. Historical and 

current forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington; part I: vegetation pattern 

and insect and disease hazards. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Lichthardt, J. 2001. Effects of fire on sensitive plant species of the Clearwater National Forest: 

An annotated bibliography. Annotated Bibliography, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, ID. 

Lippert, J. 2014. Effects of Commercial Thinning and Associated Activities on Habitat and 

Distribution of Fungi.in I. S. S. a. S. S. Program, editor., Interagency Special Status and 

Sensitive Species Program Website.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 247 

Long, R. A., J. L. Rachlow, J. G. Kie, and M. Vavra. 2008. Fuels Reduction in a Western Coniferous 

Forest: Effects on Quantity and Quality of Forage for Elk. Rangeland Ecology & 

Management 61:302-313. 

Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of 

Forestry 81:592-613. 

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate Change Impacts on Streamflow Extremes 

and Summertime Stream Temperature and Their Possible Consequences for 

Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102 (1): 187-223. doi: 

10.1007/s10584-010-9845-2. 102:187-223. 

Marsden, M. A., G. M. Filip, and P. F. Hessburg. Using the Forest timber inventory for sampling 

the occurrence of pests on interior Douglas-fir. Pages 109-113 in U. F. Service, editor. 

Marshall. 1999. Unusual Gardens: The Nez Perce - A Wild Horticulture on the Eastern Columbia 

Plateau. 

Maruoka, K. R., and J. K. Agee. 1994. Fire histories: overview of methods and applications. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, 

La Grande, OR. 

Matz, F. A. 1928. Chesnimnus Timber Survey Project.in U. F. Service, editor. 

McIver, J., K. Erickson, and A. Youngblood. 2012. Principal short-term findings of the National 

Fire and Fire Surrogate study. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

McKenzie, D., Z. e. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902. 

Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in 

Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87. 

Mehringer, P. J., Jr. 1996. Columbia River Basin Ecosystems: Late Quaternary Environments., 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 

Mellen-McLean, K. 2011. Comparison of Historical Range of Variability for Dead Wood:DecAID 

vs. Other Published Estimates. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and 

Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, 

Portland, OR. 

Mellen-McLean, K., B. G. Marcot, J. L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S. A. Livingston, E. A. Willhite, B. B. 

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for 

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of 

Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 

and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State 

Office, Portland, Oregon. 

Merriam, K. E., J. E. KEELEY, and J. L. BEYERS. 2006. Fuel breaks affect non-native species 

abundance in Californian plant communities. Ecological Applications 16:515–527. 

Metlen, K. L., and C. E. Fiedler. 2006. Restoration treatment effects on the understory of 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 222:355-369. 

Miller, J. C., and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Northwest forests and 

woodlands: rare, endangered, and management-sensitive species. Page 234 p. Forest 

Health Technology Enterprise Team, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, I. 2014. IMpacts for PLANning (IMPLAN). 

Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, and A. P. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape 

recolonizaiton: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications 

9:37-44.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

248 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Morgan, P., G. H. Aplet, J. B. Haufler, H. C. Humphries, M. M. Moore, and W. D. Wilson. 1994. 

Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry 2:87-111. 

Munger, T. T. 1917. Western yellow pine in Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC. 

Murray, M. 2001. Habitat Prediction Mapping for Three Rare Plants on the Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest: Mirabilis macfarlanei, Silene spaldingii, Spiranthes diluvialis. Challenge 

Cost-Share Agreement No. 00-CS-11061600-28, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 

(formerly Oregon Natural Heritage Program), Portland, OR. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management 

Plans for National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Resource Areas in the 

Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units.in N. 

R. Office, editor., Seattle, WA. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. Temperature and precipitation data 

for the Joseph, Oregon weather station National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North 

Carolina. 

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]; 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Naylor, L. M., M. J. Wisdom, and R. G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral responses of North American 

elk to recreational activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73:328-338. 

Nearing, M. A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O'Neal. 2004. Expected climate change impacts on soil 

erosion rates: A review. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59:43-50. 

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire 

on soils and water. Page 250 p. in R. M. R. S. USDA Forest Service, editor., Ogend, UT. 

Nez Perce Tribe. 2013. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management 

Department Management Plan · 2013-2028. Nez Perce Tribe. 

Nielsen-Pincus, N., and E. O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in 

available habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwestern 

Naturalist 88:135-146. 

Nielson, M., K. Lohman, and J. Sullivan. 2001. Phylogeography of the tailed frog (Ascaphus 

truei): implications for the biogeography of the Pacific Northwest. Evolution 55:147-

160. 

O'Hara, K. L., P. A. Latham, P. Hessburg, and B. G. Smith. 1996. A structural classification for 

inland northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11:97-102. 

ODA Plant Division. 2001. Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan. Corvallis, OR. 

Oliver, C. D., and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., New York. 

Olson, D. L. 2000. Fire in riparian zones: a comparison of historical fire occurrence in riparian 

and upslope forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. Master of 

Science. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Perry, D. A., P. F. Hessburg, C. N. Skinner, T. A. Spies, S. L. Stephens, A. H. Taylor, J. F. Franklin, 

B. McComb, and G. Riegel. 2011. The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in 

Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 

262:703-717. 

Phillips, R. W., R. L. Laantz, E. W. Clire, and J. R. Morning. 1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures 

on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout fry. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 104:461-466. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 249 

Piaggio, A., and R. E. Sherwin. 2005. Species accounts Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's bigeared bat. Page 5 p. Developed for 2005 Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat 

Working Group. Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, SD. 

Pierson, E. D., M. C. Wackenhut, J. S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. L. Genter, C. E. Harris, B. 

L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo, J. M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 

1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Page 73 

p. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Pilliod, D. S., C. R. Peterson, and P. I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs 

(Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1849-1862. 

Powell, D. C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and 

southeastern Washington: an implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla 

National Forest, Pendleton, OR. 

Powell, D. C. 2009. Tree Density Protocol for Mid-Scale Assessments. Page 44 pp. in U. F. 

Service and U. N. Forest, editors. 

Powell, D. C. 2010. Range of Variation Recommendations for Dry, Moist, and Cold Forests. Page 

37 pp. in U. F. Service and U. N. Forest, editors. 

Powell, D. C. 2012. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. Page 

42 in F. S. US Department of Agricuture, Pacific Northwest Region, editor. Umatilla 

National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

Powell, D. C. 2013. Active Management of Moist Forests in the Blue Mountains: Silvicultural 

Considerations. Page 328 p. in U. F. Service, editor. 

Powell, D. C., and E. A. C. C.G.Johnson, A. Wells, D.K. Swanson. 2007. Potential Vegetation 

Hierarchy for the Blue Mountains Section of Northeastern Oregon, Southwestern 

Washington, and West-Central Idaho. USDA USFS, Portland, OR. 

Powell, D. C., C. G. Johnson, Jr., E. A. Crowe, A. Wells, and D. K. Swanson. 2007. Potential 

vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, 

southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Prather, T. B. a. R. H. C. 1989. Yellow starthistle 1987 survey. 

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes, and R. T. Graham. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for 

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great basins. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Ramos- Scharrón, C. E., and L.H. MacDonald. 2007. Measurement and prediction of natural and 

anthropogenic sediment sources, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Catena 71:250-266. 

Raphael, M. G. 1981. Interspecific differences in nesting habitat of sympatric woodpeckers and 

nuthatches. Pages 142-151 in D. E. Capen, editor. The use of multivariate statistics in 

studies of wildlfie habitat U.S.D.A. for. Serv., Rogky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Stn. 

Raphael, M. G., M. L. Morrison, and M. P. Yoder-Williams. 1987. Breeding bird populations 

during twenty-five years of postfire succession in the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 

89:614-626. 

Raphael, M. G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. 

Wildlife Monographs:3-66.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

250 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Reaser, J. K., and D. S. Pilliod. 2005. Rana luteiventris, Columbia spotted frog. Pages 559–563 in

M. J. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States 

species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Reeves, D., D. Page-Dumroese, and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental Soil Disturbance Associated 

with Timber Harvest Systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-RP-89. 

Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20:1753-1761. 

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D. L. Lindley, and B. 

Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for 

habitat management. Pages Pp. 580-623 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, editors. 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis OR. 

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling 

in relation to roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64:672-684. 

Saab, V. A., and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire 

and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Page 

17 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. 

Saab, V. A., and K. T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis's woodpecker in burned pine 

and cottonwood riparian forests. The Condor 103:491-501. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 

12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Schmitt, C. L. 1997. Management of Douglas-fir Infected with Dwarf Mistletoe in the Blue 

Mountains of Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. Page 31 pp. in U. F. 

Service, editor. 

Schmitt, C. L., and D. C. Powell. 2008. White Paper: Range of Variation Recommendations for 

Insect and Disease Susceptibility. Page 16 pp. in U. F. S. R. 6, editor. 

Schmitt, C. L., and L. H. Spiegel. 2008. Johnson's hairstreak butterfly and dwarf mistletoe 

backgrounder. Page 8 p. unpublished memo to Forest Supervisors. USDA Forest Service 

Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, La Grande, OR. 

Service, N. M. F. 1995. Biological Opinion: Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, 

Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest.in N. R. Office, editor., Seattle, WA. 

Service, N. M. F. 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Letter of Concurrence. Page 15 pp. in

U. NMFS, editor. 

Service, U. S. F. a. W. 2007. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Sherwin, R. E., D. Stricklan, and D. S. Rogers. 2000. Roosting Affinities of Townsend's Big-Eared 

Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in Northern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 81:939-947. 

Shiflet, T. N. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Society of Range Management, 

Denver, CO. 

Sondenaa, A., and S. Kozusko. 2003a. Precious Lands Wildlife Area Final Management Plan.in B. 

P. Administration, editor. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 251 

Sondenaa, A., and S. Kozusko. 2003b. Precious lands wildlife area final mangement plan. 

PROJECT ID #199608000, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho. 

Spiegel, L. H., and M. G. McWilliams. 2014. 3410 Insect & Disease Review of Lower Joe Project 

Area. Page 15 p. in U. F. Service, editor. Blue Mountain Forest Insect and Disease 

Service Center, La Grande, OR. 

Stephens, S. L., J. J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C. E. Fiedler, S. Haase, M. Harrington, J. E. Keeley, 

E. E. Knapp, J. D. McIver, K. Metlen, C. N. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. 2009. Fire 

treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western 

U.S. forests. Ecological Applications 19:305-320. 

Stine, P., P. Hessburg, T. Spies, M. Kramer, C. J. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. Lehmkuhl, K. O'Hara, K. 

Polivka, P. Singleton, S. Charnley, A. Merschel, and R. White. 2014. The ecology and 

management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a 

synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land 

management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Stine, P. e. a. In Press, 2014. The Ecology and Management of Moist Mixed-conifer Forests in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington: a Synthesis of the Relevant Biophysical Science and 

Implications for Future Land Management.in U. F. Service, editor. 

Strickler, G. S. a. W. B. H. 1980. The Standley Allotment: A History of Range Recovery. USDA 

Forest Service PNW Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: An 

ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106 -113. 

Suring, L. H., W. L. Gaines, B. C. Wales, K. Mellen-McLean, J. S. Begley, and S. Mohoric. 2011. 

Maintaining populations of terrestrial wildlife through land management planning: a 

case study. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:945-958. 

Swetnam, T. W., B. E. Wickman, H. G. Paul, and C. Baisan. 1995. Historical patterns of western 

spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreaks in the northern Blue 

Mountains, Oregon, since A.D. 1700. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Teply, M., and a. K. C. Dale McGreer. 2014. Using Simulation Models to Develop Riparian 

Buffer Strip Prescriptions. Journal of Forestry 112:302–311. 

Thomas, J. W., editor. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of 

Washington and Oregon, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/284. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Toweill, D. E., and J. W. Thomas, editors. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 

US Department of Agriculture, F. S. 1995. Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment 

decision notice and finding of no significant impact: Interim strategies for managing 

fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western 

Montana, and portions of Nevada [INFISH].in N. Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest 

Regions., editor. 

US Geological Survey. 2014. USGS Current Water Data for Oregon, Daily Streamflow Conditions. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

252 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

USDA Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act 

Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout 

Subpopulation Watershed Scale. (Draft). 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. Page 70. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, Baker City, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive 

Management Plan. Page 88 in P. R. USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, editor. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program, preventing and 

managing invasive plants, record of decision. Page 64 in P. N. R. USDA Forest Service, 

editor. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed condition classification technical guide. Page 49 in F. S. 

US Department of Agriculture, editor. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Condition Framework: A framework for assessing and 

tracking changes to watershed condition. Page 34. USDA Forest Service, Washington 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Accelerated Restoration of Fire-adapted Forests. USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Interim Directive 2020-2013-1 Ecological Restoration and 

Resilience. Page 12 in U. D. O. Agriculture, editor. Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed revised land 

management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Baker City, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim strategies for 

managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH). 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. 2005. Region 6 Invasive Plants Environmental 

Impact Statement. . Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service Region 1. 2014. Invasive, Non-Native Species Restricted for Use during 

Revegetation and Restoration. Missoula, MT. 

Wales, B. C., K. Mellen-McClean, W. L. Gaines, and L. Suring. 2011. Focal species assessment of 

current condition and the proposed action (alternative B) for the Blue Mountains forest 

plan revision-DRAFT. Page?? Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountain Forest 

Plan Revision Team, Baker City, OR. 

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and 

transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9:article 5. 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 2010. Lower Joseph Watershed Assessment DRAFT. Page 

113 in W. M. Office, editor. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Enterprise, OR. 

Wallowa County. 2006a. Wallowa County community wildfire protection plan. Page 88. 

Wallowa County, Wallowa County, Oregon. 

Wallowa County. 2006b. Wallowa County Integrated Weed Management Plan. Page 8 p. 

Wallowa County. 2014. Draft Lower Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment. Wallowa County, 

Oregon. 

Warren, A. D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: their taxonomy, distribution, and biology. Page 408 

pp. Lepidoptera of North America 6. C.P. Gillette Museum. Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, CO. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 253 

Weller, T. J. 2005. Species accounts Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis. Page 3 p. Developed for 

2005 Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat Working Group. Western Bat 

Working Group, Rapid CIty, SD. 

Wells, A. 2006. Deep Canyon and Subalpine Riparian and Wetland Plant Associations of the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. USDA Forest Service, PNW 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Wightman, C. S., V. A. Saab, C. Forristal, K. Mellen-McLean, and A. Markus. 2010. White-headed 

woodpecker nesting ecology after wildfire. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1098-

1106. 

Williams, J. a. E. M. 2009. The History of Grazing in Wallowa County. 

Wilson, B. L., Richard Brainerd, Danna Lytjen, Bruce Newhouse, and Nick Otting. 2008. Feild 

Guide to the Sedges of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR.

Wisdom, M. J., and L. J. Bate. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and 

human access. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2085-2093. 

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. 

Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for 

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broadscale trends and 

management implications. Volume 1—Overview. Page 156 pp. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Witmer, G. W., S. K. Martin, and R. D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and 

management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Page 

51 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Wright, C. S., and J. K. Agee. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade 

Mountains, Washington. Ecological Applications 14:443-459. 

Young, J. A. 1965. Forage production and utilization in a mixed conifer forest in the wallowa 

Mountains foothills. Oregon State University. 

Zhang, J., R. F. Powers, and C. N. Skinner. 2010. To Manage or Not to Manage: The Role of 

Silviculture in Sequestering Carbon in the Specter of Climate Change.in U. F. Service, 

editor. 

Additional References: 

Baker, W. L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2:111-133. 

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. 

Development and Use of State-and-Transition Models for Rangelands. Journal of Range 

Management 56:114-126. 

Bestelmeyer, B. T., A. J. Tugel, G. L. Peacock, D. G. Robinett, P. L. Shaver, J. R. Brown, J. E. 

Herrick, H. Sanchez, and K. M. Havstad. 2009. State-and-Transition Models for 

Heterogeneous Landscapes: A Strategy for Development and Application. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 62:1-15. 

Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, 

and Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 58:1-10. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

254 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Burcsu, T., J. Halofsky, S. Bisrat, T. Christopher, M.K. Creutzburg, E. Henderson, M. Hemstrom, 

M. Whitman. In Press. Dynamic Vegetation Modeling of Forested, Woodland, 

Shrubland, and Grassland Vegetation Communities in the Pacific Northwest and 

Southwest Regions of the United States. In Halofsky, J.E., M.K. Creutzburg, and M.A. 

Hemstrom. Mid-Scale Landscape Assessment: Methods Used in the Integrated 

Landscape Assessment Project. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXX. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Forbis, T., L. Provencher, L. Frid, and G. Medlyn. 2006. Great Basin Land Management Planning 

Using Ecological Modeling. Environmental Management 38:62-83. 

Hall, F. C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural plant 

communities. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-418, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Hemstrom, M. A., J. Merzenich, A. Reger, and B. Wales. 2007. Integrated analysis of landscape 

management scenarios using state and transition models in the upper Grande Ronde 

River Subbasin, Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:198-211. 

Ohmann, J. L. and K. L. Waddell (2002). Regional Patterns of Dead Wood in Forested Habitats of 

Oregon and Washington. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and 

Management of Dead Wood in Western Forests. L. Jr., W. F., P. J. Shea et al. Reno, NV, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181: 535-560. 

Petersen, S. L., T. K. Stringham, and B. A. Roundy. 2009. A Process-Based Application of Stateand-Transition Models: A Case Study of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) 

Encroachment. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:186-192. 

Provencher, L., G. Low, and S. Abele. 2009. Bodie Hills Conservation Action Planning: Final 

report to the Bureau of Land Managment Bishop Field Office. The Nature Conservancy, 

Reno, NV. 

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel 

assessment. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:235-249. 

Vavra, M., M. A. Hemstrom, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. Modeling the effects of herbivores on the 

abundance of forest overstory states using a simple state-transition approach. 

Landscape and Urban Planning 80:212-222. 

Wales, B. C., L. H. Suring, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2007. Modeling potential outcomes of fire and 

fuel management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, 

USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:223-236. 

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not 

at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274. 

Zhou, X. and M. A. Hemstrom (2010). Timber volume and aboveground live tree biomass 

estimations for landscape analyses in the Pacific Northwest. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR819. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 255 

Glossary

A

active management: Planned, intentional actions in an area that are specifically designed to 

obtain a desired objective or result.

active restoration: Refer to restoration.

administrative site: Areas such as work centers, fire lookouts, permitted ranch headquarters, 

seed orchards, communication sites, utility corridors, developed campgrounds, and other areas 

that are occupied or used by the Forest Service during the administration of work associated with 

national forest lands.

adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management in which decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves planning, implementing, 

monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. 

Effects are monitored for the purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions, 

which improves the efficiency and responsiveness of management.

administrative unit: A management area such as the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, under 

the administration of one line officer. Forest Service line officers include district rangers and 

forest supervisors.

air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm humans, 

animals, vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial matter 

capable of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combination 

of these. 

air quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein, used most 

frequently in connection with standards of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations.

allotment (grazing): Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock 

grazing for a prescribed period. 

allotment management plan (AMP): A document that specifies the actions to be taken to 

manage and protect the rangeland resources and reach a given set of objectives. 

all-terrain vehicle (ATV): Off-highway-vehicles with less than or equal to a 50 inch wheel 

base, three or more low-pressured tires, handle bar steering and a seat designed to be straddled.

amenity: Resource use, object, feature, quality, or experience that is pleasing to the mind or 

senses; typically refers to values for which monetary values are not or cannot be established, 

such as scenic or wilderness values. 

anadromous fish: Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return 

to fresh water to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

256 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

analysis file: A file containing records of the scoping and analysis processes conducted during 

the preparation of a NEPA document. The file is typically stored at the Forest Service office from 

which a final decision is issued.

animal unit: One mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf up to 6 

months of age, or the equivalent (one horse, five domestic sheep). This concept is based on a 

standardized amount of forage consumed. 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one mature (1,000 lb.) cow or its 

equivalent for one month (based upon average forage consumption of 26 lb. of dry matter per 

day). Refer to head month. 

anthropogenic: Caused or produced through the agency of man; the scientific study of the 

origin of man. 

aquatic: Pertaining to water. 

aquatic ecosystem: Waters that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and 

populations of plants and animals. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic 

communities and the habitat features that occur therein. 

assessment: The collection, integration, examination, and evaluation of information and values.

authorized grazing: Refer to grazing permit.

B

basal area: The cross-sectional area of the trunk of a tree or stand of trees at breast height (4.5 

feet).

basalt: A finely or fine grained, dark, dense volcanic rock.

basin (river): (1) In general, the area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials 

to a common point along a stream channel. River basins are composed of large river systems; (2) 

the term refers to the equivalent of a 3rd-field hydrologic unit code, an area of about nine million 

acres, such as the Snake River Basin.

benches: Mid-elevation flat or gently sloping sites. Grazing and homesteading/ranching 

activities were concentrated in these areas, which were also used by American Indians for 

pasturing livestock. Benches from 2,000 to 4,500 feet generally have potential to support the 

bunchgrass associations described for the lower and mid-position slopes. Cheatgrass brome, 

Kentucky bluegrass, and an assortment of annual and perennial forbs (including some noxious 

weeds) dominate much of the benchland, some of which was severely disturbed by early farming 

and ranching activities.

beneficial uses: Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, including, but not 

limited to, domestic water supplies, fisheries and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, 

agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and 

aesthetics.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 257 

best management practices (BMPs): Practice or set of practices that enable a planned activity 

to occur while still protecting the resource managed, normally implemented and applied during 

the activity rather than after the activity.

best management practices (BMPs) (Watershed): A practice or a combination of practices, 

that is determined by the state (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem 

assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the 

most effective, practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) 

means of preventing, or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a 

level compatible with water quality goals.

big game: Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource. 

Generally includes; elk, moose, white-tailed deer, mule deer, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, 

black bear and mountain lion.

biological diversity (biodiversity): The variety and variability among living organisms and the 

ecological complexes in which they occur.

biological soil crust: Thin crust of living organisms on or just below the soil surface composed 

of dense, low-growing community of various combinations of algae, mosses, liverworts, 

cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), micro fungi, bacteria, and lichens; and provide important 

components of grassland, shrub-steppe, and subalpine habitats. Also referred to as 

cryptogrammatic or microbiotic crust.

biophysical: The combination or grouping of biological and physical components in an 

ecosystem.

biotic: Living.

biomass: Dry weight of organic matter in plants and animals in an ecosystem, both above and 

below ground.

broad scale: A large, regional area, such as an entire river basin and typically a multi-state area.

browse: That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): An agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior 

with land management responsibility for the public domain lands.

C

candidate species: Plant and animal species that may be proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NFMS); these species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA).

canopy: In a forest, the branches from the uppermost layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical 

projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation.

canopy cover: The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree 

crowns.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

258 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as 

climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, 

such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.

capital investment: An input that increases the stock of natural or man–made resources (assets) 

needed to maintain or increase the flow of outputs in the future. Benefits resulting from capital 

investments are normally recouped in excess of one year; activities that create or improve capital 

assets to obtain benefits occurring during several planning periods.

carrying capacity: The number of animals or plants that can be maintained over a specific 

period of time on a specified amount of land without damage to either the organisms or the 

habitat.

cavity: The hollow excavated in a tree that is used by birds or mammals for roosting and/or 

reproduction.

ceded lands: Lands that American Indian tribes ceded to the United States by treaty in exchange 

for reservation of specific land and resource rights, annuities, and other promises in the treaties.

channel (stream): The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of 

water flows.

channel morphology: The dimension (width, depth), shape and pattern (sinuous, meandering, 

straight) of a stream channel.

class I airshed: Under the Clean Air Act amendments, all international parks, national parks 

larger than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres which existed on 

August 7, 1977. This class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the 

amount of additional air pollution that can be added to these areas.

climax: The final or mature seral stage in secondary plant succession that persists for an 

indefinite period of time if no major disturbances occur.

closed canopy: Greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover within the moist and cold 

upland forest potential vegetation groups; greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover 

within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group.

coarse woody material or debris: Pieces of woody material derived from tree limbs, boles, and 

roots in various stages of decay, having a diameter of at least three inches.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register (FR) by the executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government.

cold forest: High elevation forests dominated by subalpine fir, whitebark pine, spruce, and 

sometimes lodgepole pine.

collaboration: Working together; to cooperate willingly with an agency or instrumentality with 

which one is not immediately connected.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 259 

community resiliency: The ability of communities to adapt to changing ecological, social, and 

economic conditions.

compaction: Making soil hard and dense and decreasing its ability to support vegetation because 

the soil can hold less water and air and because roots have trouble penetrating the soil.

compatible: Capable of existing together in harmony.

.

comprehensive management plan (CMP): The document that establishes the array, levels, and 

manner of resource uses within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area on the WallowaWhitman National Forest. It was incorporated in 2003 as a part of the 1990 Land and Resource 

Management Plan.

connectivity: The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation.

conservation strategy or agreement: Plans to remove or reduce threats to candidate and 

sensitive species of plants and animals so that a listing as threatened or endangered is 

unnecessary.

consultation: (1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from 

appropriate American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals; and (b) 

considers their interests as a necessary and integral part of the Forest Service’s decision-making 

process; (2) the federal government has a legal obligation to consult with American Indian tribes. 

This legal obligation is based in such laws as the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and numerous other executive 

orders and statutes. This legal responsibility is, through consultation, to consider Indian interests 

and account for those interests in the decision; (3) the term also refers to a requirement under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for federal agencies to consult with the USFWS 

and/or NOAA-Fisheries with regard to federal actions that may affect listed threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat.

core area: The combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all elements for the 

long-term security of species of conservation concern) and a core population (a group of one or 

more local populations that exist within core habitat) constitutes the basic unit on which to gauge 

recovery within a recovery unit. Core areas require both habitat and the species of conservation 

concern, and the number (replication) and characteristics of local populations inhabiting a core 

area provide a relative indication of the core area’s likelihood to persist. A core area represents 

the closest approximation of a biologically functioning unit.

corridor: A tract of land forming a passageway. Can refer to areas of wildlife movement, 

boundaries along rivers, or the present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way 

within its boundaries.

cost efficiency: The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits). 

In measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, economic, or social 

impacts, are not assigned monetary values but are achieved at specified levels in the least cost 

manner. Cost efficiency is usually measured using present net value, although use of benefit-cost 

ratios and rates-of-return may be appropriate.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

260 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The council reviews federal programs 

for their effects on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President 

on environmental matters.

cover: (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to conceal itself 

partly or fully for protection from predators, or to ameliorate conditions of weather, or in which 

to reproduce; (2) the area of ground covered by plants of one or more species.

cover type: A vegetation classification depicting a genus, species, group of species, or life form 

of tree, shrub, grass, or sedge of an area.

crown: The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.

cubic feet per second (cfs): A rate of the flow, in streams and rivers, for example. It is equal to a 

volume of water one foot deep and one foot wide flowing a distance of one foot in one second. 

One cfs is equal to 7.48 gallons of water flowing each second.

Ccf: 100 cubic feet. It is equal to roughly 2 times the board foot estimate. Sometimes referred to 

as cubit.

cubic feet per second per square mile (CSM): The rate of streamflow per unit land area.

culture: The ideals, values, and beliefs that members of a society share to interpret experience 

and generate behavior that is reflected by their work and thought (Haviland 1999).

cultural resources: An object or definite location of human activity, occupation, or use 

identifiable through field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources 

are prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or architectural sites, structures, places, or objects and 

traditional cultural properties. Cultural resources include the entire spectrum of resources for 

which the Heritage Program is responsible, from artifacts to cultural landscapes, without regard 

to eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effects or impacts are the impacts on the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Effects and impact 

are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7).

current direction: The existing direction in approved management plans; continuation of 

existing policies, standards and guidelines; current budget updated for changing costs over time; 

and, to the extent possible, production of current levels and mixes of resource outputs.

D

decommission (road): Permanently closing a road to vehicular use and left in a hydrological 

maintenance free condition. Decommissioning will include activities such as water barring, out 

sloping, recontouring, decompaction of road surface, removal of drainage structures, and road 

barricades as needed. Decommissioning removes the road from the transportation system data 

base and is no longer used to calculate maintenance costs for the transporation system.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 261 

deferred maintenance: Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when 

it was scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed 

to accumulate without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to 

deterioration of performance, increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred 

maintenance needs may be categorized as critical or noncritical at any point in time. Continued 

deferral of noncritical maintenance will normally result in an increase in critical deferred 

maintenance. Code compliance (such as safety, ADA, OSHA, or environmental), plan direction, 

best management practices, biological evaluations other regulatory or executive order 

compliance requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are considered deferred 

maintenance.

demography: The statistical study of populations, especially with reference to size and density, 

distributions, and vital statistics such as births, and deaths.

departure: The difference between an existing condition and the desired condition. 

density (stand): The number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in terms of 

trees per acre.

design criteria: Provides the parameters, including guidelines, for how future site-specific 

activities can occur within the context of the plan.

designated critical habitat: Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at 

the time of listing under Endangered Species Act that contain physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the species.

desired condition: A portrayal of the land or resource condition that is expected to result if goals 

and objectives are fully achieved.

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that in turn result in concentrated use of 

an area; for example, a campground. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds 

and ski areas; facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, 

drinking water, ski lifts, and buildings.

developed site: Facility provided for developed recreation use. Refer to facilities.

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.): Tree diameter measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.

direct effects: Impacts on the environment caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place.

disease: A harmful deviation from normal functioning of physiological processes, usually 

pathogenic or abiotic in origin.

disjunct: Populations that are separated geographically from the main distribution of a species. 

Many plants with disjunct populations are biologically unique because they are not found again 

for dozens to over one hundred miles. Disjunct populations are thus rare in this portion of their 

distribution.

dispersed (recreation): Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site; for 

example, hunting or backpacking.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

262 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

dispersed campsites: Primitive sites typically used for overnight, dispersed recreation. Usually 

includes a hardened area around a fire pit, a barren area, and/or user-constructed facility. 

disturbance: Events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic 

habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife 

grazing, and insects and diseases. Human–caused disturbances include, among others, actions 

such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species.

disturbance process: Events that alter the structure, function, or composition of aquatic or 

terrestrial habitats. 

disturbance regime: Natural pattern of periodic disturbances, such as fire or flood, followed by 

a period of recovery from the disturbance such as growth of a forest after fire.

diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

down woody material: A tree or part of a tree that is dead and laying on the ground.

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS): The draft statement of predicted environmental 

effects that is required for major federal actions and released to the public and other agencies for 

comment and review.

dry forest: Low elevation forest dominated by ponderosa pine and sometimes Douglas-fir or 

grand fir.

E

early seral: Refer to seral stages.

early spring: Early spring is defined as that period when the perennial cool–season forage plants 

initiate growth and begin shoot elongation. It extends through the period of maximum 

carbohydrate use and the beginning of carbohydrate storage. The end of this period is determined 

by soil moisture. It ends prior to the time that soil moisture is expected to become limiting to the 

extent that essentially full regrowth cannot be ensured.

Eastside Screens: Regional Forester’s Amendment 1, Interim management direction 

establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales on NFS lands in eastern 

Oregon and Washington (USDA Forest Service 1994).

ecological function: Refer to ecological processes.

ecological integrity: In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which all ecological 

components and their interactions are represented and functioning; the quality of being complete; 

a sense of wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist. Proxies provide useful 

measures to estimate the integrity of major ecosystem components (forestland, rangeland, 

aquatic, and hydrologic). Estimating these integrity components in a relative sense for an area 

helps to explain current conditions and to prioritize future management. Thus, areas of high 

integrity would represent areas where ecological functions and processes are better represented 

and functioning than areas rated as low integrity.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 263 

ecological processes: The flow and cycling of energy, materials, and organisms in an ecosystem. 

Examples of ecosystem processes include the carbon and hydrologic cycles, terrestrial and 

aquatic food webs, and plant succession, among others.

ecological status: The degree of departure of current vegetation from the potential natural 

vegetation, or potential natural community often synonymous with seral stage.

economics: A social science concerned primarily with description, distribution, and consumption 

of goods and services.

economic well-being: A condition that enables people to work, provide income for their 

families, and generate economic wealth to local communities, the region, and the nation.

economic efficiency: Producing goods and services in areas best suited for that production based 

on natural biophysical advantage or an area’s ability to best serve regional demands of people.

economic impacts:

direct economic impact: Effects caused directly by forest product harvest or processing or by 

forest uses.

indirect economic impact: Effects that occur when supporting industries sell goods or services 

to directly affected industries.

induced economic impact: Effects that occur when employees or owners of directly or 

indirectly affected industries spend their income within the economy.

economy: System of production, distribution, and consumption of economic goods.

ecosystem: A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make 

up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.

ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their 

composition, structure, and processes within all or a part of an area of analysis. 

ecosystem management: The use of an ecological approach to achieve multiple-use 

management of public lands by blending the needs of people and environmental values in such a 

way that lands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.

ecosystem function (processes): The major process of ecosystems that regulate or influence the 

structure, composition, and pattern. These include nutrient cycles, energy flows, trophic levels 

(food chains), diversity patterns in time/space development and evolution, cybernetics (control), 

hydrologic cycles and weathering processes.

ecosystem health: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over 

time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, 

values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

ecosystem sustainability: The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, 

health, renewability and/or yield of desired values, resource uses, products, or services from an 

ecosystem, while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

264 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

edge: An area where plant communities meet or where successional stages or vegetation 

conditions within the plant communities come together.

effects: Environmental changes resulting from an action. Included are direct effects, which are 

caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused 

by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth–inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects 

on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, 

structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic quality, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or healthy effects, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also 

include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial and detrimental effects even if 

on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8, 2).

eligible wild and scenic rivers: River segments that have been identified as eligible for 

inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The river segment must be free-flowing and it must possess one or more 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, 

ecological or other value.

embeddedness: The degree that larger streambed particles (boulders, rubble, or gravel) are 

surrounded or covered by finer particle sizes such as fine sediment (Rhodes et al. 1994).

emission: A release of air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere.

endangered species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act by either the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Any species of animal or plant 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endemic: Occurring naturally in a certain region and distribution is relatively limited to a 

particular locality. Endemism is the occurrence of endemic species in an area.

environmental assessment (EA): A comprehensive evaluation of actions and their predictable 

short– and long–term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, 

social, and environmental design factors and their interactions. It is a formal document that must 

follow the requirements of NEPA, the CEQ, and guidelines and directives of the agency 

responsible for the project proposal.

environmental impact statement (EIS): A statement of the environmental effects of a proposed 

action and alternatives to it. It is required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and released to the public and other agencies for 

comment and review. A draft EIS is released to the public and other agencies for review and 

comment. A final EIS is issued after consideration of public comments. A record of decisionis 

based on the information and analysis in the final EIS.

ephemeral: A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently, infrequently, or seasonally 

and, except during periods of streamflow, does not intersect the local groundwater table.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 265 

erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other 

geological activities; can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the 

stability of slopes or soils.

essential fish habitat: Identification by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of 

habitat essential to conserve and enhance federal fishery resources that are fished commercially 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

evaluation: An essential companion activity to monitoring; the tool for translating data gathered 

by monitoring into useful information that could result in change or adaptive management.

even-aged management: The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests 

are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and, therefore, tree sizes) 

throughout the forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level of 

a stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. 

Regeneration in a particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time that a 

stand has reached the desired age or size for regeneration and is harvested. Clearcut, 

shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

evolutionarily significant units (ESU): The minimal unit of conservation management, the 

smallest population unit that can receive federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

An ESU is a set of populations that is morphologically and genetically distinct from other similar 

populations or a set of populations with a distinct evolutionary history.18

exotic species: A plant or animal species introduced from a distant place; not native to the area.

extinction: Complete disappearance of a species from the earth.

extirpation: Loss of populations from all or part of a species’ range within a specified area.

F

facility: A single or contiguous group of improvements that exists to shelter or to support Forest 

Service programs. The term may be used in either a broad or narrow context; for example, a 

facility may be a ranger station compound, lookout tower, leased office, work center, separate 

housing area, visitor center, research laboratory, recreation complex, utility system, or 

telecommunications site.

upgrade: Total redesign and construction of a camping facility. Location may change 

considerably depending on ecological, environmental, or social concerns. The overall goal 

would be to maintain a rustic appearance but promote designs and materials that would 

result in lower operation and maintenance costs. Some campground classifications may 

change to the next higher level but none would exceed a Level 4 site development for this 

planning period. Accessibility standards would be appropriate to the designated Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). A change in design standards has the potential to move the 

ROS to a higher development setting although that is not the intent of upgrading a facility.

 

18 http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/systematics/systematicsli3.html
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

266 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

facilities maintenance (annual): Work performed to maintain serviceability, or repair failures 

during the year in which they occur. Includes preventive and/or cyclic maintenance performed in 

the year in which it is scheduled to occur. Unscheduled or catastrophic failures of components or 

assets may need repaired as a part of annual maintenance. 

preventive maintenance: Scheduled servicing, repairs, inspections, adjustments, and 

replacement of parts that result in fewer breakdowns and fewer premature replacements, and 

help achieve the expected life of the fixed asset. Inspections are a critical part of preventive 

maintenance as they provide the information for scheduling maintenance and evaluating its 

effectiveness.

facilities maintenance (deferred): Work that was not performed when it should have been or 

when it was scheduled and has been delayed to a future period. Deferred maintenance includes 

actions not taken to comply with codes for health and safety, accessibility, environmental factors 

and other compliance requirements or applicable standards. To reduce or eliminate deferred 

maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement may be necessary.

rehabilitation: Renovation or restoration of an existing fixed asset or any of its components 

in order to restore the functionality or life of the asset. Because there is no significant 

expansion or change of purpose for the fixed asset, the work primarily addresses deferred 

maintenance.

replacement: Substitution or exchange of an existing fixed asset or component with one 

having essentially the same capacity and purpose.

custodial: Replacement of nonfunctional site elements or facilities with in–kind materials or 

structures. Location, design, and configuration remain constant. Accessibility standards, 

where possible, are compatible with designated ROS settings.

decommission: Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration, and/or disposal of a 

deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. 

This action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an 

asset or component may remain if they do not cause problems nor require maintenance.

fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area or region.

fall/winter season: This period basically begins when all key perennial forage plants have 

achieved dormancy. It runs through the dormant period and ends just before the initiation of new 

growth on the key cool season perennial forage species in the spring. In very general terms, this 

often begins in mid to late October and runs through February, March, or April depending on the 

elevation, aspect and the weather patterns for a given year.

Federal trust responsibility: The Forest Service shares in the federal government’s overall trust 

responsibility to American Indian tribes where treaty or other legally defined rights apply to 

national forest lands. In redeeming this shared responsibility, the agency assists in carrying out 

the intent of the treaty and any subsequent case law or amendments, by operating in a just and 

responsive way; making efforts to adjust the management of national forest lands in favor of the 

concerns of the respective American Indian tribe(s), as far as practicable, while still maintaining 

a responsibility to all the people – the general public. These actions and adjustments need to be 

carried out through consultations with other tribal officials or their designees, on a government–

to–government basis.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 267 

federally listed species: Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

fine organic matter: Plant litter, duff, and woody material less than 3 inches in diameter.

fine-scale: A single landscape, such as a watershed or subwatershed.

fire-dependent systems: Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of 

species of plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes.

fire cycle, fire frequency: Refer to fire return interval.

low fire intensity: Soil surface litter and humus have not been destroyed by fire. Root crowns 

and surface roots will resprout. Potential surface erosion has not changed because of fire.

moderate fire intensity: On up to 40 percent of the area, the soil surface litter and humus have 

been destroyed by fire and the A horizon has had intense heating. Crusting of the soil surface 

produces accelerated erosion. Intensively burned areas may be water repellent. Root crowns and 

surface roots of grasses in the intensively burned area are dead and will not resprout.

high fire intensity: On 40 percent or more of the area, the soil surface litter and humus have 

been destroyed by fire and the A horizon has had intense heating. Crusting of the soil surface 

produces accelerated erosion. Intensively burned areas may be water repellent. Root crowns and 

surface roots of grasses in the intensively burned area are dead and will not resprout.

fire intolerant: Species of plants that do not grow well with, or die from, the effects of too much 

fire. Generally, these are shade-tolerant species.

fire management plan: A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved land/resource management plans. It defines a 

program to manage wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use). The plan is 

supplemented by operational plans, including but limited to preparedness plans, preplanned 

dispatch plans, and prevention plans. Fire management plans assure that wildland fire 

management goals and components are coordinated. 

fire regime: The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, 

predictability, intensity, and seasonality of fire. A natural fire regime is a general classification of 

the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical 

intervention but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993; Brown 1995). 

Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire regimes were developed by Hardy and others (2001) and 

Schmidt and others (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell 

(2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years 

between fires (fire frequency or Mean Fire Interval [MFI]) combined with the severity of the fire 

(the amount of vegetation replacement) and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation. 

These five natural fire regimes are as follows: 

fire regime 1: 0- to 35-year frequency and of low severity (most commonly associated with 

surface fires) to mixed severity (in which less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory 

vegetation is replaced).

fire regime 2: 0- to 35-year frequency and of high severity (stand replacement: greater than 

75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

268 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

fire regime 3: 35- to 200-year frequency and of mixed severity.

fire regime 4: 35- to 200-year frequency and of high severity.

fire regime 5: 200-year-plus frequency and of high severity.

fire regime condition class (FRCC): A classification of the degree of departure from the natural 

fire regime. The fire regime condition class classification is based on a relative measure 

describing the degree of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure can 

result in changes (or risks) to one, or more, of the following ecological components: vegetation 

(species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy cover, and mosaic pattern across the 

landscape); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated 

disturbances. 

condition class 1: Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, 

structure, and pattern) are intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range.

condition class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) 

range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This 

result in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, 

and landscape patterns. Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from 

their natural (historical) range.

condition class 3: Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) 

range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more 

of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes 

have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range. 

fire return interval: The average time between fires in a given area.

fire suppression: All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning 

with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

fire-tolerant: Species of plants that can withstand a certain frequency and intensity of fire. 

Generally, these are shade-intolerant species.

fish-producing: Streams, rivers, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs that serve as spawning or 

rearing habitat for fish.

fledgling: A young bird that has acquired the feathers necessary for flight.

floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters including 

debris cones and flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, including at a minimum, that area 

subject to a one percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year 

(Executive Order 11988, Section 6c); or the area of relatively flat land adjacent to streams that is 

inundated during times of high flow; or an area formed by the deposition of stream-transported 

sediment.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 269 

floodplain function: Collectively, the normal physical and biological processes that are 

responsible for the formation and maintenance of river floodplains and the biotic communities 

that inhabit them.

flow regime: The range of magnitude, duration, timing and frequency of streamflows 

characteristic of a given stream.

food web: Networks of food chains or feeding relationships by which energy and nutrients are 

passed from one group of living organisms to another.

forb: Broad-leafed, herbaceous, nongrass-like plant species other than true grasses, sedges, and 

non–woody plants; fleshy leafed plants; having little or no woody material.

forage: All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. It may be grazed 

or harvested for feeding. Refer to rangeland vegetation.

forested vegetation treatment: Combination of uneven-aged management methods that may be 

used to achieve a desired forested structure including single-tree selection, group selection, 

precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, salvage, and sanitation cutting.

forest fragmentation: Refer to fragmentation.

forest health: The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as 

its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects and disease 

and resilience to disturbance. Perception and interpretation of forest health are influenced by 

individual and cultural viewpoints, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the 

relative health in stands that comprise the forest, and the appearance of the forest at a point in 

time.

forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had 

such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for non-forest 

use include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved 

roads of any width, and adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width.

forest roads: Any road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the national forest 

and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the national forests 

and the use and development of its resources (23 USC 101).

Forest Service Handbook (FSH): Directives that provide detailed instructions on how to 

proceed with a specialized phase of a program or activity.

Forest Service Manual (FSM): A system of manuals that provides direction for Forest Service 

activities.

forest transportation facility: A classified road, designated trail, or designated airfield, 

including bridges, culverts, parking lots, log transfer facilities, safety devices and other 

transportation network appurtenances under Forest Service jurisdiction that is wholly or partially 

within or adjacent to National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.1).

forest transportation system management: The planning, inventory, analysis, classification, 

record keeping, scheduling, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

270 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

other operations undertaken to achieve environmentally sound, safe, cost-effective access for 

use, protection, administration, and management of national forest lands.

fragmentation (habitat): The break-up of a large continuous land area by reducing and dividing 

into smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. Habitat can be 

fragmented by natural events or development activities.

fragmentation (forest): The breakup of a large land forest area into smaller patches isolated by 

areas converted to a different land type. Opposite of connectivity.

free-flowing: A river or stream that exists or flows in natural condition without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway (16 U.S.C. §1286).

fuel: Plants, both living and dead, and woody vegetative materials capable of burning.

fuel load: The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per 

acre.

fuel treatment: Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition or to 

lessen potential damage and resistance to control.

functioning-at-risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but an existing soil, 

water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation (USDA Forest 

Service1993).

G

geographic information system (GIS): An information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of computer maps with corresponding sitespecific information that can be combined electronically to provide reports and maps.

geologic: Based on geology which is the study of the structure, processes, and chronology of the 

earth.

geological/geomorphic process: The actions or events that shape and control the distribution of 

materials, their states, and their morphology, within the interior and on the surface of the earth. 

Examples of geologic processes include: volcanism, glaciation, streamflow, metamorphism 

(partial melting of rocks), and landsliding.

goal: A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the 

future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific 

date by which it is to be completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from which 

objectives are developed.

goods and services: The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced from forest and 

rangeland resources. 

government-to-government consultation: The active and continuous process of contacting 

tribal leadership, soliciting their participation, involvement, comments, concerns, contributions, 

and traditional knowledge that will assist the agency in making informed decisions in planning, 

managing and decision-making actions.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 271 

graminoid: Grasses and grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes.

grassland: Land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, or forbs.

grazing: The consumption of standing forage by livestock or wildlife.

grazing allotment: Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a 

prescribed period.

grazing lands: Any vegetated land that is grazed or has the potential to be grazed by animals 

(domestic or wild). This includes rangeland and grazable forestland.

grazing permit: Document authorizing livestock to use national forest lands or other lands 

under Forest Service control for livestock production.

ground fire: A fire that burns the organic material in the soil layer and the decayed material or 

peat below the ground surface.

groundwater: All of the water that has percolated through the surface soil into the bedrock.

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Communities of plants, animals, and other organisms 

whose extent and life processes are dependent on access to or discharge of groundwater. (USDA 

Forest Service 2011)

guideline: A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for 

departure from its terms, so long as the intent of the guideline is met. (§ 219.15(d)(3)). 

Guidelines are established to help achieve a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

H

habitat: A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other 

environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals.

harvest: (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; and (2) removal of game animals or 

fish from a population, typically by hunting or fishing.

harvestable/harvestability: With regard to American Indian tribes, refers to a population of 

plants or animals that is self-sustaining and capable of producing a dependable harvest annually 

to meet spiritual, cultural, subsistence, and commercial needs.

head month: One month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal. For grazing fee 

purpose, it is a month’s use and occupancy of range by one weaned or adult cow with or without 

calf, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or goats. Refer to animal unit month.

headwaters: Beginning of a watershed; the uppermost, unbranched tributaries of a stream.

healthy ecosystem: An ecosystem in which structure and functions allow the maintenance of the 

desired conditions of biological diversity, biotic integrity and ecological processes over time.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Act: The Act of December 31, 1975, as 

amended (PL 94-199, 89 Statute 117), which established the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

272 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

herbaceous: Green and leaf-like in appearance or texture; includes grasses, grass-like plants, 

and forbs, with little, or no woody component.

herbicide: A pesticide used for killing or controlling the growth of plants.

herbivore: An animal that subsists on plants or plant materials, either primarily or entirely.

hiding cover: Vegetation, primarily trees, capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult game 

animal from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet during all seasons of 

the year that elk or deer use the area. Generally, any vegetation used for security or to escape 

from danger.

high-severity fire: Refer to fire intensity.

historical conditions: Range of historical variation; range of the spatial, structural, 

compositional and temporal characteristics of ecosystem elements during a period specified to 

represent natural conditions.

historic property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This term includes 

artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term 

includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native 

Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register of Historic Places criteria.

Historic Range of Variability (HRV): A means to define the boundaries of ecosystem behavior 

and patterns that have remained relatively consistent over long periods. HRV is usually defined 

for centuries to millennia before the period of widespread human population increases and 

associated ecosystem changes that began in roughly the early to middle 1800s for many regions 

of western North America.

human-caused disturbance: Refer to disturbance.

hydroelectric: Of or relating to the production of electricity by waterpower.

hydrologic: Refers to the properties, distribution, and effects of water. Hydrology refers to the 

broad science of the waters of the earth, their occurrence, circulation, distribution, chemical and 

physical properties, and their reaction with the environment.

hydrologic function: The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of water flow. Favorable conditions of water flow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing.

hydrological regimes: The spatiotemporal dynamics of water flow and associated fluvial 

process in an ecosystem. Refer to flow regime.

hydrologic unit: A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, 

hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria 

that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a river, stream or similar surface 

waters. A hydrologic unit can accept surface water directly from upstream drainage areas, and 

indirectly from associated surface areas such as remnant, noncontributing, and diversions to form 

a drainage area with single or multiple outlet points.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 273 

hydrologic unit code (HUC): A hierarchical coding system developed by the U.S. Geological 

Survey to identify geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes (12). 

4

th

-code HUC refers a subbasin generally about 450,000 acres in size. 

5

th

-code HUC refers to a watershed. These areas generally range from 40,000 to 250,000 

acres in size. 

6

th

-code HUC refers to a subwatershed HU that generally ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 

acres in size.

Individual Clumps and Openings (ICO) - this approach uses historical information at the 

stand- and landscape-level to design restoration strategies and prescriptions for restoration (e.g., 

see (Franklin et al. 2013b)). For example, the pattern of old trees, stumps and snags currently on 

the landscape provide indicators of natural tree clumping and spacing, and thus the degree of 

horizontal spatial heterogeneity. In places where legacies of historic forest patterns are absent 

(e.g., young, post-fire forests), information is used from similar habitats.

impacts: Refer to effects.

implement: To carry out.

indicator species: Refer to management indicator species.

indirect effects: Impacts on the environments that are caused by the action and are later in time 

or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable.

infestation: The attack or invasion by parasites or pests.

infiltration: The process by which water seeps into the soil, influenced by soil texture, aspect, 

and vegetation cover.

infrastructure: The basic facilities, equipment, and installation needed for the functioning of a 

system; commonly refers to items such as roads, bridges, power facilities, and the like.

insecticide: A pesticide employed against insects.

instream flow: Flow of water in its natural setting (as opposed to waters diverted for off-stream 

uses such as industry or agriculture). Instream flow levels provided for environmental reasons 

enhance or maintain the habitat for riparian and aquatic life, with timing and quantities of flow 

characteristic of the natural setting.

integration: Bringing the values and systems of different disciplines together to address 

questions with a common framework using consistent techniques and measurement units.

interagency: Involving the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and/or other 

Federal agencies.

interdisciplinary team (IDT): A group of specialists assembled as a cohesive team with 

frequent interactions to solve a problem or perform a task.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

274 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

intermittent stream: A stream in which the flow of water on the surface is discontinuous, or 

that alternates between zones of surface and sub-surface flow.

invasion (plant): The movement of a plant species into a new area outside its former range.

invasive nonnative species: Are those animal and plant species with an extraordinary capacity 

for multiplication and spread at the expense of other native species. Plants in this category may 

or may not be designated as noxious weeds.

invasive plant species: Nonnative plant species that invade or are introduced into an 

environment or ecosystem in which they did not evolve where they have the ability to compete 

with, and at times overshadow, the existing native plant species. Invasive species are also likely 

to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species include 

seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not 

native to that ecosystem (with respect to a particular ecosystem). Noxious weeds are a specific 

type of invasive plants that carry a legal designation due to their potential for detrimental 

impacts to the environment.

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs): Those areas identified in the Land Management Plan and 

listed on a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, (USDA Forest Service 2000), 

which are held at the Washington Office of the Forest Service, or any update, correction, or 

revision of those maps through the land management planning process.

invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and worms 

are examples of invertebrates.

irretrievable commitment: Applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural 

resources. For example, while an area is used as a ski area, some or all of the timber production 

there is “irretrievably” lost. If the ski area closes, timber production could resume; therefore, the 

loss of timber production during the time the area is devoted to skiing is irretrievable but not 

irreversible, because it is possible for timber production to resume if the area is no longer used as 

a ski area.

irreversible commitment: Applies to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and 

archaeological sites. Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also 

refer to effects of actions on resources that can be renewed only after a very long period, such as 

the loss of soil productivity.

issue: A point, matter of controversy, dispute, question of public discussion, or general concern 

over resource management activities or land uses to be addressed or decided through the 

planning process. To be considered a significant environmental impact statement issue, it must 

be well defined, relevant to the proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address 

through alternative management strategies.

K

.

keystone species: A species whose presence and role within an ecosystem has a disproportionate 

on other organisms within the system.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 275 

L

ladder fuels: Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees, which can carry fire from 

the forest floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low growing tree branches, shrubs, or 

smaller trees. Fire can move from surface fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease.

landform: One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface such as a plain, 

mountain, or valley, as defined by its particular combination of bedrock and soils, erosion 

processes, and climatic influences.

land and resource management plan (LRMP) or land management plan: A document that 

provides broad strategic guidance and information for project and activity decision making in a 

national forest through plan components (desired conditions, suitable uses, guidelines, special 

areas, and objectives), as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Planning 

Rule. 

landscape: All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish 

one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land which the eye can 

comprehend in a single view, including all its natural characteristics.

landscape character: Identifiable image made by particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a 

landscape.

landscape ecology: The study of ecological effects to spatial patterns in ecosystems.

landscape-level/landscape-scale: Refer to broad-scale.

landscape pattern: Number, frequency, size and juxtaposition of landscape elements (stands 

and patches) that are important to the determination or interpretation of ecological processes.

landscape structure: The mix and distribution of stand or patch sizes across a given area of 

land. Patch sizes, shapes, and distributions are a reflection of the major disturbance regimes 

operating on the landscape.

land-use allocation: The commitment of a given area of land or a resource to one or more 

specific uses--for example, to campgrounds or wilderness.

late/old structure: Forest stands whose structural development incorporates the elements of the 

late and the old structural stages. The understory species can be found in all canopy layers. 

Overstory vigor begins to decline, as does tolerance to native pathogens and insects. In the late 

stage, the understory has become the dominant cover and the overstory is beginning to decline 

and collapse. In the old stage, stands in which all of the relic (pioneering) trees have died and 

which consist entirely of trees that grew from beneath. These structural stages may or may not 

contain the various characteristics sometimes identified with old growth structure.

late seral: Refer to seral stages.

late spring season: Late spring is defined as that period when the key perennial cool season 

forage plant growth is still occurring but soil moisture is beginning to limit growth. Livestock 

removal is not planned to occur during the time when assurance can be made that essentially full 

regrowth would occur.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

276 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

late successional: The stage of ecological succession and type of vegetation that develops after a 

long period of time following a stand-replacing disturbance.

legacy tree: Trees that have been spared or have survived stand replacing disturbances (Mazurek 

and Zielinski, 2004). A legacy tree is any live tree greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. and 

greater than 150 years old, located in a non-old forest stand.

lethal (stand-replacing) fires: Fires that result in stand replacement of the existing forested 

vegetation. Mortality levels are very high at all canopy levels within the stand. In forests, fires in 

which less than 20 percent of the basal area or less than 10 percent of the canopy cover remains; 

in rangelands, fires in which most of the shrub overstory or encroaching trees are killed.

lichens: Organisms made up of specific algae and fungi, forming identifiable crusts on soil, 

rocks, tree bark, and other surfaces. Lichens are primary producers in ecosystems; they 

contribute living material and nutrients, enrich the soil and increase soil moisture-holding 

capacity, and serve as food sources for certain animals. Lichens are slow growing and sensitive 

to chemical and physical disturbances.

litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly 

fallen or slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits.

local population: A group of individuals that spawn or breed in a particular area; the smallest 

group of individuals that is known to represent an interacting reproductive unit.

loess: Fine grained wind-deposited material predominantly of silt-size particles.

long term: Generally refers to a period longer than 10 years up to 100 years.

lower montane: A terrestrial community that generally is found in drier and warmer 

environments than the montane terrestrial community. The lower montane community supports a 

unique clustering of wildlife species.

M

mainstem: The main channel of the river in a river basin, as opposed to the streams and smaller 

rivers that feed into it.

maintain: To continue; or keep ecosystem functions, processes, and/or components (such as soil, 

air, water, vegetation) in such a condition that the ecosystem’s ability to accomplish current and 

future management objectives is not weakened. Management activities may be compatible with 

ecosystem maintenance if actions are designed to maintain or improve current ecosystem 

condition.

major population group: A group of either salmon populations or group of steelhead 

populations that are geographically and genetically cohesive. The major population group is a 

level of organization between demographically independent populations and evolutionarily 

significant units or distinct population segments.

management area: An area with similar management objectives and a common management 

prescription, as prescribed by the land management plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 277 

management concern: An issue, problem, or a condition which constrains the range of 

management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process.

management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the 

associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them.

management indicator species (MIS): In the original forest plans, a species selected because its 

welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat. A 

species whose condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular 

area.

management intensity: A management practice or combination of management practices and 

associated costs designed to obtain different levels of goods and services.

management practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

management prescription: Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for 

application on a specific area to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives.

mechanical equipment: Any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, 

tracks, skids, or by flotation that is powered by a living source. This term does not include 

nonmotorized river craft, wheelchairs, or other similar devices used solely to assist persons with 

disabilities.

mechanical fuel treatment: Treatment of fuels using mechanical means, such as thinning by 

chainsaw, crushing down wood, or piling down wood.

mechanized: Wheeled forms of transportation (including nonmotorized carts, wheelbarrows, 

bicycles and any other nonmotorized, wheeled vehicle.

mesic: Pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply; used of organisms 

occupying moist habitats.

metapopulations: A group of conspecific populations coexisting in time but not space.

microclimate: The climatic conditions within a small habitat such as: a tree stump, under a 

boulder, in the space between grasses, or on the side of a slope.

migration corridor: The habitat pathway an animal uses to move from one place to another.

minerals-locatable: Those hardrock minerals that are mined and processed for the recovery of 

metals. They also may include certain nonmetallic minerals and uncommon varieties of mineral 

materials, such as valuable and distinctive deposits of limestone or silica. 

minerals-leasable: Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, sulphur, and 

geothermal resources.

minerals-materials (salable): A collective term to describe common varieties of sand, gravel, 

stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials. Common varieties do not 

include deposits of those materials that may be locatable.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

278 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

mining: Any activity related to the discovery, extraction, and exploration of minerals under the 

Mining Act of 1872 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 through the use of, among other things, 

hydraulic equipment, pans, ground sluicing, sluice boxes, rockers, or suction dredges.

mining claim: A particular parcel of public land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or 

deposits, for which an individual has asserted a right of possession. The right is for developing 

and extracting a discovered mineral deposit.

mining lands: Lands primarily used for mining purposes as of June 13, 1994 and which are 

assigned to the mining land category in 36 CFR 292.22 of the private land use regulations.

mitigation: Measures designed and implemented to counteract environmental impacts or to 

make impacts less severe.

mixed-severity fire: These fire regimes will have the greatest toll on thinner barked and/or 

young age classes within the stand. Low intensity fires within the stand will favor overstory fireresistant species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas fir). Crown fire potential does exist 

depending on stand structures and age classes of different stand cohorts of any available ladder 

fuels. If it occurs, the result will favor the return to grass and forbs.

moist forest: Area between drier, low elevation forests and higher elevation, cold forests.

mollisol - a soil order in USDA soil taxonomy. Mollisols have deep, high organic matter, 

nutrient-enriched surface soil (A horizon), typically between 60–80 cm in depth. This fertile 

surface horizon, known as a mollic epipedon, is the defining diagnostic feature of Mollisols. 

Mollic epipedons result from the long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant 

roots, and typically have soft, granular, soil structure. These environments have historically been 

strongly influenced by fire and organisms such as ants and earth worms.

monitoring: A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a 

project and its mitigation plan are being realized. Monitoring allows detection of undesirable and 

desirable changes so that management actions can be modified or designed to achieve desired 

goals and objectives while avoiding adverse effects to ecosystems.

monitoring program: Prioritized criteria, indicators, and measures that are the means of 

measuring progress toward the desired conditions when conducting the annual and 

comprehensive evaluations.

montane: A terrestrial community that generally is found in moderate (ponderosa pine) and 

subalpine terrestrial communities. Montane communities are generally moister than lower 

montane and warmer than subalpine communities, and support a unique clustering of wildlife 

species.

mosaic: A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of communities are interspersed in 

patches, such as clumps of shrubs with grassland between.

motorized equipment: Any machine powered by a nonliving source. This term does not include 

motorized river craft or small hand-held devices such as flashlights, shavers, wristwatches, and 

Geiger counters.

multi-story: More than one canopy layer.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 279 

multiple-use management: The management philosophy articulated by the Multiple Use 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960. This law provides that the renewable resources of the national 

forests are to be managed in the combination that best meets the needs of the American people. It 

further stipulates that the Forest Service is to make judicious use of the land for some or all of 

these resources and related services over areas large enough to ensure that sufficient latitude 

exists to subsequently adjust management in conformity with changing needs and conditions.

municipal watersheds (public supply watersheds): A watershed that serves a public water 

system as defined in Public Law 93-523 (Safe Drinking Water Act) or as defined in state safe 

drinking water regulations. The definition does not include communities served by a well or 

confined groundwater unaffected by Forest Service activities.

mycorrhizae: The symbiotic relationship between certain fungi and the roots of certain plants, 

especially trees; important for plants to take nutrients from soil.

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs): Standards set by the Federal 

Environmental Protection Agency for the maximum levels of air pollutants that can exist in the 

outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act to declare a national policy which will 

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, to 

promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 

stimulate the health and welfare of humanity, to enrich the understanding of the ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the nation, and to establish a Council on 

Environmental Quality.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring the preparation of forest 

plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System (NFS): All national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domain of the United States; all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, 

donation, or other means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered 

under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and 

other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are 

designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system.

National Forest System road: A classified forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service. The term National Forest System roads is synonymous with the term forest development 

roads as used in 23 USC 205. Generally referred to as a Forest Road (FR).

National Recreation Trail: Trails designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Agriculture as part of the national system of trails authorized by the National Trails System Act. 

National recreation trails provide a variety of outdoor recreation uses.

National Register of Historic Places: A listing (maintained by the U.S. National Park Service) 

of areas that have been designated as being of historical significance. The Register includes 

places of local and state significance as well as those of value to the Nation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

280 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

National Wild and Scenic River System: Includes rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values designated by Congress 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free-flowing condition. Refer to 

Wild and Scenic River.

native species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. Animals or plants 

that have historically occupied a given aquatic or terrestrial area.

natural disturbance: Periodic impact of natural events such as: fire, severe drought, insect or 

disease attack, or wind.

near natural rates of recovery: Rates not exceeding condition thresholds and meeting 

standards for forage and browse utilization.

neotropical: Those species of birds that nest in the United States or Canada and winter regularly 

in the Neotropics (south of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn) in Mexico, the Caribbean 

Islands, or Central or South America. 2).

net public benefits: An expression used to signify the overall long- term value to the nation of 

all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) 

whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both 

quantitative and qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index. The maximization of 

net public benefits to be derived from management of units of the National Forest System is 

consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

niche: A place or activity for which a thing is best fitted.

no-action alternative: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current 

management direction were to continue unchanged.

nonfunctional: Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and not 

reducing erosion or improving water quality. The absence of certain physical attributes, such as a 

floodplain where one should be, is an indicator of nonfunctioning conditions (Process for 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, USDI BLM 1993).

nongame species: Those species of animals that are not managed as a sport hunting resource.

nonlethal fire: Fires that consist of low intensity under burns with limited single tree or group 

torching. Fire related mortality to the dominant-fire resistant species is slow, but occurs because 

of this type of localized fire behavior. In forests, fires in which more than 70 percent of the basal 

area or more than 90 percent of the canopy cover survives; in rangelands, fires in which more 

than 90 percent of the vegetative cover survives (implies that fire is occurring in an herbaceousdominated community).

nonnative invasive species (NNIS): Plant species that are introduced into an area in which they 

did not evolve and in which they usually have few or no natural enemies to limit their 

reproduction and spread. These species can cause environmental harm by significantly changing 

ecosystem composition, structure, or processes and can cause economic harm or harm to human 

health.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 281 

nonpoint source pollution: Pollution whose source is general rather than specific in location; 

the sources of the pollutant discharge are dispersed, not well defined or constant. Examples 

include sediments from logging activities and runoff from agricultural chemicals. It is widely 

used in reference to agricultural and related pollutants, such as production of sediments by 

logging operations, agricultural pesticide applications, or automobile exhaust pollution.

nontreaty bands: The five bands of Nez Perce whose traditional homes lay outside the reduced 

reservation boundaries described in the Treaty of 1863.

noxious weeds: Plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible state official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following 

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of 

serious insects or disease, and being native or new to or not common to the united states or parts 

thereof. A noxious weed is one that causes disease or has other adverse effects on the human 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States 

and to the public health.

nutrient cycling: Ecological processes in which nutrients and elements such as carbon, 

phosphorous, nitrogen, calcium, and others, circulate among animals, plants, soils, and air.

O

objective: A concise, time-specific statement that describes the incremental progress expected to 

take place to meet goals (desired conditions) over the planning period with respect to estimated 

quantities of services and accomplishments. Objectives are projections of outcomes based on 

certain social, economic, and ecological indicators that measure the plans performance and 

identify specific opportunities and possible future proposals in terms of ongoing programs and 

future projects to support the goals for the planning area. 

off-channel: Aquatic habitats separated from the main stream or river, such as side-channels, 

oxbows, ponds, or sloughs, which may or may not be directly connected to a river or stream.

off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel 

on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.

old forest: Old forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. 

Old forest encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier 

stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulation of large dead 

woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. 

old forest multistory (OFMS): This structure class includes multiple age classes and vegetation 

layers, along with large, old trees. Decaying fallen trees may also be present that leave a 

discontinuous overstory canopy. Overstory diameters are generally greater than 20 inches.

old forest single story (OFSS): This structure class can include multiple age classes, but 

generally only includes one main overstory strata. Large, old trees are common. Decaying fallen 

trees may also be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. Overstory diameters are 

generally greater than 20 inches.

ongoing actions: Those actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or 

permits issued. Refer to new actions.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

282 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

openings: Refers to meadows, clearcuts, and other areas of vegetation that do not provide hiding 

or thermal cover.

outcome: The long-term results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose 

(Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306)). Outcome is a state of being 

similar to long-term ecological, social, or economic condition or goal (such as the maintenance 

of an ecosystem’s biodiversity, jobs and income, or the quality of a regions’ surface water as 

measured by indicators).

outdoor recreation activities: Activities such as camping, picnicking, rafting, boating, hiking, 

rock climbing, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and the viewing of wildlife or scenery.

outfitting: Providing through rental or livery any saddle or pack animal, vehicle or boat, tents or 

camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment, for pecuniary remuneration or other gain. The 

term guide includes the holder’s employees, agents, and instructors. Pecuniary remuneration 

means monetary reward (Washington Office Amendment 2709.11-95-11, 41-53C).

outputs: A broad term for describing any result, product, service or concern that a system 

produces by its activities. They are measurable and capable of being used to determine the 

effectiveness of programs and activities in meeting objectives. The unit of measure should 

indicate or serve as a proxy for what the recipients get rather than what the agency does in the 

process of producing the given output. Example: timber sold, recreation use, livestock grazing 

use, etc. Any good, service, or on-site use that is produced from rural resources.

outslope: Roads that are sloped towards the downhill side of the roadway to better match the 

natural drainage patterns and minimize the potential for diversion.

outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs): Term used in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 

1968; to qualify as outstandingly remarkable, a resource value must be a unique, rare, or 

exemplary feature that is significant at a regional or national level.

overgrazing: Consumption of rangeland grass by grazing animals to the point that it cannot be 

renewed, or can be only slowly renewed, because of damage to the root system.

overstory: Portion of the trees, in a forest or in a forested stand of more than one story, forming 

the upper or uppermost canopy.

overwinter: To keep livestock or plants alive through the winter by sheltering them, or to be 

kept alive in this way.

P

PACFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 3, Interim strategies for managing anadromous 

fish–producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

(USDA and USDI 1995).

paleontological sites: Areas that contain any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that 

has been preserved in the earth’s crust before the Holocene epoch.

parcel: Contiguous tax lots under one ownership. For the purposes of the Private LURs, rightsof-way do not divide parcels into smaller units.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 283 

particulate emissions: Solid particles or liquid droplets that can be suspended or carried in the 

air, or released as air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere. 

PM10 – Particulate matter that measures 10 micrometers in diameter or less, a size considered 

small enough to invade the alveolar regions of the lung. PM10 is one of the six pollutants for 

which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

PM2.5 – Particulate matter that measures 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less.

passive management: Allowing nature to restore (heal) the natural balance between 

erosion/deposition, hydrologic, and vegetation processes by removing identified adversely 

affecting agents.

patch: An area of vegetation that is relatively homogeneous internally and differs from 

surrounding elements.

pathogen: An agent such as a fungus, virus, or bacterium that causes disease.

pattern: The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that 

determines the function of a landscape as an ecological system.

pesticide: A chemical preparation used to control individuals or populations of injurious 

organisms.

permittee (livestock): Any entity that has been issued a grazing permit.

phases: Plant communities or seral stages within a steady state connected to each other by 

community pathways.

plan amendment: The process for making substantive changes to a land management plan for 

the desired conditions, suitable uses, special areas, objectives and guidelines.

planning area: The area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest 

plan.

planning horizon: The overall time period considered in the planning process that spans all 

activities covered in the analysis or plan and all future conditions and effects of proposed actions 

which would influence the planning decisions.

planning record: A written record of the land management plan revision process containing 

detailed information and analysis used support conclusions and decisions made in the plan.

plant associations: A plant community type based on the land management potential, 

successional patterns and species composition.

plant communities: Any grouping of plants that have some structural similarity (Johnson and 

Simon 1987).

plateau: Any comparatively flat area of great extent and elevation; specifically an extensive land 

region considerably more elevated above the adjacent country; it is commonly limited on at least 

one side by an abrupt descent.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

284 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

point source pollution: Pollution that comes from a single identifiable source such as a 

smokestack, a sewer, or a pipe.

pool: Portion of a stream where the current is slow, often with deeper water than surrounding 

areas and with a smooth surface texture. Often occur above and below riffles and generally are 

formed around stream bends or obstructions such as logs, root, wads, or boulders. Pools provide 

important feeding and resting areas for fish.

potential natural community (PNC): The biotic community that would become established if 

all successional sequences were completed without interference by humans under present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development.

potential vegetation group (PVG): A group of potential vegetation types grouped on the basis 

of similar general moisture or temperature environment and similar types of life forms.

potential vegetation types (PVT): A kind of physical and biological environment that produces 

a kind of vegetation; the species that might grow on a specific site I the absence of disturbance; 

can also refer to vegetation that would grow on a site in the presence of frequent disturbance that 

is an integral part of the ecosystem and its evolution.

precommercial thinning: The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce 

stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees.

prehistoric site: An area that contains important evidence and remains of the life and activities 

of early societies that did not record their history.

prescribed fire: Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable) must be 

met, prior to ignition.

prescription: A management pathway to achieve a desired objective(s).

present net value (PNV): The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs 

to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs 

of managing the planning area.

primitive recreation: Those types of recreation activities associated with unroaded land, for 

example: hiking, backpacking, and cross–country travel.

private land: Land not in federal, state, or local government ownership.

productive capacity: The growth and accumulation of plant biomass (primary productivity) as 

well as the growth of animal species that use the products (secondary productivity). Key 

elements of productivity include the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils which 

provide for vegetative growth and the accumulation and cycling of nutrients.

productivity: Productivity is based on using natural resources no faster than they are produced 

or can be replaced and using natural resources without impairment of the long-term productive 

capacity of the ecosystem from which they are derived.

programmatic agreement (PA): This is a historic preservation document that records the terms 

and conditions agreed upon to resolve the potential adverse effects of a Federal agency program, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 285 

complex undertaking or other situations in accordance with the Section 106 review under NHPA 

[36CFR800.14(b)].

proper functioning condition (PFC): Riparian and wetland areas achieve proper functioning 

condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate 

stream energy associated with high water flows. This thereby reduces erosion and improves 

water quality; filters sediment, captures bedload, and aids floodplain development; improve 

flood–water retention and ground water recharge; develops root masses that stabilize stream 

banks against cutting action; develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat and water depths, duration, and temperature necessary for aquatic vertebrate and 

invertebrate production, waterfowl breeding, and other issues; and supports greater biodiversity. 

The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the interaction among 

geology, soil, water and vegetation.

project: An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, timing, activities, 

outputs, effects, and time period and responsibilities for executions.

project-level: Site-specific analysis and planning processes for a specific project or set of 

projects usually on an individual ranger district.

proposed action: A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement a 

management action.

public issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management of the 

National Forest System.

public roads: Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority 

and open to public travel (23 U.S.C. §101(a)).

Q

qualitative: Traits or characteristics that relate to quality and cannot be measured with numbers.

quality of life: Refers to the satisfaction people feel for the places where they live (or may visit) 

and for the places they occupy as part of that experience.

quantitative: Traits or characteristics that can be measured with numbers.

R

range forage condition: The current composition or productivity of rangeland relative to what 

that rangeland is capable of producing as a potential natural community, and often synonymous 

with forage condition.

range analysis: The systematic interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of data for rangeland 

resource management planning. It provides ecological and other information for overall 

forestland and resource management planning and allotment management planning.

rangeland (range): Lands where the vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, 

forbs, or shrubs. Rangelands include natural grasslands, shrublands, savannahs, tundra, most 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

286 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

deserts, and riparian and wetland plant communities, including marshes and wet meadows, with 

greater than about 200 pounds of forage production per year per acre.

rangeland resources: The physical and biotic resources of rangeland ecosystems.

rangeland resource inventory: The systematic acquisition of inventory data that characterizes 

the vegetation, soil, and other rangeland resources.

rangeland vegetation: Vegetation on all land with rangeland resource objectives or rangeland 

resource values, including riparian areas. Generally, the focus is on land supporting grass or 

grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs during one or more ecological stages. Forested and nonforested 

sites providing forage and habitat for wild and domestic animal species are included.

rare plants: Plants that are federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for federal 

listing; Forest Service Sensitive for Regions 1, 4, and 6, or disjunct species. This includes plants 

considered rare both globally (G1, G2, G3) or within states (S1, S2 or S3). Refer to the analysis 

files for a complete description.

rearing habitat: Area in rivers or streams where juvenile salmon and trout find food and shelter 

to live and grow.

recontour: To move soil back (usually with mechanical or hand tools) to a previous condition 

thus making an area blend with the natural landscape.

record of decision (ROD): An official document separate from, but associated, with a final 

environmental impact statement in which a deciding official identifies all alternatives, and 

specifies which were environmentally preferable, states the decision, and states whether all 

practicable means to avoid environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if 

not, why not (40 CFR 1505.2).

recovery plans: A plan for the survival and conservation of species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Act [Section 4(f)] requires that recovery plans contain: 1) objectives, 

measurable goals for delisting; 2) a comprehensive list of the actions necessary to achieve the 

delisting goals; and 3) an estimate of the cost and time required to carry out those actions. In 

addition, NOAA Recovery Planning Guidelines suggest that recovery plans include an 

assessment of the factors that led to population declines and/or which are impeding recovery. 

Finally, it is important that the plans include a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation 

program for gauging the effectiveness of recovery measures and overall progress toward 

recovery (USDI 1988).

recreation: Leisure time activity such as swimming, picnicking, boating, hunting, and fishing.

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated 

use of an area. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds and ski areas; 

facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking 

water, ski lifts, and buildings. 

dispersed recreation: A general term referring to recreation use outside developed 

recreation sites; this includes activities such as scenic driving, hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

fishing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, cross–country skiing, and recreation in primitive 

environments.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 287 

recreation opportunity: The availability of choices for users to participate in the recreational 

activities they prefer within the settings they prefer.

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS): A recreation opportunity setting is the combination 

of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. Thus, an 

opportunity includes qualities provided by-nature (vegetation; landscape, topography, scenery), 

qualities associated with recreational use (levels and types of use), and conditions provided by 

management (developments, roads, regulations). By combining variations of these qualities and 

conditions, management can provide a variety of opportunities for recreationists. The settings, 

activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences have been arranged along a continuum or 

spectrum divided into six classes: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive 

motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban (40 CFR 1505.2).

primitive - Area is characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly 

large size Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The 

area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and 

controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

semiprimitive nonmotorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there 

is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site 

controls and restrictions may be present, but would be subtle. Motorized recreation use is not 

permitted, but local roads used for other resource management activities may be present on a 

limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience 

opportunities.

semiprimitive motorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is 

often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site 

controls and restrictions use of local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural 

surfaces and trails suitable for motor bikes is permitted.

roaded natural -Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments 

with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes 

with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with 

evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are 

evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed 

and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities 

rural -Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities is 

designed for use by a large number of people Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites Facilities for 

intensified motorized use and parking are available. 

urban - Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and 

utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often 

exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans, on-site, are predominant. Large 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

288 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

numbers of users can be expected, both on site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly 

intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to 

carry people throughout the site.

recreation residences: Privately owned recreation cabins authorized by special use permit on 

National Forest System land that occupy planned, approved tracts or those groups of tracts 

established for recreation residence use.

recreation site: Specific places in the forest other than roads and trails that are used for 

recreational activities. These sites include a wide range of recreational activities and associated 

development. These sites include highly developed facilities like ski areas, resorts, and 

campgrounds. It also includes dispersed recreation sites that have few or no improvements but 

show the effects of repeated recreation use. 

recreation visit: An entry of one person to a recreation site or area of land or water for the 

purpose of participating in one or more recreation activities for an unspecified period.

recreational facilities: Refers to facilities associated with or required for outdoor recreational 

activities and includes, but are not limited to, parks, campgrounds, hunting and fishing lodges, 

and interpretive displays.

recreational river: Refer to Wild And Scenic River.

redd: Nest in gravel of stream bottom where a fish deposits eggs.

reforestation: Treatments or activities that help to regenerate stands of trees after disturbances 

such as timber harvest or wildfire. Typically, reforestation activities include preparing soil, 

controlling pests, and planting seeds or seedlings.

refugia: Areas that have not been exposed to great environmental changes and disturbances 

undergone by the region as a whole; refugia provide conditions suitable for survival of species 

that may be declining elsewhere.

regeneration: The process of establishing new plant seedlings, whether by natural means or 

artificial measures (planting).

regeneration harvest: A timber harvest by which a new age class is created by using 

clearcutting, seed tree, shelterwood, or selection methods.

regulations: Generally refers to the CFR, Title 36, chapter II, which covers management of the 

Forest Service.

rehabilitate: To repair and protect certain aspects of a system so that essential structures and 

functions are recovered, even though the overall system may not be exactly as it was before.

relic: Persistent remnants of formerly widespread fauna or flora species existing in certain 

isolated areas or habitats. The existence of an organism or species in an otherwise extinct taxon 

(phylum, order, family, genus, or species) from an earlier time that has survived in an 

environment that has undergone considerable change.

renewable energy: Energy derived from natural sources, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, or 

geothermal resources, that does not consume the resource when used.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 289 

research natural area (RNA): An area set aside by a public or private agency specifically to 

preserve a representative sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and 

educational purposes. In Forest Service usage, Research Natural Areas are areas designated to 

ensure representative samples of as many of the major naturally–occurring plant communities as 

possible.

resident fish: Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater; examples include redband trout and 

bull trout a.

resource: Anything which is beneficial or useful, be it animal, vegetable, mineral, a location, a 

labor force, a view, an experience, etc. Resources, in the context of land use planning, thus vary 

from such commodities as timber and minerals to such amenities as scenery, scenic viewpoints, 

or recreation opportunities.

responsible official: The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry 

out a specific planning action.

restoration: Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the 

recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability. Restoration is an 

attempt to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory, but not necessarily to a former state.

resource allocation: The action of apportioning the supply of a resource to specific uses or to 

particular persons or organizations.

riparian area: An area with distinctive soils and vegetation between a stream, or other body of 

water, and the adjacent upland area consisting of vegetation that requires free, or unbound, water 

for survival.

riparian-dependent species: Plant species that rely on free or unbound water for establishment 

and survival, and animal species that would normally occupy, or rely on, riparian habitats.

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs): Portions of watershed where riparian–

dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific 

standards and guidelines. Riparian habitat conservation areas include traditional riparian 

corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological 

functioning is crucial to maintenance of the streams’ water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient 

delivery system.

fish-bearing streams: Riparian habitat conservation areas consist of the stream and the area 

on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top 

of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of 

riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet 

slope distance (600 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is 

greatest. In degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should extend from 

the edge of the active channel to the outer extent of the former floodplain. 

permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Riparian habitat conservation areas 

consist of the stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the 

active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year 

floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of 

one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

290 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

stream channel), whichever is greatest. In degraded or incised streams, the riparian 

management area should extend from the water’s edge to the outer extent of the former 

floodplain.

ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: Riparian habitat 

conservation areas consist of the body of water or wetland and: the area to the outer edges of 

the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or the extent of unstable 

and potentially unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, 

or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland greater than 1 acre or the maximum 

pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, whichever is greatest.

seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, seeps and springs less than 1 acre, 

and landslide and landslide prone areas: This category applies to features with high 

variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the riparian habitat 

conservation areas should include:

♦ The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

♦ The stream channel and extend to the top of the inner gorge, or in incised streams, to 

the edge of the former floodplain.

♦ The stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel or 

wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, extending from the edges of the 

stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet 

slope distance, whichever is greatest. A site-potential tree height is the average 

maximum height of the tallest dominant trees for a given site class.

♦ Intermittent streams are defined as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having 

a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. This includes what are 

sometimes referred to as ephemeral streams if they meet these two physical criteria.. 

Accurate identification of these features is critical to the correct implementation of the 

strategy and protection of the intermittent stream and wetland functions and 

processes. Identification of these features is difficult at times due to the lack of surface 

water or wet soils during dry periods. Fish-bearing intermittent streams are 

distinguished from non-fish-bearing intermittent streams by the presence of any 

species of fish for any duration. Many intermittent streams may be used as spawning 

and rearing streams, refuge areas during flood events in larger rivers and streams or 

travel routes for fish emigrating from lakes. In these instances, the guidelines for fishbearing streams would apply to those sections of the intermittent stream used by the 

fish.

.

riverine: On or near the banks of a river; riparian.

road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A 

road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1).

classified roads: Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to national forest lands that 

are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state roads, 

county roads, privately owned roads, forest roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest 

Service (36 CFR 212.1).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 291 

closed road: A road with all use suspended year–long by an active form of facility 

management utilizing regulations and appropriate enforcement to secure and ensure user 

compliance with closure.

open road: A road that has no use restrictions or regulations imposed and is available for use 

by vehicles at any time during the year.

temporary roads: Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, 

or emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not 

necessary for long-term resource management (36 CFR 212.1).

unclassified roads: Roads on national forest lands that are not managed as part of the forest 

transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, and off-road vehicle 

tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once 

under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of 

the authorization (36 CFR 212.1).

road construction: Activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road 

miles (36 CFR 212.1). New construction activities may include vegetation clearing and 

grubbing, earthwork, drainage installation, instream activities, pit development or expansion, 

surfacing (including paving), and aggregate placement.

road decommissioning: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7703). Road decommissioning activities 

include revegetation, recontouring, water barring, roadbed scarification or ripping, culvert 

removal, berm construction, and side cast pullback. A road can also be “decommissioned” by 

taking it off the transproration system data base and removing the road sign that indicates the 

road number. This approach is used when a road is naturally closed and is hydrologically stable.

road density: An indicator of the concentration of roads in an area.

road maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the 

approved road management objective.

road maintenance levels (MLs): Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, 

and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road 

management objectives and maintenance criteria. Roads assigned to MLs 2 through 5 are either 

constant service roads or intermittent service roads during the time they are open to traffic. 

Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the times they are closed to vehicular 

traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 

keep damage to adjacent resources to acceptable levels and to perpetuate the road to 

facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage 

facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate 

traffic management strategies are prohibit and eliminate.

Roads receiving ML 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and 

may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. 

However, while being maintained at ML 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, subject to 

prohibitions and restrictions, and may be available and suitable for nonmotorized users. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

292 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

ML 1 maintenance activities include road condition surveys, evaluation, and monitoring of 

maintenance needs. Activities include limited equipment operation, opening closed roads, 

manual cleaning of drainage structures, and vegetation management that stabilizes or 

reduces erosion. Repairs are scheduled and completed within funding limitations when 

critical resource damage is reported.

Roadway activities including blading, clearing logs, and noncritical repairs that can be 

delayed are accomplished when the road is placed in an active status.

Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Providing access for 

passenger cars is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, and/or other specialized uses. Log hauling 

may occur. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to discourage or prohibit 

passenger cars or to accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

ML 2 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface 

blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup 

and repair, sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Many roads in this category have grass in the travel 

way. User comfort is not a consideration.

Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard 

passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low-speed, single-lane, with turnouts and spot 

surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are encourage or accept. Discourage or prohibit 

strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

ML 3 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface 

blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup 

and repair, sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be 

needed on segments of multi-purpose roads.

Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience 

at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double-lane and aggregate-surfaced. However, 

some roads may be single-lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most 

appropriate traffic-management strategy is encourage. However, the prohibit strategy may 

apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

ML 4 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard tree removal, surface blading, 

drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup and repair, 

sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil stabilization are of 

prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be needed on segments of 

multi-purpose roads.

Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

These roads are normally double lane, paved. Some may be aggregate-surfaced and dustabated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is encourage.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 293 

ML 5 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface 

blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, logging out, slide and slip cleanup 

and repair, sign maintenance and surfacing replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be 

needed on segments of multi-purpose roads. All of the ML 5 roads within a national forest 

have a permanent (paved) surface.

road management objectives: Road management objectives define the level of service provided 

by a National Forest System road consistent with the surrounding recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS) class.

semi–primitive nonmotorized (SPNM): Most semi-primitive nonmotorized areas do not 

have developed roads. All motorized traffic is prohibited. Semi-primitive nonmotorized 

roads provide hiking or equestrian trails on closed or decommissioned roads. 

semi–primitive motorized (SPM): Semi-primitive motorized roads are generally used for 

four-wheel drive, logging, or ranching activities. Passenger-car use is discouraged by 

entrance conditions or signage. Users can expect SPM roads where there are no attractions 

such as viewpoints or trailheads.

♦ low-level SPM: Native surface roads suitable for high-clearance vehicles but not 

passenger cars or vehicles towing trailers. Users may need to back vehicles for long 

distances when meeting oncoming traffic. Maintenance activities occur usually every 

five years or when resource needs are identified. Roads are allowed to “brush in” and 

users are responsible for removing trees blocking the road. Ruts and potholes are 

accepted if they do not contribute to sediment loading. Corresponds to road ML 2 and 

Traffic Service Level D (abbreviated: 2-D).

♦ high-level SPM: Single-lane native surface road or road surfaced with spot rock, strip 

rock or pit run material suitable for high-clearance vehicles. The road may have 

infrequent turnouts. Pit run material is applied to the road surface, but is not grid 

rolled, leaving a rough, rocky surface that drains well and discourages passenger car 

use. User maintenance is the same as for the low-level SPM. This standard meets 

resource and safety needs and is the minimum standard for accessing attractions such 

as viewpoints or trailheads. Maintaining current road alignment, road surface type, and 

corridor width are emphasized. Corresponds to ML 2 and Traffic Service Level C 

(abbreviated: 2-C). 

rural (R): Rural is generally the highest standard of road. These arterial roads provide the 

main access to the national forest lands but generally lack the speeds and alignment provided 

by state highways. Roads are double–lane with a road-surface treatment and generally 24-

feet wide. The road has center striping and often stripes marking the shoulders. Corresponds 

to a road Maintenance Level 5 and Traffic Service Level A (abbreviated: 5-A).

road prism: an area consisting of the road surfaces and any cut slope and road fill.

road reconstruction: Activity that results in improvement or realignment of an existing 

classified road as defined below. Reconstruction activities may include vegetation clearing and 

grubbing, earthwork, drainage installation, instream activities, surfacing (including paving), and 

aggregate placement.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

294 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

road improvement: Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, 

expands its capacity, or changes its original design function.

road realignment: Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an 

existing road and treatment of the old roadway (36 CFR 212.1).

road restoration: Road restoration activities are commensurate with the assigned maintenance 

level and include storm proofing, bridge replacement, installation of drainage dips and water 

bars, culvert installation and upgrade, surface shaping, and draining, surface material processing. 

Refer to road maintenance.

.

roads subject to the Highway Safety Act: National Forest System roads open to use by the 

public for standard passenger cars. This includes roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis 

and roads closed during extreme weather conditions or for emergencies, but which are otherwise 

open for general public use.

road surface types: 

asphalt/concrete: A well-graded aggregate and asphalt cement.

aggregate: Stone, slag, gravel, or any other hard, inert, mineral material meeting certain 

specified quality requirements for use in a road pavement or surfacing structure.

chip seal: A road surface treatment consisting of one or more spray applications of asphalt 

followed immediately by an application of aggregate (chips) on a paved surface.

grid–rolled: Aggregate consisting of native materials of a quality that can be taken directly 

from a given source, without crushing or screening, and broken down to a specified 

maximum dimension on the road by grid–rolling.

paved: One or more bituminous bound layers of aggregate placed on a prepared road 

foundation.

pit run: Aggregate consisting of native materials from a given source with a maximum size 

and grading suitable for placing directly on a road without crushing or screening.

native surface: A road surface consisting of soil or aggregate materials naturally existing at 

the road location.

spot rock: Aggregate placed on a road as a pavement or surfacing structure in designated 

areas that are not continuous throughout the entire length of the road.

strip rock: Aggregate placed on a road as a surfacing structure in designated areas or 

portions of a road greater than 200 feet in length but not continuous throughout the entire 

length of the road.

surface treated: One or more applications of asphalt or other processed or natural materials 

to a road surface to provide traction, abate dust, protect, or renew the surface without 

increasing pavement structural capacity. Surface treatment is commensurate with existing 

surface.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 295 

runoff (surface): Fresh water from precipitation and melting ice that flows on the earth’s surface 

into nearby streams, lakes, wetlands, or reservoirs.

S

salmonids: Fishes of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, chars, whitefish, ciscoes, 

and grayling.

salvage harvest: Harvest of trees that are dead, dying, or deteriorating due to fire, wind, insect 

or other damage, or disease.

satisfactory condition: A condition in which the soil is adequately protected and the forage 

species composition and production meets the land management plan objectives or the trend in 

forage species composition and production is acceptable.

savannah: The transitional biome between grassland and desert or desert and rainforest, 

typically having drought resistant vegetation dominated by grasses with scattered tall trees.

scabland: A region characterized by elevated tracts of rocky ground with little or no soil cover.

scale: (1) The level of resolution under consideration (for example, broad-scale or fine-scale); 

(2) the ratio of length on a map to true length.

scenery management system (SMS): The SMS is the method that was adopted after the forest 

plan was completed in 1990. The SMS utilizes two indicators to determine desired landscape 

character: ecological landscape integrity and scenic integrity. Ecological landscape integrity 

evaluates whether the landscape is managed in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner. 

Scenic integrity evaluates whether the landscape character is being managed in a way that 

conserves constituent values in terms of the level of human-caused deviations that are acceptable 

to the public (USDA Forest Service 1993 SMS HANDBOOK).

scenic area: Places of outstanding or matchless beauty that require special management to 

preserve these qualities. They may be established under 36 CFR 294.1 whenever lands 

possessing outstanding or unique natural beauty warrant this classification. 

scenic class: Scenic class indicates the importance or value of a particular landscape determined 

by constituent information. 

scenic identity: The scenic image and identity is the landscape character of an area. The 

landscape character identifies the “ideal” or optimal set of valued scenery attributes and 

describes the setting provided by these scenery attributes within each biophysical setting. It is 

important to understanding of the process, structure, and functions that support the valued set of 

scenery attributes. This understanding helps identify conditions and stressors that put scenery 

resources at risk.

scenic integrity level: Measures the degree to which a landscape is free from visible 

disturbances that detract from the natural or socially valued appearance. Scenic integrity 

objectives establish the desired level of scenic integrity for an area. Scenic stability measures the 

degree to which the valued landscape character and its scenery attributes can be sustained 

through time and ecological progression. Scenic stability objectives establish the desired level of 

scenic stability for a particular area. It is used to describe an existing situation, an objective for 

management, or desired conditions. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

296 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

very high scenic integrity: Scenery with fully intact landscape features and scenic 

compositions presenting the optimal landscape character in complete harmony, with very 

minute, if any, scenic discordance. Due to the optimal scenic integrity of the physical, 

biological, and cultural features in these scenic compositions, the landscape character and 

sense of place are expressed at the highest possible level. Very high scenic integrity is most 

compatible with wilderness, backcountry, biophysical, or cultural preserves, and other 

special classification areas.

high scenic integrity: Scenery with whole or nearly intact landscape features and scenic 

compositions that present the optimal landscape character completely or nearly in full, and 

contain scenic discordances that are not evident.

moderately high scenic integrity: Scenery with slightly altered landscape features and 

compositions in which the valued landscape character is the dominant scenic impression, yet 

minor discordance is apparent, but visually subordinate. The “moderate” level of scenic 

integrity in the Scenery Management Handbook has been split into two categories to reflect 

more accurately the scenic conditions on the in the Blue Mountains.

moderately low scenic integrity: Scenery with altered landscape features and compositions 

that display a beginning dominance of valued landscape character expression and readily 

noticeable discordance.

low scenic integrity: Scenery with obviously altered landscape features and compositions 

that dominate yet still express some aspects of valued landscape character. The scenic 

harmony of the valued landscape character is seriously fragmented and barely restorable 

within reasonable periods and resource expenditures.

very low scenic integrity: Scenery with extremely altered landscape features and 

composition that no longer sustains significant aspects of valued landscape character. The 

scenic harmony of the optimal landscape character does not exist and its restoration may be 

impossible if not unrealistic.

scenic integrity objective: An established goal for the management of the scenic resource 

applied to a specific portion of the forest.

scenic river areas: Refer to Wild and Scenic River.

scenic river: Refer to Wild and Scenic River.

scoping process: A part of the NEPA process; the early stages of preparation of an 

environmental impact statement, early and open activities used to solicit public opinion, receive 

comments and suggestions, and determine the scope and significance of the issues to be 

considered in the development and analysis of a range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be 

considered. Scoping may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, mailings, letters, or 

other contacts (40 CFR 1501.7).

screening: The reduction or elimination of the visual impact of any structure or land 

modification as seen from any public travel route within the national forests.

security: An area where wildlife, such as elk, retreat to for safety when disturbance in their usual 

range is intensified, such as by logging activities or during the hunting season.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 297 

secondary productivity: The growth of animal species that use the products derived from the 

growth and accumulation of plant biomass (primary productivity).

sediment: Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, 

gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually 

will settle to the bottom.

sediment regime: The rate, frequency, magnitude, and duration of sediment movement. Refer to 

flow regime.

selective cutting: Single-tree or group-selection cutting is the periodic removal of trees 

individually or in small groups from an uneven-aged forest in order to maintain diverse stands, 

with the sustainability and improvement of the forest using an ecosystem approach to 

management being a primary consideration.

self-sustaining populations: Populations that are sufficiently abundant, interacting, and welldistributed in the plan area, within the bounds of their life history and distribution of the species 

and the capability of the landscape, to provide for their long-term persistence, resilience and 

adaptability over multiple generations.

sensitive soils: Forest land areas that have a moderate to very high hazard for soil compaction. 

Erosion, displacement, mass wasting, or forest floor displacement.

sensitive species: Plant or animal species identified by a regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern either: 1) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers or density; or 2) because of significant current or predicted downward trends 

in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Those species that have 

appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or are under consideration for 

official listing as endangered or threatened species, that are on an official state list, or that are 

recognized by the regional forester as needing special management to prevent placement on 

federal or state lists.

seral: Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during the progression in structure 

and composition over time. Development stages have characteristic structure and plant species 

composition. See succession for definitions of different seral stages.

seral stage: The developmental phase of a forest stand or rangeland with characteristic structure 

and plant species composition.

shade intolerant: Species of plants that do not grow well in or die from the effects of too much 

shade. Generally, these are fire-tolerant species.

shade tolerant: Species of plants that can develop and grow in the shade of other plants. 

Generally, these are fire-intolerant species.

shrubland: Area of land where the potential vegetation is dominated by shrubs.

short term: Generally refers to a period of 10 years or less.

silvicultural system: A management process whereby forests are tended, harvested, and 

replaced, resulting in a forest of distinctive form. Systems are classified according to the method 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

298 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

of carrying out the fellings that remove the mature crop and provide for regeneration and 

according to the type of forest thereby produced.

single-story: Vegetation with a single canopy layer.

site: (1)A specific location of an activity or project, such as a campground, a lake, or a stand of 

trees to be harvested; (2) The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation 

or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location 

itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure 

[36CFR65] (historic or archaeological definition).

site-potential tree: The average maximum height of the tallest trees for a given site class.

snag: A standing dead tree usually greater than five feet in height and six inches in diameter at 

breast height (d.b.h.).

social well-being: A condition that enables citizens, communities, and visitors to contribute to 

their wellness, values and quality of life.

society: A group of people who have a common homeland, are interdependent, and share a 

common culture.

soil: The earth material that has been so modified and acted upon by physical, chemical, and 

biological agents that it will support rooted plants.

soil function: The characteristic physical and biological activity of soils that influences 

productivity, capability, and resiliency.

soil productivity: The inherent capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s 

chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding 

capacity, and mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). It is often expressed by some 

measure of biomass accumulation.

soil quality: The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological 

productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health.

soil stability: (1) Mass stability of the soil profile or resistance to mass failure; (2) stability of 

the soil surface with respect to accelerated sheet, rill, and gully erosion processes.

soil surveys: All soil surveys are made by examining, describing, and classifying soils in the 

field and delineating their areas on maps. The map scale for field mapping must be large enough 

to allow areas of minimum size to be delineated legibly. Recognition of the different soil survey 

levels is helpful for communicating about soil surveys and maps, even though the levels cannot 

be sharply separated from each other. The order of a survey is consequence of field procedures, 

the minimum size of delineation, and the kinds of map units that are used.

Order I Surveys: Are for very intensive land uses requiring very detailed information about 

soils, generally in small areas. The information can be used in planning for irrigation, drainage, 

truck crops, citrus or other specialty crops, experimental plots, individual building sites, and 

other uses that require a detailed and very precise knowledge of the soils and their variability.

Order II Surveys: Are for intensive land uses that require detailed information about soil 

resources for making predictions of suitability for use and of treatment needs. The 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 299 

information can be used in planning for general agriculture, construction, urban 

development, and similar uses that require precise knowledge of the soils and their 

variability.

Order III Surveys: Are for land uses that do not require precise knowledge of small areas or 

detailed soils information. Such survey areas are usually dominated by a single land use and 

have few subordinate uses. The information can be used in planning for range, forest, 

recreational areas, and in community planning.

Order IV Surveys: Are for extensive land uses that need general soil information for broad 

statements concerning land–use potential and general land management. The information 

can be used in locating, comparing, and selecting suitable areas for major kinds of land use, 

in regional land–use planning, and in selecting areas for more intensive study and 

investigation.

Order V Surveys: Collect soils information in very large areas at a level of detail suitable 

for planning regional land use and interpreting information at a high level of generalization. 

The primary use of this information is selection of areas for more intensive study.

source habitat: Habitat in such conditions that result in a positive or increasing population 

growth for a particular species. Those characteristics of vegetation that support long-term 

wildlife species persistence, or characteristics of vegetation that contribute to stable or positive 

population growth for a species in a specified area and time. Source habitats are described using 

dominant vegetation cover type and structural stage combinations that can be estimated reliably 

at the 247-acre (100-hectare) patch scale. Various combinations of these cover type–structural 

stages make up the source habitats for the terrestrial species discussed in this FEIS, and provide 

the range of vegetation conditions required by these species for food, reproduction, and other 

needs (Wisdom et al. 2000).

spatial: Related to or having the nature of space.

special habitat: A habitat which has a special function not provided by plant communities and 

successional stages. Includes riparian zones, snags, dead and downed wood, and edges (Thomas 

1979).

specially designated areas: Also referred to as special areas and is one of the plan components. 

Areas designated because of their unique or special characteristics, such as botanical areas or 

areas designated by stature or administrative processes such as wilderness, wild and scenic 

rivers, or research natural areas.

special use authorization: A permit, term permit lease, or easement which allows occupancy, 

use, rights, or privileges of national forest lands (36 CFR 251.51).

.

species: A population or series of populations of organisms that can interbreed freely with each 

other but not with members of other species.

species composition: The species that occur on a site or in a successional stage of a plant 

community (Thomas 1979).

species diversity: The number of species occurring in a given area.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

300 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

species of concern: Species for which management actions may be necessary to prevent listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. Criteria for selection as a species of concern include:

 Identified as candidate and proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

 Has a G1 to G3 NatureServe ranking.

 Intraspecific taxa with NatureServe ranking of T1 to T3. 

 Has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

sprouter: Flora capable of vegetative reproduction from roots or stems.

stand: A group of trees in a specific area that re sufficiently alike in composition, age, 

arrangement, and condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas.

stand composition: The vegetative species that make up the stand.

stand density: Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in trees 

per acre.

stand initiation (SI): Stand conditions that arise following a stand-replacing disturbance such as 

wildfire or timber harvest. Colonizers disperse seed into disturbed areas, the seed germinates, 

and new seedlings establish and develop. A single canopy stratum of tree seedlings and saplings 

is present. Average tree diameters are generally less than five inches.

stand-replacement fire: A fire severity classification where at least 75 percent replacement of 

the upper layer of vegetation is removed.

stand structure: The mix and distribution of tree sizes, layers, and ages in a forest. Some stands 

are all one size (single-story) some are two-story, and some are a mix of trees of different ages 

and sizes.

standard: A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, 

established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

state and transition model: Nonequilibrium ecological model to describe vegetation dynamics 

of rangeland sites as adopted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Models recognize 

multiple steady states of vegetation and emphasize disturbance processes.

strategy: Part two of a land management plan that explains the suitable uses and includes the 

special designated areas, and management categories.

stream channel: Refer to channel.

stem exclusion: The stage created when vigorous, fast growing trees occupy the growing space. 

Establishment of new trees is precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. This stage could be 

maintained by thinning or fire. Stands only have one dominant layer. Average tree diameters 

range from 5 to 20 inches.

stringers: Relatively narrow areas suitable to be occupied by forested plant associations within a 

landscape that is otherwise unsuitable due to site or environmental factors.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 301 

stronghold: Directly associated with strong populations. For native fish, strong populations have 

stable numbers or are increasing, and all major life history forms that historically occurred 

within the watershed are present.

stocking level: The ratio of the current stand density to an assumed ideal level of stand density.

structure: (1) Any permanent building or facility, or part thereof such as barns, outhouses, 

residences, and storage sheds including transmission line systems, substations, commercial radio 

transmitters, relays or repeater stations, antennas, and other electronic sites and associated 

structures; or (2) the size and arrangement of vegetation, both vertically and horizontally.

structural stage: A stage of development of a vegetation community that is classified on the 

dominant processes of growth, development, competition, and mortality.

subalpine: A terrestrial community that generally is found in harsher environments than the 

montane terrestrial community. Subalpine communities are generally colder than montane and 

support a unique clustering of wildlife species.

subbasin: A drainage area of approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres, equivalent to a 4th-field 

HUC watershed.

subsistence: Customary and traditional uses of wild renewable resources (plants and animals) 

for food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, etc.

subwatershed: A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field HUC 

(12 digit). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th field HUC) are contained within watersheds (5th 

field HUC, which in turn are contained within a subbasin (4th field HUC).

succession: The sequential replacement over time of one plant community by another, in the 

absence of major disturbance. Conditions of the prior plant community or successional stage 

create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different stages 

of succession are often referred to as seral stages. Developmental stages are as follows: 

early seral: Communities that occur early in the successional path and generally have less 

complex structural developmental than other successional communities. Seedling and 

sapling size classes are an example of early seral forests. 

mid-seral: Communities that occur in the middle of the successional path. For forests, this 

usually corresponds to the pole or medium sawtimber growth stages. 

late-seral: Communities that occur in the later stage of the successional path with mature, 

generally larger individuals, such as mature forests.

suitable habitat: Habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable stand attributes for a 

given species habitat requirements. Variable attributes change over time and may include seral 

stage, cover type and overstory canopy cover.

suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

302 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

suitable uses: Uses that are compatible with the desired conditions and objectives for a given 

area which are identified as guidance for project and activity decision making and do not 

represent a commitment or final decision approving projects or activities.

surface fire: A fire that burns surface litter, dead woody fuels, other loose debris on the forest 

floor, and some small vegetation without significant movement into the overstory, usually with a 

flame less than a few feet high.

surface water development: The practice of diverting or impounding surface water sources by 

the construction of dams, diversions, canals, or ditches for use, such as irrigation, livestock 

watering, and human consumption.

sustainability: Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, 

and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying 

the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield (FSM 1905).

sustained-yield of products and services: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a 

high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National 

Forest System without impairment of the productivity of the land.

.

T

talus: A slope formed by the accumulation of rock debris at the base of a cliff.

temporal: Related to time.

terrestrial: Pertaining to the land.

terrestrial wildlife: Wildlife species that dwell primarily on land (Thomas 1979).

.

thermal regulation: The processes by which many animals actively maintain the temperature of 

all or parts of their body; the protection against local climatic extremes provided by, for example, 

shade produced by vegetation, protection from wind or sun, or protection from extreme cold.

thinning: An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, 

maintaining stand vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. 

Although thinning can result in commercial products, thinning generally refers to 

noncommercial operations.

threatened species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act by either the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. These species are likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

timber harvest: The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization and other multiple-use purposes.

timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 303 

For purposes of this subpart, the term timber production does not include production of 

fuelwood.

total maximum daily load (TMDL): A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to 

the pollutant’s sources. The Clean Water Act, Section 303, establishes the water quality standards 

and TMDL programs.

traditional cultural areas: Those areas of the forest used by Native American Indian tribes for 

traditional activities and often referred to as “religious use areas” or “sacred areas.” They may 

include areas traditionally used for gathering of special forest products.

travel corridors: An area of vegetation that provides completely or partially suitable habitat for 

animals to travel from one location to another.

travel route: A route, such as a county or national forest road or river or trail, that is open for 

use by members of the public.

treaty-reserved right: Tribal rights or interests reserved in treaties, by Native American Indian 

tribes for the use and benefit of their members. The uses include such activities as described in 

the respective treaty document. Only Congress may abolish or modify treaties or treaty rights.

treaty resource: A resource associated with the language in a specific treaty, usually interpreted 

to include collections or association of species; not limited to a single species. For example: fish 

may include all fish species (some treaties included rights to erect temporary houses for curing 

fish); roots and berries may include a wide variety of plants that will encompass the nature of the 

plants as they were used historically; grasses are necessarily included for the treaty reserved right 

to graze cattle or livestock. Hunting rights may include all species of animals hunted in historic 

and prehistoric times. As these apply to the Forest Service, they are public natural resources on 

national forest lands, to which American Indian tribes have reserved certain rights for taking or 

gathering.

trend: As used to define range conditions, the direction of change in range or forage condition or 

in ecological status.

tribe: Term used to designate any native American Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized 

group or community which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services 

provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

trust resource: A resource or property that constitutes a corpus or object of trust that is held in 

trust status by another (trustee) on behalf of a beneficiary. A trustee is usually a governmental 

entity (Secretary of the Interior) who is assigned a trust duty to care for resources that are for the 

exclusive use and benefit of Indian tribes and/or their members. A beneficiary may be an Indian 

tribe or individual tribal member, who has property being held in trust status, for example: land, 

money, timber, or any Indian-owned asset.

U

underburn: A type of prescribed fire that burns ground vegetation and ladder fuels on the 

surface under a live tree overstory to meet specific management and/or resource objectives.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

304 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

understory: Lower vegetation in a forest, the small trees and other woody species/shrubs 

growing under a more–or–less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by 

the taller adjacent trees and other woody growth.

understory reinitiation (UR): New age classes of trees establish as the overstory trees die or are 

thinned and no longer occupy all of the growing space. Regrowth of understory vegetation then 

occurs, and trees begin to develop in vertical layers. This stage contains multiple layers and 

multiple tree sizes. Average tree diameters range from 5 to 20 inches.

uneven-aged management: The application of a combination of actions needed to 

simultaneously maintain continuous high-forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable 

species, and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age 

classes to provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying 

the number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to retain within each area, thereby 

maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and group selection.

uneven-aged management (group selection): The group selection variant of uneven–aged 

management is designed to facilitate the establishment of shade intolerant species, reduce 

damage to the residual stand, and lengthen the cyclic entry period. The opening created 

under the group selection prescription would often be no larger than one to two tree heights 

(as influenced by aspect and slope) so as not to lose the site protection afforded by the 

surrounding trees. Size, shape, and location of groups should be designed to achieve 

landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives.

uneven-aged management (single-tree selection): This silvicultural system is intended to 

perpetuate uneven–aged stands composed of intermingled trees of differing ages, species, 

and sizes. Individually selected trees are removed to maintain a desired range of tree sizes 

over a prescribed distribution. Cyclic entries designed to control the structure and species 

composition and provide the openings necessary for establishment and growth of the 

continuously occurring regeneration are a function of the site quality and resource 

considerations.

ungulates: Hoofed, plant-eating mammals such as elk, deer, and cattle.

upland: The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream.

unroaded area: Portion of the national forest that does not contain classified roads. Refer to 

road.

unsuitable range: Areas of land that should not be used by livestock because of unstable soils.

utility corridor: A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries that is being used as the 

location for one or more transportation or utility rights-of-way.

V

vascular plants: Plants that have specialized tissues which conduct nutrients, water, and sugars, 

along with other specialized parts such as roots, stems, and reproductive structures. Vascular 

plants include flowering plants, ferns, shrubs, grasses, trees, and many others.

vector: An organism that carries or transmits a pathogenic agent from one host to another.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 305 

vegetation management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest 

vegetation in order to achieve desired results. Vegetation management is the practice of 

manipulating the species mix, age, fuel load, and /or distribution of wildland plant communities 

within a prescribed or designated area in order to achieve desired results. It includes prescribed 

burning, grazing, chemical applications, biomass harvesting, and any other economically feasible 

method of enhancing, retarding, modifying, transplanting, or removing the aboveground parts of 

plants.

vegetation utilization: Indicates the degree to which vegetation is consumed by animals.

vertebrate: An animal with a backbone; mammals, fishes, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are 

vertebrates.

viability: In general, viability means the ability of a population of a plant or animal species to 

persist for some specified time into the future.

viable population: A population that is regarded as having the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that its continued existence is well distributed 

in the project area.

vision: Part one of a land management plan that describes the roles, contribution, and desired 

conditions of the national. This section also contains monitoring measures to assess progress 

toward the desired conditions.

W

water right: A right to use surface water or ground water evidenced by a court decree or by a 

permit or certificate approved by the state water resources department. Statutory exempt uses of 

surface water and ground water are not water rights, nor are time-limited licenses. A perfected 

water right is defined by applicant name, source, purpose, amount (quantity, rate and duty), 

season of use, priority date, point of diversion, place of use, and certificate number.

water quality: A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose.

watershed: (1) The region draining into a river, river system or body of water; or (2) 

subdivisions within a subbasin, which generally range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres; the 

fifth level (10-digit) in the hydrologic hierarchy.

watershed condition classes: Watersheds are rated as Class 1, 2, or 3.

Class 1 Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. Drainage network is generally stable. Physical, 

chemical, and biological] conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are 

predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.

Class 2 Condition: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit 

an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, 

aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

306 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Class 3 Condition: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be 

unstable. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and 

riparian systems do not support beneficial uses.

watershed function: The processes acting on hillslopes and stream channel within a drainage 

basin that control the movement of water, wood, sediment, and nutrients.

watershed integrity: The degree to which the physical and biological processes affecting the 

movement of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients are operating within normally expected 

ranges.

watershed runoff: Refer to runoff.

water yield: The amount of water that flows from a watershed within a specific period of time. 

weed: A plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, usually introduced and 

growing without intentional cultivation.

wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient 

to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetative or 

aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as 

sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds (Executive Order 

11990, Section 7c).

wild and scenic river (WSR): Those rivers or sections of rivers designated as such by 

congressional action under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as supplemented and 

amended. Wild and scenic rivers include all national forest lands within the designated wild and 

scenic river corridor (15). The following classifications are used:

wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted.

scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads.

recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by 

road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

study river areas: Those rivers formally designated by Congress to be studied under 

Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

wilderness area: An area designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence 

without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wildernesses are protected and managed 

to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to have been affected primarily by 

the forces of nature with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable; have 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; are of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 307 

sufficient size to make practical their preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired 

condition; and may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well 

as ecologic and geologic interest.

.

wildfire: An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires 

where the objective is to put the fire out (NWCG 2012).

wildland: A nonurban, natural area that contains uncultivated land, timber, range, watershed, 

brush or grassland.

wildland fire: Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of 

wildland fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. 

(NWCG 2012). 

wildland fire situation analysis (WFSA): A decision-making process that evaluates alternative 

management strategies against selected safety, environmental, social, economic, political, and 

resource management objectives (USDA Forest Service 1998).

wildland fire suppression: An appropriate management response to wildland fire that results in 

curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the particular fire. All 

wildland fire suppression activities provide for firefighter and public safety as the highest 

consideration, but minimize loss of resource values, economic expenditures, and/or the use of 

critical firefighting resources (USDA Forest Service 1998).

wildland fire use: The application of the appropriate management response to naturally-ignited 

wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in pre-defined designated 

areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. Operational management is described in the Wildland 

Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) (NWCG 2012). 

wildland-urban interface (WUI): The area directly adjacent to home and communities.

windthrown: Refers to trees blown over by the wind.

winter range: The area available to and used by wildlife (big game) during the winter season. 

Generally, lands below 4,000 feet in elevation, on south and west aspects, that provides forage 

and thermal/snow intercept.

woodland: Dry, low elevation areas with a potential vegetation type of juniper.

X

xeric: Very dry region or climate; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. Dry soil moisture 

regime. Some moisture is present but does not occur at optimum levels for plant growth. 

Irrigation or summer fallow is often necessary for crop production.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 309 

Appendices 

Appendix A – Maps (In a separate file)

Map 1. Location of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 2. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project boundaries 

Map 3. Lower Grande Ronde subbasin and watersheds of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 4. Sensitive plant surveys and locations in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 

Map 5. Non-native invasive plant species found within the LJCRP area 

Map 6. Watershed Condition Framework ratings for the LJCRP area 

Map 7. Current level of connectivity between designated old groth (MA15) and other late seral old forest. 

Map 8. Current forest canopy cover classes across the LJCRP area. 

Map 9. Vegetation treatments and road network – Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) 

Map 10. Vegetation treatments and road network – Alternative 3 

Map 11. Droughty soils within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 12. Landforms of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 13. Soils of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 14.Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 15. Existing condition – road status 

Map 16. Alternative 2 - road status 

Map 17. Grazing allotments of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project and Alternative 2 vegetation 

treatments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 311 

Appendix B - Forest plan direction, and other policies, laws, 

regulations, and agreements

This appendix compiles or summarizes:

 More information on other policies, laws, treaties, and regulations pertinent to the LJCRP mentioned 

in Chapter 1.

 Applicable forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the LJCRP.

 Amendments to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan

Key federal and state policies applicable to the LJCRP

PACFISH

In 1995, the “Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous fish-producing Watersheds 

in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California” (PACFISH) 

Decision Notice amended the Forest Plan (US Department of Agriculture 1995). 

PACFISH added goals and objectives for anadromous fish habitat condition and 

function, and identified Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), where 

management activities will meet interim standards and guidelines.

Eastside 

Screens

In 1993, the Forest Service adopted interim measures to preserve late-successional/oldgrowth forests on the eastside of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington until they 

could be replaced by more permanent and complete decisions. These measures, known 

as the Eastside Screens, consist of a series of procedures for screening proposed timber 

sales. Among other things, the Eastside Screens prohibit logging live trees greater than 

21-inches in diameter at breast height. The adoption of the Eastside Screens amended 

all land and resource management plans (forest plans) for National Forests east of the 

Cascade Crest.

Nez Perce 

Tribe Ceded 

Lands

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, including the LJCRP, contains lands ceded by 

the Nez Perce Tribe in 1855 through Treaty with the United States. Although tribal 

lands were ceded to the Federal Government, tribal sovereignty and treaty rights were 

reserved. The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, lies within the 

executive branch of government and therefore has a trust responsibility to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate with federally recognized tribes regarding decisions or 

policies that have the potential to affect tribal interests. The Forest Service is also 

vested with a statutory authority and responsibility for managing natural resources and 

their associated habitats on NFS lands. These natural resources are considered treaty 

resources by the Nez Perce Tribe. The LJCRP is located entirely within traditional 

territory of the Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce subject to the rights the Tribe 

reserved, and the United States secured, in the Treaty of 1855. The Chief Joseph Band 

of the Nez Perce is a constituent member of, and, represented by, the Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR). The CTCR was created by the Executive 

Order of 1872 as amended by the North-Half Agreement of 1891. The Colville Business 

Commission (CCT) delegated to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) the 

responsibility of representing the CCT with regard to cultural resource management 

issues throughout the traditional territories of their constituent tribes (pers. comm. Guy 

Mora, THPO).

Tribal 

Consultation

The Forest Service Tribal consultation responsibilities are guided by a variety of laws 

and Executive Orders, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

312 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Key federal and state policies applicable to the LJCRP

Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

(AIRFA). Executive Orders and Memoranda include Executive Order 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and E.O. 13007 

(Accommodation of Sacred Sites). Consultation is also guided by Forest Service policy 

to maintain a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized Tribes, 

coordinate land and resources management plans and actions with tribal land and 

resource management plans and actions to promote the health of ecosystems, and 

consult with Tribes on matters that may affect tribal rights and interests (FSM 1563.03). 

Forest Service policy also provides direction to develop land management goals and 

objectives within the framework defined by laws, Indian treaties, regulations, 

collaboratively developed public and Indian tribal values and desires, historical 

conditions, current and likely future ecological capabilities, a range of climate change

predictions, the best available science, information, and technical and economic 

feasibility (FSM 2020.3). For a summary of staff to staff and government consultation 

between the IDT, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and the Nez Perce Tribe, refer to 

the Tribal Relations Specialist report.

Heritage 

Resources

The 2004 Programmatic Agreement between Region 6 of the Forest Service and 

the Oregon State Heritage Protection Office (SHPO) will guide compliance on 

heritage resource concerns. 

Invasive 

Plant 

Management

USDA Forest Service, PNW Region 2005 Invasive Plant Management Record of 

Decision for invasive species management documented prevention actions and Regionwide standards for invasive species management (USDA Forest Service 2005). In 

March 2010, the Final EIS for the WWNF Invasive Plants Treatment was 

completed. A Record of Decision was signed on April 2, 2010, but due to litigation, 

cannot be fully implemented until a supplemental EIS (SEIS) is completed. Until the 

SEIS is completed, 17,000 acres of known infestations, and any newly identified 

infestations may be treated using only non-chemical methods. Continued herbicide use 

is site specific as outlined in the litigation settlement, 2012 Partial Vacatur Opinion and 

Order. The LJCRP includes sites covered under exhibit 1 (Approved treatments) of the 

Partial Vacatur. These sites were approved under the 92-94 Environmental Assessments 

and the 2010 EIS.

Research 

Natural 

Areas

Establishment of research natural areas has been sanctioned in the Code of Federal 

Regulations in Section 7 CFR 2.42, 36 CFR 251.23, and 36 CFR 219.25. Direction for 

establishment is provided in Forest Service Manual 4063 and in “A Guide for 

Developing Natural Area Management and Monitoring Plans” written by the Pacific 

Northwest Interagency Natural Area Committee.

Clean Air 

Act

Clean Air Act: All proposed prescribed burning would be conducted in compliance 

with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regulations and restrictions contained in the Oregon 

Smoke Management Plan (ODEQ Directive 1-4-1-601). Fuel activities can be timed to 

minimize the impacts of smoke on forest users and local communities. An operator’s 

burn plan is developed prior to ignition. On site weather conditions are monitored 

before, during, and after an ignition. Ocular smoke observations are made throughout 

the ignition phase. Residual smoke is monitored for dispersion and direction. No 

ignitions would occur if there is an air stagnation advisory in place within the northeast 

Oregon geographic area. No ignitions would occur if existing or forecast conditions 

would transport measurable smoke into downwind communities. The removal and 

direct treatment of biomass would reduce emissions should a wildfire occur. The effect 

of smoke under any action alternative would be short term. Particulate matter is not 

expected to exceed standards in the communities of concern.

Other National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 313 

Key federal and state policies applicable to the LJCRP

Policies, 

Laws, 

Treaties and 

Regulations

(NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ), Clean Water Act

(CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Requirements, Invasive Species Executive Order (EO) 13112 of February 3, 1999, 

2013 National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management, 2013 

Oregon Dept. of Agriculture Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System, 

Migratory Birds EO 12962 of January 10, 2001, Environmental Justice EO 12898 of 

February 11, 1994, Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds), ORS 2013 564.105 (Responsibility to protect and conserve 

native plants by Oregon state law), USDA viability regulation 9500-004 2008, 

USFWS 2007 Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly), and other 

relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, and Forest Service manuals and 

handbooks. This project is also consistent with the Wallowa County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (Wallowa County 2006a). Prescribed burning of forest fuels 

(logging slash or natural) will comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-

048-0001 to 629-048-0500 (Smoke Management Rules) within any forest protection 

district as described in OAR 629-048-0500 to 0575.

Analysis and documentation for this project has been prepared according to direction 

contained in the aforementioned policies, laws, treaties, and regulations.

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

Forested 

Vegetation

The detailed direction that affects the project-level vegetation analysis being 

undertaken in this proposed action are contained in the forest plan for the Wallowa 

Whitman National Forest (USDA 1990, as updated 2004) and the Hells Canyon 

NRA Comprehensive Management Plan (USDA 2003). These include the Forestwide goals and standards and guidelines, HCNRA objectives, standards and 

guidelines and Management Area direction that has relevance to the proposed 

action

Forested Vegetation - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Diversity (FP 4-

30)

 Retain, through precommercial and commercial thinning, a diversity of tree 

species based on site potential.

 Allow for all natural species to function following vegetation manipulation. 

Timber 

Management (FP 

4-48)

 Silvicultural Systems – Prepare silvicultural prescriptions prior to all harvest 

activities. These prescriptions will be reviewed by a certified silviculturist.

 Silvicultural Systems – Select silvicultural systems which will, to the extent 

possible and within the intent of the land management objectives:

a. Permit the production of a volume of marketable trees sufficient to 

utilize all trees that meet utilization standards and are designated 

for harvest.

b. Permit the use of an available and acceptable logging method that 

can remove logs and other products without excessive damage to 

the identified desirable residual vegetation.

c. Be capable of providing special conditions, such as a continuous 

canopy or continuous high density live root mats, when required by 

critical soil conditions or as needed to achieve particular 

management objectives, such as streamside protection, wildlife 

needs, and visual enhancement.

d. Permit control of vegetation to establish desired numbers and rates 

of growth of trees, as well as vegetation needed to achieve other 

management objectives identified in site-specific silvicultural 

prescriptions.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

314 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

e. Promote a stand structure and species composition that minimizes 

serious risk of damage caused by mammals, insects, disease, or 

wildfire, and will allow treatment of existing insect, disease, or fuel 

conditions.

f. Be capable of achieving management objectives such as those for 

streamside protection, wildlife needs, and visual resources.

g. Include consideration of fuel treatment commensurate with 

resource needs.

h. Be the most economical system to meet the desired objectives.

 Reforestation - Selection of reforestation methods will be made on a site-bysite basis during project-level analysis. This analysis will always consider the 

option of natural regeneration. Design harvest and regeneration practices so 

that there is reasonable assurance of adequate restocking within five years after 

final harvest. 

Miscellaneous

(FP 4-56) 

 Tree Encroachment. Recognize natural grasslands and meadows primarily for 

the forage value and habitat they provide. Encroachment of trees on meadows 

and other high forage producing nontimbered sites may be prevented if such 

action is warranted based on site specific analysis including consideration of 

other resource objectives. 

Regional 

Forester 

Amendment #2

In August 1993 the Regional Forester issued a letter providing direction to eastside 

National Forests on retaining old-growth attributes at the local scale and moving 

toward the historic range of variability (HRV) across the landscape. These became 

known as the “eastside screens.” A subsequent decision notice in May 1994 

amended all eastside Forest plans (including the Wallowa Whitman) to include 

these standards.

The interim wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow based on the 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) for each biophysical environment within a 

given watershed. For the purposes of this standard, late and old structural stages 

(LOS) can be either "Multi-strata with Large Trees" (MSLT), or "Single Strata with 

Large Trees" (SSLT), as described in Table 1 of the Ecosystem Standard. These 

LOS stages can occur separately or in some cases, both may occur within a given 

biophysical environment. LOS stages are calculated separately in the interim 

ecosystem standard. Use Scenario A whenever anyone type of LOS is below HRV. 

If both types occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV 

and one below, use Scenario A. Only use Scenario B when both LOS stages within 

a particular biophysical environment are at or above HRV.

Scenario A - If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls 

BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then 

there should be NO NET LOSS OF LOS from that biophysical environment. DO 

NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are 

BELOW HRV.

1) Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stages that are within or above 

HRV in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS within that biophysical 

environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into the 

LOS stage that is deficit if this meets historical conditions.

2a) Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees >= 21" DBH 

that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.

2b) Manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet late and old structural (LOS) 

conditions, (as described in Table 1 of the Ecosystem Standard), in a manner that 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 315 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV.

2c) Maintain open, parklike stand conditions where this condition occurred 

historically. Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and 

maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. (While understory removal 

is allowed, some amount of seedlings, saplings, and poles need to be maintained for 

the development of future stands).

3) Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to 

the following standards: INTENT STATEMENT: While data is still being 

collected, it is the best understanding of wildlife science, today, that wildlife 

species associated with late and old structural conditions, especially those sensitive 

to "edge,” rely on the connectivity of these habitats to allow free movement and 

interaction of adults and dispersal of young. Connectivity corridors do not 

necessarily meet the same description of "suitable" habitat for breeding, but allow 

free movement between suitable breeding habitats. Until a full conservation 

assessment is completed that describes in more detail the movement patterns and 

needs of various species and communities of species in eastside ecosystems, it is 

important to insure that blocks of habitat maintain a high degree of connectivity 

between them, and that blocks of habitat do not become fragmented in the shortterm.

4) Adhere to the following specific wildlife prescriptions. These standards are set at 

MINIMUM levels of consideration. Follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

when they EXCEED the following prescriptive levels: a) Snags, Green Tree 

Replacements and Down Logs:

INTENT STATEMENT - Most (if not all) wildlife species rely on moderate to 

high levels of snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning and feeding. 

Large down logs are a common and important component of most old and late 

structural forests. Past management practices have greatly reduced the number of 

large snags and down logs in managed stands.

(1) All sale activities (including intermediate and regeneration harvest in both 

even-age and uneven-age systems, and salvage) will maintain snags and green 

replacement trees of > 21 inches DBH, (or whatever is the representative DBH of 

the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 100% potential population levels 

of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the best available 

science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other 

documented procedures. NOTE: for Scenario A, the live remnant trees (>=21" 

DBH) left can be considered for part of the green replacement tree requirement.

(2) Pre-activity (currently existing) down logs may be removed only when they 

exceed the quantities listed below. When pre-activity levels of down logs are below 

the quantities listed, do not remove downed logging debris that fits within the listed 

categories. It is not the intention of this direction to leave standing trees for future 

logs in addition to the required snag numbers, or to fall merchantable material to 

meet the down log requirements. The snag numbers are designed to meet future 

down log needs in combination with natural mortality. Exceptions to meeting the 

down log requirement can be made where fire protection needs for life and 

property cannot be accomplished with this quantity of debris left on site. The down 

log criteria are not intended to preclude the use of prescribed burning as an activity 

fuels modification treatment. Fire prescription parameters will ensure that 

consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1 1/2 inch per side) of diameter 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

316 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

reduction in the featured large logs (sizes below). Tools such as the CONSUME 

and FOFEM computer models, fire behavior nomograms, and local fire effects 

documentation can aid in diameter reduction estimates.

Leave logs in current lengths; do not cut them into pieces. Longer logs may count 

for multiple "pieces" without cutting them. Cutting them may destroy some habitat 

uses and also cause them to decay more rapidly. It is also not expected that the 

"pieces" left will be scattered equally across all acres.

Species Pieces per 

Acre

Diameter Small 

End (inches)

Piece Length & Total 

Linear Length

Ponderosa pine 3-6 12 >6 feet; 20 – 40 feet

Mixed conifer 15-20 12 >6 feet; 100 -140 feet

Range of 

Variation 

Guidance for 

Forest 

Vegetation 

Project Planning

The Regional Forester Amendment #2 of June 12, 1995 established interim 

riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales (these standards are 

referred to as the “Eastside Screens”). Items 5 and 6 of the Eastside Screens require 

that a range of variation approach be used when comparing historical reference and 

current conditions, incorporating the best available science

A letter from the Wallowa Whitman Forest Supervisor to the forest leadership team 

dated 7/27/2011 replaced previous guidance for RV analysis. The letter states that 

Range of Variation Recommendations for Dry, Moist and Cold Forests, by David 

Powell, May 2010, incorporates the best available science and that all future forest 

vegetation planning work should utilize the range of variation tables in Powell 

2010. 

Vegetation - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan –

Objectives, Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Forested 

Vegetation, 

Grasslands and 

Forest 

Understory (C31 to 34)

Objectives -

 Veg-O1: Provide for restoration of ecosystem function, where determined to be 

needed, in a manner compatible with the primary objectives of the HCNRA 

Act, congressionally designated areas, and established Forest Plan MAs 

 Veg-O2 for MAs 7, 10, and 11: Manage forest and grassland vegetation to 

maintain viable and healthy ecosystems that ensure: the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats; conservation of scenic, and 

scientific values; preservation of biologically unique species, habitats, and rare 

combinations of outstanding ecosystems; protection and enhancement of a wild 

and scenic river's outstandingly remarkable values; and compatible public 

outdoor recreation. (New)

Forested 

Vegetation (C-34 

to 42)

Objectives -

 For-O1: Outside wilderness, manage forested vegetation to restore the HRV 

for structural stages

Standards –

 For-S3 for MAs 7, 10, 11: Silvicultural treatment and PF shall be the primary 

methods used to achieve a desired forested vegetation structure.

 For-S5 for MAs 7, 10, and 11: Silvicultural treatment activities shall maintain 

a viable and healthy ecosystem and be designed to replicate the naturallyoccurring processes which shape the character of the landscape. Natural 

disturbance regimes most commonly operating in the HCNRA include: 

wildfire, high winds, and insect/disease infestations. Forest vegetation and 

fuels management activities based upon ecological principles can be 

implemented to mimic these kinds of natural disturbance events.

 For-S8 for MAs 7, 10, and 11: Silvicultural treatments available to achieve a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 317 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

desired structure include: Uneven-aged management, (single-tree selection and 

group selection), WFU for resource benefits, PF, commercial thinning, 

precommercial thinning, salvage, and sanitation cutting.

Guidelines –

 For-G3 for MAs 7, 10, and 11: As much as possible, within the context of 

maintaining structural stages at HRV levels, manage riparian zones to provide 

connectivity corridors between late/old structure stands. (Eastside Screens, 

CMP)

Management direction specific to individual management areas

The project area includes 9 Management Areas (MA) as described in the Wallow 

Whitman NF forest plan (starting pg. 4-56). Timber Production Emphasis (MA-1) 

makes up approximately 28,256 acres of the project area. Wildlife/Timber (MA 3) 

includes another 36,068 acres. Outside the HCNRA, Wild and Scenic Rivers (MA 

7), Research Natural Areas (MA 12) and Old Growth Preservation (MA 15) 

comprise approximately 6,350 acres. The remaining 3 management areas within the 

project areas (approximately 28,735 acres) are within the HCNRA as described in 

the CMP (Appendix C, Table C1) and consist of HCNRA Dispersed 

Recreation/Native Vegetation (MA 9), HCNRA Forage Production (MA 10) and 

HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management (MA 11).

MA 1 – Timber Production Emphasis. 

 Timber. Use timber management to convert unmanaged natural stands to 

vigorous managed stands.

 Insects and Diseases. Prevent and/or suppress insects and diseases using 

integrated pest management techniques when outbreaks threaten resource 

management objectives. Activities might include stump treatment for root rots, 

application of pesticides for defoliators and cone insects, early harvest, 

stocking control, and species control. The most cost-effective strategy may be 

no action, which will be considered in project analyses.

MA 3 – Wildlife/Timber. 

 Timber. Timber management will be similar to that of Management Area 1 but 

constrained to meet wildlife objectives. Where it is determined through 

project-level environmental analysis that use of uneven-aged management 

methods are practical, and better meet the objectives of Management Area 3, 

these methods may be used.

 Insects and Diseases. Apply standards and guidelines from Management Area 

1.

MA 9 – HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation.

 In these areas, all activities will be managed to provide many opportunities for 

dispersed recreation and to enhance native vegetation. It is envisioned that 

these areas will eventually be almost entirely occupied by native plant species. 

MA 10 - HCNRA Forage Emphasis.

 This management area lies within the grasslands interwoven with timbered 

stringers in the HCNRA. Timbered portions will provide old-growth habitat at 

approximately current levels. 

MA 11 - HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management. 

 These areas combine dispersed recreation with timber management on the 

more productive sites within the HCNRA. The management objective is to 

provide a variety of tree species, a diversity of healthy timber stands, and 

ample dispersed recreation opportunities. 

MA 15 – Old Growth Preservation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

318 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

 Timber. Areas allocated to old-growth timber will have no scheduled timber 

harvest although salvage may occur following catastrophic destruction if a 

more suitable replacement stand exists.

 Insects and Diseases. Control of pests is encouraged where pests threaten 

destruction of an old-growth stand. Where destruction of the old-growth is not 

likely, artificial control of pests will occur only when this can be accomplished 

without adverse effects on old-growth values. 

Soils

All of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project alternatives are consistent with 

the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan, the Forest Service 

Manual 2500, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Hells Canyon 

NRA Comprehensive Management Plan (HCNRA CMP, 1996) as detailed below, 

with the exception of 3 soils inventories in the CMP that have not taken place 

(validate w/WW&HCNRA).

Soils - Forest-wide standards and guidelines

Soils (FP 4-21)

 Conflicts with Other Uses - Give maintenance of soil productivity and stability 

priority over uses described or implied in all other management direction, 

standards, or guidelines.

 Protection - Detrimental soil conditions are to be minimized with total acreage 

detrimentally impacted not to exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the 

activity area including landings and system roads. Where detrimental 

conditions affect 20 percent or more of the activity area, restoration treatments 

will be considered.

 Protection - Re-establish vegetation following management activities where 

necessary to prevent excessive erosion.

Soils - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, 

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Soils (C-80 to 84)

Objectives –

 Soi-O1: Manage soil surface conditions consistent with late-seral status 

depending on the potential natural condition (PNC)...and develop appropriate 

soil improvement objectives, where needed.

 Soi-O2: Complete a watershed improvement needs inventory for the HCNRA 

that includes soil resource improvement needs.

 Soi-O3: Complete an Order 2/3 ecological inventory and Order 4 land systems 

inventory of HCNRA to provide basic soils information for evaluation of 

management activities.

 Soi-O4: Identify and characterize unique soils that are a necessary part of the 

habitat for federally listed TES species, biologically unique and rare 

combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems. 

Standards –

 Soi-S1: Identify and evaluate adverse impacts to soil productivity and soil 

stability.

Guidelines –

 Soi-G1: Use soil information to evaluate soil characteristics, potentials and 

limitations, effects on soils, and protection, rehabilitation and monitoring needs 

when implementing management activities that will disturb soil or vegetation 

resources.

 Soi-G2: Consider using the following methods to achieve soil quality 

objectives for activities involving ground-based equipment use:

 Restrict equipment use to slopes under 30% gradient.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 319 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

 Restrict equipment use to periods of favorable soil moisture levels (i.e. 

when soils are dry, or the ground is frozen to at least a 4” depth, or snow 

depth is at least two feet).

 Designate landing and skid trail locations.

 Use full or partial suspension log yarding, where practical and 

mechanically feasible, to minimize ground disturbance.

 Soi-G3: Consider using the following methods to achieve soil quality:

 Restore damaged soils to as near pre-impact conditions as possible, where 

appropriate and practical.

 Use native species when re-establishing vegetative ground cover following 

wildfire or management activities.

 Keep erosion control work current, when required; plan to complete all 

work prior to the first major rainfall event or snowfall event that would 

prevent achievement of project objectives.

 Soi-G4: Maintain the appropriate quantity and distribution of fine organic 

matter (<3” diameter) and coarse woody material (>3” diameter) necessary to 

control erosion and to maintain nutrient recycling for long-term soil 

productivity.

Diversity - Plant 

Community

Diversity - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Diversity(FP 4-

30)

 Project Analysis - Develop, during project planning, site-specific management 

prescriptions with goals for diversity and ecosystem function.

 Vegetation Manipulation - Provide and maintain an ecologically sound 

distribution and abundance of plant and animal communities and species at the 

forest stand, basin, and Forest level. This distribution should contribute to the 

goal of maintaining all native and desirable introduced species and 

communities.

 Vegetation Manipulation - Allow for all natural species to function following 

vegetation manipulation. None should be eliminated from the site.

Management direction specific to individual management areas

MA 3 – Wildlife/Timber. 

Fire. Favor prescribed fire slash treatment methods when feasible prescribed fire 

from planned or unplanned ignitions will be used to achieve winter range 

management objectives, and maintain diversity within plant communities

Threatened, 

endangered, and 

sensitive species

TES - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Threatened, 

endangered, and 

sensitive species 

(FP 4-30, 31)

 Reviews/Biological Evaluations - Review all actions and programs, authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the Forest Service, to determine their potential effects 

on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Conduct these reviews, 

including biological evaluations, per direction in FSM 2670 and appropriate R6 manual supplements.

 Reviews/Biological Evaluations - Prepare a biological evaluation during the 

environmental analysis of each project to determine possible effects of the 

proposed activity on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

 Other Activities - Restrict or prohibit other activities (e g , off road vehicles 

impacting plants or habitats) and monitor activities where necessary to protect 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

320 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

 Cooperation With Other Agencies - Cooperate with the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho in the development and 

implementation of recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. 

When such plans conflict with other management direction, the recovery plans 

will take precedence.

 Monitoring - Monitor known populations of sensitive species and their habitats 

in accordance with the Forest Monitoring Plan.

TES - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, 

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Rare and 

Endemic Plant 

Species (C-88 to 

89)

Standards –

 Bio-S1: During project-level planning, to the extent feasible, survey and 

document the location of populations of rare and endemic plant species, rare 

combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems and parts associated 

therewith; and rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric 

habitats. Consider the effects of proposed projects on populations of rare and 

endemic plant species, are combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems 

and parts associated therewith; and rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial, 

and atmospheric habitats. Prescribe mitigation and protection for populations 

of rare and endemic plant species, rare combinations of outstanding and 

diverse ecosystems and parts associated therewith; and rare combinations of 

aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric habitats.

Refer to Appendix G – Detailed Vegetative Data for the criteria and a listing of 

rare and endemic plant species, rare combinations of outstanding and diverse 

ecosystems and parts associated therewith; and rare combinations of aquatic,

terrestrial, and atmospheric habitats.

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plant 

Species (C-90 to 

91)

Objectives –

 TES-O1: Manage habitat and populations of federally listed threatened, 

endangered or proposed plant species to ensure their continued existence and 

recovery in the HCNRA. Ensure that ongoing and new management actions do 

not jeopardize federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed plant 

species. Implement restoration and recovery activities that would facilitate 

removal of species from the federal threatened and endangered species list. 

(Forest Plan, FSM 2670)

 TES-O2: Manage habitat and populations of all FS sensitive plant species to 

ensure their continued existence and viability in the HCNRA. Ensure that all 

actions do not contribute to the species becoming federally listed threatened 

and endangered under the ESA. (Forest Plan, FSM 2670)

 TES-O3: Implement recovery plans for federally listed threatened, endangered 

or proposed plant species cooperatively with the USFWS. Contribute to 

revisions of recovery plans, and carry out recommended actions in recovery 

plans. (Forest Plan, FSM 2670)

 TES-O4: Conduct habitat improvement projects for federally listed species. 

These may include fencing, burning, closing roads, treatment of noxious 

weeds, plant propagation, or other actions. 

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plant 

Species (C-90 to 

91)

Standards -

 TES-S1: When evaluating ongoing and new actions, survey probable habitat 

for rare plants. Mitigate potential conflicts or modify the project to ensure the 

protection of rare plants and their associated habitat. (Forest Plan, FSM 2670)

 TES-S2: Monitor population trends and habitat conditions for federally listed 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 321 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

threatened, endangered or proposed plant species. (Forest Plan)

 TES-S3: Manage habitat and populations of FS sensitive species consistent 

with conservation agreements or conservation strategies.

Invasive Species 

and Insects and 

Disease

Insects and Disease - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Insects and 

Disease (Pests)

(FP 4-55)

 Integrated Pest Management - Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

strategies for early detection, suppression and prevention of Forest pests and to 

manage pests within the constraints of laws and regulations IPM strategies 

include manual, mechanical, cultural, biological, chemical, prescribed fire, and 

regulatory means Strategy selection will be based on environmental analysis

 Control of Noxious Weeds - Aggressively pursue control of identified noxious 

weeds on lands where such activities are not precluded by management area 

direction This will be accomplished through Forest activities and through 

coordination with county, State and other Federal agencies as funds permit.

 Control of Noxious Weeds - When the need to control noxious weeds or 

competing vegetation is identified, the selection of any particular treatment 

method will be made at the project level based on a site specific analysis of the 

relative effectiveness, environmental effects (including human health), and 

costs of the feasible alternatives. Herbicides will be selected only if their use is 

essential to meet management objectives.

 Control of Noxious Weeds - Cooperate with the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) in accord with the Memorandum of Understanding 

between APHIS and the USDA Forest Service.

 Monitoring - Develop monitoring and enforcement plans for site-specific 

projects as described in the environmental analyses for these projects.

Noxious Weeds - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan –

Objectives, Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Noxious Weeds, 

Invasive Plants 

and Nonnative 

Plants (C-66 to 

68)

Objectives –

 Nox-O1: Manage noxious weeds to reduce negative impacts to native plants, 

wildlife, and other resources. Use all reasonable and feasible integrated weed 

management processes available under existing decisions and direction to 

prevent, restore, eradicate, control, contain, or otherwise reduce negative 

impacts of noxious weeds.

 Nox-O2: Evaluate extent of nonnative invasive plants, their relative impacts 

and potential for restoration. 

Guidelines –

 Nox-G1: Conduct restoration activities on grassland sites in midseral or earlier 

status to improve the ability of native vegetation on site to resist invasion and 

occupancy by noxious weeds.

 Nox-G2: Develop a public information and education program on preventing 

the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Provide a reporting method for 

and encourage the public to report new weed sites.

 Nox-G3: Provide for natural restoration of degraded sites by modifying 

management activities as necessary.

 Nox-G6: When planning PF projects, identify sites of known noxious weeds 

and/or invasive species of concern. Avoid burning through identified weed 

sites and/or prescribe management actions that will minimize the potential for 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

322 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

creation of site conditions favorable to the spread of invasive weeds.

 Nox-G7: Contain and/or control aggressive noxious weeds and other nonnative 

plants that reduce ground cover, reduce perennial plant cover, and accelerate 

erosion.

Watershed

Watershed - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan –

Objectives, Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Riparian/Aquatic 

Habitat and 

Water Quality 

(C-121 to 122)

Standards –

 Wqq-S1: Meet or exceed state water quality standards for waters of the States 

of Idaho and Oregon within the HCNRA, including total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs).

 Wqq-S2: Implement water quality improvement standards and guidelines for 

water quality impaired waters of the States of Idaho and Oregon within 

HCNRA, as required in state Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs).

 Wqq-S3: Develop Water Quality Restoration Plans (WQRPs) for water quality 

impaired waters within HCNRA, as described in Protocol for addressing Clean 

Water Act section 303(d) listed waters. Version 2.0, as updated (USDA and 

USDI 1999). 

Guidelines –

 Wqq-G1: Cooperate with the States of Idaho and Oregon to develop TMDLs 

for streams in HCNRA on State 303(d) Lists.

 Wqq-G2: Cooperate with the States of Idaho and Oregon to develop WQMPs 

for subbasins in HCNRA, including Brownlee Reservoir, Hells Canyon, 

Imnaha, Lower Snake-Asotin, Lower Grande Ronde, Little Salmon, and Lower 

Salmon subbasins.

 Wqq-G3: When developing TMDLs, WQMPs and WQRPs, evaluate the 

relationship between water quantity and water quality, and develop appropriate 

solutions, where needed.

Aquatic Habitat

The Forest Plan water temperature standards are to meet state water quality 

standards and prevent measurable increases in water temperature (1990 Forest 

Plan, 1995 PACFISH Amendment), and maintain maximum water temperatures 

below 64°F within migration and rearing habitat and below 60°F within spawning 

habitats (PACFISH).

Watershed - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Watershed (FP 

4-22, 23)

 Water Quality Standards and BMP's. Meet Water Quality Standards for waters 

of the States of Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340-41) and 

Idaho through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management 

Practices (BMP's) in conformance with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and 

federal guidance issued thereto.

 Stream Temperatures. Prevent measurable temperature increases in Class I 

Streams (less than a 0.5 degree Fahrenheit change). Temperature increases on 

SMU Class II (and fishbearing Stream Management Unit Class III) streams 

will be limited to the criteria in State standards. Temperatures on other streams 

may be increased only to the extent that water quality goals on downstream, 

fish-bearing streams will still be met. Normally, stream shade management on 

Class III streams will differ little from treatment on Class II streams

In addition to meeting the Forest Plan standard, the Forest must meet Oregon water 

quality standards under the Clean Water Act. EPA approved new water quality 

standards for Oregon in March 2004. Streams in the aquatic effects are considered 

“salmon and trout rearing and migration habitat” for Oregon water temperature 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 323 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

standards. For the aquatic effects area, the following water temperature standard 

applies:

 The seven-day-average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having 

salmon and trout rearing and migration use on subbasin maps set out at OAR 

340-041-0101 to 340-041-0340: Figures 130A, 151A, 160A, 170A, 220A, 

230A, 271A, 286A, 300A, 310A, 320A, and 340A, may not exceed 18.0 

degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

Wildlife

The Lower Joseph project is consistent with the Forest Plan (1990) including the 

1995 Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment #2. In addition to 

meeting standards and guidelines for water quality (see effects to aquatic habitat 

discussion), the proposed activities are consistent with all Forest Plan Wildlife 

standards and guidelines including.

Wildlife - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Diversity (FP 4-

30)

 Goal - To protect and, manage habitat for the perpetuation and recovery of 

plants and animals which are listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive. (A list 

of these species can be found in the Forest Plan EIS.) To assure that 

management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive 

species or results in adverse modification of their essential habitat. 

Threatened, 

Endangered and 

Sensitive Species 

(FP 4-30, 31)

 Reviews/Biological Evaluations - Review all actions and programs, authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the Forest Service, to determine their potential effects 

on threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Conduct these reviews, 

including biological evaluations, per direction in FSM 2670 and appropriate R6 manual supplements.

Wildlife (FP 4-

44, 45 , 46)

 Riparian and Old Growth - Manage riparian and old growth habitat consistent 

with Forest Service Manuals 2500 and 2600. Where natural stream 

characteristics permit, the management, (as described in Managing Riparian 

Ecosystems (Zones) for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern Oregon and Eastern 

Washington), would provide for 60-100 percent shade on live streams, 80 

percent or more total lineal distance of streambank in stable condition, limiting 

fine inorganic sediment covering stream substrate to 15 percent, and 80 percent 

or more of the potential grass-forb, shrub and tree cover. Maintain old growth 

to meet old growth wildlife species needs.

 Riparian - Give preferential consideration to resources such as fish, certain 

wildlife and vegetation, and water which are dependent upon riparian areas 

over other resources in actions within or affecting riparian areas.

 Riparian - Manage timber stands in riparian areas to provide habitat for snagdependent wildlife species at not less than 60 percent level of the optimum 

habitat, (including snags of all sizes), as described in Wildlife Habitats in 

Managed Forests (Thomas, 1979). 

 Snag Management - Maintain at least the 20 percent level (the management 

requirement level) of snags 10 to 20 inches in diameter wherever higher levels 

are not specified and where doing so would not conflict with the primary 

management area objective. Exceptions include:

o Management Area 16 (Administrative and Recreation Sites).

o Management Area 17 (Utility Corridors) if use of the corridor for 

its designated purpose requires clearing of vegetation.

o Areas where catastrophic mortality such as from fire, disease, or 

insect epidemic precludes the leaving of green replacement trees

o Areas where harvest is occurring to treat an inset or disease 

situation and leaving green replacement trees would significantly 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

324 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

reduce the effectiveness of the treatment. 

 Dead and Down Material - Provide dead and down woody material to meet 

habitat requirements for those species of wildlife, insects, fungi, and other 

microscopic plant and animal species associated with this type of habitat. 

Actions to provide this habitat may include such things as leaving one or more 

concentrations of slash per acre for small mammals and ground-nesting birds, 

leaving unmerchantable logs on-site in various stages of decay, and activities 

needed to protect this debris to prescribed fire and fuel wood cutting.

 Raptor Nest Sites - Protect all raptor nest sites in use. Protect other nesting 

sites, important roosting, or special foraging habitats where it can be 

accomplished without adversely affecting long-term timber production or 

unreasonably complicating timber sale preparation and related activities. Such 

means could include adjustments in unit boundaries, operating seasons, or 

harvest scheduling.

 Unique Habitats - Avoid alteration of unique habitats such as cliffs and talus 

slopes. Decisions to alter or disturb these habitats would only be made 

following site-specific NEPA analysis including identification of suitable 

mitigation measures. Springs are also considered unique habitats.

 Indian Treaty Rights - Recognize the hunting and fishing rights of the Indian 

tribes in habitat management activities.

Insects and 

Disease (Pests)

(FP 4-55)

 Integrated Pest Management - Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

strategies for early detection, suppression and prevention of Forest pests and to 

manage pests within the constraints of laws and regulations IPM strategies 

include manual, mechanical, cultural, biological, chemical, prescribed fire, and 

regulatory means. Strategy selection will be based on environmental analysis

Regional 

Forester’s 

Eastside Forest 

Plan Amendment 

#2

Ecosystems Standards (Screen 2). 2A the following are not subject to the 

Ecosystem Standards, Historical Range of Variability (HRV) analysis, but MUST 

APPLY Wildlife Standards:

1) Pre-commercial thinning sales;

2) sales of material sold as fiber;

3) sales of dead material less than 7-inches dbh, with incidental green 

volume, (reference RO 2430 letter, 8/16/93);

4) salvage sales, with incidental green volume, located outside 

currently mapped old-growth (reference letter RO 2430, 8/16/93).

5) commercial thinning and understory removal sales located outside 

currently mapped old-growth.

Wildlife Standards (Screen 3) Scenario A: If either One or BOTH of the LOS 

FALLS BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment. DO NOT ALLOW 

timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are below HRV. 

3) a) Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering 

to the following standards:

1) Connect these LOS and old-growth habitats with each other in 

contiguous network pattern by at least two different directions;

2) A connectivity corridor stand is one which medium diameter of larger trees are 

common, canopy closures are within the top 1/3 of site potential, stand width is at 

least 400 foot wide at the narrowest point;

3) Connectivity corridors should be as short as possible;

4) Harvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted if all criteria in (2) above 

can be met.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 325 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

b) Reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, or at least, do not increase it from current l 

levels. Stands that do not currently meet LOS that are located within, or surrounded 

by, blocks of LOS stands should not be considered for even-aged regeneration, or 

group selection at this time. 

Wildlife - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, 

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

 Forested areas in the HCNRA provide late/old structure (25%) for forestassociated species. The HCNRA will be managed as a healthy ecosystem that 

is an integral component of a larger bioregion. Managing for all structural 

stages, including late/old, will achieve functional old-growth habitat for 

associated species.

 The decision establishes objectives to protect and maintain wildlife habitat.

Wildlife Habitat 

(C-127 to 131)

Standards –

 WLD-S1: Administer HCNRA for public outdoor recreation in a manner 

compatible with the protection and maintenance of wildlife habitat and 

populations. (New)

 WLD-S2: Protect, enhance, and manage wildlife habitat for the recovery of 

wildlife that are federally listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive. 

Inventory the occurrence and distribution of threatened and endangered 

species. (Forest Plan)

 WLD-S3: Locate, monitor, and protect nesting, roosting, and feeding areas for 

bald eagles. Develop nest site plans for new nests within two years of 

discovery. (New)

 WLD-S4: Protect Townsend’s big-eared bats from negative human-caused 

disturbance by managing access at the entrances of caves and mines. (Forest 

Plan)

 WLD-S5: Identify and map late/old structure in MAs 7, 10, and 11 and track 

its extent and distribution through time. Identify and maintain connectivity 

between late/old structure. Refer to Table C-10: Interim Definitions for Old 

Growth (Region 6). (New)

 WLD-S6: In MAs 7, 10 and 11, identify late/old structure replacement stands 

and develop a management strategy (during project-level planning) to maintain 

or move stands toward late/old structure conditions as needed to maintain this 

component within the HRV. (New)

 WLD-S7: Maintain open-road densities for all 61 subwatersheds at or below 

1.35 mi./sq. mi., except subwatershed 9L, which would be maintained at or 

below 1.9 mi./sq. mi. open road densities. (New)

 WLD-S8: Prevent the spread of diseases from domestic sheep to wild sheep by 

maintaining separation of the two species. Vacant allotments would not be 

stocked with domestic sheep unless a vaccine or other technique is found that 

eliminates the incompatibility. (New) 

Guidelines –

 WLD-G1: Build and manage gates for Townsend’s big-eared bats at the 

entrance of each cave or mine tunnel that is negatively affected by humancaused disturbance. Gates will be set back to comply with visual concerns. 

(New)

 WLD-G2: Cave and mine shafts used for hibernation should be identified and 

protected from human-caused disturbance from November 1 to April 1, each 

year. (New)
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

326 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

 WLD-G3: Maternity colonies for Townsend’s big-eared bats should be 

identified and protected from human-caused disturbance from May 1 to August 

15. (New)

 WLD-G4: Known habitat areas for Townsend’s big-eared bats should contain 

buffers of uninterrupted canopy (brush or trees) of 100 feet, where possible. 

(New)

 WLD-G5: Outside Wilderness, maintain a diversity of wildlife habitats by 

providing a variety of structural stages for each plant association arranged in a 

mosaic across the landscape. (New)

 WLD-G6: Identify and monitor potential wolverine natal den sites. If active 

natal den sites are found, restrict human use near these sites from January 

through May. (New)

 WLD-G7: Maintain large refugia (greater than 10,000 acres) with low humancaused disturbance for wolverine, fisher, pine marten, lynx, wolf, and other 

forest carnivores benefitting from large undisturbed areas. (New)

 WLD-G8: Identify blocks of late/old structure at least 900 acres each to 

provide habitat for associated species (Bull and Holthausen 1993). (New) 

(Typo: WLD-G9 page C-129 in Appendix C HCNRA CMP)

 WLD-G9: Maintain elk and deer habitat to meet the current management 

objective levels, unless adjusted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

Work cooperatively with ODFW on future management objective revisions. 

The current management objective are (ODFW 1994): (New) 

o Snake River: 4,200 elk, 15 bulls, 40 calves; 6,400 deer, 15 bucks, 

70 fawns

o Pine Creek: 400 elk, 15 bulls, 45 calves; 2,500 deer, 15 bucks, 70 

fawns

o Chesnimnus: 3,500 elk, 10 bulls, 40 calves; 3,600 deer, 15 bucks, 

70 fawns

o Imnaha: 800 elk, 15 bulls, 40 calves; 5,300 deer, 15 bucks, 70 

fawns (bull, calves, bucks, fawns are per 100 cows/does).

 WLD-G10: Outside Wilderness, actively manage habitat for big-game herds 

to assist the States of Oregon and Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in reaching 

population objectives, bull and buck escapement, and calf and fawn ratios. 

Continue to recover bighorn sheep through participation with the restoration of 

Bighorn Sheep to Hells Canyon, the Hells Canyon Initiative (Hells Canyon 

Bighorn Sheep Restoration Committee 1997). (New)

 WLD-G11: Ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native 

landbirds by implementing the biological objectives in the Landbird 

Conservation Strategy (Partners in Flight 2000 as updated). (New) (Typo: 

WLD-G8 page C-131 in Appendix C HCNRA CMP)

 WLD-G12: Evaluate, and where appropriate, re-establish, and/or enhance 

populations of indigenous wildlife species. The appropriate mechanism is to 

reach joint agreement, through an MOU with the appropriate fish and wildlife 

state agencies. (New)

 WLD-G13: Manage recreational livestock use to minimize the potential for 

transmission of harmful domestic animal diseased to wildlife. (New)

Heritage

Heritage - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Cultural 

Resources (FP 4-

 Overview - Maintain a Forest-wide cultural resources overview that 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 327 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

19, 20) summarizes and compiles known cultural resource information. 

The Cultural Resources Overview of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa Whitman 

National Forests in Northeast Oregon/ Southeast Washington, Volumes I and II 

(1978) are on file in the cultural resources office in Joseph and Baker City, 

Oregon. These documents were consulted as a standard part of the cultural 

resources inventory for this undertaking.

 Evaluation - Evaluate cultural resources that may be affected by project 

activities. Evaluate against the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places. Develop a plan to evaluate all other cultural resources by 

theme groups, agreements, or other cost-effective means as Forest-wide 

inventory nears completion (see also HCNRA CMP Items Her-S4 and S4, and 

River Plan item 54).

 Protection - Protect eligible cultural resources from human depredation and 

natural destruction. Protection plans may include physical protection such as 

fences and barriers, scientific study and collection, patrol and site monitoring, 

proper use or removal of signs, maintaining site anonymity, and gaining public 

understanding and support through education (see also HCNRA CMP Item 

Her-O1). 

Scenic Quality 

Landscape 

Management (FP 

4-42)

Goal: Landscape Management: To manage all National Forest lands to obtain the 

highest possible visual quality, commensurate with other appropriate public uses, 

cost and benefits.

Scenic Quality - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Landscape 

Management (FP 

4-42, 43, 44)

 VQO’s -Meet visual quality objective through management techniques 

described in National Forest Landscape Management, Volumes 1 and 2, and 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Visual Management Plan.

 Retention Foreground -In retention foregrounds the area regenerated per 

decade should not exceed 7 percent or be less than 3 percent of the suitable 

forest land within the viewshed. Maximum seen area disturbed at any one time 

should not exceed 10 percent within any viewshed. Limit regeneration unit 

size to that which meets retention and desired character including consideration 

of future entries and regrowth. The approximate range of sizes necessary to 

accomplish this is 1⁄2 to 2 acres in the immediate foreground (less than 500 feet) 

and 3 to 5 acres in the foreground greater than 500 feet from the road or trail. 

Units against road or trail edges should be shelterwoods or selection cuts rather 

than clearcuts. Target tree size is 36 inches where biologically feasible. 

 Partial Retention Foreground and Retention Middleground -In partial retention 

foreground and retention middleground, the area regenerated per decade should 

not exceed 9 percent or be less than 5 percent of the suitable forest land within 

and viewshed. The maximum seen area disturbed at any one time should not 

exceed 14 percent of any viewshed. Limit regeneration unit size to that which 

meets partial retention and desired character including consideration of future 

entries and regrowth. The approximate range of sizes necessary to accomplish 

this is 1⁄2 to 2 acres in the immediate foreground (less than 500 feet) and 3 to 5 

acres in the foreground greater than 500 feet from the road or trail. Target size 

tree in foreground is 26 inches where biologically feasible.

 Partial Retention Middleground - In partial retention middleground, the area 

regenerated per decade should range between 8 and 10 percent. Limit 

maximum regeneration unit size to 10 acres. Maximum area disturbed at any 

one time should not exceed 20 percent.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

328 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

 Created Openings - Consider a created opening to no longer be an opening, 

visually, when trees reach 20 feet in height. Rotation periods will be sufficient 

to grow large tree character in viewshed foregrounds.

 Resolving Conflicts - Where conflicts develop between visual quality 

objectives and timber or range management objectives, these conflicts will be 

resolved in favor of meeting the visual objectives. Where conflicts occur 

between old-growth objectives and visual objectives, old –growth will have 

priority.

 Viewshed Plans – Plans will be prepared for all Level 1 viewsheds that will 

refine boundaries, establish protect design criteria, and identify opportunities 

for scenic enhancement, and set entry priorities and timing.

Scenery - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, 

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

The following would replace existing CMP management objectives (page 30) and 

supplement Forest Plan management direction (pages 4-42 through 4-44):

Scenery (C-18 to 

19)

Objectives -

 Sce-O1: Manage to meet landscape character goals that conserve and preserve 

valued landscape character attributes and elements of scenic attractiveness 

through the planning period.

 Sce-O2: Use constituent information surveys to gather information from 

constituents to define desired landscape character at various levels of landscape 

scale. Use survey information to determine social values and consider in 

conjunction with other resource data to determine appropriate management 

strategies throughout the planning period.

 Sce-O3: In developing management strategies, through the planning period, 

integrate social values and bio/physical considerations to maintain or improve 

a sustainable desired landscape character. Utilize mitigation measures and 

design techniques to reduce effects (short term and long term, direct and 

indirect) to landscape aesthetics.

 Sce-O4: Inventory areas and site-specific locations where alterations deviate 

from desired landscape character. Evaluate and prioritize efforts to restore 

and/or rehabilitate.

Standards –

 Sce-S1: Manage vegetation to achieve ecological integrity levels that sustain 

desired landscape character and in manner compatible with scenic integrity 

levels. Refer to Table C-3a and C-3b: Recreation Management Direction by 

alternative for scenic integrity objectives.

Guidelines –

 Sce-G2: Consider the acceptable level of alteration when implementing sitespecific projects and management strategies, using the rating aspects of scenic 

impact to landscape character described in Table C-4: Criteria for Rating 

Human-caused Impacts to Landscape Character. (In environmental 

consequences section)

 Sce-G4: Consider the acceptable level of alteration when implementing 

management strategies; using the following scenic integrity objectives:

o Very high Less than 1% impact

o High Less than 5% impact

o Moderate High Less than 10% impact

o Moderate Low Less than 15% impact

o Low Less than 20% impact
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 329 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

o Unacceptably Low 20% impact or more

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (C – 86)

Objectives –

 WSR-O3: Perpetuate forested stands within wild and scenic rivers in "scenic" 

and "recreational" designations to protect and enhance the river's outstandingly 

remarkable values and to ensure compatibility with the primary objectives of 

the HCNRA Act. (Public LURs)

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Management Direction Specific to Individual 

Management Areas

Management Area 7 (Wild and Scenic Rivers)

Meet the visual quality objectives of preservation along wild river segments, 

retention along scenic segments, and partial retention along recreational river 

segments. Joseph Creek is designated a Wild River.

All other management areas in the LJCRP area that are not in the HCNRA

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for scenic quality apply

Management Area 9 – Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation: Activities will 

be managed to provide ample opportunities for dispersed recreation and to enhance 

native vegetation. These areas will eventually be almost entirely occupied by native 

plant species. Range will be managed to maintain satisfactory range condition 

which will be achieved and maintained primarily by nonstructural means. These 

areas will provide a mix of primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities. Range of Partial Retention and 

Modification VQO’s for all distance zones.

Management Area 10 – Forage Emphasis: This area lies within the grasslands 

interwoven with timbered stringers in the HCNRA. The grassland portions of these 

areas will be managed to provide maximum forage production with rangeland 

maintained in satisfactory condition (desired ecological status) and structural 

improvements being rustic in nature. Timbered portions will provide old-growth 

habitat at approximately current levels. These areas provide both semi-primitive 

motorized and semi-primitive nonmotorized opportunities. Range of Partial 

Retention and Modification VQO’s for all distance zones.

Management Area 11 – Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management: These 

areas combine dispersed recreation with timber management on the more 

productive sites within the HCNRA. The management objective is to provide a 

variety of tree species, a diversity of healthy timber stands, and ample dispersed 

recreation opportunities. These areas provide both semi-primitive motorized and 

semi-primitive nonmotorized opportunities. Timber volume removal from the 

HCNRA is classified as unregulated and does not contribute to the WWNF 

allowable sale quantity (Public LURS, USDA 1994). Range of Partial Retention 

and Modification VQO’s for all distance zones.

Recreation

Recreation - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Recreation (FP 

4-40, 41, 42)

 Winter Recreation - Develop and maintain opportunities for winter recreation 

where needed.

There are no long term proposals to decrease winter recreation opportunities. 

Some short term opportunities may result with winter time hauling.

 Winter Recreation - Provide networks of marked groomed snowmobile routes 

through agreement with snowmobile clubs. 

Snowmobile trails have the potential to be impacted if a designated snowmobile 

route is plowed for winter haul. Coordination with the local snowmobile clubs may 

alleviate the concern if alternate temporary routes are groomed during the short 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

330 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

term

 Recreation Site Development - Develop recreation sites, by ROS class, using 

the descriptions found in the Forest Plan Table 4-6.

No changes are proposed that will modify the ROS classes at the developed sites.

 Outfitters and Guide - Outfitter guide activities may be considered within any 

management area, although outfitter camps will not be located within research 

natural areas.

There are no outfitter and guides in the project area.

 Special Areas - Protect special places on the Wallowa-Whitman National

Forest: e.g. dispersed recreation sites, water features, rock or unique landform 

features, areas of unique vegetation, historic sites, or other places which are 

special to Forest users commensurate with other Forest management 

Objectives.

Special areas will protected be as part of the harvest activities and fuel treatments.

 Road, Trail, and Area Closures - Road, trail, and area closures and off-road 

vehicle use will be in accordance with the Forest Travel Management Plan and 

36 CFR 295 This plan will be reviewed annually and revised as necessary, 

considering management needs and public desires.

See Transportation System section for a discussion on the Forest Travel 

Management Plan

Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, Standards and 

Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

Over-snow 

Vehicle Travel 

(C-28)

Standards -

 Acc-S10: Manage for motorized over-snow vehicle travel on designated routes 

and areas.

 Acc-S12: Manage motorized over-snow vehicles on designated routes and play 

areas to maintain assigned ROS setting.

Guidelines -

 Acc-G10: Through monitoring, identify necessary improvements to minimize 

user conflicts, and provide for acceptable levels of public safety.

Upland Outfitter 

and Guide 

Services (C-10 to 

11)

Objectives –

 Rec-O5: Manage upland outfitter and guide services to provide quality 

recreation experiences consistent with HCNRA objectives and in the public 

interest. Minimize conflicts between users. 

Standards –

 Rec-S14: Manage outfitter and guide use in a manner that assures adequate 

opportunities for public use while providing commercial opportunities 

commensurate with demonstrated need.

HCNRA CMP Recreation Management Direction (Appendix C, Table C-3b)

26 Cottonwood 

(C-173 to 174)

Objectives –

 Access - Maintain nonmotorized: trail access only, except for one mile for 

open road on the extreme northwest boundary of the RAA. Private.

 Remoteness - Manage for RN and SPM ROS designations. (RN occurs as a 

result of roads present in adjacent RAAs)

 Naturalness/Visual Quality - Manage for low scenic integrity.

 Social Encounters - Manage for RN and SPM ROS designations.

 Visitor Management - Manage for RN and SPM ROS designations.

 Visitor Impact - Manage for RN and SPM ROS designations.

 Facilities - There are no existing or proposed developments.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 331 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

27 

Buckhorn/Cold 

Spring (C-174 to 

175)

Access Objectives –

 Manage Forest Road 46 for medium-level RN.

 Manage the last 10 miles of Cold Springs Road (Forest Road 4680) for on the 

north end for high-level SPM. 

Access Standards –

 Maintain Forest Road 4680 at Maintain Level 2-C.

 Seasonally close approximately 5 miles of Teepee Butte (Forest Road 46-595) 

and approximately 7 miles of Wildhorse Road (Forest Road 46-596) at the 

junction with Forest road 46-595 and Forest Road 46-596 from 3 days prior to 

archery season to the end of antlerless elk season (late August through late 

November) to motorized vehicles. Post road closed with signs.

 Emphasize grid-rolled surface on roads not managed as SPM and manage 

drainage on all roads

Remoteness Objective –

 Manage for RN, SPM, and SPNM ROS designations.

Naturalness/Visual Quality Objective –

 Manage for high scenic integrity

Social Encounters Objective –

 Manage for RN, SPM, and SPNM ROS designations.

Social Encounters Standards –

 Manage RN part of Forest Road 46 for moderate to high RN encounters. 

Manage RN part of Cold Springs Road (Forest Roads 4680) and Buckhorn 

Lookout Road (Forest Road 780 for lot to moderate RN encounters.

 Manage SPM road encounters for moderate to high SPM encounters.

Visitor Impact Objective –

 Manage to RN, SPM, and SPNM ROS designations

Facilities Objective –

 Manage to RN, SPM, and SPNM ROS designations

Recreation - Management Direction Specific to Individual Management Areas

MA 1 – Timber Production Emphasis. 

Recreation. Recognize undeveloped campsites, hunter camps, or areas where 

concentrated recreation use occurs as being significant in producing and utilizing 

dispersed recreation opportunities. Prescriptions for timber harvesting, cleanup, site 

preparation, and thinning will consider the environmental setting that contributes to 

the attraction of these sites for recreation purposes. The attempt will be made to 

retain this attractive character during and after treatments.

(Harvest and operational prescriptions will be developed to retain the attractive 

characteristics of the dispersed sites during and after treatments)

MA 3 – Wildlife/Timber.

Recreation. Apply standards and guidelines from Management Area 1.

MA 7 – Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Recreation. Permit only primitive recreation developments within wild river 

segments. Primitive or nonprimitive development may occur along scenic 

segments, and recreational segments.

MA 9 - HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation

Recreation. Provide recreation opportunities as described in the semi primitive 

motorized and semi primitive non-motorized, and primitive categories of the ROS

MA 10 - HCNRA Forage Production

Recreation. Provide both semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

332 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

opportunities.

MA11 - HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management

Recreation. Provide roaded natural recreation opportunities.

MA 12 – Research Natural Area.

Recreation. Manage these areas to accommodate recreational use similar to the 

management areas surrounding them.

MA 15 – Old Growth Habitat

Recreation. Roaded natural and roaded modified recreation opportunities will be 

provided

(The project does not propose any change to the Roaded Natural ROS class in MA 

15 or other parts of the project area)

MA 16 – Administrative and Recreation Sites

Provide roaded natural and rural recreation opportunities

(The project does not propose any change to the Roaded Natural ROS class in MA 

16 or other parts of the project area)

Minerals

There are no approved Plans of Operations for mineral resources on National 

Forest system lands within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project analysis 

area at the time of writing (Appendix xx). The Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area (HCNRA) Act of 1975 included the withdrawal of all future mineral 

development within the HCNRA. The proposed activities across all alternatives 

will not conflict with the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended; the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended and the Surface Resources 

Act of 1955. The proposed activities across all alternatives are also consistent with 

the Goals and Standard and Guidelines defined in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Plan, 1990) and outlined below.

To provide for exploration, development, and production of a variety of minerals 

on the Forest in coordination with other resource objectives, environmental 

considerations and mining laws to encourage and assist, whenever possible, the 

continuation of regional geologic mapping and mineral resource studies on the 

forest in cooperation with other natural resource agencies.

Minerals - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Minerals (FP 4-

33, 34)

 Access - Permit claimants reasonable access to their claims as specified in 

United States Mining Laws.

 Operating Plans – Require operating plans in accordance with 36 CFR 228 

Subpart A. When operations are proposed which involve significant 

disturbance of the surface resources.

 Operating Plans – Operating plans will include reasonable and operationally 

feasible requirements to minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface 

resources

 Operating Plans – Analyze operating plan proposals and alternatives, including 

alternatives for access, reclamation, and mitigation, using the Forest Service 

NEPA process.

 Reclamation – Develop reclamation standards using an interdisciplinary 

process to ensure lands are in productive condition to the extent reasonable and 

operationally feasible. Reasonable opportunities to enhance other resources 

will be considered. Concurrent reclamation will be stressed. Reclamation 

bonds will be based on actual reclamation costs and formulated using technical 

and other resource input.

 Withdrawals – Review all existing withdrawals by 1991 in accord with Section 

204(i) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 333 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

except as provided otherwise by law.

 Withdrawals – Recommend areas with minerals potential for mineral 

withdrawal only when mitigation measures would not adequately protect other 

resource values which are of greater public benefit.

 Withdrawals – Conform with Section 204 of FLPMA in withdrawals from 

entry under general mining laws.

 Common Minerals – Give priority to use of currently developed common 

mineral (natural gravel and hard rock) material sources over undeveloped 

sources. Exceptions will be made when existing sources are unable to 

economically supply the quality and quantity of material needed or when 

conflicts with other resource uses are found to be unacceptable.

 Common Minerals – Development of mineral material sites will be done in 

accordance With 36 CFR 228, Subpart C

Range

Desired Condition 

To manage range vegetation and related resource in a manner insuring that the 

basic needs of the forage and browse plants and the soil resource are met. To make 

available for harvest, forage production that is in excess to the basic needs of the 

plants and soil resource, for wildlife (within agreed upon management objectives) 

and domestic livestock (within Forest Plan utilization standards) (WallowaWhitman LRMP 1992).

Range - Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

Range (FP 4-

51,52, 53, 54)

 Forage Allocation - Allocate forage resources on an allotment and/or 

management area specific basis to meet the basic plant and soils needs as the 

first priority. Forage production above that needed for basic resource needs 

may be allocated to wildlife (as provided for in agreed upon Management 

Objectives) and permitted livestock.

 Utilization Standards - Apply utilization standards to all management areas as 

shown in WWNF LRMP Tables 4-7 and 4-8. These standards provide for 

maximum utilization levels regardless of which species of animal uses the 

forage or browse.

 Allotment Management Planning - Include in range allotment management 

plans a strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of resource uses. A 

measurable desired future riparian condition will be established based on 

existing and potential vegetative conditions.

 Allotment Management Planning - Identify management actions needed to 

meet riparian objectives within the specific time frame. Measurable objectives 

will be set for key parameters, such as stream surface shaded, streambank 

stability, and shrub cover. This process is described in 'Managing Riparian 

Ecosystems (Zones) for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern Oregon and Eastern 

Washington' (1979)

 Allotment Management Planning - Address the monitoring needed to 

determine the desired rate of improvement is occurring. Allotment 

management plans currently not consistent with this direction will be 

developed or revised on a priority basis under a schedule established by the 

Forest Supervisor (see Appendix C). Some grazing allotments with ripanan 

areas in unsatisfactory range condition (see glossary), and which do not have 

approved or functioning management plans, have been identified and are 

displayed in Table 4-9 This list may be supplemented as additional areas are 

identified. 

o Range Allotments with identified riparian problems (WWNF 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

334 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

LRMP 1990): Chesnimnus, Doe Creek, Swamp Creek.

 Allotment Management Planning – Identify suitable lands in unsatisfactory 

range condition (see glossary). Allotment plans with specific objectives for 

these lands will be developed on a priority basis under a schedule established 

by the Forest Supervisor. These objectives will define a desired future 

condition based on existing and potential values for all resources

 Allotment Management Planning - The allotment plan will include. (a) a time 

schedule for improvement, (b) activities needed to meet forage objectives, and 

(c) a range project effectiveness analysis.

Range - Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan – Objectives, 

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C, Table C1)

§ 292.48 Grazing activities.

The following standards and guidelines apply to domestic livestock grazing 

activities on Other Lands, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Lands in the 

HCNRA.

(a) Grazing may be authorized only on rangeland determined by the authorized 

officer to be suitable for grazing and meeting or moving towards 

satisfactory condition and meeting the conditions described in paragraph 

(b) of this section.

(b) Where domestic livestock grazing is incompatible with the protection, 

restoration, or maintenance of fish and wildlife or their habitats; public 

outdoor recreation; conservation of scenic, wilderness, and scientific 

values; rare combinations of outstanding ecosystems, or the protection and 

enhancement of the values for which a wild and scenic river was 

designated, the livestock use shall be modified as necessary to eliminate or 

avoid the incompatibility. In the event an incompatibility persists after the 

modification or modification is not feasible, the livestock use shall be 

terminated.

(c) Range improvements must be designed and located to minimize their 

impact on scenic, cultural, fish and wildlife, and other resources in the 

HCNRA.

(d) The authorization of grazing use, through a grazing permit, must provide 

for terms and conditions which protect and conserve riparian areas.

Forest 

Vegetation (C-34 

to 35)

Objectives –

 For-O2: Manage livestock grazing within forested stands to ensure 

ecological function and sustainability of understory vegetation consistent 

with management of overstory vegetation objectives. Use grazing-related 

standards and guidelines to manage grazed forested understory 

vegetation.(New)

Grasslands and 

Forest 

Understory (C42 to 50)

Objectives –

 Gra-O1: Manage grassland vegetation to ensure continued ecological function 

and sustainability of native ecosystems. Maintain and/or restore the ecological 

status of grassland communities to their PNC recognizing their HRV. (New)

 Gra-O2: Develop management plans for all active grazing allotments which 

address identified issues and compatibility with the provisions of the HCNRA 

Act. (New)

 Gra-O3: Evaluate rangeland capability and suitability, and present rangeland 

condition or ecological status in relation to PNC. (New)

 Gra-O4: Evaluate annual impacts associated with livestock grazing in relation 

to established standards and thresholds. (New)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 335 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

Standards –

 Gra-S1: On lands determined to be unsuitable or not capable for grazing by 

domestic livestock or determined to be in an unsatisfactory condition,the 

rangeland vegetation production for these lands would not be allocated to the 

allotment’s carrying capacity.(Public LURs, New) However, domestic 

livestock may still be permitted. In most situations, livestock will not be 

authorized on lands determined to be unsuitable. In some situations incidental 

livestock use will be authorized on lands identified as unsuitable. In these 

situations, livestock will be removed before rangeland vegetation use exceeds 

10% and soil disturbance exceeds 10% on lands determined to be unsuitable 

and authorizing incidental livestock use. (New)

 Gra-S2: Satisfactory* condition will be evaluated during the allotment 

management planning process. The minimum condition and trend standards 

must be met for rangelands to be considered as satisfactory: (Public LURs, 

New)

a. Rangeland vegetation in both upland and riparian habitats will be 

in a mid-seral** ecological status with an upward trend or higher 

condition based on PNC. (New)

b. Soils, this includes soil surface conditions and soil stability, will be 

in a mid-seral** ecological status with an upward trend or higher 

condition based on PNC. (New)

c. Riparian hardwood age class will be in a mid-seral** ecological 

status with an upward trend or higher condition based on PNC. 

(New)

d. Riparian hardwood form class distributions show no more than 10 

percent in heavy and 35 percent in moderate long-term browsing 

impact classes. (New) For those sites identified in unsatisfactory 

condition, management practices will be designed to improve 

ecological status to a satisfactory condition. For sites in a 

satisfactory condition, management practices will maintain or 

improve the ecological status. (New)

 Where rangeland resources are in an unsatisfactory condition livestock grazing 

may continue if the rate of recovery is within 70 percent of the natural rate of 

recovery (recovery on areas with similar ecological type and status without 

livestock grazing. (New)

 The definition of "satisfactory condition" establishes the minimum standards 

for determining carrying capacity, but does not necessarily define site-specific 

desired conditions or recovery rates. Other resource goals, objectives, and 

standards and guidelines in this plan establish the desired conditions for 

management of the rangeland resources. (New) The "satisfactory condition" 

definition is required by the Public LURs (36 CFR 292) and relates only to the 

allocation of available carrying capacity. (New) The rangeland resource 

inventory will identify the carrying capacity for a land use area. (New) 

Examples of standards and guidelines that define acceptable conditions and 

recovery rates include PACFISH direction for riparian condition and recovery, 

Forest Plan wildlife standards and guidelines. (Forest Plan, PACFISH). ** The 

mid-seral ecological status will be considered equal to the range condition of 

fair with an upward trend.

 Gra-S3: Allotment management plans (AMPs) would establish site specific 

rates of recovery to achieve the goals for ecological status, soil conditions, and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

336 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

riparian management objectives, in conjunction with other applicable resource 

standards and guidelines contained in this management plan when determining 

appropriate livestock stocking levels. (New)

 Gra-S4: When determining carrying capacity and range management 

objectives during the AMP process and, include other uses such as wildlife, 

threatened and endangered species, recreation stock, PF, ecological goals, and 

outfitter and guide activities as specified in the HCNRA Act. (New)

 Gra-S5: Implement grazing management practices to minimize the potential 

for transport of invasive plant propagates or seeds, or creation of habitats 

suitable for establishment of invasive species. (New)

 Gra-S6: Implement Forest Plan utilization standards (pages 4-52 and 53). 

(Forest Plan) The following maximum upland forage (grass/forb) utilization 

standards for fall, winter, and spring may be applied once resource objectives 

are met. Maximum browse standards would not change from those listed in the 

Forest Plan. Based on plant phenology, climate, and plant responses to grazing, 

there are three basic periods to manage: fall/winter, early spring, and late 

spring (in application, the following standards may be converted to allowable 

stubble height standards): (New)

 Fall/Winter Standards -

o This period basically begins when all key perennial forage plants 

have achieved dormancy. It runs through the dormant period and 

ends just prior to the initiation of new growth on the key cool 

season perennial forage species in the spring. In very general 

terms, this often begins in mid to late October and runs through 

February, March, or April depending on the elevation, aspect and 

the weather patterns for a given year. (New)

o Maximum forage utilization standards for this period would be set 

at 60 percent on the key species (on a site-specific basis). This 

would be based on a percent of the weight removed from the total 

annual growth resulting from the previous growing season. (New)

 Early Spring Standards -

o Early spring is defined as that period when the perennial cool 

season forage plants initiate growth and begin shoot elongation. It 

extends through the period of maximum carbohydrate use and the 

beginning of carbohydrate storage. The end of this period is 

determined by soil moisture. It ends prior to the time that soil 

moisture is expected to become limiting to the extent that 

essentially full re-growth cannot be ensured. (New)

o Maximum forage utilization standards for this period would be set 

at 60 percent of current key cool season species forage production 

(on a site-specific basis). This is determined on an air-dried weight 

basis of total current annual production occurring until livestock 

are removed. Further, all livestock would be removed from the unit 

based on ensuring that adequate soil moisture exists at the time of 

removal to provide for essentially full re-growth. Additional 

monitoring would be conducted on a spot check basis following 

termination of annual growth for the summer to document that regrowth was achieved. (New)

 Late Spring Standards -

o Late spring is defined as that period when the key perennial cool 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 337 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

season forage plant growth is still occurring but soil moisture is 

beginning to limit growth. Livestock removal is not planned to 

occur during the time when assurance can be made that essentially 

full re-growth would occur. (New)

o Utilization standards for both forage and browse use for this period 

would be the same as established by the Forest Plan for the 

standard summer season grazing. (New)

Guidelines –

 Gra-G1: Emphasize enhancement and/or restoration of potential native 

vegetation. (New)

 Gra-G2: Incorporate management considerations in Plant Associations of the 

Wallowa-Snake Province (Johnson and Simon 1987) to determine the 

appropriate timing, intensity, duration, and frequency of grazing use by 

community type. Likewise, use Mid Montane Wetlands Classification of the

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa- Whitman National Forests (Crowe and 

Clausnitzer 1997) or other FS approved guides, score cards or keys. (New)

 Gra-G3: During the allotment planning process evaluate periodic rest and 

deferred rotations grazing systems. (New)

 Gra-G3: During the AMP process, analyze effects and management of both 

wildfire and PF in conjunction with domestic livestock grazing to achieve 

grassland goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. (New)

 Gra-G4: Where feasible and desirable, plan and implement restoration projects 

to improve the health and sustainability of HCNRA grasslands, where current 

ecological conditions are mid- or earlier-seral status. (New)

 Gra-G6: Encourage the Payette and Nez Perce National Forests to adjust 

allotment boundaries, for those allotments containing HCNRA lands, to the 

HCNRA boundary line as opportunities arise. (New)

 Gra-G7: Where an allotment or a portion of an allotment is closed, manage 

those lands as unsuitable for permitted domestic livestock use. Allow 

recreational or permitted outfitter and guide activities when properly 

administered. (New)

Cattle & Horse 

(C&H) 

Allotments (C55)

 071 Jim Creek: Of this 12,490 acre allotment, 12,178 acres would be used as 

an administrative horse pasture and 312 acres would be closed. (New)

Administrative 

Horse Pastures 

(C-57 to 58

Objectives –

 Gra-O1: Administrative horse pastures would exist within the HCNRA for the 

purpose of maintaining pack and saddle stock. These pastures would be 

maintained to provide high quality pasture, well-maintained facilities, late to 

mid-seral vegetative status with a stable trend or better, and a visual 

appearance that would reflect well on management of the HCNRA. (New)

Standards –

 Gra-S1: Forest Plan forage utilization standards would be applied on all 

administrative horse pastures. (New)

 Guidelines –

 Gra-G1: Develop management plans that would allow for the maintenance of 

administrative horse pastures to provide a very well managed setting in 

compliance with the HCNRA Act. Manage pastures to promote and maintain 

late to mid-seral status with an upward trend for potential natural communities. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

338 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest plan direction, standards and guidelines applicable to the 

LJCRP

(New)

 Gra-G2: Where pastures currently contain nonnative rangeland vegetation, 

manage for recovery of native species. (New)

 Gra-G3: Refine boundaries of administrative horse pastures to minimize 

conflicts between other uses and to ensure compatibility with the HCNRA Act 

Section 7(1-7). (New)

Fire

Standards –

 Fire-S2: Coordinate WFU and PF projects with permittees within active 

grazing allotments. (New) 

Guidelines –

 Fire-G4: After fire, use an interdisciplinary team to determine when activities 

may resume in burned areas. Consider rest from domestic livestock grazing 

after burning. Coordinate with partners and permittees when setting up 

guidelines for management of burned areas. Use management strategies that 

will minimize the potential for introduction and/or spread of noxious weeds 

and other undesirable nonnative plants. Protect areas of active restoration from 

management impacts. (New)

Other plans and policies applicable to the LJCRP

Soils

Forest Service Manual 2500 –

• FSM 2520.3-2: In areas where less than 20% DSCs exist from prior 

activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current activity following project 

implementation and restoration must not exceed 20 percent.

• FSM 2520.3-3: In areas where more than 20% DSCs exist from prior 

activities, the cumulative detrimental effects of project implementation and 

restoration must, at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned 

activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. 

Invasive Plant 

Species

R6 NFM Invasive Species Program Management Direction (updated 5/30/2013) –

Mitigation activities to prevent or control invasive species during project work are 

the responsibility of that project. Mitigation includes application of all invasive 

species management activities performed during the fiscal years the project is 

active. These mitigations also include prescribed pre-treatments of existing 

infestations prior to project implementation as may be needed to reduce the 

potential for infestations spreading due to the actions of the project. If invasive 

species infestations develop on site after project initiation and before the project is 

closed, it is the responsibility of the project to fund management activities against 

those infestations. The costs for preventative actions necessary to avoid 

establishing or spreading invasive species in a project (including but not limited to 

inspecting and cleaning vehicles and equipment; using certified ‘weed-free’ 

materials; planting native plants to restore treated areas; surveying, inventorying, 

and mapping infestations; pre-treating materials or products; erecting barriers, etc.) 

are considered part of the project costs and should be planned accordingly. When a 

project goal is to prevent the spread of invasive species from non-Forest Service 

(external) areas into adjacent NFS lands/waters, the treatment activities are 

frequently conducted using NFS funds or personnel using agreements established 

under the Wyden Amendment or other authorities. 

Prevention of 

Invasive Plant 

Introduction, 

Establishment 

R6 2005 Invasive Plants EIS Standards (1-8) –

1. Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be 

addressed in watershed analysis; roads analysis; fire and fuels management 

plans, Burned Area Emergency Recovery Plans; emergency wildland fire 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 339 

and Spread situation analysis; wildland fire implementation plans; grazing allotment 

management plans, recreation management plans, vegetation management 

plans, and other land management assessments.

2. Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service 

that will operate outside the limits of the road prism (including public 

works and service contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment 

(bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering 

National Forest System Lands. This standard does not apply to initial 

attack of wildland fires, and other emergency situations where cleaning 

would delay response time.

3. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by 

the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified 

straw and/or mulch is not available, individual Forests should require 

sources certified to be weed free using the North American Weed Free 

Forage Program standards (see Appendix O) or a similar certification 

process. 

4. Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant 

prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of 

administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits 

and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating 

instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in 

cooperation with the grazing permit holder. 

5. No Standard.

6. Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant 

prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of 

administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits 

and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating 

instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in 

cooperation with the grazing permit holder.

7. Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material 

for invasive plants before use and transport.

a. Treat or require treatment of infested sources before any use of pit 

material.

b. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free 

by District or Forest weed specialists.

8. Conduct road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high 

concentrations of invasive plants in consultation with District or Forestlevel invasive plant specialists, incorporate invasive plant prevention 

practices as appropriate.

Invasive Plant 

Treatments or 

Restoration

R6 2005 Invasive Plants EIS Standards (11-23) –

11. Prioritize infestations of invasive plants for treatment at the landscape, 

watershed or larger multiple forest/multiple owner scale.

12. Develop a long-term site strategy for restoring/revegetating invasive plant 

sites prior to treatment.

13. Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for restoration and 

rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant 

community is not likely to occur. Non-native, non-invasive plant species 

may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when needed in 

emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, 

water quality and to help prevent the establishment of invasive species), 2) 

as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants, 3) if native plant materials are not available,

or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no circumstances 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

340 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation.

14. Use only APHIS and State-approved biological control agents. Agents 

demonstrated to have direct negative impacts on non-target organisms 

would not be released.

15. Application of any herbicides to treat invasive plants will be performed or 

directly supervised by a State or Federally licensed applicator.

a. All treatment projects that involve the use of herbicides will 

develop and implement herbicide transportation and handling safety 

plan.

16. Select from herbicide formulations containing one or more of the following 

10 active ingredients: chlorsulfuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapic, 

imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, picloram, sethoxydim, sulfometuron methyl, 

and triclopyr. Mixtures of herbicide formulations containing 3 or less of 

these active ingredients may be applied where the sum of all individual 

Hazard Quotients for the relevant application scenarios is less than 1.0.1

a. All herbicide application methods are allowed including wicking, 

wiping, injection, spot, broadcast and aerial, as permitted by the 

product label. Chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, and 

sulfometuron methyl will not be applied aerially. The use of 

triclopyr is limited to selective application techniques only (e.g., 

spot spraying, wiping, basal bark, cut stump, injection).

b. Additional herbicides and herbicide mixtures may be added in the 

future at either the Forest Plan or project level through appropriate 

risk analysis and NEPA/ESA procedures.

c. Dicamba, formerly approved for use, was dropped as an approved 

herbicide.

17. No standard.

18. Use only adjuvants (e.g. surfactants, dyes) and inert ingredients reviewed in 

Forest Service hazard and risk assessment documents such as SERA, 

1997a, 1997b; Bakke, 2003.

19. To minimize or eliminate direct or indirect negative effects to non-target 

plants, terrestrial animals, water quality and aquatic biota (including 

amphibians) from the application of herbicide, use site-specific soil 

characteristics, proximity to surface water and local water table depth to 

determine herbicide formulation, size of buffers needed, if any, and 

application method and timing. Consider herbicides registered for aquatic 

use where herbicide is likely to be delivered to surface waters.

20. Design invasive plant treatments to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to 

species and critical habitats proposed and/or listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. This may involve surveying for listed or proposed plants prior 

to implementing actions within unsurveyed habitat if the action has a 

reasonable potential to adversely affect the plant species. Use site-specific 

project design (e.g. application rate and method, timing, wind speed and 

direction, nozzle type and size, buffers, etc.) to mitigate the potential for 

adverse disturbance and/or contaminant exposure.

21. Provide a minimum buffer of 300 feet for aerial application of herbicides 

near developed campgrounds, recreation residences and private land (unless 

otherwise authorized by adjacent private landowners).

22. Prohibit aerial application of herbicides within legally designated municipal 

watersheds.

23. Prior to implementation of herbicide treatment projects, National Forest 

system staff will ensure timely public notification. Treatment areas will be 

posted to inform the public and forest workers of herbicide application 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 341 

dates and herbicides used. If requested, individuals may be notified in 

advance of spray dates. 

Watershed

The Interdisciplinary team should consider the following list of management 

direction including, standard and guidelines, consultation requirements, and 

management indicator species evaluations regarding fisheries and aquatic resource 

values in the planning of the Lower Joseph Creek Project.

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), as amended by PACFISH, should be incorporated into the project design 

features. The consultation on the LRMP by the 1998 Snake River Steelhead 

Biological Opinion, the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and 

Conditions, should be incorporated into the project. 

Incorporate the Blue Mountain Project Design Criteria where appropriate to reduce 

the risk to federally listed Snake River steelhead and their habitat. 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

 PACFISH interim RHCAs will be delineated on all streams as follows: 300 feet 

horizontal distance on all fishbearing streams, 150 feet horizontal distance on 

non-fishbearing perennial streams and wetlands greater than one acre, and 100 

feet horizontal distance on all non-fishbearing intermittent streams and 

wetlands less than one acre. The interim RHCA widths apply until a Watershed 

analysis is completed, a site-specific analysis is conducted and described and 

the rationale for modification of interim RHCA boundaries is presented, or the 

interim direction is terminated. A watershed analysis was completed for the 

Lower Joseph Creek Watershed in 2010.

 For areas of precommercial thinning utilize the Blue Mountains Project Design 

Criteria for activities approved within the RHCA.

Channel Stability

 Maintain natural large wood and trees needed for future recruitment to maintain 

or restore stream channel and bank structure, maintain or restore water quality, 

and provide structural fish habitat. 

Stream Temperature

 Prevent measurable (greater than 0.5oF change) temperature increases in fish 

bearing streams. Temperatures on other streams may be increased only to the 

extent that water quality standards on downstream, fish bearing streams will 

still be met

Transporation System

 Do not construct roads immediately adjacent to riparian areas. Any planned 

reconstruction or construction of roads crossing riparian areas will not alter 

stream or groundwater flow characteristics to the extent that it will impact the 

riparian area. Locate skid trails and roads to avoid paralleling stream channels 

in RHCAs. Roads will be managed to minimize impacts to water quality and 

fish and wildlife habitat. Design and maintain road drainage to prevent the 

influx of significant amounts of road sediment runoff into streamcourses. 

Design stream crossings to pass a 100 year flow (culverts, bridges). Follow 

guidance in 1998 Steelhead Biological Opinion on total road density of 2.0 

miles per square mile.

Prescribed Fire

 For areas of prescribed fire and slash pile burning utilize the Blue Mountains 

Project Design Criteria for activities approved within the RHCA.

Log Landings

 Locate log landings outside of RHCAs unless approved through consultation 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

342 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

with NOAA Fisheries.

Skidding and Skid Trails

 Skidding down streamcourses or ephemeral draws will not occur. Locate skid 

trails to avoid paralleling stream channels within the RHCA. 

Wildlife – Other 

Required 

Disclosures

Recreational Hunting

 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates hunting in the Snake 

River, Imnaha, and Pine Creek Big-Game Management Unit through 

controlled hunts which requires a hunting tag.

Best Available Science

 The habitat effects analysis meets the advice for incorporating “best available 

science” in specialist reports for NEPA projects as given in the May 2, 2007 

advice letter (Advice on Documenting “Best Available Science”) and the 

clarification letter dated June 20, 2007 (Clarification of May 2nd 2007, Advice 

on Documenting “Best Available Science”) issued by the Acting Director and 

Director for Ecosystem Management Coordination, respectively.

 The analysis of effects to species habitat, including riparian and upland habitat, 

and aquatic species with special management status, was based on a 

combination of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals, and 

publications produce by Forest Service Research Laboratories.

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in 

Central and South America. Many of our well known passerine songbirds, 

flycatchers, vireos, swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds, fall in this

category. Most others are included in the resident category. Birds are a vital 

element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. Conserving habitat for birds 

will therefore contribute to meeting the needs of other wildlife and entire 

ecosystems. 

Authorities Related to Bird Management

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). 

The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, 

Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. 

Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird 

except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 

21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, 

or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and 

eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations 

(Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that 

live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point 

during their annual life cycle.

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”

This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative 

impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds 

and their habitat. This Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop 

Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including 

taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting 

birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes 

whenever possible. The FS has completed, and is currently implementing, their 

MOU with the FWS.

Forest Service & FWS MOU

The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation by 

identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 343 

between the Parties, in coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments.”

Under the MOU the FS Shall:

 Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when 

developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and 

grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. 

When developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process, 

consult the current (updated every 5 years) FWS Birds of Conservation 

Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for 

migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency 

actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern 

along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. 

Landscape 

Management

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that it is the 

“continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means 

to assure for all Americans, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” 

NEPA also requires “A systematic and interdisciplinary approach which would 

insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental 

design arts into planning and decision-making which may have an impact on man’s 

environment.” To accomplish this, numerous Federal laws require all Federal land 

management agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in land 

management planning, resource planning, project design, implementation, and 

monitoring.

Handbooks -

 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1 the Visual 

Management System (Agriculture Handbook 462, USDA Forest Service 1974)

 Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management (Agriculture 

Handbook 701, USDA Forest Service 1995)

Wild and Scenic 

River 

In addition to the Forest Plan and the Hells Canyon Comprehensive Management 

Plan, the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan apply to the 

LJCRP.

The Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1993)

Joseph Creek was designated Wild and Scenic in 1988 for the following 

outstandingly remarkable (OR) values: scenic, recreational, geological, fish and 

water uality, and cultural values. Site specific assessment resulted in one additional 

OR value of “wildlife” and the cultural OR was clarified as “cultural (historic)”. All 

outstandingly remarkable (OR) values must be protected and enhanced, If conflicts 

arise between OR values which cannot be resolved within the direction of the Act or 

management plan, then they shall be resolved according to the following priorities: 

1) fish and water quality, 2) cultural (historic) resources, 3) scenic, 4) wildlife, 5) 

recreation, 6) geology.

Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan Landscape 

Management Standards and Guidelines
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

344 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 345 

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

1 03/15/1991 Added a new range allotment planning schedule and made errata type 

corrections.

2 05/24/1991 Changed about 70 acres from MA 1 to MA 16 to permit development and 

management of Blue Mountain segment of the Oregon Trail. Changed 

road and trail visual sensitivity in the same area.

3 12/23/1991 Modified the Wildlife Standard and Guideline No. 5 to incorporate the 

“Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Management Strategy for the WallowaWhitman National Forest”. Decision reversed by the Deputy Regional 

Forester on June 23, 1992.

4 04/02/1992 Changed standards and guidelines to say management of competing and 

unwanted vegetation will tier to the FEIS for Managing Competing and 

Unwanted Vegetation, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

December 1988 or subsequent NEPA documents.

5 08/06/1992 Incorporated definitions and review process for river craft for the Snake 

River Recreation Management area. Allocated Cache Creek area 

(purchased in June 1991) to Management Area 9 (6,549 acres) and 

Management Area 16 (7 acres).

6 01/05/1993 Incorporated management direction from the Imnaha Wild and Scenic 

River Management Plan.

7 07/07/1993 Incorporated management direction for the Lostine Wild and Scenic 

River.

8 09/13/1993 Incorporated management direction for the North Fork John Day Wild 

and Scenic River.

9 02/04/1994 Added implementing direction for the use of prescribed fire within 

wilderness.

10 12/17/1993 Incorporated management direction for the Grande Ronde Wild and 

Scenic River.

14 (RF#1) 05/20/1994 Extended interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, 

and wildlife standards for timber sales on Eastside forests pending 

completion of the Eastside Ecosystem Management Strategy. (Regional 

Forester Amendment #1).

11 05/26/1994 Added direction for long and short term snag management levels. 

Redesigned Sufferin Smith Timber Sale to meet eastside ecosystem 

screens.

12 12/21/1994 Approved the Wild and Scenic Snake River Recreation Management Plan 

for the administrative area of the Wild and Scenic Snake River corridor.

13 06/07/1994 Incorporated management direction for the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic 

River.

15 12/22/1994 Incorporated direction dealing with the management of the Eagle Creek 

Wild and Scenic River.

16 01/13/1995 Incorporated direction dealing with the management of the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness and the Minam Wild and Scenic River.

17 02/22/1995 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for the Washington 

Watershed Project for fuels reduction within the Baker City Watershed. 

Amendments are 1) eliminate the Washington Gulch C&H domestic 

grazing allotment and close the area to domestic livestock grazing; 2) 

treatment of late/old structure stands – treatment will not meet RF 1; 3) 

allocate 300 acres of old-growth habitat (MA 15) and a 300-acre pileated 

woodpecker feeding area.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

346 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

18 07/13/1995 Incorporated direction dealing with the management of the North Powder 

Wild and Scenic River.

RF 3 02/24/1995 Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds 

in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 

(PACFISH). (Regional Forester Amendment #3). 

RF 2 06/08/1995 Revised Interim Standards for Timber Sales on Eastside Forests. 

(Regional Forester Amendment #2). 

RF 4 07/28/1995 Interim Strategies for Managing Inland Fish-producing Watersheds in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 

(INFISH). (Regional Forester Amendment #4). 

19 07/31/1995 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for the Eagle-Paddy 

Timber Sale, which affected the Eastside Screens.

20 09/09/1996 Added direction to the Wild and Scenic Snake River Recreation 

Management Plan to proceed with implementation of proposed outfitterguide use allocations and operational limitations.

22 12/18/1996 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for Dark Horn Salvage 

Sale Project. Affected PACFISH by treating riparian habitat conservation 

areas.

23 12/18/1996 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for Eagle Holcomb 

Timber Sale. Affected Eastside Screens by harvesting trees greater than 

21 inches DBH. As a result of administrative appeals, trees greater than 

21 inches were dropped from the sale.

21 05/13/1997 Documented selection of preferred alternative for Spring Creek 

Restoration Project. Affected PACFISH by treating riparian habitat 

conservation areas. 

24 07/14/1997 Allowed harvest in 34 acres of Late Old Structure stands in the Dry 

Melon Timber Sale. Affected Regional Forester Amendment #2 by 

harvesting LOS stages in a watershed that is below the Historic Range of 

Variation for LOS.

25 05/05/1999 Established direction for management of outfitters and guides in the Eagle 

Cap Wilderness.

26 03/20/2000 Allowed cutting of trees greater than 21 inches in diameter on the Starkey 

Research Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project to validate 

squirrel/dwarf mistletoe research.

27a 05/10/2000 Changed the Government Draw Research Natural Area from a “proposed 

RNA” to an “established RNA”. Name was later changed to Gerald S. 

Strickler RNA.

27b 05/01/2001 Carrol Creek Fire Salvage and Restoration Project – Modified area of Old 

Growth designation.

28 05/25/2001 Changed Vance Knoll Research Natural Area from a “proposed RNA” to an 

“established RNA”. 

29 07/21/2003 Revised Comprehensive Management Plan for the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area.

30 03/19/2004 Documented selection of Alternative D for Spooner Vegetation 

Management Project. Adopted applicable conservation measures from 

the 2000 Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the 

Spooner project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 347 

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest plan

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

31 11/10/2004 Changed Duck Lake Research Natural Area from a “proposed RNA” to 

an “established RNA”.

32 12/15/2004 Mt. Emily Fuels Reduction project – The Forest Plan Amendment 

includes changes to two sections in the Forest Plan for the Mt. Emily 

analysis area. The two sections are: 1) treatment of late and old structure 

that are below the historic range of variability and 2) treatment in the Bull 

Canyon allocated old growth (MA 15). 

33 9/30/2005 Moss-Potters Restoration Project - Added applicable conservation 

measures from the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

for the project area.

RF 5 10/11/2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants – new goals, objectives, and standards for 

managing invasive plants.

34 6/28/2006 Mt. Emily II – Forest Plan amendments for: 1) treatment of late and old 

structure that are below the historic range of variability and 2) added 

applicable conservation measures from the Canada Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy for the project area.

35 2/22/2007 Bald Angel Vegetation Management Project –Forest Plan amendment 

needed for treatment of late and old structure that is below the historic 

range of variability – Decision pulled in July 2006, new decision made in 

February, 2007

36 12/18/2006 Mt. Howard - Forest Plan amendments for: 1) treatment of late and old 

structure below the historic range of variability and 2) added applicable 

conservation measures from the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy for the project area.

37 4/22/2008 Medical Springs 

38 8/18/2008 Horsefly Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan Amendments 

needed for 1) 1) treatment of late and old structure below the historic 

range of variability, 2) treatment in areas of marginal cover in MA 3, and 

3) removal of trees over 21” dbh to treat mistletoe infestation

39 4/9/2010 Sugar Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan amendment for 

treatment of LOS below HRV. 

40 8/26/2010 Tremble Aspen Restoration Project – Forest Plan amendment for 1) 

harvest of live trees greater than 21-inch diameter, and 2) harvest within 

LOS for other than moving from one LOS stage to another.

41 11/03/11 Muddy Sled Vegetation Management – Changes MA designation 

immediately surrounding Sled Springs Administrative Site, including 

changing 6 acres of MA 15 (old growth) to MA 1 and providing 2 

replacement old growth stands totaling 58 acres.

42 11/30/11 Cove II WUI – Forest plan amendments for 1) harvest in MSLT below 

HRV, and 2) harvest in MA 15 old growth.

43 Decision 

Withdrawn

Travel Management Plan

44 Snow Basin Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan amendment 

for 1) harvest of live trees great than 21-inch diameter, and 2) harvest in 

LOS below HRV.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

348 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 349 

Appendix C - Landscape Modeling Methods 

Scenario projections for vegetation growth, development, management, and natural disturbance for the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project area was done using state and transition models (STMs) 

developed as part of the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP). ILAP was designed to 

support ecosystem management planning and assessments across all forests, woodlands, and arid lands of 

Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. The project explored the dynamics of broad scale, multiownership, vegetated landscapes by integrating information about current and future vegetation and fuel 

conditions, climate change, wildlife habitat, fuel treatment economics, and community economics 

(Burcsu et al. In Press). STMs were used by the ILAP effort to represent the range of vegetation types 

from forested to arid lands and project changes from vegetation community development, natural 

disturbances, and management events.

According to Burcsu et al. (In Press), 

“STMs can be thought of as box and arrow diagrams of vegetation where boxes represent states 

within the vegetation type in which properties are temporally-related and can be described using 

structural and functional attributes, and may include one or more successional phases 

(Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). In this concept arrows represent the drivers causing state change, such 

as succession, disturbance, and management (Stringham et al. 2003). STMs can be designed to 

address both broad- and fine-scale research questions. STMs have been used extensively in 

rangeland management to represent highly dynamic and perturbation-sensitive rangeland 

ecosystems (Stringham et al. 2003)Briske et al. 2005, Petersen et al. 2009), examine ecosystem 

resilience and the effects of restoration (Forbis et al. 2006), to project the distribution of states on 

the landscape and their associated changes through time as part of an integrative modeling 

framework for planning (Baker 1989, Hemstrom et al. 2007, Vavra et al. 2007, Wales et al. 2007, 

Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). As a decision support tool, this type of model allows synthesis of 

assumptions about vegetation growth, natural disturbance regimes, and management regimes in a 

single modeling environment (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003, Hemstrom et al. 2007). Models developed 

under this framework are also relatively simple to parameterize and can integrate information 

from expert opinions with information derived from data (Stringham et al. 2003) Provencher et al. 

2009).”

“...individual STMs represented vegetation dynamics (alternate states, successional processes, 

disturbance, etc.) within units of potential vegetation. Potential vegetation was a useful modeling 

unit because common species assemblages, site productivity and disturbance patterns could be 

represented, and finer classifications (plant association groups and plant associations) commonly 

used by federal land management agencies for planning and project implementation (e.g., Hall 

1998) could also be included. More importantly, potential vegetation types provided concise 

descriptions of biophysical conditions and disturbance regimes. Within our project area, potential 

vegetation maps provided the ecological boundaries and area in which each STM operated, 

similar to the use of Biophysical Setting (BpS) by the LANDFIRE project (Rollins 2009), or the 

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) by the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(www.nrcs.usda.gov).” 

Burcsu et al. (In Press) describe the individual state classes (boxes) within ILAP STMs as representing 

cover types, usually the dominant species or vegetation assemblage, and structural stages, based on 

physical attributes such as vegetation height, percent cover, and canopy layers. For example, in a forest 

type STM a state may have represented ponderosa pine of the 10-15” diameter class in multiple structural 

stages, depending on whether it had open, mid, or closed canopy cover. 

The transitions (arrows) in the STMs simulated successional processes such as growth and development, 

natural disturbances such as wildfire and insect outbreaks, and management actions such as prescribed 

wildfire and tree harvesting (Burcsu et al. In Press). Transitions were classified as either deterministic or 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

350 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

probabilistic. Deterministic transitions occurred at a specific vegetation age, whereas probabilistic 

transitions were defined by an annual transition probability. Some transitions moved vegetation from one 

state class to another, for instance a stand-replacing disturbance moved vegetation from a dense forest to a 

grass/forb state. Other transitions resulted in vegetation remaining in the same state, such as surface fires, 

mild insect activity, drought, and some types of grazing. 

To link these abstract STM states to current landscape conditions, spatial data representing current 

vegetation conditions were used. The spatial area in each of the current vegetation’s discrete classes (of 

cover type and structure) allocated area by modeling strata into the various states within a model, forming 

the modeling initial conditions. These initial conditions provided the starting point from which STMs 

projections began. Current vegetation data came from a combination of maps developed from recent 

stand examinations for those vegetation stands within the Lower Joseph project area and ILAP data for 

the stands surrounding the project area. Current and potential vegetation data were re-sampled from the 

original ILAP 30m pixels to 90m pixels or, in the case of recent stand exams, from stand exam polygons 

to 90m pixels. 

STMs were run using the StSim modeling platform (http://www.apexrms.com/projects/stsm). All models 

used Monte Carlo simulations of variation in wildfire and insect/disease disturbances. Except for the 

Historical Range of Variability simulations, wildfire and other natural disturbance probabilities were from 

the ILAP models and, for wildfire, were derived from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity data 

(www.mtbs.gov). Annual variation in wildfire was estimated from the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity data. Annual variation in insect/disease disturbances came from expert opinion supplied by 

Craig Schmidt (entomologist, USDA Forest Service, retired) and other local experts. 

General Assumptions

1. The modeling area is a rectangle that includes the Lower Joseph project area. The rectangle is large 

enough to reduce or eliminate edge effects for fire and other disturbances that propagate into the 

Lower Joseph Project Area from origin points outside the project area. The modeling rectangle is 

about 453,000 acres in size. National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Project Area are about 

103,000 acres. Project area boundary spatial data were supplied by the Blue Mountains Restoration 

Team (BMRT). Hemstrom selected the modeling rectangle.

2. To model direct and indirect effects, management disturbances are turned off on all lands outside the 

project area. Cumulative effects assessments used management disturbance assumptions for non-NFS 

lands based on the best available information.

3. Outside the project area, existing vegetation condition spatial data for cover type and structure stage 

are from the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) as modified by Chris Zanger (TNC) 

using methods developed by Mike Simpson and others. Data were re-sampled to a 90m grid 

(approximately 2 acres per grid cell).

4. For the project area only, data from local stand exams and the Wallowa-Whitman NF EVG database 

were substituted for ILAP data. These local data for the project area were supplied by the BMRT and 

were cross-walked to modeling cover types and structure classes by Hemstrom.

5. Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) spatial data came from ILAP.

6. Spatial data on Management Areas from the existing Wallowa-Whitman NF Plan were supplied by 

the BMRT, accessed from: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/umatilla/index.shtml (WallowaWhitman, Umatilla, Malheur), and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/ochoco/ (Ochoco).

7. Proposed and alternative commercial harvest unit and potential pre-commercial thinning unit spatial 

data were supplied by the BMRT.

8. Wildlife habitat relationships to modeled PVT and state class were supplied by the BMRT.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 351 

9. Preliminary timber volume outputs were estimated using volume tables for each state class generated 

by Xiaoping Zhou (PNW Research Station) specifically for the Blue Mountains. She used Forest 

Inventory and Analysis plot data to estimate volume, biomass, and other characteristics as part of the 

ILAP effort (Zhou and Hemstrom 2010). A difference method was used to estimate removed volume: 

volume in the ending state class following a timber harvest transition was subtracted from volume in 

the beginning state class before harvest. The difference was assumed to approximate or index the 

timber volume removed by harvest transitions. 

10. All spatial inputs to the model were re-sampled to a 90m grid to match the existing and potential 

vegetation data inputs. This resulted in the generalization of finer-scale data.

11. All modeling results and estimates derived from them should be considered approximations and 

DRAFT, subject to change.

Reference Conditions Scenario

1. The Reference Conditions (RC) scenario reflects the long-term effects of no management and no 

wildfire suppression, hypothetically representing the Historic Range of Variation, e.g. conditions prior 

to about 1850. 

2. Wildfire probabilities were cross-walked to ILAP PVTs from LANDFIRE National (2010) models 

and biophysical environment data. A group involving Shlisky, Zanger (TNC), Simpson, Hemstrom, 

and others developed the cross-walk of LANDFIRE biophysical environments to PVTs. In general, 

LANDFIRE wildfire probabilities for the reference condition were 4 to 8 times greater than current 

annual probabilities, though there was considerable variation.

3. There were no available assumptions to use for reference conditions insect and disease disturbances, 

so current insect and disease disturbance assumptions were used. 

4. RC models were run for 500 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations, beginning with current conditions. 

Examination of the results suggested that vegetation and disturbance conditions changed rapidly for 

the first 150 years, then stabilized around a set of values after about 300 years. Model results from 

years 300 to 500 years were used for analysis.

5. Initial conditions are not considered to highly influence final, stable conditions produced after 300-

500 years of simulation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

352 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

No Action Scenario

1. The No Action (NA) scenario reflects short to mid-term effects of current levels of stand growth and 

succession without management, aside from current levels of fire suppression. 

2. All management activities aside from current levels of fire suppression were turned off on all lands.

3. Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations, starting with current conditions.

Proposed Action Scenario

1. The Proposed Action (PA) scenario reflects short to mid-term effects of the proposed actions 

developed by the BMRT. The PA is designed to actively move as much area as realistically possible 

toward reference conditions across multiple management areas.

2. Commercial thinning was applied to all commercial thinning unit areas within boundaries supplied by 

the BMRT. These treatment boundaries crossed an assortment of management areas. The PA allowed 

limited harvest of trees over 21” DBH as long as the trees were not old. The state and transition 

model includes two kinds of commercial thinning partial harvests (PH); one that causes a change in 

cover type (e.g. from Douglas-fir to western larch in cool, moist forests) and one that does not. 

Modeling assumed that commercial thinning targeted to change cover types might harvest some level 

of trees over 21” DBH, but commercial thinning that does not change cover type would remove very 

few, if any, trees over 21” DBH. Since the PA scenario was designed to move cover type to that 

reflected by reference conditions, the model emphasized thinning that changed cover type by equally 

splitting harvest targets between the two types of thinning. 

3. Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) was applied in a similar fashion to treatment area boundaries supplied 

by the BMRT. PCT was applied in two ways in the model; one that changed cover type and one that 

did not. PCT was only applied to seedling/sapling and pole size classes in the model and was 

assumed not to remove any trees over 21” DBH regardless of scenario. Since the PA scenario 

attempted to move forest cover type toward reference conditions, the models targeted equal amounts 

of PCT that changed cover type and PCT that did not. The model assumed that PCT would be done 

over a period of 10 years and would target the entire area within the PCT unit boundaries supplied by 

the BMRT. Where commercial and PCT unit boundaries overlapped, they were targeted for 

commercial harvest rather than PCT.

4. Prescribed Fire was modeled for all appropriate dry forest stands (e.g. where trees were large enough 

to survive Rx Fire). This dry forest Rx Fire effort started after the initial 10 year period and continued 

for 20 years. Rx Fire was allowed in any management area within the 103,000 acre project area. Rx 

Fire was modeled to achieve a 1 in 20 probability for any acre to be treated in any one year. Time 

since treatment for Rx Fire was set to 20 years to prevent re-treating the same areas within the 20 year 

time frame.

5. Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations.

Alternative 3

1. Alternative 3 (A3) removes PH and PCT treatment from management areas designated as inventoried 

roadless, old growth management areas (MA 15), and the riparian habitat conservation area network. 

Excluded management area designations were supplied by the BMRT. It also removes harvest of trees 

over 21” DBH. 

2. The models were run on vegetation data derived from the area excluded from both PH and PCT 

treatments using designations supplied by the BMRT. This removed considerable area from treatment 

compared to the PA scenario and resulted in relatively lower treatment amounts over the 10 year 

treatment period compared to the PA.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 353 

3. The model turned off all PH treatments that changed forest cover type since these treatments were 

assumed to remove some trees over 21” DBH. However, the model did not turn off PCT treatments 

that changed cover type because A3 still had the goal of moving cover type toward reference 

conditions within the constraints imposed. PCT was assumed not to remove trees over 21” DBH. 

4. Prescribed Fire was modeled for all appropriate dry forest stands (e.g. where trees were large enough 

to survive Rx Fire). This dry forest Rx Fire effort started after the initial 10 year period and continued 

for 20 years. Rx Fire was allowed in any management area within the 103,000 acre project area. Rx 

Fire was modeled to achieve a 1 in 20 probability for any acre to be treated in any one year. Time 

since treatment for Rx Fire was set to 20 years to prevent re-treating the same areas within the 20 year 

time frame.

5. Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

354 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

References

Baker, W. L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2:111-133. 

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. 

Development and Use of State-and-Transition Models for Rangelands. Journal of Range Management 

56:114-126. 

Bestelmeyer, B. T., A. J. Tugel, G. L. Peacock, D. G. Robinett, P. L. Shaver, J. R. Brown, J. E. Herrick, 

H. Sanchez, and K. M. Havstad. 2009. State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: A 

Strategy for Development and Application. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:1-15. 

Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and 

Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & 

Management 58:1-10. 

Burcsu, T., J. Halofsky, S. Bisrat, T. Christopher, M.K. Creutzburg, E. Henderson, M. Hemstrom, M. 

Whitman. In Press. Dynamic Vegetation Modeling of Forested, Woodland, Shrubland, and Grassland 

Vegetation Communities in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest Regions of the United States. In

Halofsky, J.E., M.K. Creutzburg, and M.A. Hemstrom. Mid-Scale Landscape Assessment: Methods Used 

in the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXX. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Forbis, T., L. Provencher, L. Frid, and G. Medlyn. 2006. Great Basin Land Management Planning Using 

Ecological Modeling. Environmental Management 38:62-83. 

Hall, F. C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural plant communities. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-418, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Hemstrom, M. A., J. Merzenich, A. Reger, and B. Wales. 2007. Integrated analysis of landscape 

management scenarios using state and transition models in the upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin, 

Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:198-211. 

Petersen, S. L., T. K. Stringham, and B. A. Roundy. 2009. A Process-Based Application of State-andTransition Models: A Case Study of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) Encroachment. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 62:186-192. 

Provencher, L., G. Low, and S. Abele. 2009. Bodie Hills Conservation Action Planning: Final report to 

the Bureau of Land Managment Bishop Field Office. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, NV. 

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:235-249.

Vavra, M., M. A. Hemstrom, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. Modeling the effects of herbivores on the 

abundance of forest overstory states using a simple state-transition approach. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 80:212-222. 

Wales, B. C., L. H. Suring, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2007. Modeling potential outcomes of fire and fuel 

management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, USA. Landscape and 

Urban Planning 80:223-236. 

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at 

equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274. 

Zhou, X. and M. A. Hemstrom (2010). Timber volume and aboveground live tree biomass estimations for 

landscape analyses in the Pacific Northwest. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-819. Portland, OR, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 355 

Appendix D – Burn probability modeling methods

The Blue Mountains Restoration Team analyzed wildland fire probability as a component of the 

landscape analysis for the LJCRP and surrounding lands (as a potential influence to disturbance 

probabilities outside the project boundary). The FSim platform was chosen since it offers the most robust 

modeling framework with rich inputs for weather, wind, and historic fires. The large-fire simulation 

system, FSim, consists of modules for weather, fire occurrence, fire growth, and fire suppression. The 

system is designed to simulate the occurrence and growth of fires for thousands of years in order to 

estimate average burn probabilities and fire size distributions. It was applied independently to 6-10 

delineated areasof the landscape, called Fire Planning Units (FPUs,) in the Blue Mountains. Each model 

component, data inputs and outputs and FPU are described in the following sections. 

Inputs:

Fire Planning Units (FPU’s) – Due to the large size of the Blue Mountains landscape and the associated 

large and cumbersome database size, the landscape was too large for FSim to effectively run. Given this 

modeling limitation, the landscape was broken into areas used by the Blue Mountains Forests known as 

FPUs. The USFS’s Fire Danger Rating Areas (FDRAs) were used as the starting geography point for 

analysis. The FDRAs were further reduced based on vegetation condition and Forest Boundaries. The 

intent was to create similar sized rectangular blocks with similar vegetation, management, and fire 

behavior influences such as weather, topography, and assumed fire regime.

Weather – The necessary weather files for each FPU were generated from Fire Family Plus based on 

expert opinion and Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) data. In some cases the multiple RAWS 

data were combined for an FPU. Local expert opinion was utilized to give a weighted percent to each 

RAWS station so that the Fire Family Plus weather input represented the most frequent trend for each 

FPU.

Historical Fire Occurrences Density - The historical fire data used in this analysis was based on the 

Historical national fire occurrences data that Karen Short compiled for the Continental US Analysis with 

Mark Finney. 

Fuels and topography - Spatial information on fuels and topography was obtained at 30 m resolution from 

2012 LANDFIRE in a Landscape file (.LCP) and then resampled to 90 m resolution to achieve practical 

simulation run times.

Outputs: 

Each FPU was buffered 10 miles to allow for fires to burn onto the landscape and limit edge effect. The 

outputs from all the FPUs merged into a single landscape level output using a statistical overlay for the 

overlapping areas. The landscape outputs are described below.

 Burn Probability – A spatial layer with 0-100 % probability of a pixel burning in a given year.

 Fire Intensity Level, FIL ( 1- 6) – Six spatial layers with intensity by Flame Length categories. Each 

spatial FIL has a probability, the sum of all 6 equal the overall Burn Probability.

 Mean Fire Intensity – A spatial layer with the mean intensity values for each pixel

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 357 

Appendix E – Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant, Wildlife, and Aquatic Species (TES)

This appendix lists the existing conditions for proposed, threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species applicable to the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area. The list of federally-listed species applicable to the planning area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). No proposed or federally-listed terrestrial wildlife species were described for Wallowa County, Oregon. The USFS 

Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, dated January 31, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011) was reviewed for sensitive species potentially 

applicable to the Lower Joseph Project. A key to codes follows the table.

Taxon ScientificName CommonName

Federal 

Status

Global 

Rank

Subspecies 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Breeding 

Rank

ODA 

ODFW 

State 

Status

USFS 

Sensitive 

Species

Category

WallowaWhitman 

NF LJCRP

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

MYKISS (MIDDLE 

COLUMBIA RIVER)

STEELHEAD

FT G5Q T2 S2 CR FT I N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

MYKISS (SNAKE 

RIVER BASIN)

STEELHEAD

FT G5Q T2T3 S2S3 V FT D D

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

NERKA (SNAKE 

RIVER, MIGRATORY 

HABITAT ONLY)

SOCKEYE SALMON

FE G5Q T1 S1M SXB FE D N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

TSHAWYTSCHA 

(SNAKE RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER 

RUNS)

CHINOOK SALMON

FT G5Q T1 S1 ST FT D N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

TSHAWYTSCHA 

(SNAKE RIVER FALL 

RUNS)

CHINOOK SALMON

FT G5Q T1 S1 ST FT D N

Nonanadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

CLARKII LEWISI

WESTSLOPE 

CUTTHROAT 

TROUT G4 T3 S3 CR OR-SEN D N
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

358 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Nonanadromous 

Fish

SALVELINUS 

CONFLUENTUS

BULL TROUT

FT G3Q T2 S2 CR/V FT D N

Bird BARTRAMIA 

LONGICAUDA

UPLAND 

SANDPIPER G5 S1B CR OR-SEN D N

Bird BUCEPHALA 

ALBEOLA

BUFFLEHEAD

G5 S5N S2B OR-SEN S N

Bird CENTROCERCUS 

UROPHASIANUS 

(OUTSIDE COLUMBIA 

BASIN)

GREATER SAGEGROUSE

FC G4 S3 V OR-SEN D N

Bird CYPSELOIDES NIGER BLACK SWIFT

G4 S2B OR-SEN D N

Bird FALCO PEREGRINUS 

ANATUM

AMERICAN 

PEREGRINE 

FALCON G4 T4 S2B V SEN D D

Bird HALIAEETUS 

LEUCOCEPHALUS

BALD EAGLE

G5 S4N S4B ST SEN D S

Bird HISTRIONICUS 

HISTRIONICUS

HARLEQUIN DUCK

G4 S3N S2B SEN D N

Bird LEUCOSTICTE 

ATRATA

BLACK ROSY 

FINCH G4 S2B OR-SEN S N

Bird LEUCOSTICTE 

TEPHROCOTIS 

WALLOWA

WALLOWA ROSY 

FINCH

G5 T2 S2?N S2B OR-SEN D N

Bird MELANERPES LEWIS LEWIS' 

WOODPECKER G4 S2S3B CR SEN D S

Bird PICOIDES 

ALBOLARVATUS 

WHITE-HEADED 

WOODPECKER G4 S2S3 CR SEN D S

Bird TYMPANUCHUS 

PHASIANELLUS 

COLUMBIANUS

COLUMBIAN 

SHARP-TAILED 

GROUSE G4 T3 S1 CR OR-SEN D N

Amphibian ASCAPHUS 

MONTANUS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

TAILED FROG G4 S2 V SEN D D
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 359 

Amphibian RANA LUTEIVENTRIS 

(OUTSIDE GREAT 

BASIN)

COLUMBIA 

SPOTTED FROG

G4 S2S3 CR/V OR-SEN D S

Mammal CANIS LUPUS 

(NORTHERN ROCKY 

MTN.)

GRAY WOLF

G4 S1S2 SE SEN D D

Mammal CORYNORHINUS 

TOWNSENDII

TOWNSEND'S BIGEARED BAT G4 S2 CR SEN D D

Mammal EUDERMA 

MACULATUM

SPOTTED BAT

G4 S2 V OR-SEN D S

Mammal GULO GULO LUSCUS NORTH AMERICAN 

WOLVERINE FC G4 T3 S1 ST SEN D N

Mammal LYNX CANADENSIS CANADA LYNX FT G5 S1? FT D N

Mammal MYOTIS 

THYSANODES

FRINGED MYOTIS

G4G5 S2 V OR-SEN D S

Fungus

RHIZOGOGON 

SUBCLAVITISPORUS TRUFFLE

G2G3 S1 OR-STR S S

Fungus RHIZOGOGON 

BACILLISPORUS TRUFFLE

G2G3 S1 OR-STR D S

Bryophyte ANASTROPHYLLUM 

MINUTUM

LIVERWORT

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte ANOMOBRYUM 

FILIFORME

COMMON SILVER 

MOSS G4G5 S1 OR-STR D S

Bryophyte ANTHELIA JULACEA LIVERWORT

G3G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte BARBILOPHOZIA 

LYCOPODIOIDES

LIVERWORT

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte BUXBAUMIA 

APHYLLA

BUG ON A STICK 

MOSS G4G5 S2 OR-STR D S

Bryophyte ENCALYPTA 

BREVIPES

MOSS

G3 S1 OR-SEN S S

Bryophyte ENTOSTHODON 

FASCICULARIS

MOSS

G4G5 S1 OR-SEN S S
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

360 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Bryophyte HARPANTHUS 

FLOTOVIANUS

LIVERWORT

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte HELODIUM 

BLANDOWII

MOSS

G5 S2 OR-SEN S N

Bryophyte JUNGERMANNIA 

POLARIS

LIVERWORT

G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte LOPHOZIA 

GILLMANII

LIVERWORT

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte PELTOLEPIS 

QUADRATA

LIVERWORT

G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte PREISSIA QUADRATA LIVERWORT

G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte PSEUDOCALLIERGON 

TRIFARIUM

MOSS

G4 S1 OR-SEN S N

Bryophyte PTILIDIUM 

PULCHERRIMUM

LIVERWORT

G5 S1 OR-SEN D S

Bryophyte SCHISTIDIUM 

CINCLIDODONTEUM

MOSS

G2G3 S1 OR-SEN D N

Bryophyte SCHISTOSTEGA 

PENNATA 

MOSS

G3G4 S2 OR-SEN S S

Bryophyte SPLACHNUM 

AMPULLACEUM

MOSS

G5 S1 OR-SEN S S

Bryophyte TETRAPHIS 

GENICULATA 

MOSS

G3G5 S1 OR-SEN S S

Bryophyte TOMENTYPNUM 

NITENS

MOSS

G5 S2 OR-SEN S N

Bryophyte TORTULA 

MUCRONIFOLIA

MOSS

G5 S2 OR-SEN S S

Lichen THELENELLA 

MUSCORUM V. 

OCTOSPORA

EIGHT-SPORED 

MOSS CRUST

G4G5 T4T5 S2 OR-STR S S

Vascular 

Plant

ACHNATHERUM 

WALLOWAENSIS 

WALLOWA 

RICEGRASS G2G3 S2S3 OR-SEN D D

Vascular 

Plant

ALLIUM GEYERI 

VAR. GEYERI

GEYER'S ONION

G4G5 T4 S1 OR-SEN D S
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 361 

Vascular 

Plant

ARABIS HASTATULA HELLS CANYON 

ROCKCRESS G2 S2 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

ASPLENIUM 

TRICHOMANESRAMOSUM

GREEN 

SPLEENWORT

G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

ASCENDENS

UPWARD-LOBED 

MOONWORT G2G3 S2 SC SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

CAMPESTRE

PRAIRIE 

MOONWORT G3G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

CRENULATUM

CRENULATE 

MOONWORT G3 S2 SC SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

HESPERIUM

WESTERN 

MOONWORT G4 S1 SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

LINEARE

SLENDER 

MOONWORT G2? S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

LUNARIA

MOONWORT

G5 S2 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

MONTANUM

MOUNTAIN 

GRAPE-FERN G3 S2 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

PARADOXUM

TWIN-SPIKED 

MOONWART G2 S1 SC SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

BOTRYCHIUM 

PEDUNCULOSUM

STALKED 

MOONWORT G2G3 S1 SC SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

BUPLEURUM 

AMERICANUM

BUPLEURUM

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CALOCHORTUS 

MACROCARPUS VAR. 

MACULOSUS

GREEN-BAND 

MARIPOSA-LILY

G5 T2 S2 SEN D D

Vascular 

Plant

CALOCHORTUS 

NITIDUS

BROAD-FRUIT 

MARIPOSA-LILY G3 S1 SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX 

ATROSQUAMA

BLACKENED 

SEDGE G4? S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX CAPILLARIS HAIRLIKE SEDGE

G5 S2 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX CAPITATA CAPITATE SEDGE

G5 S2 OR-SEN S N
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

362 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX 

CORDILLERANA

CORDILLERAN 

SEDGE G3G4 S2 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX DIANDRA LESSER PANICLED 

SEDGE G5 S1 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant CAREX DURIUSCULA NEEDLELEAF 

SEDGE G5 SH OR-STR S S

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX 

GYNOCRATES

YELLOW BOG 

SEDGE G5 S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX IDAHOA IDAHO SEDGE

G2G3 S1 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX LASIOCARPA 

VAR. AMERICANA

SLENDER SEDGE

G5 T5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX MEDIA INTERMEDIATE 

SEDGE G5? S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX MICROPODA PYRENAEAN 

SEDGE G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX NARDINA SPIKENARD SEDGE

G4G5 S2? OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX PELOCARPA NEW SEDGE

G4G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX RETRORSA RETRORSE SEDGE

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX SAXATILIS RUSSET SEDGE

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX 

SUBNIGRICANS

DARK ALPINE 

SEDGE G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CAREX VERNACULA NATIVE SEDGE

G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CASTILLEJA FLAVA 

VAR. RUSTICA

RURAL 

PAINTBRUSH G4G5 T3T4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CASTILLEJA 

FRATERNA

FRATERNAL 

PAINTBRUSH G2 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CASTILLEJA RUBIDA PURPLE ALPINE 

PAINTBRUSH G2 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CHEILANTHES FEEI FEE'S LIP-FERN

G5 S2 SEN D N
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 363 

Vascular 

Plant

CRYPTOGRAMMA 

STELLERI

STELLER'S 

ROCKBRAKE G5 S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CYPERUS 

LUPULINUS SSP. 

LUPULINUS

A CYPERUS

G5 T5? S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

CYPRIPEDIUM 

FASCICULATUM 

CLUSTERED 

LADY'S-SLIPPER G4 S2 SC OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

DELPHINIUM 

BICOLOR

FLATHEAD 

LARKSPUR G4G5 S1 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

ELATINE 

BRACHYSPERMA

SHORT SEEDED 

WATERWORT G5 S1 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

ELEOCHARIS 

BOLANDERI

BOLANDER'S 

SPIKERUSH G4 S2 OR-SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

ERIGERON 

DISPARIPILUS

WHITE CUSHION 

ERIGERON G5 S2 OR-SEN D D

Vascular 

Plant

ERIGERON 

ENGELMANNII VAR. 

DAVISII

ENGELMANN'S 

DAISY

G5 T3 S1 OR-SEN D D

Vascular 

Plant

GENTIANA 

PROSTRATA

MOSS GENTIAN

G4G5 S2 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

GENTIANELLA 

TENELLA SSP. 

TENELLA

SLENDER GENTIAN

G4G5 T4 S1 SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

GEUM ROSSII VAR. 

TURBINATUM

SLENDERSTEMMED AVENS G5 T4 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

HELIOTROPIUM 

CURASSAVICUM

SALT HELIOTROPE

G5 S2 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant ISOETES MINIMA MIDGET QUILLWORT G1G2 S1? OR-STR D S

Vascular 

Plant

JUNCUS TRIGLUMIS 

VAR. ALBESCENS

THREE-FLOWERED 

RUSH G5 T5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

KOBRESIA 

MYOSUROIDES

BELLARD'S 

KOBRESIA G5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

KOBRESIA 

SIMPLICIUSCULA

SIMPLE KOBRESIA

G5 S1 OR-SEN D N
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

364 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Vascular 

Plant

LIPOCARPHA 

ARISTULATA

ARISTULATE 

LIPOCARPHA G5? S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

LISTERA BOREALIS NORTHERN 

TWAYBLADE G4 S1 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

LOMATIUM 

ERYTHROCARPUM

RED-FRUITED 

LOMATIUM G1 S1 SE OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

LOMATIUM 

GREENMANII

GREENMAN'S 

DESERT PARSLEY G1 S1 ST OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

LYCOPODIUM 

COMPLANATUM

GROUND CEDAR

G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

MIMULUS 

HYMENOPHYLLUS

MEMBRANELEAVED 

MONKEYFLOWER G1 S1 SC OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

MIRABILIS 

MACFARLANEI

MACFARLANE'S 

FOUR O'CLOCK FT G2 S1 SE FT D N

Vascular 

Plant

MUHLENBERGIA 

MINUTISSIMA

ANNUAL 

DROPSEED G5 S2 OR-SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

OPHIOGLOSSUM 

PUSILLUM

ADDER'S-TONGUE

G5 S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

PELLAEA BRIDGESII BRIDGES' CLIFFBRAKE G4 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

PHACELIA 

MINUTISSIMA

DWARF PHACELIA

G3 S1 SC SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

PHLOX MULTIFLORA MANY-FLOWERED 

PHLOX G4 S1 OR-SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

PINUS ALBICAULIS WHITEBARK PINE

FC G3G4 S4 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

PLATANTHERA 

OBTUSATA

SMALL NORTHERN 

BOG-ORCHID G5 S1 SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

PLEUROPOGON 

OREGONUS

OREGON 

SEMAPHOREGRASS G1 S1 ST OR-SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

POTAMOGETON 

DIVERSIFOLIUS

RAFINESQUE'S 

PONDWEED G5 S1 OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

PYRROCOMA 

SCABERULA

ROUGH 

PYRROCOMA G3 S2 OR-SEN D D
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 365 

Vascular

Plant

RORIPPA 

COLUMBIAE

COLUMBIA CRESS

G3 S3 SC SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

ROTALA RAMOSIOR LOWLAND 

TOOTHCUP G5 S2 SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

RUBUS 

BARTONIANUS

BARTONBERRY

G2 S2 SC OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

SALIX FARRIAE FARR'S WILLOW

G4 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

SALIX WOLFII WOLF'S WILLOW

G5? S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

SAXIFRAGA 

ADSCENDENS SSP. 

OREGONENSIS

WEDGE-LEAF 

SAXIFRAGE

G5 T4T5 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

SILENE SPALDINGII SPALDING'S 

CATCHFLY FT G2 S1 SE FT D S

Vascular 

Plant

SUKSDORFIA 

VIOLACEA

VIOLET 

SUKSDORFIA G4 S1 OR-SEN S S

Vascular 

Plant

THALICTRUM 

ALPINUM

ALPINE 

MEADOWRUE G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

THELYPODIUM 

EUCOSMUM

ARROW-LEAF 

THELYPODY G2 S2 ST OR-SEN S N

Vascular 

Plant

TOWNSENDIA 

MONTANA

MOUNTAIN 

TOWNSENDIA G4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

TOWNSENDIA 

PARRYI

PARRY'S 

TOWNSENDIA G4? S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

TRIFOLIUM 

DOUGLASII

DOUGLAS' CLOVER

G2 S1 SEN D S

Vascular 

Plant

TROLLIUS LAXUS 

SSP. ALBIFLORUS

AMERICAN 

GLOBEFLOWER G4 T4 S1 OR-SEN D N

Vascular 

Plant

UTRICULARIA 

MINOR

LESSER 

BLADDERWORT G5 S2 OR-SEN S N

Bivalva: 

Clams, 

Oysters & 

Mussels

GONIDEA 

ANGULATA

WESTERN RIDGED 

MUSSEL

G3 S2S3 SEN S S
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

366 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

CRYPTOMASTIX 

POPULI

HELLS CANYON 

LAND SNAIL

G2 S1 SEN S N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

FISHEROLA 

NUTTALLI 

SHORTFACE LANX

G2 S1S2 OR-SEN D N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

FLUMINICOLA 

FUSCUS 

COLUMBIA 

PEBBLESNAIL

G2 S1 OR-SEN D N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

RADIODISCUS 

ABIETUM

FIR PINWHEEL

G4 S1 SEN D N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

TAYLORCONCHA 

SERPENTICOLA

BLISS RAPID SNAIL

FT G1 FT D N

Order 

Hymenoptera: 

Ants, Bees & 

Wasps

BOMBUS 

OCCIDENTALIS

WESTERN 

BUMBLEBEE

GU S1S2 OR-SEN D S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

BOLORIA SELENE SILVER-BORDERED 

FRITILLARY

G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

CALLOPHRYS 

JOHNSONI

JOHNSON'S 

HAIRSTREAK 

G3G4 S2 SEN S S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

COLIAS CHRISTINA 

PSEUDOCHRISTINA 

INTERMOUNTAIN 

SULPHUR

G3G4 T2T4 S2 OR-SEN D S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

OCHLODES YUMA YUMA SKIPPER 

G5 S1? OR-SEN D N
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 367 

Key to codes: 

Rank and Status Information: 

Global (G), National (N) and Subnational (State/Province) (S) Ranks: 

1 = Critically imperiled 

2 = Imperiled 

3 = Rare and uncommon; vulnerable. 

4 = Not rare and apparently secure 

5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure 

U = Unrankable 

H = Possible extinct; Historical occurrence, formerly part of the native biota with the implied expectation that it may be rediscovered 

X = Presumed extinct 

NR = Not yet ranked 

Rank Qualifiers: 

? = Inexact numeric rank 

Q = Questionable taxonomy 

C = Captive or Cultivated only 

Breeding Status Qualifiers: 

B = Breeding, conservation status refers to breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province 

N = Non-breeding, conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province. 

M = Migrant, migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention 

Subspecies Rank (T = trinomial): 

T# = Status of a infraspecific taxon (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a T-rank following the species' global rank. 

Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same definitions for Global, National and Subnational/State ranks. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) List Rank: 

1 = contains taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range 

2 = contains taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon; 

these are often peripheral or disjunct species which are of concern when considering species diversity within Oregon's borders. 

3 = contains taxa fro which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range 

4 = contains taxa which are of conservation concern but are not currently threatened or endangered 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

368 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Appendix F - U.S. Forest Service Habitat descriptions for Region 

6 Sensitive Plants documented or suspected to occur in the 

LJCRP 

Habitat 

Group

Species Common 

name

Habitat

Coniferous 

forest

Buxbaumia 

aphylla

bug on a 

stick moss

A pioneer on dry, mineral-poor soil and well-decayed wood, 

in exposed to shaded sites in forests, cutbanks of trails and 

roads, and recovering burns. In Oregon and Washington, 

elevation mostly 4000-6000 feet. Forest associations 

include Pinus contorta, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga 

heterophylla. No canopy to closed canopy, and forest age 

class does not seem to be important.

Carex 

cordillerana

Cordilleran 

sedge

Naturally disturbed rocky slopes with organic layer and leaf 

litter in mesic mixed forests, or disturbed, open grassy 

slopes. Moist, shady woods; warm-moist plant associations.

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum

clustered 

lady’s 

slipper

Mixed conifer stands, mesic forests, around springs. Forest, 

grand fir to Ponderosa pine, and warm riparian forests.

Listera 

borealis

Northern 

twayblade

Moist, humus or mossy mixed conifer or (cool-moist) 

hardwood forests, swamps, often along cold streams

Ptilidium 

pulcherrimum

naugehyde 

liverwort

On trunks and branches of living trees and shrubs; or more 

rarely on decaying wood, among boulders in talus slopes, 

ledges of cliffs, and very rarely on soil, but generally in cool 

moist habitats between 3800 and 8000 feet on the W-W NF 

so would include Pseudotsuga menziesii , Abies grandis , 

Abies lasiocarpa , and Picea engelmannii associations

Rhizogogon 

subclavitisporus

truffle In duff under mixed conifers, mycorrhizal

Rhizopogon 

bacillisporus

truffle Mycorrhizal on conifers, coniferous forest

Schistostega 

pennata

goblin’s 

gold 

(moss)

In soil on root wads of fallen trees; on damp, acidic rock, soil 

and decaying wood, in dark places, such as openings of 

caves and mine shafts, crevices, overhangs. Often pioneer 

on disturbed soil. In ID, on root-wads sometimes in sunny 

areas.

Tetraphis 

geniculata

bent stem 

moss

On the cut ends and sides of well decayed logs and stumps, 

occasionally on peaty banks; moist conif. forests. Rarely on 

rocks. In mature to late seral forests with closed caUpies. 

Found from sea level to subalpine elevations.

Grassland

Calochortus 

macrocarpus 

v. maculosus

green-band 

mariposa 

lily

(Nez Perce 

mariposa 

lily)

Dry plains, rocky slopes, sagebrush scrub, pine forests, 

usually in volcanic soil; 300-2700 m (18). Dry grasslands, 

ridge tops. In rocky, basaltic derived soils, on hillsides, rock 

outcrops and cliff bands. In grasslands on steep slopes.

Pyrrocoma 

scaberula

rough 

pyrrocoma

Mesic canyon grasslands (ID fescue) with deep soil and 

transition zones between grasslands & P-pine communities

Carex 

duriuscula

needleleaf 

sedge

Dry prairie, sagebrush steppe, open forest

Delphinium 

bicolor

flathead 

larkspur

Dry meadow edges, sage scrub, open woodlands and 

edges. Seepy areas in dry forest.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 369 

Silene 

spaldingii

Spalding’s 

catchfly

Deep-soiled grasslands, often w/Idaho fescue, sometimes 

on fringes of Ponderosa Pine forest. Soils are loess over 

basalt and sometimes gravely.

Moist 

meadow

Allium geyeri 

v. geyeri

Geyer’s 

onion

Moist, open slopes, meadows, or stream banks or summerdry grasslands at low to mid elevation

Botrychium 

crenulatum

crenulate 

moonwort

Moist woodlands, meadows, & grassy roadsides.

Botrychium 

hesperium

western 

moonwort

Mid to high elevation open-canopied forests, also in gravelly 

soils, or open meadows.

Botrychium 

lunaria

moonwort Open (to lightly wooded) meadows as well as scree slopes, 

mesic woodlands on moist but well-drained soils with a 

neutral pH

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

stalked 

moonwort

Mountain meadows, roadside meadows, brushy secondary 

woodlands, and open to closed canopy forests.

Phacelia 

minutissima 

dwarf 

phacelia

Moist meadow and seep edges, or on vernally wet open 

meadows and barren slopes. Reported to occur with aspen 

in other areas. Gravely, clay-loam, well-drained soils.

Trifolium 

douglasii

Douglas’ 

clover

Moist or mesic meadows, prairie remnants, along riparian 

areas along streams. In swales, along intermittent streams, 

and in vernally wet areas. Alluvial soils, ash/clay, fine silt to 

sandy.

Muhlenbergia 

minutissima 

annual 

dropseed

Sandy riverbanks, moist meadows, or open and rocky and 

apparently dry slopes (9). Open, more or less distrubed, 

sandy slopes and seeps, 400-2300 m..
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

370 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Habitat 

Group

Species Common 

name

Habitat

Rock 

outcrops, 

talus, scree

Arabis 

hastatula

Hell’s 

Canyon 

rockcress

Basalt outcrops/cliffs; moderate to high 

elevations, within cold forest

Anomobryum 

filiforme

moss Damp outcrops in or near temperate forests, 

earth cliff crevices, cliff crevices, on tussock 

tundra with seeps and late snow melt areas, 

and on granitic outcrops

Encalypta 

brevipes

candlesnuffer 

moss

Soil on ledges and in crevices on cliffs, 

reported from both igneous and siliceous 

substrates - various elevations

Mimulus 

hymenophyllu

s

membraneleaved 

monkey 

flower

Steep moist soil and seeps and seeping 

cracks in basalt and limestone in low 

elevation canyons

Suksdorfia 

violacea

violet mock 

brookfoam

In moss on wet cliffs, cracks of moist talus 

slopes, on basalt. Habitat sometimes is only 

wet in the spring.

Tortula 

mucronifera

moss On soil, tree roots, and sheltered ledges and 

crevices of rock outcrops and cliffs. 

Elevation of known sites ranges from 5000-

7000 feet. Known vegetation types are rock 

outcrops in Abies forest in SW Oregon, and 

riparian forest on Steens Mountain 

composed of Betula occidentalis, Populus 

tremuloides, and Populus trichocarpa. 

Reportedly a calciphile but in Oregon and 

Washington on acid rocks as well.

Phlox 

multiflora

manyflowered 

phlox

Basalt cliffs, rocky outcrops, rocky openings 

in dry forest. Wooded rocky areas, as well 

as in openings in the forest. Loose substrate 

rather than exposed hard rocks. Residual 

soils, gravels, cobbles.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 371 

Habitat 

Group

Species Common 

name

Habitat

Lithosols

Achnatherum 

wallowaensis

Wallowa 

ricegrass

Often with rigid sagebrush in dry grasslands & 

scablands (lithosolic substrates) at mid 

elevations

Erigeron 

disparipilus

Snake River 

daisy

In dry grasslands and shallow soiled plateaus 

and ridges / ridge shoulders and rocky slopes 

at mid elevations

Erigeron 

englemannii 

v. davisii

Davis 

fleabane

In dry grasslands and shallow soiled plateaus 

and ridges / ridge shoulders and rocky slopes 

at mid elevations

Thelenella 

muscorum v. 

octospora

lichen A component of biological soil crusts in semiarid shrub-steppe and grassland below 

elevations of 4,000 feet. Vegetation types are 

Juniperus occidentalis, Artemisia rigida, and 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

associations with Festuca idahoensis, Poa 

secunda, and Pseudoroegneria spicata. But 

also On soil, rock, and dead or dying mosses 

and lichens in dry woodland, prairie, shrubsteppe, and subalpine forest, up to 11,000 

feet elevation

Springs and 

seeps

Eleocharis 

bolanderi

Bolander’s 

spikerush

Mid elevation summer-dry meadows, springs, 

seeps, ephemeral stream margins

Entosthodon 

fascicularis

moss On seasonally wet, exposed soil in seeps or 

along intermittent streams. It is usually 

hidden among grasses, other mosses, and 

litter, and periodically on humid or damp earth 

of terraces of exposed rock outcrops &; may 

be found on recently disturbed soil & 

occasionally present on thin soil overlying 

limestone; found below 3,000 feet.

Isoetes 

minima

midget 

quillwort

Damp, bare places on prairies, on damp 

ground. Locally common in saturated soil
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

372 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Habitat 

Group

Species Common 

name

Habitat

Wet 

meadow/

riparian

Botrychium 

montanum

Mountain 

grape-fern

Dark, coniferous forests, usually near swamps 

and streams; 1000-2000 m (18). Wet 

meadows, saturated soils. Often growing in a 

bed of mosses. This species tends to grow in 

wetter sites than the other Botrychiums.

Pleuropogon 

oregonus

Oregon 

semaphoreg

rass

Elev. 900-1600 m (22). Open, wet meadows, 

marshes, and riparian areas. Grows in areas 

of standing or flowing water early in season. 

Documented sites are not near forested 

habitats. Sluggish water in depressions and 

sloughs. Irrigation ditches in S. OR.

Rorippa 

columbiae

Columbia 

cress

Stream banks, ditches, margins of lakes and 

ponds, meadows, roadsides, gravel bars, wet 

fields. Low to moderate elevations.

Rotala 

ramosior

Lowland 

toothcup

Damp, bare places on prairies, on damp 

ground. Locally common in saturated soil

Sphlachnum 

ampullaceum

moss Forming green sods on old dung of 

herbivores, or on soil enriched by dung 

(completely humified), in bogs, peatlands or 

other wetlands - from 500 to 5000 feet 

elevation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 373 

Appendix G - Consultation and coordination log, Nez Perce Tribes (NPT) and the Forest Service

Key to acronyms: TRL = Tribal Relations Liaison; NPT = Nez Perce Tribe; NPTEC = Nez Perce Tribes Executive Counsel; THPO = Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer 

Date Contact/Consult

ation Type 

Topic Parties Involved Outcome/Actions

08-28-13 Field Tour

Information 

sharing

LJCRP existing condition and restoration 

treatment needs

W-W collaborative, FS, 

NRAC, NP staff, public

TRL met NPT Acting Fisheries 

Program Director. Received 

information on who to work with to 

begin LJCRP staff to staff coordination

09-30-13 Phone call Request to coordinate briefing regarding 3 

Blue Mountains Landscape Restoration 

projects i.e. LJCRP, Strategic Fuels 

Reduction and Dry Forest Restoration 

Projects

TRL and NPT Acting 

Fisheries Program 

Director 

Received names and contact 

information for NPT Legal Counsel 

and NPT Natural Resource Director

11-05-13 Formal Letter From 4 Blue Mountains Forest Supervisors 

i.e. Wallowa-Whitman, Ochoco, Umatilla 

and Malheur National Forests requesting 

coordination to initiate Govt-Govt 

consultation regarding 3 Blue Mountains 

projects

Forest Supervisors, 

TRL, NPTEC, NPT 

Directors and Staff

Received

11-06-13 Email/phone 

calls

Schedule briefing for 3 Blue Mountains 

Landscape Restoration projects i.e. LJCRP, 

Strategic Fuels Reduction and Dry Forest 

Restoration Projects 

TRL, NPT Legal 

Counsel and NPT 

Natural Resource 

Director

Check calendars and NPTEC Sub 

Committee agenda and get back later. 

11-19-13 NPTEC Natural 

Resource SubCommittee 

Meeting

Team Leader and TRL briefing for Blue 

Mountain projects i.e. LJCRP, Strategic 

Fuels Reduction and Dry Forest Restoration 

Projects 

NR Committee, NR 

Director and staff

Agreement to review and initiate GovtGovt consultation in near future

01-08-14 Staff to Staff 

meeting

Wallowa-Whitman NF SOPA review 

including LJCRP

District Ranger ,staff, 

LJCRP IDT members 

and NPT staff

LJCRP briefing, issues and concerns 

shared, introductions and discussion of 

how NPT staff and IDT will work 

together 

01-22-14 WallowaWhitman 

Collaborative 

Review and discuss status of LJCRP 

environmental analysis

Members of public and 

collaborative. Nez 

Perce staff joined via 

Tribal staff concerned about apparent 

lack of understanding of trust 

responsibilities 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

374 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Meeting. La 

Grande RD

con call

02-12-14 Conference call NPT THPO cultural resource interest in 

conducting archaeological survey for 

LJCRP

Forest Archaeologist, 

District Archaeologist, 

TRL and NPT THPO

TRL look into contract authorities 

02-21-14 Conference call LJCRP planning update; discuss historic 

range of variability and alternative 

development 

IDT Lead, TRL, NPT 

staff i.e. THPO, 

Botanist, Biologist and 

Planner

Information sharing 

03-03-14 IDT meeting 

Conference call

LJCRP analysis update i.e. proposed 

indicators and measures and themes for 

alternatives

Wallowa County

NRAC, IDT, WallowaWhitman Forest 

Collaborative lead, 

NPT planner 

Info requests for maps showing land 

allocations, RCHAs relative to units, 

wildlife corridors, heritage, wildlife, 

botany surveys. 

03-04-14 Conference call NPT THPO interest in sole source 

contracting for cultural resources 

inventories 

FS Contract Officer, 

TRL and NPT THPO

No agreement

03-04-14 Conference call Follow up with tribal staff per 01-013-14 

meeting. Roads, IRAs, Old growth issues, 

RCHAs

IDT members and NPT 

THPO, planning and 

biology staff

Agreed to meet face to face to move 

forward with coordination 

03-13-14 Video Teleconference and 

face to face 

meeting in 

Clarkston 

Look at alternatives and explore options. 

Discuss how work together

IDT members and NPT 

THPO, planning, 

botany and wildlife 

staff

NPT staff want IDT to address tribal 

interests and sensitivities 

03-14-14 Follow up on 

NPT staff 3/13 

request for 

copies of LJCRP 

public 

comments 

 LJCRP public comments NPT planning staff FedEx 2 copies to NPT staff

03-17-14 IDT Conference 

call 

Updates on data collection, models, HRV, 

effects

NPT botanist Continue consultation/IDT 

participation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 375 

03-27-14 IDT meeting 

conference call

Finalize alternatives Wallowa County

NRAC, IDT, WallowWhitman Forest 

Collaborative lead, 

NPT planner, biologist 

and botanist

Alternatives developed to compare 

outcomes of varying levels of 

treatments per resource concerns

04-15-14 Email Government-Government consultation 

scheduling 

Deputy Forest 

Supervisor and NPT 

legal counsel

Pending schedules

04-29-14 Conference call June 24 staff to staff LoJo field trip. NPT 

staff concerned why no recent engagement 

IDT members and NPT 

planning, wildlife and 

botany staff 

Identified field trip locations and next 

face to face meeting for May 12 in 

Joseph 

05-12-14 Staff to staff 

meeting at 

Tribal Fisheries 

office in Joseph

Field trip planning, status of analysis, 

Alternatives themes and comparison 

discussion

IDT members and NPT 

planning, fisheries and 

botany staff

Ongoing

05-27-14 Phone 

conversation 

Heritage Resource Inventory/NHPA 

Compliance

TRL and Guy Moura, 

Confederated Tribes of 

Colville THPO

TRLto share inventory results with 

THPO when complete

06-16-14 Field Trip Reviewed and discussed cultural and other 

traditional resources in the LJCRP

THPO, NPT 

ethnographer, TRL, 

Zone Archaeologist 

Ongoing coordination

06-24-14 Field Trip Reviewed proposed actions in the LJCRP IDT and tribal staff Agreement to continue coordination

07-08-14 Meeting Government to Government consultation to 

discuss LJCRP tribal issues and concerns 

Forest Supervisor, IDT 

lead, TRL and NPTEC

Continue staff to staff coordination. 

Address interests in EIS 

09-24-14 Field Trip Review types of treatments proposed in 

RCHA’s 

Tribal staff and IDT Ongoing coordination

10-24-14 Field Trip Review types of treatments in Inventoried 

Roadless areas and MA15

Tribal staff and IDT Ongoing coordination
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

376 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Appendix H. Non-native invasive plants documented in LJCRP area. 

Scientific Name Common Name ODA

1

Wallowa 

County2

utilization

response

3

fire 

adaptations4

Wetland 

Status5

Habitat Type High 

Priority?

6

Acres

7

Aegilops cylindrica jointed goat grass B A IU invader UPL Open areas No 0.01

Arctium minus common burdock B IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass IU invader FACU Rangeland No S

Cardaria draba white top B IU invader, sprouter UPL Open Areas Yes 0.01

Centaurea cyanus bachelor button W IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed B B IU sprouter UPL Open Areas No 173

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed B A IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No 126

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle B A IU invader FACU Rangeland No 66

Chondrilla juncea rush 

skeletonweed

B A IP invader, sprouter UPL Rangeland

Yes

0.4

Cichorium intybus chicory B IP invader FACU Open Areas No S

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B B IU invader, sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings No

54

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle B B IU invader FACU Open Areas No 284

Conium maculatum hemlock B A IU avoider FACW Mesic 

Openings No

S

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed B B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Crupina vulgaris common crupina A IU invader UPL Rangeland No S

Cynoglossum officinale hounds tongue B B IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Dipsacus fullonum teasel B IU sprouter FAC Open Areas No S

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed A A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings Yes

10

Hieracium pratense meadow 

knapweed

A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings Yes

2385

Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort B B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Kochia scoparia kochia B B IP* toxic invader FAC Open Areas No S

Linaria dalmatica Dalmation toadflax B B IP sprouter UPL Rangeland No S
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 377 

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle B A IU invader FAC Mesic 

Openings No

440

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass B IP avoider OBL Mesic 

Openings No

S

Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil B A IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No 7

Ranunculus acris tall buttercup B IU sprouter FACW Mesic 

Openings No

S

Scientific Name Common Name ODA

1

Wallowa 

County2

utilization

response

3

fire 

adaptations4

Wetland 

Status5

Habitat Type High 

Priority?

6

Acres

7

Ranunculus testiculatus bur buttercup B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Rosa eglanteria sweet briar rose B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Rubus discolor blackberry B B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort B A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings No

5.5

Silene alba white campion B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead rye B A IU invader UPL Rangeland No 0.5

Ventenata dubia ventenata B IU invader UPL Rangeland No S

Verbascum thapsus mullein B IU seeder FACU Open Areas No S

1/ Oregon Department of Agriculture codes: A = a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or 

containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent; B = a weed of economic 

importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties

2/ Wallowa County Codes: “A” Designated Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the county in small enough infestations to make eradication 

or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring counties make future occurrence in Wallowa County seem imminent. 

“B” Designated Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some areas. “W” Watch List - Weeds 

that are known or are likely to occur in Wallowa County that have economic or ecological importance but, for whatever reason have not been given the emphasis of rating 

as an A or B Noxious Weed are listed in the Watch List. (Wallowa County Weed Board 2010). 

3/ The Blue Mountain Ecology program, NRCS Plants, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) databases were queried for information on utilization response, 

fire adaptations, and wetland status. Utilization response (response to grazing): IU = increases with utilization and is unpalatable, IP increases and is palatable. 

4/ Fire adaptations: invader = comes in after fire and thrives in post fire conditions, sprouter = survives and resprouts after fire, seeder = regenerates from copious seed 

after fire, avoider = occupies habitats rarely visited by fire. 

5/ Wetland Status: UPL = upland, FACU = faculatative upland, FACW = facultative wetland, OBL = obligate wetland 

6/ This column refers to whether the species is considered a high priority for eradication by the Wallowa Mountains District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

7/ Species without acres listed have been observed in the project area but not documented in the NRM database.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

378 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Appendix I - Analysis process used to identify potential wilderness areas, and other 

undeveloped lands
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

379 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Appendix J - Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures 

and Best Management Practices 

Project Design Features 

Wildlife

Wildlife– 1

To maintain wildlife connectivity corridors in the Dry Forest treatment units 

maintain >=40 canopy closure. In the Moist Forest connectivity treatment 

units maintain >=50% canopy closure.

Wildlife – 2

Develop burning prescriptions that retain and recruit logs within the standards 

set in the 

Eastside Screens. These standards are as follows:

Table 5. Burning prescriptions following Eastside Screen Standards for retention and 

log recruitment

Species Pieces per 

Acre

Diameter at 

Small End 

(inches)

Piece Length

(feet)

Total Lineal 

Length (feet)

Ponderosa pine 3-6 12 >6 20 to 40

Mixed conifer 15-20 8 >8 120 to 160

Wildlife – 3

To protect any known goshawk nest sites or any discovered during unit 

marking, delineate a 30 acre nest area that includes goshawk foraging habitat. 

No tree cutting will occur in the 30 acre nest area. Maintain understory shrubs 

and forbs, and retain down woody material (Reynolds et al. 1992 and 

Reynolds et al. 2008). 

Seasonal restrictions of harvest activities are required within 1⁄2 mile of 

goshawk nest sites during the nesting season from March 1 through August 30. 

This restriction should be extended to not later than September 30 if 

monitoring indicates that fledglings are still present in the nest stand after 

August 30

Wildlife – 4

Goshawk PFA - Under burning and prescribed fire-only treatments within the 

goshawk PFA will be implemented outside the nesting period (after July 31).

Wildlife – 5

A 400-acre “Post Fledging Area” (PFA) will be established around every 

known active nest site. While harvest activities can occur within this area, 

retain the LOS stands and enhance younger stands towards LOS condition, 

as possible. 

Wildlife –6

To protect any raptor nests discovered during unit marking, implementation of 

disturbing activities will only occur after the young have fledged and are 

mobile at the end of August. This restriction should be extended to not later 

than September 30 if monitoring indicates that fledglings are still present in the 

nest stand after August 30. 
Resource Name 

380

Wildlife –7

To maintain foraging and perching habitat for cavity excavators, retain all 

snags 9 inches in diameter or greater unless specific snags must be removed to 

provide for operator safety during tree removal activities..

Wildlife –8

To provide for old-growth associated species, protect all snags greater than 20 

inches prior to under-burning by removing fuels from the base of these snags 

prior to ignition. Where feasible, ignite fire a few feet from the snags to create 

“black” immediately around them as designated by a qualified fuels specialist.

Wildlife –9

To prevent spread of diseases to amphibians including Rock Mountain tailed 

frog, gear, hoses and dipping buckets used to transport or move water from 

streams, rivers, or ponds needs to be disinfected by drying in the sun (must be 

completely dry inside and out) or washing with a chemical disinfectant before 

changing to a different water source.

Wildlife –10

Pileated Woodpecker, White-headed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl Nest 

sites – Ensure that any known/ discovered nest tree is protected from harvest 

and during implementation of prescribed fire-only treatments . Also, conduct 

prescribed fire treatments within these stands outside the nesting season (after 

July 31), unless the nest tree is known to be unoccupied. 

Wildlife –11

Raptors -Any raptor sightings or active raptor nests observed during 

reconnaissance, layout, marking, or project activities will be reported to the 

Unit Wildlife Biologist for further assessment and potential mitigation 

associated with project activities

Wildlife –12 Big Game Winter Range -Logging operations in Big Game Winter Range will 

be conducted outside the period between December 15 through April 30. 

Wildlife –13

Landbirds and Neotropical Migratory Birds - To reduce the potential for loss 

of snags during prescribed burning, employ passive lighting techniques near 

snags larger than 12 inches. Techniques include lighting at a slope position 

above snags, and avoid lighting directly adjacent to or at slope positions 

directly below snags. For larger snags (> 20 inches DBH) at higher risk due to 

heavy fuels accumulations at the base, pullback of fuels may be necessary 

prior to prescribed burning.

Wildlife –14

Landbirds and Neotropical Migratory Birds -To reduce the potential for 

impacts to nesting landbirds, prescribed burning activities projected to occur 

on or after May 20, and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out, will be 

reviewed by a district or forest wildlife biologist. The biologist will then 

provide recommendations concerning prescribed burning after May 20 and/or 

past the onset of vegetation leaf-out

Wildlife –15 Cavity-nester/Denning Habitat -All cull grand fir will be retained within 

treatment units.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

TESP – 1

No road construction activities, parking, or piling on lithosols, grasslands, 

meadows.

TESP – 2

Seed disturbed areas according to USFS policy, and with approval of local 

botanist

TESP – 3

Avoid disturbing natural seeps and springs, wet meadows, moist meadows, this 

includes removing shrubs and trees.

TESP – 4

Leave tree islands in coniferous forest for conservation of native mycorrhizal 

fungi, yew, wet areas when these features are found or suspected in units.

Mycorrhizae should always be suspected in coniferous forest units.

TESP – 5 Maintain woody debris of all size classes to provide habitat for nonvascular 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

381 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

plants and fungi

TESP – 6

Avoid yarding over rock outcrops and talus slopes. Leave trees and shrubs 

adjacent to rock outcrops, talus as a microclimate buffer.

TESP – 7

Although some TES and Invasive plant surveys were conducted, searches were 

not specific to units on the ground, and clearance needs to be done prior to 

project activities

TESP – 8

Known TES and INV plant populations will be flagged prior to road grading and 

other road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, and 

logging, with work overseen by District Botanist. 

TESP – 9

Equipment operators will receive maps with known TES plant sites and 

instructions to avoid flagged areas.

Range

Range – 1

The range manager, botanist, invasive plant program manager, and hydrologist 

will assess units to determine whether the treated areas will require rest from 

grazing after implementation.

Range – 2

The range manager will work with the timber sale officer with respect to the 

timing and location of logging operations. Timber harvest within the project area 

is not anticipated to impact ongoing grazing operations. All gates must be closed 

while livestock are within the allotment adjacent to the harvest units.

Range – 3

The range manager will work with fire management to determine timing and 

location of prescribed fire. Burn blocks should be planned in a manner that does 

not interrupt planned livestock management on the allotments. All burns will be 

coordinated with the District Range Management Specialist.

Range – 4

There are numerous range improvements within the project area in addition to 

private land boundary fences in many locations. All improvements should be 

protected during timber harvest activities. If it is necessary to cut range fences, 

the purchaser must be required to immediately repair them to Forest Service 

standard. These standards are available and should be made a part of the timber 

sale contract.

Range – 5 No trees used as anchor trees along a fence line shall be marked for harvest.

Range – 6

If it is necessary to cut a fence to enter a harvest unit where livestock are present, 

the purchaser must be required to close and secure the fence each day at the end 

of work activities.

Range – 7

If any fences are damaged during burning operations, repairs must be made 

immediately to prevent livestock from entering areas outside of established 

allotments.

Range – 8

The botanist, invasive species specialist and range manager will work together to 

determine whether burning activities will require resting portions of the pasture 

treated.

Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds

INVP – 1

Treat noxious weeds with approved methods as found, prior to logging 

activities

INVP – 2

Clearance for invasive plant populations will be done prior to project activities. 

Known invasive plant populations will be flagged prior to road grading and other 

road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, and logging, with 

work overseen by the invasive species specialists. Equipment operators will 
Resource Name 

382

Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds

receive maps with known sites and instructions to avoid flagged areas.

INVP – 3

Do not use prescribed fire in areas with greater than 5 % cover of invasive annual 

grasses. Avoid putting fire through any sized patch of invasive annual grass.

INVP – 4

Do not disturb Meadow Hawkweed in Swamp Creek through ground disturbance 

that will create bare soil or move seeds or vegetative parts of meadow hawkweed 

plants to new locations. Machinery used in Swamp Creek Meadow must be 

washed prior to leaving site.

INVP – 5

Avoid blading through noxious weed populations (road improvement, ditch 

cleaning, landings)

INVP – 6

All landings, burn piles, and skid trails created as part of a yarding system, would 

be rehabilitated and seeded as per USFS policy with the input and approval of 

local botanist

INVP – 7

Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will 

operate outside the limits of the road prism (including public works and service 

contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, 

graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System 

Lands. 

INVP – 8

Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the 

Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or 

mulch is not available, individual Forests should require sources certified to be 

weed free using the North American Weed Free Forage Program standards. 

INVP – 9

Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material for 

invasive plants before use and transport. Treat or require treatment of infested 

sources before any use of pit material. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is 

judged to be weed free by District or Forest weed specialists.

INVP – 10

Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for restoration and 

rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is 

not likely to occur. Non-native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of 

the following situations: 1) when needed in emergency conditions to protect basic 

resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the 

establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure 

designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants, 3) if native plant materials 

are not available, or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no 

circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for revegetation.

Soils

Soils 

– 1

Designate and locate skid trails to minimize the area affected by logging operations; use 

pre-existing skid trails at the discretion of the sale administrator and to the extent 

feasible. Refer to the RHCA section of the LJCRP Implementation Plan for skid trail 

design parameters and mechanized equipment operation adjacent to RHCA.

Soils 

– 2

No mechanized equipment should operate within RHCA’s with slopes exceeding 35%. 

Under Alternative 2, mechanized equipment 

Soils 

– 3

Use of harvest equipment will not be permitted when soils reach field capacity for 

moisture, to limit the potential of long-term detrimental soil disturbance

Soils 

– 4

Placement of new temporary roads will be on deep soils, if it is operationally feasible. 

This will allow for adequate restoration of temporary roads and over time will leave less 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

383 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

measurable detrimental soil condition across the proposed activity units. Lithosol (scab 

flats) and meadows will not be used for landings and skid trails; unless no other location 

is practical. 

Soils 

– 5

Criteria for equipment trails in or around Class 4 stream RHCA. Limits are based on 

WEPP results.

Average Buffer Slope % Allowed Activity

First 100' from 

stream edge = 0-

20% slope

Yes Last 100' to 700' with slope 

< 35% Yes Skid trails between 100' and 700' from stream

Yes Last 100' to 700' with slope 

> 35% No No skid trails perpendicular to channel

First 75' from 

stream edge = 

21% to 40% 

slope

Yes Last 75' to 300' with slope 

< 35% Yes Skid trails between 75' and 300' from stream

Yes 75' to 300' with slope > 

35% No No skid trails

First 75' = 40% 

slope or more Yes No skid trails

Soils 

– 6 

The treatment of legacy and created compaction (new and existing temporary roads) 

within and adjacent to activity units should be evaluated for remediation in accordance 

with the parameters outlined in the subsoiling section of the LJCRP Implementation 

Plan. Treatments should be prioritized in units with higher proportion of Detrimental 

Soils Conditions. Detrimental Soils Conditions should not exceed 20% in any activity 

unit following management activities. 

Tribal Relations

Tribal – 1

Consult with The Nez Perce Tribe in compliance with Trust Responsibility 

NHPA, AIRFA, EO 13007, EO 13175, and other applicable Executive Orders 

and legislation, particularly if new information regarding sensitive traditional 

use sites, or other potential properties within the area of potential effect, are 

revealed or discovered

Tribal – 2

Once treatment areas are laid out and marked on the ground, detailed maps of 

the area will be shared with tribes through on-going consultation to determine if 

previously unknown sensitive tribal areas could be potentially impacted.

Tribal – 3

The Forest will share operations schedules and treatment locations with the 

Tribes prior to management activities in an effort to avoid timing conflicts with, 

or impacts to, traditional uses such as plant gathering, hunting and fishing, 

ceremonial uses or family gatherings . Eligible, or potentially eligible, heritage 

resource properties (or sites) will be managed to achieve a “no effect” or “no 

adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in consultation with the 
Resource Name 

384

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council for 

Historic Preservation [ACHP (36 CFR 800)].

Heritage Resources

Heritage– 1

Eligible, or potentially eligible, heritage resource properties (or sites) will be 

managed to achieve a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination 

whenever possible, in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council for Historic Preservation [ACHP (36 CFR 

800)].

Heritage – 2

No effect to Heritage resources will be addressed through site avoidance 

strategies and other site management measures agreed to by the 2004 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Region 6 Forest Service, Oregon 

SHPO and the ACHP.

Heritage – 3

Project leaders or sale administrators shall coordinate with the Zone 

Archaeologist during lay out and prior to mechanical treatments, such as timber 

harvest activities and all associated ground disturbance, to ensure all eligible, or 

potentially eligible sites, are avoided using a 100 foot radius, no-disturbance 

buffer.

Heritage – 4

In event that properties are located during treatment, the project will be 

redesigned to ensure that the properties will be avoided as determined by the 

Zone Archaeologist. Documentation of all located properties will be sent to 

SHPO. If avoidance procedures are not possible, or if any question exists as to 

the effectiveness of avoidance, the project shall cease immediately, and the 

Zone Archaeologist shall consult with the SHPO and ACHP pursuant to 36 

CFR Section 800.13(b) to consider the discovery.

Heritage – 5

If bones, artifacts, foundations, or other indications of past human occupation 

are uncovered during the course of project ground disturbance activities will 

cease, and the Zone Archaeologist will evaluate site conditions to access need 

for consultation with Oregon SHPO and Tribes

Heritage –6

Locate and design landings and roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to heritage resources

Heritage –7

Burn plans will be prepared in advance of ignition and approved by the 

appropriate line officer for each prescribed fire and would be subject to review 

by a hydrologist, fisheries biologist, botanist, archaeologist, wildlife biologist, 

range specialist, recreation/lands specialist and silviculturist.

Heritage –8

The Zone Archaeologist will work with prescribed fire fuels specialists to 

design and implement mitigation measures to protect historic and prehistoric 

sites that contain perishable or wooden materials, or that are near rock outcrops

containing rock art, shelters or other historic rock features

Heritage –9

Low intensity/short duration fires are permissible at lithic scatters, can dumps, 

stone features, earthen features, and sites with deeply buried deposits. No mop 

up activities allowed within site boundaries

Heritage –10

Fire control activities shall be restricted to the use of water within the 

boundaries of Heritage resource sites. If water is not a sufficient control 

mechanism, the burn block boundary shall be redesigned to avoid impacts to the 

site.

Heritage –11 All eligible and unevaluated heritage resources will be avoided when 

constructing erosion control features such as water bars and check dams
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

385 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Scenery

The following design criteria are developed to meet the intent of high to moderate scenic 

integrity objectives for the viewsheds. Vegetative treatments would meet the established VQO 

of Preservation, Retention or Partial Retention as viewed from use areas and travelways.

Scenery – 1

Locate new landings out of seen areas or leave vegetative screen from Concern 

level 1 roads (OR Highway 3; FS Roads 4602090, 4602120, 4602080). 

Scenery – 2

New temporary roads and landings may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the shape and pattern of the natural appearing forest canopy.

Scenery – 3

Foreground clearings (not to exceed 2 acres) should not be used frequently but 

can be used in specific circumstances to treat insect or disease infestations, or 

to open views to scenic attributes such as a rock formations, large ponderosa 

pine or components, or views to distant mountain peaks.

Scenery – 5

Skid patterns, slash, soil exposure and stumps should be visually minor or 

unnoticed.

Scenery – 6 Cut stumps at a height less than 4” in immediate foreground (300’). 

Scenery – 7

Slash pile locations would not be located within the immediate foreground, 

(300’) of Oregon Highway 3.

Scenery – 8

Limit naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 5 to 10 acres in size with 

blended edges. 

Scenery – 9

Develop marking guidelines to minimize the amount of paint seen from areas 

of scenic concern. Paint of backside (uphill) of leave trees or paint take trees 

along immediate foreground of Oregon Highway 3, FS Roads 46, 4602090, 

4602120, and 4602080.

Scenery – 10

Pruning tree limbs at variable heights (6’ to 20’) to expose large diameter trees 

along the Forest Road 3965 for shaded fuel break provide more variety in the 

foreground.

Vegetation Mangement

Silv – 1 Design common to all GS, STS, IT and SI Treatments

Retain and release old trees. 

o Retain old trees regardless of size or species. These trees are generally 

over 150 years old.

o Remove young trees within 1 to 2 drip-lines of old PP, WL and DF. 

Occasional individual large, vigorous trees may be left when they do 

not interfere with daylighting objective.

Shift tree composition towards fire and drought tolerant species.

o Favor ponderosa pine and western larch as leave trees in thinning 

operations.

Restore a mosaic spatial pattern.

o Skips – 1/10 to 1 acre no cut areas. Wet microsites, rocky outcrops, 

snags, thickets of seedlings/saplings, moist microsite (shade), 

deadwood/decadence (disturbance pocket), visual (break up viewing 

distance).

o Openings - .25 to 2 acres. Sinuous/amorphous shape 50-100 feet across 

at the widest point.
Resource Name 

386

o Leave tree individuals and clumps. Using observed reference condition 

as guidance for ratio of individuals to clumps and the number of trees 

per clump (2-20+). Follow ICO approach to quantifying and restoring 

forest spatial pattern.

Reduce stand densities and increase mean diameter. 

o Manage tree density for each density class as prescribed by treatment 

intensity designation using stocking chart as guidance. Overall average 

density would vary within this range depending on observed reference 

condition and existing old tree density. 

o Thin from below removing trees with poor crowns (<35% live crown 

ratio). 

o Retain young (individuals and clumps) replacement trees at a minimum 

density of 10 to 30 basal area per acre regardless of density class. 

Young tree leave trees would consist of vigorous (>35% live crown 

ratio) dominant and co-dominants with occasional (>45% live crown 

ratio) mid story and understory trees as individuals or as part of clump.

Initiate fire where and when feasible.

o Burn objectives within thinning units are to increase tree canopy base 

height, reduce litter/duff cover and produce effects that stimulate 

regeneration and growth of native herbaceous vegetation. 

o Prescribed burns are designed to maintain and enhance desired forest 

structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Discriminate against dwarf mistletoe infected trees, host species for Douglas-fir 

mistletoe and create conditions that minimizes potential for spread to uninfected 

trees.

o Retention of mistletoe infected trees:

 Old trees regardless of infection level.

 Young trees with the lowest mistletoe infection rating when 

needed to meet stocking objective

o Wherever trees infected with mistletoe are left, establish a non-host or 

unstocked buffer of at least 50' between infected trees and uninfected 

residuals.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

387 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Silv – 2 Other Miscellaneous Design

o Trees ≥21 inches DBH Alternative 2 – Grand fir, lodgepole pine and 

Douglas-fir trees greater than 21 inches DBH that do not meet the 

definition of old, may be removed in areas with a STS_High or GS 

treatment type when needed to 

 daylight seral species (ponderosa pine and western larch)

 create canopy gaps of appropriate orientation and size to facilitate 

natural regeneration of ponderosa pine and western larch 

 reduce grand fir, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir seed sources.

o Trees ≥21 inches DBH Alternative 3 – No trees greater than 21 inches 

DBH may be cut.

o Group selection treatments - No regeneration groups will be created 

within 100 feet of identified category 4 streams.

o Connectivity corridors – for dry forest PVG stands identified as part of a 

connectivity corridor, maintain an overall stand minimum canopy cover 

of 40%.

o Connectivity corridors – for moist forest PVG stands identified as part of 

a connectivity corridor, maintain an overall stand minimum canopy cover 

of 50%.

o Marten habitat – for stands identified as marten habitat (moist, large tree, 

closed canopy), maintain an overall stand minimum canopy cover of 

60%.

Silv – 3 Other Treatment Specific Design

Group Selection – Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present; 1⁄2 to 4 acre group 

selection to initiate new cohort of seral species (PP/WL)

o Uneven age thinning and group selection would be used to establish 

openings between individual trees and tree clumps, thin tree clumps, and 

create regeneration openings.

o Establish 1⁄2 to 4 acre regeneration groups within up to 20% of each GS 

PVG/Tree 

Density Class SDI BA Equivilant

Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD)

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Dry Low <83 Less Than 41 45 49 52 55 57 60 62 64

Dry Moderate 83-128 Between 41-64 45-70 49-75 52-80 55-84 57-88 60-92 62-96 64-99

Dry High >128 Greater Than 64 70 75 80 84 88 92 96 99

Moist Low <165 Less Than 82 90 97 103 109 114 119 123 128

Moist Moderate 165-248 Between 82-

123

90-135 97-146 103-155 109-

163

114-171 119-178 123-185 128-192

Moist High >248 Greater Than 123 135 146 155 163 171 178 185 192
Resource Name 

388

unit. Group size and shape is dependent on extent of grand fir/Douglas-fir 

cohort that is being replaced, extent of available ponderosa pine/western 

larch seed trees, and sunlight requirement of species that is being 

regenerated.

Single Tree Selection - Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present.

o Uneven age thinning would be used to establish openings between 

individual trees and tree clumps, and thin tree clumps.

Single Tree Selection Old Growth – Low and Moderate Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present.

o Retain all existing old growth characteristics as described in the WW 

Forest Plan MA15 description and the R6 Interim Old Growth Definition.

Intermediate Treatment - Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present with emphasis on 

isolating mistletoe infections and creating conditions that reduce intensification of 

infection.

o Favor non-host species as leave trees.

o Tree clumps/individuals would be managed to improve tree vigor and 

growth by retaining the best growing dominant and co-dominant trees 

with the least amount of mistletoe within each clump. 

o Isolate mistletoe infected clumps or individuals with a host tree buffer of 

approximately 50 feet beginning at the last visible sign of infection

Stand Improvement – Seed/Sap and Pole Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within young, post disturbance stands.

o Thinning would be used to establish openings between individual trees 

and tree clumps, and thin tree clumps.

Savanna Treatment/Meadow Restoration Treatment

Reestablishment of grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have 

conifer encroachment.

o Restore pre-settlement tree density and pattern using pre-settlement 

evidence as guidance. 

o Tree group arrangement, size, and density are a function of existing presettlement trees and evidence. Retain all old trees and the largest young 

trees that most closely resemble old trees in size and form as replacement 

trees

Resource Name 

390

General Planning Activities 

 Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning 

 Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis 

 Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning 

Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1900, FSM 1920, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, and 

FSM 2511.

Objective Use the land management planning and decision making processes to incorporate direction for 

water quality management consistent with laws, regulation, and policy into land management 

plans.

Practices □ Establish desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources that contribute to the overall sustainability of social, economic, and ecological 

systems in the plan area consistent with established State or national water quality goals 

for the plan area.

o Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to 

provide water supplies for municipal, agricultural, commercial, and industrial 

uses; hydropower generation; water recreation, transportation, and spiritual uses; 

aesthetic appreciation; and tourism to contribute to social and economic 

sustainability.

o Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to 

provide the ecological conditions to support diversity of native and desired 

nonnative plants and animal species in the plan area to contribute to ecological 

sustainability.

□ Include plan objectives to maintain or, where appropriate, improve or restore watershed 

conditions to achieve desired conditions of soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

□ Consider watershed characteristics, current and expected environmental conditions 

(including climate change), and potential effects of land uses when determining suitability 

of NFS lands within the planning area for various uses.

□ Include standards and guidelines to maintain and, where appropriate, improve over time 

the quality of soil, water resources, and riparian areas when implementing site-specific 

projects and activities.

□ Include monitoring questions and associated performance measures to address watershed 

condition and water quality goals and objectives.

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

391 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1950, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, and FSM 2524.

Objective Use the project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making processes to incorporate 

water quality management BMPs into project design and implementation.

Practices □ Include watershed specialists (hydrologist, soil scientist, geologist, and fish biologist) and 

other trained and qualified individuals on the interdisciplinary team for project planning, 

environmental analysis, and decision making to evaluate onsite watershed characteristics 

and the potential environmental consequences of the proposed activity(s).

□ Determine water quality management objectives for the project area.

o Identify water quality management desired conditions and objectives from the land 

management plan.

o Identify and evaluate the condition of water features in the project area (e.g., 

streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, riparian areas, springs, groundwaterdependent ecosystems, recharge areas, and floodplains).

o Identify State-designated beneficial uses of waterbodies and the water quality 

parameters that are critical to those uses.

o Identify locations of dams and diversions for municipal or irrigation water 

supplies, fish hatcheries, stockwater, fire protection, or other water uses within the 

project area.

o Identify any impaired (e.g., 303[d] listed) waterbodies in the project area and 

associated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses or other restoration 

plans that may exist.

o Identify threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in or near water, wetlands, 

and riparian areas in the project area and their habitat needs related to water 

quality.

□ Determine potential or likely direct and indirect impacts to chemical, physical, and 

biological water quality, and watershed condition from the proposed activity.

o Always assume hydrological connections exist between groundwater and surface 

water in each watershed, unless it can reasonably be shown none exist in a local 

situation.

o Consider the impacts of current and expected environmental conditions such as 

atmospheric deposition and climate change in the project area when analyzing 

effects of the proposed activities.

o Evaluate sources of waterbody impairment, including water quantity, streamflows, 

and water quality, and the likelihood that proposed activities would contribute to 

current or future impairment or restoration to achieve desired watershed 

conditions.

o Identify and delineate unstable areas in the project area.

o Identify soil limitations and productivity impacts of proposed activities.

o Verify preliminary findings by inspecting the sites in the field.

o Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, and mitigation measures 

to achieve water quality management objectives. Consult local, regional, State, or 

other agencies’ required or recommended BMPs that are applicable to the activity.

o Consider enhanced BMPs identified in a TMDL or other watershed restoration 

plan to protect impaired waterbodies within the project area.

o Use site evaluations, professional experience, monitoring results, and land 
Resource Name 

392

management plan standards, guidelines, and other requirements.

o Identify Federal, State, and local permits or requirements needed to implement the 

project.

o Examples include water quality standards, CWA 401 certification, CWA 402 

permits (including stormwater permits), CWA 404 permits, and Coastal Zone 

Management Act requirements.

o Plan to limit surface disturbance to the extent practicable while still achieving 

project objectives.

o Designate specific AMZs around water features in the project area (see BMP Plan3 [AMZ Planning]).

o Design activities on or near unstable areas and sensitive soils to minimize 

management induced impacts.

o Use local direction and requirements for prevention and control of terrestrial and 

aquatic invasive species.

□ Use suitable tools to analyze the potential for cumulative watershed effects (CWE) to 

occur from the additive impacts of the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities on NFS and neighboring lands within the project watersheds.

o Consider the natural sensitivity or tolerance of the watershed based on geology, 

climate, and other relevant factors.

o Consider the existing condition of the watershed and water quality as a reflection 

of past land management activities and natural disturbances.

o Estimate the potential for adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from current and reasonably foreseeable future activities on all lands 

within the watershed relative to existing watershed conditions.

o Use land management plan direction; Federal, State, or local water quality 

standards; and other regulations to determine acceptable limits for CWE.

o Modify the proposed project or activity as necessary by changing project design, 

location, and timing to reduce the potential for CWE to occur.

o Consider including additional mitigation measures to reduce project effects.

o Identify and implement opportunities for restoration activities to speed recovery of 

watershed condition before initiating additional anthropogenic disturbance in the 

watershed.

o Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal, State, and private landowners in 

assessing and preventing CWE in multiple ownership watersheds.

□ Integrate restoration and rehabilitation needs into the project plan.

o Consider water quality improvement actions identified in a TMDL or other 

watershed restoration plan to restore impaired waterbodies within the project area.

□ Identify project-specific monitoring needs.

□ Document site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, mitigation measures, and 

restoration, rehabilitation, and monitoring needs in the applicable National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) documents, design plans, contracts, permits, authorizations, and 

operation and maintenance plans.

o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including, for example, AMZs and 

waterbodies, 303(d) listed and TMDL waterbodies, and municipal supply 

watersheds, on the project map.

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

393 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526

Objective To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land around and adjacent to 

waterbodies in the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their 

unique values and importance to water quality while implementing land and resource 

management activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan 

direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Proactively manage the AMZ to maintain or improve long-term health and 

sustainability of the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody consistent with 

desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the land management plan.

o Balance short-term impacts and benefits with long-term goals and desired future 

conditions, considering ecological structure, function, and processes, when 

evaluating proposed management activities in the AMZ.

o Determine the width of the AMZ for waterbodies in the project area that may be 

affected by the proposed activities:

o Evaluate the condition of aquatic and riparian habitat and beneficial riparian zone 

functions and their estimated response to the proposed activity in determining the 

need for and width of the AMZ.

o Use stream class and type, channel condition, aspect, side slope steepness, 

precipitation and climate characteristics, soil erodibility, slope stability, 

groundwater features, and aquatic and riparian conditions and functions to 

determine appropriate AMZ widths to achieve desired conditions in the AMZ.

o Include riparian vegetation within the designated AMZ and extend the AMZ to 

include steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or other sensitive or unstable areas.

o Establish wider AMZ areas for waters with high resource value and quality.

o Design and implement project activities within the AMZ to:

o Avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation, groundwater 

recharge areas, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or unstable areas.

o Maintain or provide sufficient ground cover to encourage infiltration, avoid or 

minimize erosion, and to filter pollutants.

o Avoid, minimize, or restore detrimental soil compaction.

o Retain trees necessary for shading, bank stabilization, and as a future source of 

large woody debris.

o Retain floodplain function.

o Restore existing disturbed areas that are eroding and contributing sediment to the 

waterbody.

□ Mark the boundaries of the AMZ and sensitive areas like riparian areas, wetlands, 

and unstable areas on the ground before land disturbing activities.
Resource Name 

394

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Utilize PACFISH RHCA buffers to protect all stream course, wetlands and wateways 

in the project area

□ Protect all no-harvest stream and wetland buffers with directional felling, and waive 

debris cleanout of streams. 

□ Trees that are in no-harvest buffers and are damaged during timber harvest or road 

activities will be left on site.

□ Restrict ground-based equipment entry to beyond 75 feet of streams and wet areas, or 

outside the no-harvest buffer, whichever is greater. 

□ The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width 

recommendations to ensure protection of unmapped streams and wet areas identified 

during project implementation. The district hydrologist or fish biologist will be 

consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and these individuals may modify the 

recommended buffers but must assure compliance with PACFISH and the Lower 

Grande Ronde (2010) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by providing the 

following minimum buffers: 

o Class 1, 2, 3 = 100 feet (except for 58 Acres along Swamp Creek in Alt 2)

o Class 4 = 25 feet (variable) - Alt 2, 100 feet in Alt 3

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities 

 AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

 AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands

 AqEco-4. Stream Channels and Shorelines

AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known. 

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in 

aquatic ecosystems.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate 

or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land 

management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional 

judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and 

BMP Plan-3 (AMZ Planning) when planning operations in aquatic 

ecosystems.

□ Identify the aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in the waterbody, 

Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ), or on the floodplain and their life 

histories to determine protection strategies, such as timing of construction, 

sediment management, species relocation, and monitoring during 

construction.

□ Coordinate stream channel, shoreline, lake, pond, and wetland activities with 

appropriate State and Federal agencies.

o Incorporate Clean Water Act (CWA) 404 permit requirements and 

other Federal, State, and local permits or requirements into the 

project design and plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

395 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when preparing the site for 

construction or maintenance activities.

o Clearly delineate the work zone.

o Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of 

work area boundaries, AMZs, wetlands, and sensitive soil areas.

o Refuel and service equipment only in designated staging areas (see 

BMP Road-10 [Equipment Refueling and Servicing]).

o Develop an erosion and sediment control plan to avoid or minimize 

downstream impacts using measures appropriate to the site and the 

proposed activity (see BMP Fac-2 [Facility Construction and 

Stormwater Control]).

o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

o Consider needs for solid waste disposal and worksite sanitation.

o Consider using small, low ground pressure equipment, and hand 

labor where practicable.

o Ensure all equipment operated in or adjacent to the waterbody is 

clean of aquatic invasive species, as well as oil and grease, and is 

well maintained.

o Use vegetable oil or other biodegradable hydraulic oil for heavy 

equipment hydraulics wherever practicable when operating in or near 

water.

□ Schedule construction or maintenance operations in waterbodies to occur in 

the least critical periods to avoid or minimize adverse effects to sensitive 

aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in or near the waterbody.

o Avoid scheduling instream work during the spawning or migration 

seasons of resident or migratory fish and other important life history 

phases of sensitive species that could be affected by the project.

o Avoid scheduling instream work during periods that could be 

interrupted by high flows.

o Consider the growing season and dormant season for vegetation 

when scheduling activities within or near the waterbody to minimize 

the period of time that the land would remain exposed, thereby 

reducing erosion risks and length of time when aesthetics are poor.

□ Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when clearing the site.

o Clearly delineate the geographic limits of the area to be cleared.

o Use suitable drainage measures to improve the workability of wet 

sites.

o Avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to existing vegetation, 

especially plants that are stabilizing the bank of the waterbody.

□ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterbody when 

implementing construction and maintenance activities.

o Minimize heavy equipment entry into or crossing water as is 

practicable.

o Conduct operations during dry periods.

o Stage construction operations as needed to limit the extent of 

disturbed areas without installed stabilization measures.

o Promptly install and appropriately maintain erosion control 

measures.

o Promptly install and appropriately maintain spill prevention and 

containment measures.
Resource Name 

396

o Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize disturbed areas as needed following 

construction or maintenance activities.

o Stockpile and protect topsoil for reuse in site revegetation.

o Minimize bank and riparian area excavation during construction to 

the extent practicable.

o Keep excavated materials out of the waterbody.

o Use only clean, suitable materials that are free of toxins and invasive 

species for fill.

o Properly compact fills to avoid or minimize erosion.

o Balance cuts and fills to minimize disposal needs.

o Remove all project debris from the waterbody in a manner that will 

cause the least disturbance.

o Identify suitable areas offsite or away from waterbodies for disposal 

sites before beginning operations.

o Contour site to disperse runoff, minimize erosion, stabilize slopes, 

and provide a favorable environment for plant growth.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the 

site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 

2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and 

control of invasive species.

□ Use suitable measures to divert or partition channelized flow around the site 

or to dewater the site as needed to the extent practicable.

o Remove aquatic organisms from the construction area before 

dewatering and prevent organisms from returning to the site during 

construction.

o Return clean flows to channel or waterbody downstream of the 

activity.

o Restore flows to their natural stream course as soon as practicable 

after construction or before seasonal closures.

□ Inspect the work site at suitable regular intervals during and after 

construction or maintenance activities to check on quality of the work and 

materials and identify need for midproject corrections.

□ Consider short- and long-term maintenance needs and unit capabilities when 

designing the project.

o Develop a strategy for providing emergency maintenance when needed.

□ Include implementation and effectiveness monitoring to evaluate success of 

the project in meeting design objectives and avoiding or minimizing 

unacceptable impacts to water quality.

□ Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to promote 

project success.

o Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access 

to site as needed to allow for recovery of vegetation.

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width 

recommendations to ensure protection of unmapped streams and wet areas 

identified during project implementation. The district hydrologist or fish 

biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and these 

individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure 

compliance with PACFISH and the Lower Grande Ronde (2010) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

397 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by providing the following 

minimum buffers: 

o Class 1, 2, 3 = 100 feet (except for 58 Acres along Swamp Creek 

in Alt 2)

o Class 4 = 25 feet (variable) - Alt 2, 100 feet in Alt 3

AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

 None known. 

Objective Design and implement pond and wetlands projects in a manner that increases the 

potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes, or 

mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate 

or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land 

management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional 

judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic 

Ecosystems) when working in or near waterbodies.

□ Obtain and manage water rights.

□ Clearly define goals and objectives in the project plan appropriate to the site 

for desired hydrology, wetland plant community associations, intended 

purpose, and function of the pond or wetland and expected values.

□ Select sites based on an analysis of landscape structure and associated 

ecological functions and values.

o Construct ponds and wetlands on sites that have easy construction 

access where practicable.

o Construct wetlands in landscape positions and soil types capable of 

supporting desired wetland functions and values.

o Construct ponds outside of active floodplain to minimize overflow of 

groundwater-fed ponds into adjacent streams and avoid or minimize 

erosion of pond embankments by floods, unless location in the 

floodplain is integral to achieving project objectives.

o Construct ponds with surface water supply off-channel rather than 

placing a dam across a stream.

o Construct ponds and wetlands on sites with soils suitable to hold 

water with minimal seepage loss and that provide a stable foundation 

for any needed embankments.

o Construct ponds and wetlands in locations where polluted surface 

water runoff or groundwater discharge do not reach the pond.

o Consider the consequences of dam or embankment failure and 

resulting damage from sudden release of water on potentially 

affected areas.

□ Ensure that the natural water supply for the pond or wetland is sufficient to 

meet the needs of the intended use and that it will maintain the desired water 

levels and water quality.

o Design the wetland to create hydrologic conditions (including the 

timing of inflow and outflow, duration, and frequency of water level 
Resource Name 

398

fluctuations) that provide the desired wetland functions and values.

o Avoid or minimize drawdown effects in a stream source by limiting 

timing and rate of water withdrawal to allow sufficient downstream 

water flow to maintain desired conditions in the source stream (see 

BMP WatUses-1 [Water Uses Planning]).

□ Design the wetland project to create a biologically and hydrologically 

functional system.

o Design for function, not form.

o Keep the design simple and avoid over engineering.

o Design the project for minimal maintenance needs.

o Use natural energies, such as gravity flow, in the design.

o Avoid use of hard engineering structures or the use of supplemental 

watering to support system hydrology.

o Plan to allow wetland system time to develop after construction 

activities are complete.

□ Design the pond or wetland to be of sufficient size and depth appropriate for 

the intended use and to optimize hydrologic regimes and wetland plant 

community development.

o Size the pond or wetland appropriately for the contributing drainage 

area such that a desired water level can be maintained during drought 

conditions and that excess runoff during large storms can be 

reasonably accommodated without constructing large overflow

structures.

o Size the pond or wetland to an adequate depth to store sufficient 

amounts of water for the intended use and offset probable 

evaporation and seepage losses.

o Integrate design with the natural topography of the site to minimize 

site disturbance.

o Design the pond or wetland to have an irregular shape to reduce wind 

and wave impacts, disperse water flows, maximize retention times, 

and better mimic natural systems.

o Create microtopography and macrotopography in wetlands to mimic 

natural conditions and achieve hydrologic and vegetative diversity.

o Avoid creating large areas of shallow water to minimize excessive 

evaporation losses and growth of noxious aquatic plants.

o Avoid steep-sloped shorelines in areas with potential substrate 

instability problems to reduce erosion and sedimentation.

□ Include water control structures to manage water levels as necessary.

o Design spillway or outlet to maintain desired water level under 

normal inflows from snowmelt, groundwater flow, and precipitation.

o Design discharge capacity using a suitable hydrologic analysis of the 

drainage area to be sufficient to safely pass the flow resulting from 

the design storm event.

o Size the spillway to release floodwaters in a volume and velocity that 

do not erode the spillway, the area beyond the outlet, or the 

downstream channel.

o Consider the need for suitable measures to drain the pond or wetland.

o Return overflow back to the original source to the extent practicable.

o Use suitable measures to maintain desired downstream temperatures, 

dissolved oxygen levels, and aquatic habitats when water is released 

from the pond or impoundment.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

399 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Use materials appropriate for the purpose of the pond and site.

o Select materials for a dam or embankment that will provide sufficient 

strength and, when properly compacted, will be tight enough to avoid 

or minimize excessive or harmful percolation of water through the 

dam or embankment.

o Design the side slopes appropriately for the material being used to 

ensure stability of the dam or embankment.

□ Use wetland vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the 

project site and objectives, consistent with local direction and requirements 

per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and 

control of invasive species.

o Consider the timing of planting to achieve maximum survival, 

proposed benefit of each plant species, methods of planting, 

proposed use of mulch, potential soil amendment (organic material 

or fertilizer), and potential supplemental watering to help establish 

the plant community.

□ Properly maintain dams, embankments, and spillways to avoid or minimize 

soil erosion and leakage problems.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of dams and 

shores due to wind and wave action.

o Design sufficient freeboard to avoid or minimize overtopping by 

wave action or other causes.

o Stabilize or armor spillways for ponds with continuous flow releases 

or overflow during heavy rainfall events.

□ Manage uplands and surrounding areas to avoid or minimize unacceptable 

impacts to water quality in the pond or wetland.

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, 

will be constructed during the inwater workwindow as prescribed by Oregon 

Department of Fish & Wildlife and approved by NOAA Fisheries

AqEco-4. Stream Channels and Shorelines

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known. 

Objective Design and implement stream channel and lake shoreline projects in a manner that 

increases the potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, 

minimizes, or mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate 

or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land 

management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional 

judgment.

All Activities

□ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic 

Ecosystems) when working in or near waterbodies.

Stream Channels
Resource Name 

400

□ Determine stream type and classification using suitable accepted protocols.

□ Determine need to control channel grade to avoid or minimize erosion of 

channel bed and banks before selecting measures for bank stabilization or 

protection.

o Incorporate grade control measures into project design as needed.

□ Determine design flows based on the value or safety of area to be protected, 

repair cost, and the sensitivity and value of the ecological system involved.

o Obtain peak flow, low flow, channel forming flow, and flow duration 

estimates.

o Use these estimates to determine the best time to implement the 

project, as well as to select design flows.

□ Determine design velocities appropriate to the site.

o Limit maximum velocity to the velocity that is nonscouring on the 

least resistant streambed and bank material.

o Consider needs to transport bedload through the reach when 

determining minimum velocities.

o Maintain the depth-area-velocity relationship of the upstream 

channel through the project reach.

o Consider the effects of design velocities on desired aquatic organism 

habitat and passage.

□ Avoid changing channel alignment unless the change is to reconstruct the 

channel to a stable meander geometry consistent with stream type.

□ Design instream and streambank stabilization and protection measures 

suitable to channel alignment (straight reach versus curves).

o Consider the effects of ice and freeze and thaw cycles on streambank 

erosion processes.

o Consider the effects that structures may have on downstream 

structures and stream morphology, including streambanks, in the 

maintenance of a natural streambed.

□ Design channels with natural stream pattern and geometry and with stable 

beds and banks; provide habitat complexity where reconstruction of stream 

channels is necessary.

o Consider sediment load (bedload and suspended load) and bed 

material size to determine desired sediment transport rate when 

designing channels.

o Avoid relocating natural stream channels.

o Return flow to natural channels, where practicable.

□ Include suitable measures to protect against erosion around the edges of

stabilization structures.

o Design revetments and similar structures to include sufficient 

freeboard to avoid or minimize overtopping at curves or other points 

where high-flow velocity can cause waves.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize water forces

undermining the toe of the structure.

o Tie structures into stable anchorage points, such as bridge abutments, 

rock outcrops, or well-vegetated stable sections, to avoid or minimize 

erosion around the ends.

□ Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams only if such action 

maintains or improves stream condition, provides for safety and stability at 

bridges and culverts, is needed to avoid or minimize excessive erosion of 

streambanks, or reduces flooding hazard.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

401 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or 

banks to avoid or minimize channel scour and maintain natural 

habitat complexity.

□ Choose vegetation appropriate to the site to provide streambank stabilization 

and protection adequate to achieve project objectives.

o Use vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the 

project site and objectives, consistent with local direction and 

requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology 

and prevention and control of invasive species.

Shorelines

□ Use mean high- and low-water levels to determine the design water surface.

o Consider the effects of fluctuating water levels, freeze or thaw 

cycles, and floating ice on erosion processes at the site.

□ Design stabilization and protection measures suitable to the site.

o Determine the shoreline slope configuration above and below the 

waterline.

o Consider the effects of offshore depth, dynamic wave height, and 

wave action on shoreline erosion processes.

o Determine the nature of the bank soil material to aid in estimating 

erosion rates.

o Consider foundation material at the site when selecting structural 

measures.

o Use vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the 

project site and objectives and consistent with local direction and 

requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology 

and prevention and control of invasive species.

□ Consider the rate, direction, supply, and seasonal changes in littoral transport 

when choosing the location and design of structural measures.

□ Consider the effect structures may have on adjacent shoreline or other nearby 

structures.

o Adequately anchor end sections to existing stabilization measures or 

terminate in stable areas.

Local / 

Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width 

recommendations to ensure protection of unmapped streams and wet areas 

identified during project implementation. The district hydrologist or fish 

biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and these 

individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure 

compliance with PACFISH and the Lower Grande Ronde (2010) 

Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by providing the following 

minimum buffers: 

o Class 1, 2, 3 = 100 feet (except for 58 Acres along Swamp Creek 

in Alt 2)

o Class 4 = 25 feet (variable) - Alt 2, 100 feet in Alt 3

Chemical Use Management Activities 

Pertaining to the use of Magnesium Chloride and Water for Dust Abatement
Resource Name 

402

 Chem-1. Chemical Use Planning

 Chem-3. Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

 Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

Chem-1. Chemical Use Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2153; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, 

chapter 10.

Objective Use the planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from chemical use on 

NFS lands.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and 

BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when planning 

activities that involve use of chemicals.

□ Identify municipal supply watersheds; private domestic water supplies; fish 

hatcheries; and threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic dependent 

species and fish populations near or downstream of chemical treatment areas.

□ Use Integrated Pest Management as the basis for all pesticide-use 

prescriptions in consultation with the unit Pesticide Use Coordinator.

□ Select chemical products suitable for use on the target species or that meet 

project objectives. (The Lower Joseph Restoration Project is not analyzing 

the use of chemical herbicides.)

o Use chemicals that are registered for the intended uses.

□ Consult the Materials Safety Data Sheet and product label for information on 

use, hazards, and safe handling procedures for chemicals products under 

consideration for use.

□ Consider chemical solubility, absorption, breakdown rate properties, and site 

factors when determining which chemical products to use.

o Use chemicals with properties such that soil residual activity will 

persist only as long as needed to achieve treatment objectives.

o Consider soil type, chemical mobility, distance to surface water, and 

depth to groundwater to avoid or minimize surface water and 

groundwater contamination.

□ Use a suitable pressure, nozzle size, and nozzle type combination to minimize 

off-target drift or droplet splatter. (The Lower Joseph Restoration Project is 

not analyzing the use of chemical herbicides.)

□ Use selective treatment methods for target organisms to the extent 

practicable. (The Lower Joseph Restoration Project is not analyzing the use 

of chemical herbicides.)

□ Specify management direction and appropriate site-specific response 

measures in project plans and safety plans (FSH 2109.14, chapter 60).

□ Ensure that planned chemical use projects conform to all applicable local, 

State, Federal, and agency laws, regulations, and policies.

o Obtain necessary permits, including Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 

permit coverage.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

403 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o Develop spill contingency plans.

o Obtain or provide training and licensing as required by the label and 

State regulations.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Chem-3. Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14 Chapters 10, 50.

Objective Avoid or minimize the risk of chemical delivery to surface water or groundwater 

when treating areas near waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Identify during project planning those perennial and intermittent surface 

waters, wetlands, springs, riparian areas, and groundwater recharge areas 

that may be impacted by the chemical use.

o Use field observations to verify the extent of these areas identified 

from aerial observations, maps, or geographic information system 

data, as needed.

□ Determine the width of a buffer zone, if needed, based on a review of the 

project area, characteristics of the chemical to be used, and application 

method.

o Consider the designated uses of water, adjacent land uses, 

expected rainfall, wind speed and direction, terrain, slope, soils, 

and geology.

o Consider the persistence, mobility, toxicity profile, and 

bioaccumulation potential of any chemical formulation proposed 

for use.

o Consider the type of equipment, spray pattern, droplet size, 

application height, and experience in similar projects.

□ Prescribe chemicals and application methods in the buffer zone suitable 

to achieve project objectives while minimizing risk to water quality.

□ Flag or otherwise mark or identify buffer zones as needed.

o Clearly communicate to those applying the chemical what areas 

are to be avoided or where alternative treatments are to be used.

□ Locate operation bases on upland areas, outside of wetlands or areas with 

channel or ditch connection to surface water and AMZs.

□ Use clean equipment and personnel to collect water needed for mixing.

□ Calibrate application equipment to apply chemicals uniformly and in the 

correct quantities.

□ Evaluate weather conditions before beginning spray operations and 

monitor throughout each day to avoid or minimize chemical drift.
Resource Name 

404

o Apply chemicals only under favorable weather conditions as 

identified in the label instructions.

o Avoid applying chemicals before forecasted severe storm events 

to limit runoff and ensure the chemical reaches intended targets.

o Suspend operations if project prescription or weather limitations 

have been exceeded.

□ Apply fertilizers during high nutrient-uptake periods to avoid or 

minimize leaching and translocation.

o Base fertilizer type and application rate on soils and foliar 

analysis.

o Use slow release fertilizers that deliver fertilizer to plants during 

extended periods in areas with long growing seasons when 

appropriate to meet project objectives. (The Lower Joseph 

Restoration Project is not analyzing the use of fertilizers.)

□ Monitor during chemical applications to determine if chemicals are 

reaching surface waters (see BMP Chem-6 [Chemical Application 

Monitoring and Evaluation]).

□ Implement the chemical spill contingency plan elements within the 

project safety plan if a spill occurs (FSH 2109.14, chapter 60).

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2150.1; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, 

chapter 50.

Objective 1. Determine whether chemicals have been applied safely, have been restricted to 

intended targets, and have not resulted in unexpected nontarget effects.

2. Document and provide early warning of possible hazardous conditions resulting 

from potential contamination of water or other nontarget resources or areas by 

chemicals.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Identify the following elements in all water resource monitoring plans and 

specify the rationale for each:

o What are the monitoring questions?

o Who will be involved and what are their roles and responsibilities?

o What parameters will be monitored and analyzed?

o When and where will monitoring take place?

o What methods will be used for sampling and analyses?

o How will Chain of Custody requirements for sample handling be 

met?

o What are the criteria for quality assurance and quality control?

□ Consider the following factors when developing monitoring questions:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

405 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o The physical or biological resource of concern, including human 

health.

o Applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

o Type of chemical.

o Type of application equipment used and method of application.

o Site-related difficulties that affect both application and monitoring.

o Public concerns.

o Potential benefits of the application.

o Availability of analytic methods, detection limits, tools, and 

laboratories.

o Costs of monitoring and resources available to implement monitoring 

plan.

□ Choose monitoring methods and sample locations suitable to address the 

monitoring questions.

o Consider the need to take random batch or tank samples for future 

testing in the event of treatment failure or an unexpected adverse 

effect.

□ Monitor sensitive environments during and after chemical applications to 

detect and evaluate unanticipated events.

□ Use U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified laboratories for 

chemical sample analysis.

o Use appropriate containers, preservation, and transportation to meet 

Standard Methods requirements.

o Implement proper Chain of Custody procedures for sample handling.

□ Evaluate and interpret the results of monitoring in terms of compliance with, 

and adequacy of, treatment objectives and specifications.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□

Road Management Activities 

 Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis

 Road-2. Road Location and Design

 Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction

 Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance 

 Road-5. Temporary Roads 

 Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning 

 Road-7. Stream Crossings 

 Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage 

 Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas 

 Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing 

 Road-11. Road Storm-Damage Surveys 
Resource Name 

406

Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55; and 

FSH 7709.59,

chapter 10.

Objective Use the travel management planning and analysis processes to develop measures 

to avoid, minimize,

or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during 

road management

activities.

Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and 

BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when conducting 

travel management planning and analysis.

□ Use interdisciplinary coordination for travel planning and project-level 

transportation analysis, including engineers, hydrologists, soil scientists, and 

other resource specialists as needed, to balance protection of soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources with transportation and access needs.

□ Design the transportation system to meet long-term land management plan 

desired conditions, goals, and objectives for access rather than to access 

individual sites.

□ Limit roads to the minimum practicable number, width, and total length 

consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, geology, 

and climate to achieve land management plan desired conditions, goals, and 

objectives for access and water quality management.

o Use existing roads when practicable.

o Use system roads where access is needed for long-term management 

of an area or where control is needed in the location, design, or 

construction of the road to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use temporary roads for short-term access needs if the road can be 

constructed, operated, and obliterated without specific control of 

techniques to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP Road-5 [Temporary 

Roads]).

o Decommission temporary roads and return to resource production 

when the access is no longer needed (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage 

and Decommissioning]).

o Consider placing roads in storage (Maintenance Level 1) when the 

time between intermittent uses exceeds 1 year and the costs of annual 

maintenance (both economic and potential disturbance) or potential 

failures due to lack of maintenance exceed the benefits of keeping the 

road open in the interim (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and 

Decommissioning]).

o Consider decommissioning unneeded existing roads within a planning 

area when planning new system roads to reduce cumulative impacts to 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP Road-6 [Road 

Storage and Decommissioning]).

□ Plan road networks to have the minimum number of waterbody crossings as is 

practicable and necessary to achieve transportation system desired conditions, 

goals, and objectives.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

407 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Develop or update RMOs for each system road to include design criteria, 

operation criteria, and maintenance criteria to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) 

to establish design elements and standards.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-4 (Road Operations and 

Maintenance) to establish criteria on how the road is to be operated 

and maintained.

o Revise RMOs as needed to meet changing conditions.

□ Identify and evaluate road segments causing, or with the potential to cause, 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Identify and prioritize suitable mitigation measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects (see BMPs Road-2 (Road 

Location and Design), Road-3 (Road Construction and 

Reconstruction), Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance), Road-6 

(Road Storage and Decommissioning), and Road-7 (Stream 

Crossings) for potential mitigation measures).

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, 

with drain dips and grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be 

built.

□ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 

roads, will have water bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to 

prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 

aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be barricaded 

and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems.

□ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest 

Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all 

Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened and subsequently 

blocked.

□ The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads 

under the timber sale contract. This involves subsoiling the road as 

appropriate, seeding as needed, and pulling displaced soil and duff back over 

the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to provide 

additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary 

roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for 

depth of treatment and use of effective ground cover on treatment area.

□ All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for 

project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to 

complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion control 

measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a minimum, 

would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons weed free 

straw per acre.. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access by 

the public, unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service.

Road-2. Road Location and Design

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7720 and FSH 7709.56.
Resource Name 

408

Objective Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and

riparian resources.

Practices Location

□ Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours, and limit the need for 

excavation.

o Avoid locations that require extended steep grades, sharp curves, or 

switchbacks.

□ Locate roads on stable geology with well-drained soils and rock formations 

that dip into the slope.

o Avoid hydric soils, inner gorges, overly steep slopes, and unstable 

landforms to the extent practicable.

□ Locate roads as far from waterbodies as is practicable to achieve access 

objectives, with a minimum number of crossings and connections between 

the road and the waterbody.

o Avoid sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, 

bogs, and fens, to the extent practicable.

o Provide an AMZ of suitable width between the road and a waterbody 

to maintain desired conditions, goals, and objectives for structure, 

function, and processes of the AMZ and associated waterbody when 

a road must parallel a waterbody (See BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

□ Relocate existing routes or segments that are causing, or have the potential to 

cause, adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources, to the 

extent practicable.

o Obliterate the existing road or segment after the relocated section is 

completed (see BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Predesign

□ Consider design criteria relative to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

from the decision document and associated National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis document.

□ Consider the road RMOs and likely future maintenance schedule in the initial 

design.

□ Conduct suitable site investigations, data collection, and evaluations 

commensurate with the anticipated design and sensitivity of the area to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resource impacts.

o Consider subsurface conditions and conduct suitable investigations 

and stability analyses for road and ridge locations where slope 

instability can occur due to road construction.

o Conduct a suitable soils and geotechnical evaluation to identify 

susceptibility to erosion and stable angles of repose.

Design

□ Design the road to fit the ground and terrain with the least practicable impacts 

to soil, water quality, and riparian resources considering the purpose and life

of the road, safety, and cost.

o Use road standards that minimize impacts for grade and alignment 

(e.g., width, turning radius, and maximum slope).

o Use low impact development treatments that reduce long-term 

maintenance needs wherever practicable.

□ Design the road to maintain stable road prism, cut, and fill slopes.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

409 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o Design cut and fill slope ratios to reduce soil loss from mass failures.

o Use structural or nonstructural measures as necessary to stabilize cut 

and fill slopes.

□ Design the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove 

water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that 

minimizes concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and 

road surfaces

o Use structural or nonstructural measures suitable to the road 

materials, road gradient, and expected traffic levels.

o Use an interval between drainage features that is suitable for the road 

gradient, surface material, and climate.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of ditches.

□ Design the road subsurface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove 

groundwater that may flow into the base course and subgrade, lower highwater tables, and drain water pockets.

o Use suitable subsurface dispersion or collection measures to capture 

and disperse locally shallow groundwater flows intercepted by road 

cuts.

o Use suitable measures to release groundwater into suitable areas 

without causing erosion or siltation.

□ Design the road for minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns and to 

minimize the hydrologic connection of the road segment or network with 

nearby waterbodies.

o Use suitable structural or nonstructural measures to avoid or 

minimize gully formation and erosion of fill slopes at outfalls of road 

surface drainage structures.

o Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize 

direct discharges from road drainage structures to nearby 

waterbodies.

o Provide sufficient buffer distance at the outfalls of road surface 

drainage structures for water to infiltrate before reaching the 

waterbody.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to limit 

the number and length of water crossing connected areas to the extent 

practicable.

□ Design road surface treatment to support wheel loads, stabilize the roadbed, 

reduce dust, and control erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use.

o Consider whether road closures or roadway surface drainage and 

erosion protection can adequately mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources.

□ Design roads within the AMZ (when no practicable alternative exists outside 

of the AMZ to achieve access objectives) to maintain desired conditions, 

goals, and objectives for AMZ structure, function, and processes (See BMP 

Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

o Use suitable measures to minimize or mitigate effects to waterbodies 

and other sensitive areas when adverse impacts cannot be practicably 

avoided.

□ Design waterbody crossings to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources to the extent practicable consistent with 

road use, legal requirements, and cost considerations (See BMP Road-7 
Resource Name 

410

[Stream Crossings]).

□ Design a post-construction site vegetation plan, including short- and longterm objectives, using suitable species and establishment techniques to 

revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements per 

FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control 

of invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 

roads, will have water bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to 

prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 

aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be barricaded 

and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems.

□ Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively 

draining. Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill 

slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs 

necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive 

vegetation disturbance.

□ Aggregate will be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce 

sedimentation to streams, as needed.

□ Relief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest 

Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable 

soil/vegetation.

□ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest 

Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all 

Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened and subsequently 

blocked.

□ No new temporary roads without previous ground disturbance will be 

constructed on slopes exceeding 35% slope.

□ No dust abatement chemicals will be applied within one foot of the outside 

edge of road ditch lines (See Chem-X).

□ Cease chemical dust abatement application within 25’ of streams.

□ Application of dust abatement will not be applied when raining and will only 

be applied if there is a 3-day forecast of clear weather.

□ all opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for 

project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to 

complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion control 

measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a minimum, 

would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons weed free 

straw per acre.. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

411 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7720, FSH 7709.56, and FSH 7709.57

Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

from erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during road construction or 

reconstruction.

Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and 

Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when 

constructing or reconstructing system roads.

□ Use suitable construction techniques to create stable fills.

o Use full bench construction techniques or retaining walls where 

stable fill construction is not possible.

o Avoid incorporating woody debris in the fill portion of the road 

prism.

o Leave existing rooted trees or shrubs at the toe of the fill slope to 

stabilize the fill.

o Avoid use of road fills for water impoundment dams unless 

specifically designed for that purpose.

□ Identify and locate waste areas before the start of operations.

o Deposit and stabilize excess and unsuitable materials only in 

designated sites.

o Do not place such materials on slopes with a risk of excessive 

erosion, sediment delivery to waterbodies, mass failure, or within the 

AMZ.

o Provide adequate surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal 

sites.

□ Do not permit sidecasting within the AMZ.

o Avoid or minimize excavated materials from entering waterbodies or 

AMZs.

□ Develop and follow blasting plans when necessary.

o Use restrictive blasting techniques in sensitive areas and in sites that 

have high landslide potential.

o Avoid blasting when soils are saturated.

□ Remove slash and cull logs to designated sites outside the AMZ for storage 

or disposal.

o Consider using cull logs in aquatic ecosystem projects to achieve 

aquatic resource management objectives as opportunities arise.

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

□ Construct pioneer roads using suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Confine construction of pioneer roads to the planned roadway limits 

unless otherwise specified.

o Locate and construct pioneering roads to avoid or minimize 

undercutting of the designated final cut slope.

o Avoid deposition of materials outside the designated roadway limits.

o Use suitable crossing structures, or temporarily dewater live streams, 
Resource Name 

412

where pioneer roads intersect streams.

o Use suitable erosion and stormwater control measures as needed (see 

BMP Fac-2 [Facility Construction and Stormwater Control]).

□ Reconstruct existing roads to the degree necessary to provide adequate 

drainage and safety.

 Avoid disturbing stable road surfaces.

 Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct 

discharges from road drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 

roads, will have water bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to 

prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 

aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be 

barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage 

problems. S 

□ Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively 

draining. Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill 

slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs 

necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive 

vegetation disturbance.

□ During construction and reconstruction activities, unsuitable or excess 

excavated soil material shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste 

sites. Spread and shape material to drain. Finish slopes on waste no steeper 

than 1V:1.5H. Utilize hydromulch or weedfree mulch and place uniformly on 

finished slopesRelief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved 

by the Forest Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only 

onto stable soil/vegetation.

□ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest 

Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all 

Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened and subsequently 

blocked.

Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7732 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 60.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources by controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and 

appropriate maintenance to minimize sediment production and other pollutants 

during the useful life of the road.

Practices Operations

□ Designate season of use to avoid or restrict road use during periods when use 

would likely damage the roadway surface or road drainage features.

□ Designate class of vehicle and type of uses suitable for the road width, 

location, waterbody crossings, and road surfaces to avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian resources to the extent 

practicable.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

413 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Use suitable measures to communicate and enforce road use restrictions.

□ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, or riparian resources when proposed operations involve use of roads 

by traffic and during periods for which the road was not designed.

o Strengthen the road surface in areas where surfaces are vulnerable to 

movement such as corners and steep sections.

o Upgrade drainage structures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or 

minimize direct discharges into nearby waterbodies.

o Restrict use to low-ground-pressure vehicles or frozen ground 

conditions.

o Strengthen the road base if roads are tending to rut.

o Adjust maintenance to handle the traffic while minimizing excessive 

erosion and damage to the road surface.

□ Ensure that drainage features are fully functional on completion of seasonal 

operations.

o Shape road surfaces to drain as designed.

o Construct or reconstruct drainage control structures as needed.

o Ensure that ditches and culverts are clean and functioning.

o Remove berms unless specifically designed for erosion control 

purposes.

□ Consider potential for water quality effects from road damage when granting 

permits for oversize or overweight loads.

□ Use suitable road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement 

supplements on roads with high or heavy traffic use (See FSH 7709.56 and 

FSH 7709.59).

□ Use applicable practices of Chemical Use Management Activities BMPs 

when chemicals are used in road operations.

Inspection

□ Periodically inspect system travel routes to evaluate condition and assist in 

setting maintenance and improvement priorities.

o Give inspection priority to roads at high risk of failure to reduce risk 

of diversions and cascading failures.

□ Inspect drainage structures and road surfaces after major storm events and 

perform any necessary maintenance (see BMP Road-11 [Road StormDamage Surveys]).

o Repair and temporarily stabilize road failures actively producing and 

transporting sediment as soon as practicable and safe to do so.

□ Inspect roads frequently during all operations.

o Restrict use if road damage such as unacceptable surface 

displacement or rutting is occurring.

Maintenance Planning

□ Develop and implement annual maintenance plans that prioritize road 

maintenance work for the forest or district.

o Increase priority for road maintenance work on road sections where 

road damage is causing, or potentially would cause, adverse effects 

to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Consider the risk and consequence of future failure at the site when 

prioritizing repair of road failures.

□ Develop and implement annual road maintenance plans for projects where 

contractors or permittees are responsible for maintenance activities.
Resource Name 

414

o Define responsibilities and maintenance timing in the plan.

Maintenance Activities

□ Maintain the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove 

water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces 

concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces.

o Clean ditches and catch basins only as needed to keep them 

functioning.

o Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when cleaning ditches or 

catch basins.

o Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize 

direct discharges from road drainage structures to nearby 

waterbodies.

□ Identify diversion potential on roads and prioritize for treatment.

o Minimize diversion potential through installation and maintenance of 

dips, drains, or other suitable measures.

□ Maintain road surface treatments to stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust, and 

control erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use.

□ Grade road surfaces only as necessary to meet the smoothness requirements of 

the assigned operational maintenance level and to provide adequate surface 

drainage.

o Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when grading roads.

o Do not permit sidecasting of maintenance-generated debris within the 

AMZ to avoid or minimize excavated materials entering waterbodies 

or riparian areas.

o Avoid overwidening of roads due to repeated grading over time, 

especially where sidecast

o material would encroach on waterbodies.

o Use potential sidecast or other waste materials on the road surface 

where practicable.

o Dispose of unusable waste materials in designated disposal sites.

□ Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, and shoulders, and cut and fill slopes 

only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs 

necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive 

vegetation disturbance.

□ Maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to 

reduce the likelihood that water would be diverted onto the road or erode the 

fill if the structure becomes obstructed.

□ Identify waterbody-crossing structures that lack sufficient capacity to pass 

expected flows, bedload, or debris, or that do not allow for desired aquatic 

organism passage, and prioritize for treatment.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to 

improve crossings.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and 

Decommissioning) for maintenance and management of Maintenance Level 1 

roads.

□ Ensure the necessary specifications concerning prehaul maintenance, 

maintenance during haul, and posthaul maintenance (putting the road back in 

storage) are in place when maintenance level 1 roads are opened for use on 

commercial resource management projects or other permitted activities.

o Require the commercial operator or responsible party to leave roads 

in a satisfactory condition when project is completed.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

415 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, etc.) 

will be placed and maintained at sites that have potential to deliver sediment 

to the stream network during the wet season. If sediment delivery is noted, 

additional erosion control measures will be placed and maintained.

□ All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, 

with drain dips and grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be 

built. 

□ Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert 

replacements) will occur during minimal runoff periods and within the 

instream work window as prescribed by Oregon Department of Fish & 

Wildlife and approved by NOAA Fisheries. 

□ Roadwork contractors will have spill prevention and recovery equipment on 

site during all road construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service.

□ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 

roads, will have water bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to 

prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 

aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be barricaded 

and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. 

□ Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively 

draining. Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill 

slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs 

necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or excessive 

vegetation disturbance.

□ During construction and reconstruction activities, unsuitable or excess 

excavated soil material shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste 

sites. Spread and shape material to drain. Finish slopes on waste no steeper 

than 1V:1.5H. Utilize hydromulch or weed free mulch and place uniformly. 

Aggregate will be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce 

sedimentation to streams, as needed.

□ Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. 

Surface rock placement may be done outside the normal operating season as 

weather and road conditions permit, but no surface rock can be added to 

extend the season of haul on any of the abandoned roads that are to be 

obliterated after use. 

□ Relief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest 

Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable 

soil/vegetation.

□ All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the 

same year they are constructed even if they are not completed to final 

acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to 

complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion control and revegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

□ Construction activities that may expose new soil (including clearing, 

grubbing, excavating, and fill placement) will be limited to the normal 

operating season. However, construction activities may be suspended 

anytime during wet weather to protect water quality of affected streams. 

Construction sites will be treated for erosion control and re-vegetated as 

needed to ensure surface soil protection.
Resource Name 

416

□ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest 

Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all 

Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened and subsequently 

blocked.

□ No chemical dust abatement will be applied within25 feet of perennial 

streams or any other stream crossing in which water is flowing during 

chemical application. 

□ No dust abatement chemicals will be applied within one foot of the outside 

edge of road ditch lines.

□ Application of dust abatement will occur when streams are at their seasonal 

baseflow. Dust abatement will not be applied when raining and will only be 

applied if there is a 3-day forecast of clear weather.

□ , all opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for 

project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to 

complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion control 

measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a minimum, 

would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons of mulch. 

All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access , unless otherwise 

agreed to by the Forest Service, Rock quarry benches, access roads and work 

areas should be sloped to drain and disperse surface water without ponding. 

Runoff should not flow directly into streams.

□ Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, 

will be completed during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery 

of construction-related sediment can be minimized. During construction, 

stream water will be diverted around the work site and back into the channel. 

□ Stream crossing culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by 

the Forest Service before installation.

Road-5. Temporary Roads

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from the construction and use of temporary roads.

Practices □ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to 

locate temporary roads.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater 

Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when constructing 

temporary roads.

□ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface-disturbing 

activities to the extent practicable.

□ Schedule construction activities to avoid direct soil and water-disturbance 

during periods of the year when heavy precipitation and runoff are likely to 

occur.

□ Routinely inspect temporary roads to verify that erosion and stormwater 

controls are implemented, functioning, and appropriately maintained.

□ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and 

effective functioning.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

417 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

□ Use temporary crossings suitable for the expected uses and timing of use (See 

BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]).

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and 

Decommissioning) to obliterate the temporary road and return the area to 

resource production after the access is no longer needed.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, 

with drain dips and grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be 

built. 

□ Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert 

replacements) will occur during minimal runoff periods. 

□ All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the 

same year they are constructed even if they are not completed to final 

acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to 

complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion control and revegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

□ The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads 

under the timber sale contract. This involves subsoiling the road as 

appropriate (See XX), seeding as needed, and pulling displaced soil and duff 

back over the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to 

provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of 

temporary roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest 

Service, for depth of treatment and use of effective ground cover on 

treatment area.

□ No new temporary roads without previous ground disturbance will be 

constructed on slopes exceeding 35% slope.

□ All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for 

project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to 

complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion 

control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a 

minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons

of weed free mulch per acre. All temporary roads would remain closed to 

winter access unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service, A watershed 

specialist shall review all temporary roads prior to treatment to initiate and 

finalize the treatment prescription; the effectiveness of the temporary road 

restoration prescription in preventing erosion and providing suitable plant 

habitat shall be monitored.

 

Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 7709.59, chapter 60 and FSM 7734.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources by storing closed roads not needed for at least 1 year (Intermittent 
Resource Name 

418

Stored Service) and decommissioning unneeded roads in a hydrologically stable 

manner to eliminate hydrologic connectivity, restore natural flow patterns, and 

minimize soil erosion.

Practices All Activities

□ Implement suitable measures to close and physically block the road entrance 

so that unauthorized motorized vehicles cannot access the road.

o Remove the road from the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) to 

include the change in the annual forestwide order associated with the 

MVUM.

□ Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to avoid or minimize 

accelerated erosion and soil loss.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize and 

revegetate the site in compliance with local direction and requirements 

per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention 

and control of invasive species.

Road Storage

□ Evaluate all stream and waterbody crossings for potential for failure or 

diversion of flow if left without treatment.

o Use suitable measures to reduce the risk of flow diversion onto the 

road surface.

o Consider leaving existing crossings in low-risk situations where the 

culvert is not undersized, does not present an undesired passage 

barrier to aquatic organisms, and is relatively stable.

o Remove culverts, fill material, and other structures that present an 

unacceptable risk of failure or diversion.

o Reshape the channel and streambanks at the crossing-site to pass 

expected flows without scouring or ponding, minimize potential for 

undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and maintain continuation 

of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing 

site.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and downcutting.

□ Use suitable measures to ensure that the road surface drainage system will 

intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding 

slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and 

over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent maintenance.

□ Use suitable measures to stabilize unstable road segments, seeps, slumps, or 

cut or fill slopes where evidence of potential failure exists.

Road Conversion to Trail

□ Reclaim unneeded road width, cut, and fill slopes when converting a road for 

future use as a trail.

□ Use suitable measures to stabilize reclaimed sections to avoid or minimize 

undesired access and to restore desired ecologic structures or functions.

□ Use suitable measures to ensure that surface drainage will intercept, collect, 

and remove water from the trail surface and surrounding slopes in a manner 

that minimizes concentrated flow and erosion on the trail surfaces without 

frequent maintenance.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to provide 

waterbody crossings suitable to the expected trail uses.

Road Decommissioning

□ Use existing roads identified for decommissioning as skid roads in timber 

sales or land stewardship projects before closing the road, where practicable, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

419 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

as the opportunity arises.

□ Evaluate risks to soil, water quality, and riparian resources and use the most 

practicable, costeffective treatments to achieve long-term desired conditions 

and water quality management goals and objectives.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and 

Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when 

obliterating system roads.

□ Implement suitable measures to re-establish stable slope contours and surface 

and subsurface hydrologic pathways where necessary to the extent 

practicable to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

o Remove drainage structures.

o Recontour and stabilize cut slopes and fill material.

o Reshape the channel and streambanks at crossing sites to pass 

expected flows without scouring or ponding, minimize potential for 

undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and maintain continuation 

of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing 

site.

o Restore or replace streambed materials to a particle size distribution 

suitable for the site.

o Restore floodplain function.

□ Implement suitable measures to promote infiltration of runoff and intercepted 

flow and desired vegetation growth on the road prism and other compacted 

areas.

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 

roads, will have water bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to 

prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 

aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be barricaded 

and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. 

□ Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. 

Surface rock placement may be done outside the normal operating season as 

weather and road conditions permit, but no surface rock can be added to 

extend the season of haul on any of the abandoned roads that are to be 

obliterated after use. 

□ All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the 

same year they are constructed even if they are not completed to final 

acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to 

complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion control and revegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

□ Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest 

Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all 

Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened and subsequently 

blocked.

□ The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads 

under the timber sale contract. This involves subsoiling the road as 

appropriate, seeding as needed, and pulling displaced soil and duff back over 
Resource Name 

420

the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to provide 

additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary 

roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for 

depth of treatment and use of effective ground cover on treatment area.

□ All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for 

project implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to 

complete project implementation would be winterized with all erosion control 

measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, at a minimum, 

would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 of mulch per 

acre. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access, unless 

otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service.

Road-7. Stream Crossings

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Manual or Handbook Reference: FSM 7722 and FSH 7709.56b.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and 

permanent waterbody crossings.

Practices All Crossings

□ Plan and locate surface water crossings to limit the number and extent to 

those that are necessary to provide the level of access needed to meet 

resource management objectives as described in the RMOs.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic 

Ecosystems) when working in or near waterbodies.

□ Use crossing structures suitable for the site conditions and the RMOs.

□ Design and locate crossings to minimize disturbance to the waterbody.

□ Use suitable measures to locate, construct, and decommission or stabilize 

bypass roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

□ Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to 

disconnect the road from the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and 

sediment from being channeled into surface waters and to dissipate 

concentrated flows.

□ Use suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the 

waterbody and banks when transporting materials across the waterbody or 

AMZ during construction activities.

Stream Crossings

□ Locate stream crossings where the channel is narrow, straight, and uniform, 

and has stable soils and relatively flat terrain to the extent practicable.

o Select a site where erosion potential is low.

o Orient the stream crossing perpendicular to the channel to the extent 

practicable.

o Keep approaches to stream crossings to as gentle a slope as 

practicable.

o Consider natural channel adjustments and possible channel location 

changes over the design life of the structure.

□ Design the crossing to pass a normal range of flows for the site.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

421 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o Design the crossing structure to have sufficient capacity to convey 

the design flow without appreciably altering streamflow 

characteristics.

o Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, 

depth, and slope and maintain streambed and bank resiliency and 

continuity through the structure.

□ Bridge, culvert, or otherwise design road fill to prevent restriction of flood 

flows.

o Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design flood 

flows.

o Use suitable measures to protect fill from erosion and to avoid or 

minimize failure of the crossing at flood flows.

o Use suitable measures to provide floodplain connectivity to the extent 

practicable.

□ Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and erosion of the channel, 

crossing structure, and foundation to maintain the stability of the channel and 

banks.

□ Design and construct the stream crossing to maintain the desired migration or 

other movement of fish and other aquatic life inhabiting the waterbody.

o Consider the use of bottomless arch culverts where appropriate to 

allow for natural channel migration and desired aquatic organism 

passage.

o Install or maintain fish migration barriers only where needed to 

protect endangered, threatened, sensitive, or unique native aquatic 

populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist.

o Use stream simulation techniques where practicable to aid in crossing 

design.

□ Bridges

o Use an adequately long bridge span to avoid constricting the natural 

active flow channel and minimize constriction of any overflow 

channel.

o Place foundations onto nonscour-susceptible material (e.g., bedrock 

or coarse rock material) or below the expected maximum depth of 

scour.

o Set bridge abutments or footings into firm natural ground (e.g., not 

fill material or loose soil) when placed on natural slopes.

o Use suitable measures as needed in steep, deep drainages to retain 

approach fills or use a relatively long bridge span.

o Avoid placing abutments in the active stream channel to the extent 

practicable.

o Place in-channel abutments in a direction parallel to the streamflow 

where necessary.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, 

damage to the bridge and associated road from expected flood flows, 

floating debris, and bedload.

o Inspect the bridge at regular intervals and perform maintenance as 

needed to maintain the function of the structure.

□ Culverts

o Align the culvert with the natural stream channel.

o Cover culvert with sufficient fill to avoid or minimize damage by 
Resource Name 

422

traffic.

o Construct at or near natural elevation of the streambed to avoid or 

minimize potential flooding upstream of the crossing and erosion 

below the outlet.

o Install culverts long enough to extend beyond the toe of the fill slopes 

to minimize erosion.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize water from seeping 

around the culvert.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize culvert plugging from 

transported bedload

o and debris.

o Regularly inspect culverts and clean as necessary.

□ Low-Water Crossings

o Consider low-water crossings on roads with low traffic volume and 

slow speeds, and where water depth is safe for vehicle travel.

o Consider low-water crossings to cross ephemeral streams, streams 

with relatively low baseflow and shallow water depth or streams with 

highly variable flows or in areas prone to landslides or debris flows.

o Locate low-water crossings where streambanks are low with gentle 

slopes and channels are not deeply incised.

o Select and design low-water crossing structures to maintain the 

function and bedload movement of the natural stream channel.

o Locate unimproved fords in stable reaches with a firm rock or gravel 

base that has sufficient load-bearing strength for the expected vehicle 

traffic.

o Construct the low-water crossing to conform to the site, channel 

shape, and original streambed elevation and to minimize flow 

restriction, site disturbance, and channel blockage to the extent 

practicable.

o Use suitable measures to stabilize or harden the streambed and 

approaches, including the entire bankfull width and sufficient 

freeboard, where necessary to support the design vehicle traffic.

o Use vented fords with high vent area ratio to maintain stream 

function and aquatic organism passage.

o Construct the roadway-driving surface with material suitable to resist 

expected shear stress or lateral forces of water flow at the site.

o Consider using temporary crossings on roads that provide short-term 

or intermittent access to avoid, minimize, or mitigate erosion, 

damage to streambed or channel, and flooding. 

o Design and install temporary crossings suitable for the expected 

users, loads, and timing of use.

o Design and install temporary crossing structures to pass a design 

storm determined based on local site conditions and requirements.

o Install and remove temporary crossing structures in a timely manner 

as needed to provide access during use periods and minimize risk of 

washout.

o Use suitable measures to stabilize temporary crossings that must 

remain in place during high runoff seasons.

o Monitor temporary crossings regularly while installed to evaluate 

condition.

o Remove temporary crossings and restore the waterbody profile and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

423 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

substrate when the need for the crossing no longer exists.

Standing Water and Wetland Crossings

□ Disturb the least amount of area as practicable when crossing a standing 

waterbody.

□ Provide for sufficient cross drainage to minimize changes to, and avoid 

restricting, natural surface and subsurface water flow of the wetland under 

the road to the extent practicable.

o Locate and design roads or road drainage to avoid dewatering or 

polluting wetlands.

o Avoid or minimize actions that would significantly alter the natural 

drainage for flow patterns on lands immediately adjacent to wetlands.

□ Use suitable measures to increase soil-bearing capacity and reduce rutting 

from expected vehicle traffic.

□ Construct fill roads only when necessary.

o Construct fill roads parallel to water flow and to be as low to natural 

ground level as practicable.

o Construct roads with sufficient surface drainage for surface water 

flows.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, etc.) 

will be placed and maintained at sites that have potential to deliver sediment to 

the stream network during the wet season if haul is going to take place. If 

sediment delivery is noted, additional erosion control measures will be placed 

and maintained Or haul will cease until conditions dry.

□ Application of dust abatement will occur when streams are at their seasonal 

baseflow. Dust abatement will not be applied when raining and will only be 

applied if there is a 3-day forecast of clear weather. 

□ Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, will 

be completed during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery of 

construction-related sediment can be minimized. During construction, stream 

water will be diverted around the work site and back into the channel. 

□ Stream crossing culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the 

Forest Service before installation.

Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FS-7700-41 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 24.11.

Objective Avoid or minimize erosion, sedimentation, and chemical pollution that may result 

from snow removal and storage activities.

Practices □ Develop a snow removal plan for roads plowed for recreation, administrative, 

or other access to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

□ Use existing standard contract language (C5.316# or similar) for snow 

removal during winter logging operations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 
Resource Name 

424

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

□ Limit use of approved deicing and traction control materials to areas where 

safety is critical (e.g., intersections, steep segments, and corners).

o Use site-specific characteristics such as road width and design, traffic 

concentration, and proximity to surface waters to determine suitable 

amount of de-icing material to apply.

o Use effective plowing techniques to optimize chemical de-icer use. 

o Consider use of alternative materials to chemical de-icers, such as 

sand or gravel, in sensitive areas.

o Use properly calibrated controllers to ensure material application 

rates are accurately regulated.

o Limit spray distribution of chemical de-icers when near surface 

waters.

o Design paved roads and parking lots to facilitate sand removal (e.g., 

curbs or paved ditches).

□ Use suitable measures when storing de-icing materials to avoid or minimize 

mobility of the materials.

o Store de-icing materials on a flat, upland, impervious area of 

adequate size to accommodate material stockpiles and equipment 

movement.

o Stockpile de-icing materials under cover and provide runoff 

collection, containment, and treatment, as necessary, to avoid or 

minimize offsite movement.

□ Move snow in a manner that will avoid or minimize disturbance of or 

damage to road surfaces and drainage structures.

o Mark drainage structures to avoid damage during plowing.

o Conduct frequent inspections to ensure road drainage is not adversely 

affecting soil or water resources.

□ Control areas where snow removal equipment can operate to avoid or 

minimize damage to riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels.

□ Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of 

snowmelt runoff and will serve to dissipate melt water.

o Provide frequent drainage through snow berms to avoid 

concentration of snowmelt runoff on fillslopes and other erosive 

areas, to dissipate melt water, and to avoid or minimize sediment 

delivery to waterbodies.

□ Store snow in clearly delineated pre-approved areas where snowmelt runoff 

will not cause erosion or deliver snow, road de-icers, or traction-enhancing 

materials directly into surface waters.

o Store or dispose of snow adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in 

upland areas away from waterbodies to the extent practicable.

o Do not store or dispose of snow in riparian areas, wetlands, or 

streams unless no other practicable alternative exists.

□ Manage discharge of meltwater to avoid or minimize runoff of pollutants into 

surface waterbodies or groundwater.

o Use suitable measures to filter and treat meltwater before reaching 

surface water or groundwater.

o Use suitable measures to disperse meltwater to avoid creating 

concentrated overland flow.

o Collect and properly dispose of onsite litter, debris, and sediment 

from meltwater settling areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

425 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Discontinue road use and snow removal when use would likely damage the 

roadway surface or road drainage features.

o Modify snow removal procedures as necessary to meet water quality 

concerns.

□ Replace lost road surface materials with similar quality material and repair 

structures damaged in snow removal operations as soon as practicable.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7710, FSM 7720, and FSM 7730.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources when constructing and maintaining parking and staging areas.

Practices □ Design and locate parking and staging areas of appropriate size and 

configuration to accommodate expected vehicles and avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to adjacent soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Consider the number and type of vehicles to determine parking or 

staging area size.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and 

Stormwater Control) for stormwater management and erosion control when 

designing, constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining parking or staging 

areas.

□ Use suitable measures to harden and avoid or minimize damage to parking 

area surfaces that experience heavy use or are used during wet periods.

□ Use and maintain suitable measures to collect and contain oil and grease in 

larger parking lots with high use and where drainage discharges directly to 

streams.

□ Connect drainage system to existing stormwater conveyance systems where 

available and practicable.

□ Conduct maintenance activities commensurate with parking or staging area 

surfacing and drainage requirements as well as precipitation timing, intensity, 

and duration.

□ Limit the size and extent of temporary parking or staging areas

o Take advantage of existing openings, sites away from waterbodies, 

and areas that are apt to be more easily restored to the extent 

practicable.

o Use temporary stormwater and erosion control measures as needed.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to 

rehabilitate temporary parking or staging areas as soon as practicable 

following use.
Resource Name 

426

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Parking and Staging areas should not be located within 300 ft of perennial 

streams, unless approved by the Forest Service.

□ Botany design features specific to parking and staging – lithosols, meadows 

and grasslands.

Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2160 and FSH 7109.19, chapter 40.

Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

from fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into 

nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater 

resources during equipment refueling and servicing activities.

Practices □ Plan for suitable equipment refueling and servicing sites during project 

design.

o Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved locations, 

located well away from the AMZ, groundwater recharge areas, and 

waterbodies.

□ Develop or use existing fuel and chemical management plans (e.g., Spill 

Prevention Control and Countermeasures [SPCC], spill response plan, and 

emergency response plan) when developing the management prescription for 

refueling and servicing sites.

□ Locate, design, construct, and maintain petroleum and chemical delivery and 

storage facilities consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal 

regulations.

□ Use suitable measures around vehicle service, storage and refueling areas, 

chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills and 

avoid or minimize soil contamination and seepage to groundwater.

□ Provide training for all agency personnel handling fuels and chemicals in 

their proper use, handling, storage, and disposal.

o Ensure that contractors and permit holders provide documentation of 

proper training in handling hazardous materials.

□ Use suitable measures to avoid spilling fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other 

chemicals during handling and transporting.

□ Prohibit excess chemicals or wastes from being stored or accumulated in the 

project area.

□ Remove service residues, used oil, and other hazardous or undesirable 

materials from NFS land and properly dispose them as needed during and 

after completion of the project.

□ Clean up and dispose of spilled materials according to specified requirements 

in the appropriate guiding document.

□ Report spills and initiate suitable cleanup action in accordance with 

applicable State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations.

o Remove contaminated soil and other material from NFS lands and 

dispose of this material in a manner consistent with controlling 

regulations.

□ Prepare and implement a certified SPCC Plan for each facility, including 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

427 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

mobile and portable facilities, as required by Federal regulations.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to 

reclaim equipment refueling and services site when the need for them ends.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Roadwork contractors will have spill prevention and recovery equipment on 

site during all road construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service.

□ Fuel shall not be stored or equipment refueled within 300 feet of any stream 

channel or surface water feature.

Road-11. Road Storm-Damage Surveys

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7730 and FSM 2350.

Objective Monitor road conditions following storm events to detect road failures; assess 

damage or potential damage to waterbodies, riparian resources, and watershed 

functions; determine the causes of the failures; and identify potential remedial 

actions at the damaged sites and preventative actions at similar sites.

Practices ERFO-Related Damage Surveys

□ Complete a Damage Survey Report (DSR) at damaged sites potentially 

eligible for ERFO funds.

□ Complete the Forest Service-developed supplemental form DSR+ in the field 

to more thoroughly describe, in categorical terms, the cause(s) and 

consequences of the damage.

o The DSR+ form and instructions may be found at 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/bmp/damagesurveys.

□ Record the following information from damage sites that have been 

documented on the DSR and DSR+ forms in appropriate corporate 

database(s), including geographic information systems:

o The geographic locations (points or road segments) where damage 

occurred.

o The date of occurrence (year and month, if available).

o The type of failure and its cause.

Special Storm Damage Surveys

□ Determine the need to do more comprehensive surveys and analysis of road 

damage after particularly large storm events.

o Survey all roads in the area, typically an entire watershed, ranger 

district, or national forest or grassland, affected by the storm or those 

roads that may be particularly susceptible to failure.

All Damage Surveys

□ Analyze results from EFRO surveys, routine damage reconnaissance, and 

special surveys for patterns of damage and causes.

□ Use these patterns of road damage to formulate recommendations of practice 

changes to reduce the incidence of future damage. Consider practice changes 

such as—

o Locating or relocating roads to more stable terrain (see BMP Road-2 

[Road Location and Design]);

o Disconnecting road surface drainage from crossings and channels 
Resource Name 

428

(see BMP Road-3 [Road Construction and Reconstruction]);

o Using special protections in locations on unstable landforms or areas 

with high erosion potential (see BMP Road-3 [Road Construction and 

Reconstruction]);

o Increasing the capacity of stream-crossing structures to pass water, 

debris, and sediment to reduce the probabilities of failure (see BMP 

Road-7 [Stream Crossings]);

o Building or rebuilding stream crossings to eliminate or reduce 

diversion potential (see BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]);

o Building or rebuilding stream crossings to improve aquatic species 

passage (see BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]); or

o Decommissioning or storing roads in a hydrologically benign 

condition (see BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

□ Enter and store the results of data analysis in corporate data management 

systems to facilitate sharing among units that have similar terrain and road 

practices.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management 

 Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control

Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources by controlling erosion and managing stormwater discharge originating 

from ground disturbance during construction of developed sites

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 stormwater discharge permit 

coverage from the appropriate State agency or the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) when more than 1 acre of land will be 

disturbed through construction activities.

□ Obtain CWA 404 permit coverage from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers when dredge or fill material will be discharged to waters of the 

United States.

□ Establish designated areas for equipment staging, stockpiling materials,

and parking to minimize the area of ground disturbance (see BMP Road-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

429 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

9 [Parking Sites and Staging Areas] and BMP Road-10 [Equipment 

Refueling and Servicing]).

□ Establish and maintain construction area limits to the minimum area 

necessary for completing the project and confine disturbance to within 

this area.

□ Develop and implement an erosion control and sediment plan that covers 

all disturbed areas, including borrow, stockpile, fueling, and staging areas 

used during construction activities.

□ Calculate the expected runoff generated using a suitable design storm to 

determine necessary stormwater drainage capacity.

o Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design storm.

o Include run-on from any contributing areas.

□ Refer to State or local construction and stormwater BMP manuals, 

guidebooks, and trade publications for effective techniques to:

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural 

revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion during 

construction or before the next growing season.

o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever 

practicable.

o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from 

the site.

o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy 

dissipation and sediment filters.

o Stabilize steep excavated slopes.

□ Develop and implement a postconstruction site vegetation plan using 

suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in 

compliance with local direction and requirements per Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and 

prevention and control of invasive species.

□ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surfacedisturbing activities to the extent practicable.

□ Do not use snow or frozen soil material in facility construction.

□ Schedule, to the extent practicable, construction activities to avoid direct 

soil and water disturbance during periods of the year when heavy 

precipitation and runoff are likely to occur.

o Limit the amount of exposed or disturbed soil at any one time to the 

minimum necessary to complete construction operations.

o Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in 

excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into 

waterbodies.

□ Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize 

disturbed areas and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project 

operations or when severe or successive storms are expected.

□ Use low-impact development practices where practicable.

□ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper 

and effective functioning.

o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

o Implement corrective actions without delay when failures are 

discovered to prevent pollutant discharge to nearby waterbodies.

□ Routinely inspect construction sites to verify that erosion and stormwater 
Resource Name 

430

controls are implemented and functioning as designed and are 

appropriately maintained.

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□

Wildland Fire Management Activities 

 Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning

 Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 5120; FSM 5150; FSH 5109.19 Ch. 50

Objective Use the fire management planning process to develop measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

during wildland fire management activities.

Practices □ Consider the beneficial and adverse effects of wildland fire on water quality 

and watershed condition when developing desired conditions and goals for 

the plan area. 

o Identify areas where the adverse effects of unplanned wildland fire 

to water quality and watershed condition outweigh the benefits.

□ Include plan objectives and strategies that allow the use of wildland fire 

where suitable to restore watershed conditions.

□ Include design criteria, standards, and guidelines for fire management 

activities to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

□ Consider the need to establish a network of permanent water sources in the 

plan area for fire control and suppression.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) 

and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when 

planning prescribed fire treatments.

□ Consider prescription elements and ecosystem objectives at the appropriate 

watershed scale to determine the optimum and maximum burn unit size, 

total burn area, burn intensity, disturbance thresholds for local downstream 

water resources, area or length of water resources to be affected, and 

contingency strategies.

o Consider the extent, severity, and recovery of fire disturbance a 

watershed has experienced in the past to evaluate cumulative effects 

and re-entry intervals.

□ Identify environmental conditions favorable for achieving desired condition 

or treatment objectives of the site while minimizing detrimental mechanical 

and heat disturbance to soil and water considering the following factors.

o Existing and desired conditions for vegetation and fuel type, 

composition, structure, distribution, and density.

o Short- and long-term site objectives.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

431 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

o Acceptable fire weather parameters.

o Desirable soil, duff, and fuel moisture levels.

o Existing duff and humus depths.

o Site factors such as slope and soil conditions.

o Expected fire behavior and burn severity based on past burn 

experience in vegetation types in the project area.

o Extent and condition of roads, fuel breaks, and other resource 

activities and values.

□ Develop burn objectives that avoid or minimize creating water-repellent 

soil conditions to the extent practicable considering fuel load, fuel and soil 

moisture levels, fire residence times, and burn intensity.

o Use low-intensity prescribed fire on steep slopes or highly erodible 

soils when prescribed fire is the only practicable means to achieve 

project objectives in these areas.

□ Set target levels for desired ground cover remaining after burning based on 

slope, soil type, and risk of soil and hillslope movement.

□ Plan burn areas to use natural or in-place barriers that reduce or limit fire 

spread, such as roads, canals, utility rights-of-way, barren or low fuel 

hazard areas, streams, lakes, or wetland features, where practicable, to 

minimize the need for fireline construction.

o Identify the type, width, and location of firebreaks or firelines in the 

prescribed fire plan.

□ Use fire initiation techniques, control methods, and access locations for 

ignition and control (holding versus escape conditions) that minimize 

potential effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

□ Use prescribed fire in the AMZ only when suitable to achieve long-term 

AMZ-desired conditions and management objectives (see BMP Plan-3 

[AMZ Planning]).

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Air quality would be emphasized during prescribed fire planning. 

Mitigating measures would be considered including extending the burning 

season to spread emissions throughout the year. All burning would be 

planned and conducted to comply with applicable air quality laws and 

regulations and coordinated with appropriate air quality regulatory 

agencies.

□ Equipment used to machine pile slash would use legacy skid trails, and 

temporary and permanent roads on slopes less than 35%, as much as 

possible.

□ Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help 

retain existing snags and down wood to the extent feasible.

□ Maximum depth of slash on temporary roads and landings is 12 inches.

□ Grapple piles would be constructed to the following specifications: All 

slash from 1 inch in diameter up to 6 inches in diameter and exceeding 3 

feet in length shall be piled. Piles would be constructed compactly with 

minimal soil in the piles and covered to shed water so they remain dry for 

burning during the fall or winter; height would be at least 6 feet and no 

greater than 12 feet; width would be at least 6 feet and no greater than 10 

feet. Piles would be evenly spaced between trees and snags left after 

harvest. Piles would be placed on temporary roads or designated 

equipment trails when possible. Piles would be placed at least 50 feet away 
Resource Name 

432

from live streams.

□ Machine piles at landings will be built by grapple or shovel to keep dirt and 

rock debris out. No cat piling or pushing of piles.

□ Where the volume of landing and roadside slash exceeds the ability to 

create piles and meet pile size and location specifications above, slash 

would be returned to temporary roads and designated forwarding corridors 

for piling or dispersal after subsoiling, if needed.

□ Slash pile construction and burning in and around riparian areas should be 

consistent with Blue Mountain PDCs.

Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 5140

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and associated 

activities on soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may result from 

excessive soil disturbance as well as inputs of ash, sediment, nutrients, and 

debris.

Practices □ Conduct the prescribed fire in such a manner as to achieve the burn 

objectives outlined in the Prescribed Fire Plan (see BMP Fire-1 [Wildland 

Fire Management Planning]).

□ Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of AMZs, 

wetlands, and sensitive soil areas.

□ Keep staging areas as small as possible while allowing for safe and 

efficient operations.

□ Store fuel for ignition devices in areas away from surface water bodies 

and wetlands.

□ Install suitable measures to minimize and control concentrated water 

flow and sediment from staging areas.

□ Collect and properly dispose of trash and other solid waste.

□ Restore and stabilize staging areas after use (see BMP Veg-6 

[Landings]).

□ Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while 

meeting the burn objectives.

o Manage fire intensity to maintain target levels of soil temperature and 

duff and residual vegetative cover within the limits and at locations 

described in the prescribed fire plan.

□ Construct fireline to the minimum size and standard necessary to contain 

the prescribed fire and meet overall project objectives.

o Locate and construct fireline in a manner that minimizes erosion and 

runoff from directly entering waterbodies by considering site slope 

and soil conditions, and using and maintaining suitable water and 

erosion control measures.

o Consider alternatives to ground-disturbing fireline construction such 

as using wet lines, rock outcrops, or other suitable features for 

firelines.

o Establish permanent fireline with suitable water and erosion control 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

433 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

measures in areas where prescribed fire treatments are used on a 

recurring basis.

o Maintain firebreaks in a manner that minimizes exposed soil to the 

extent practicable.

o Rehabilitate or otherwise stabilize fireline in areas that pose a risk to 

water quality.

□ Alter prescribed fire prescriptions and control actions in the AMZs as 

needed to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes and onsite 

and downstream water quality.

o Pretreat AMZs and drainage ways to reduce excessive fuel loadings.

o Avoid building firelines in or around riparian areas, wetlands, 

marshes, bogs, fens, or other sensitive water-dependent sites unless 

needed to protect life, property, or wetlands.

o Construct any essential fireline in the AMZ in a manner that 

minimizes the amount of area and soil disturbed. 

o Keep high-intensity fire out of the AMZ unless suitable measures are 

used to avoid or minimize adverse effects to water quality.

o Avoid or minimize complete removal of the organic layer when 

burning in riparian areas or wetlands to maintain soil productivity, 

infiltration capacity, and nutrient retention. 

o Rehabilitate fireline in the AMZ after prescribed fire treatment is 

completed. 

o Remove debris added to stream channels as a result of the prescribed 

burning unless debris is prescribed to improve fisheries habitat.

□ Conduct prescribed fire treatments, including pile burning, for slash 

disposal in a manner that encourages efficient burning to minimize soil 

impacts while achieving treatment objectives.

o Pile and burn only the slash that is necessary to be disposed of to 

achieve treatment objectives. 

o Locate slash piles in areas where the potential for soil effects is 

lessened (meadows, rock outcrops, etc.) and that do not interfere with 

natural drainage patterns. 

o Remove wood products such as firewood or fence posts before piling 

and burning to reduce the amount of slash to be burned. 

o Minimize the amount of dirt or other noncombustible material in slash 

piles to promote efficient burning. 

o Construct piles in such a manner as to promote efficient burning. 

o Avoid burning large stumps and sections of logs in slash piles to 

reduce the amount of time that the pile burns. 

o Avoid burning when conditions will cause the fire to burn too hot and 

damage soil conditions. 

o Avoid piling and burning for slash removal in AMZs to the extent 

practicable.

o Minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources by 

appropriately planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and 

burn prescriptions in compliance with State or local laws and

regulations if no practical alternatives for slash disposal in the AMZ 

are available.

□ Evaluate the completed burn to identify sites that may need stabilization 

treatments or monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and 
Resource Name 

434

deterioration of water quality both on and off the site.

o Provide for rapid revegetation of all denuded areas through natural 

processes supplemented by artificial revegetation where necessary. 

o Use suitable measures to promote water retention and infiltration or to 

augment soil cover where necessary. 

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize the site 

in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 

and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of 

invasive species. 

o Clear streams and ditches of debris introduced by fire control 

equipment during the prescribed fire operation. 

o Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to 

promote project success. 

o Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access to 

site as needed to allow for recovery of vegetation.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Burn plans would include water quality burn plans would include design 

that would mitigate adverse effects to water quality.

□ Burn plans for each prescribed fire will be prepared in advance of ignition, 

reviewed by a hydrologist, fisheries biologist, botanist, cultural resource 

specialist, wildlife biologist, range specialist, recreation/lands specialist and 

silviculturist and approved by the appropriate line officer.

□ As needed, fire lines would require water bars at slopes greater than 30%. 

Fire line water bars would deflect surface run-off from the trail down slope 

onto stable material such as rock surface cover. Fire line construction 

would generally avoid sensitive areas like unique habitats. 

□ Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help 

retain existing snags and down wood to the extent prescribed burns are 

designed to maintain and enhance desired forest structure, tree densities,

snag densities, and CWD levels.

□ Burning would be conducted to meet air quality standards as outlined by 

Oregon DEQ, and air quality monitoring would be conducted in 

conjunction with the DEQ.

□ Prescribed fire and mechanical hand treatments will follow the established 

Blue Mountain PDCs

Minerals Management Activities 

 Min-1. Minerals Planning

 Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites

Min-1. Minerals Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2810, FSM 2820, FSM 2830, and FSM 2850.

Objective Use the minerals planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during 

minerals exploration, production, operations, and reclamation activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

435 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

All Activities

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) 

and BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when 

planning minerals activities.

□ Identify potential environmental risks of the proposed minerals activities 

and include measures in project plans to manage risk by removing or 

eliminating the source of risk, changing the mining plan, or removing the 

resource at risk from harm’s way. 

□ Inform proponent that a Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 permit may be 

required if the minerals operation causes a point source or stormwater 

discharge of any pollutant to waters of the United States.

□ Inform proponent that a CWA 404 permit may be required if the mining 

operations will result in a discharge of dredge or fill material to waters of 

the United States.

□ Evaluate plan of operations to ensure that reasonable measures, including 

appropriate BMPs are included to avoid and minimize adverse effects to 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the mining activities.

o Require suitable geotechnical or stability analyses to ensure that 

facilities are constructed to acceptable factors of safety using 

standard engineering practices and considering foundation conditions 

and material; construction materials and techniques; the seismicity of 

the area; and the water-related resources at risk.

o Require suitable characterization of ore, waste rock, and tailings 

using accepted protocols to identify materials that have the potential 

to release acidity or other contaminants when exposed during mining.

o Require suitable characterization of mine site hydrology 

commensurate with the potential for impacts to surface water and 

groundwater resources, to include physical and chemical 

characteristics of surface and groundwater systems, as needed, for the 

range of expected seasonal variation in precipitation and potential 

stormflow events likely to occur at the site for the duration of the 

minerals activities.

o Stipulate suitable requirements, including water treatment as needed, 

to avoid or minimize the development and release of acidic or other 

contaminants.

o Use applicable practices from the Minerals Management Activities 

BMPs.

o Evaluate the consumptive use of water in the mining operation and its 

effect on waterdependent ecosystems.

o Evaluate the potential for direct and indirect impacts to morphology, 

stability, and function of waterbodies, riparian areas, and wetland 

habitats.

o Identify suitable measures to avoid impacts to waterbodies, riparian 

areas, and wetland habitats through appropriate location, design, 

operation, and reclamation requirements.

o Identify suitable interim and post-project surface water and 

groundwater monitoring where needed to confirm predictions of 
Resource Name 

436

impacts, detect adverse changes at the earliest practicable time, and 

develop appropriate changes in operations or recommend closure 

where needed.

o Request a copy of operator’s CWA 401 Certification from designated 

Federal, State, or local entity before approving a plan of operations 

that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States.

□ As outlined in the Forest Service Training Guide for Reclamation Bond 

Estimation and Administration for Minerals Plans of Operation, consider the 

direct and indirect costs of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area 

of mineral operations to the appropriate standards for water quality and 

watershed condition as determined from the land management plan, State and 

Federal laws, regulations, plans, or permits when determining the reclamation 

bond amount. Include costs for:

o Operation and maintenance of facilities designed to divert, convey, 

store, or treat water.

o Decontaminating, neutralizing, disposing, treating, or isolating 

hazardous materials at the site to minimize potential for 

contamination of soil, surface water, and ground water.

o Water treatment needs predicted during planning and discovered 

during operations to achieve applicable water quality standards.

o Earthwork to reclaim roads; waste rock dumps; tailings; backfilling 

water features (diversions, ditches, and sediment ponds); and 

construction of diversion channels and drains, stream channels, and 

wetlands.

o Revegetation to stabilize the site and minimize soil erosion.

o Mitigation to restore natural function and value of streams, wetlands, 

and floodplains.

o Long-term operations, monitoring, and maintenance of mineral 

production-related facilities that must perform as designed to avoid or 

minimize contamination of surface or groundwater

resources, including roads, diversion ditches, dams, and water 

treatment systems.

o Protection of the reclaimed area until long-term stability, erosion 

control, and revegetation has been established.

Locatable Minerals

□ Evaluate Notice of Intent to Operate proposal to determine if it will likely 

cause significant disturbance to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources.

o Require a plan of operation from the mineral operator, lessee, or 

purchaser as required by law and regulation if proposed activities 

might cause significant disturbance of surface resources including 

soil, water quality, or riparian resources.

Minerals Leasing

□ Include in the land management plan, or other area wide decision document, 

direction for surface occupancy. Use lease stipulations to avoid riparian areas, 

wetlands, and areas subject to mass soil movement; to avoid or minimize 

erosion and sediment production; and to avoid or minimize adverse effects to 

water quality and municipal supply watersheds, if these issues are not 

adequately addressed by provisions in regulations at 36 CFR 228.108.

□ Use the applicable practices from the Minerals Activities BMPs for 

recommendations on post-lease approval of operations.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

437 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Require or work with BLM to require appropriate contingency plans to avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts to surface waters.

□ Coordinate with BLM to ensure the reclamation bond required for operations 

will be sufficient to guarantee reclamation work on NFS lands to the 

appropriate standards for water quality and watershed condition as 

determined from the land management plan, State and Federal laws, 

regulations, plans, or permits.

Mineral Materials

□ Include reasonable conditions and applicable practices of BMP Min-3 

(Minerals Production) and BMP Min-5 (Mineral Materials Resource Sites) in 

the operating plan to ensure proper protection of soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources and timely reclamation of disturbed areas.

□ Consider the direct and indirect costs of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and 

reclaiming the area of mineral materials operations to the appropriate 

standards for water quality and watershed condition as determined from the 

land management plan, State and Federal laws, regulations, plans, or permits 

when determining the reclamation bond amount.

Mineral Reservations and Outstanding Mineral Rights

□ Evaluate the Operating Plan for Mineral Reservation Operations to ensure 

that reasonable measures, including appropriate BMPs, consistent with the 

terms of the deed, are included to minimize damage to NFS surface resources 

that could affect soil, water quality, and riparian resources and that provide 

for restoration and reclamation of disturbed lands.

□ Evaluate the Operating Plan for Outstanding Mineral Rights to ensure that 

reasonable measures, including appropriate BMPs, are included to control 

erosion, avoid or minimize water pollution, and reclaim the site consistent 

with land management plan direction for water quality management. 

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2850.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources when developing and using upland mineral materials resource sites or 

instream sand and gravel deposits.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

All Activities

□ Allow upland and instream sand and gravel mining where consistent with 

land management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soils, 

aquatic and riparian habitats, and water quality.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-3 (Minerals Production) and BMP Fac-
Resource Name 

438

2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for sanitation, solid waste, 

and transport and storage of petroleum products or other hazardous materials 

and to control erosion, manage stormwater, keep the site dry, and protect the 

waterbody when clearing the extraction and processing areas.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-6 (Ore Stockpiles, Mine Waste Storage 

and Disposal, Reserve Pits, and Settling Ponds) and BMP Min-7 (Produced 

Water) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, 

and riparian resources when processing materials.

Upland Gravel Pits

□ Plan operations at the site in advance to minimize disturbance area and more 

effectively and efficiently open and operate the site.

o Limit the area of the facility to the minimum necessary for efficient 

operations while providing sufficient area for materials processing 

and stockpiling.

o Phase development where practicable.

o Use suitable measures to avoid, mitigate, or treat metal leaching and 

formation of acid rock drainage.

□ Conduct extraction activities in such a manner as to minimize the potential 

for slope failures, limit slope steepness and length, limit disturbed areas to 

those actively used for extraction, retain existing vegetation as long as 

possible, and allow for progressive reclamation of the site where practicable.

Instream Sand and Gravel Mining

□ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic

Ecosystems), BMP AqEco-3 (Ponds and Wetlands), and BMP AqEco-4 

(Stream Channels and Shorelines) when working in or near waterbodies to 

prevent or minimize adverse impacts to water quality.

□ Consider channel type and effects of the proposed operation on channel 

morphology and function when approving instream sand and gravel mining 

operations.

□ Limit access disturbance to designated areas on one streambank to reduce the 

effort required for site reclamation.

o Use suitable measures to protect the streambank at access points to 

minimize bank erosion.

□ Locate the material processing and stockpile site at a suitable distance from 

the active channel to leave a buffer zone along the waterbody to reduce risk 

of flooding.

o Consider historic channel migration patterns and site elevation when 

locating mineral processing and stockpile sites.

o Avoid or minimize disturbance to valuable riparian areas; wetlands; 

and aquatic-dependent threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

habitat.

□ Include suitable measures to protect channel morphology and function when 

extracting sand and gravel deposits. 

o Specify the maximum depth of mining.

o Limit extraction depth to minimize slope changes along the stream, 

avoid or minimize channel and bank erosion, and retain existing 

natural channel armoring.

o Limit extraction amount to minimize upstream and downstream 

effects due to changes in bedload transport.

o Avoid modifying point bars to the extent where the resultant channel 

changes cause unacceptable reduced sinuosity or increased stream 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

439 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

gradient, velocity, stream power, and bank instability.

o Schedule in-channel mining to occur during low-flow periods.

o Avoid or minimize changes to channel shape and reduce effects of 

mining on aquatic habitats by establishing a low-flow buffer.

o Avoid or minimize streambank erosion and instability during and 

after mining.

o Avoid or minimize headward erosion of the channel at the upstream 

end of the instream pit.

□ Design and construct diversion channels to handle anticipated flow volumes 

and to minimize upstream and downstream effects of changes in stream 

grade, width, depth, bed characteristics, bank instability, and groundwater 

inflows when temporarily or permanently dewatering stream channels to 

extract sand and gravel.

o Ensure barrier is able to adequately protect the dewatered 

mining area from flood flows.

□ Conduct excavation operations in such a manner as to avoid 

significant increases in downstream turbidity. 

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities 

□ Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning 

□ Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control 

□ Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones 

□ Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations 

□ Veg-5 Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations 

□ Veg-6 Landings 

□ Veg-7 Winter Logging 

□ Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment 

Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 1921.12

Objective Use the applicable vegetation management planning processes to develop 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, 

and riparian resources during mechanical vegetation treatment activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and 

BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) Planning) when planning 

vegetation management projects.

o Evaluate opportunities to use proposed mechanical vegetation 

treatment projects to achieve AMZ desired conditions, goals, and 
Resource Name 

440

objectives in the project area.

□ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design 

mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions that avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Validate land management plan timber suitability decisions for the 

project area.

o Design mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions to limit site 

disturbance, soil exposure, and displacement to acceptable levels as 

determined from the land management plan desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines or other local direction or requirements.

o Evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of vegetation 

alteration on streamflow regimes and consequent channel responses 

at suitable watershed scales.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass 

wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas 

suitable for ground-based, cable, and aerial yarding systems (see 

BMP Veg-4 [Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations] and 

BMP Veg-5 [Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations]).

o Use the most economically practicable yarding system that will 

minimize road densities.

o Consider site preparation and fuel treatment needs and options.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-8 (Mechanical Site Treatment) 

to determine areas suitable for mechanical treatments for site 

preparation, fuels treatment, habitat improvements, or other 

vegetation management purposes.

o Evaluate the capabilities of the machinery likely to operate in the 

landscape under consideration.

o Use preplanning to schedule entry or timing of mechanical and other 

vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire or chemical treatments) 

when needed for large projects.

□ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design a 

transportation plan associated with the mechanical vegetation treatments to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

o Use the logging system that best fits the topography, soil types, and 

season, while minimizing soil disturbance and road densities and that 

economically achieves silvicultural objectives.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and 

Design), BMP Veg-4 (Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding 

Operations), BMP Veg-5 (Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations), and 

BMP Veg-6 (Landings) to determine proposed location and size of 

roads, landings, skid trails, and cable corridors.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-1 (Travel Management 

Planning and Analysis) and BMP Road-5 (Temporary Roads) to 

determine the need for specified roads and temporary roads.

o Evaluate the condition of system roads, including roads in storage, 

and unauthorized roads in the project area to determine their 

suitability for use in the project and any reconstruction or prehaul 

maintenance needs.

o Evaluate the Road Management Objective of system roads to 

determine where log hauling should be prohibited or restricted.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

441 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Identify sources of rock for roadwork, riprapping, and borrow materials (see 

BMP Min-6 [Mineral Materials Resource Sites]).

□ Identify water sources available for purchasers’ use (see BMP WatUses-3 

[Administrative Water Developments]).

□ Ensure the timber sale contract, stewardship contract, or other implementing 

document includes BMPs from the decision document to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use appropriate standard B and C provisions and regional or local 

provisions to address measures and responsibilities consistent with 

the BMPs in the decision document in the timber sale or stewardship 

contract.

o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including AMZs and 

waterbodies, on the sale area map or project map.

o Delineate approved water locations, staging areas, and borrow areas 

on the sale area map or project map.

o Ensure that the final unit location, layout, acreage, and logging 

system or mechanical treatment and Knutson-Vandenberg Act plans 

are consistent with the decision document.

□ Use contract modification procedures to the extent practicable to modify unit 

design, treatment methods, or other project activities where necessary to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources based on new information or changed conditions 

discovered during project implementation.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources by implementing measures to control surface erosion, gully formation, 

mass slope failure, and resulting sediment movement before, during, and after 

mechanical vegetation treatments.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Establish designated areas for equipment staging and parking to 

minimize the area of ground disturbance (see BMP Road-9 [Parking 

Sites and Staging Areas]).

□ Use provisions in the timber sale contract or land stewardship contract 

to implement and enforce erosion control on the project area.

o Work with the contractor to locate landings, skid trails, and slash 
Resource Name 

442

piles in suitable sites to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential for 

erosion and sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies.

□ Develop an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed 

areas including skid trails and roads, landings, cable corridors, 

temporary road fills, water source sites, borrow sites, or other areas 

disturbed during mechanical vegetation treatments.

□ Refer to State or local forestry or silviculture BMP manuals, 

guidebooks, and trade publications for effective structural and 

nonstructural measures to—

□ q Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural 

revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next 

growing season.

o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever 

practicable.

o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff 

from disturbed areas.

o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy 

dissipation and sediment filters.

o Stabilize steep excavated slopes.

□ Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or revegetate 

disturbed areas in compliance with local direction and requirements per 

FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and 

control of invasive species.

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

□ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surfacedisturbing activities to the extent practicable.

□ Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and 

sediment runoff would be minimized.

o Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily 

compacted soils and on steep slopes unless operation can be 

conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or 

runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies.

o Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions.

o Adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site 

while maintaining efficient project operations.

□ Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize 

disturbed areas and waterways on incomplete projects before seasonal 

shutdown of operations or when severe storm or cumulative 

precipitation events that could result in sediment mobilization to 

waterbodies are expected.

□ Routinely inspect disturbed areas to verify that erosion and stormwater 

controls are implemented and functioning as designed and are suitably 

maintained.

□ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper

and effective functioning.

o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

□ Implement mechanical treatments on the contour of sloping ground to 

avoid or minimize water concentration and subsequent accelerated 

erosion.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

443 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526, 2527

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment activities in the 

AMZ.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-3 (AMZ Planning) to determine the 

need for and width of the AMZ considering the proposed mechanical 

vegetation treatments.

o Modify AMZ width as needed to provide assurance of leave-tree wind 

firmness where high windthrow risk is identified.

□ Clearly delineate AMZ locations and boundaries in the project area using 

suitable markings and structures.

o Maintain or reestablish these boundaries as necessary during project 

implementation or operation.

o Specify AMZ layout, maintenance, and operating requirements in 

contracts, design plans, and other necessary project documentation.

□ Use mechanical vegetation treatments in the AMZ only when suitable to 

achieve long-term AMZ-desired conditions and management objectives (see 

BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

□ Modify mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions and operations in the 

AMZs as needed to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes.

□ Design silvicultural or other vegetation management prescriptions to 

maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody.

□ Use yarding systems or mechanical treatments that avoid or minimize 

disturbance to the ground and vegetation consistent with project objectives.

o Conduct equipment operations in a manner that maintains or provides 

sufficient ground cover to meet land management plan desired 

conditions, goals, and objectives to minimize erosion and trap 

sediment.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize soil disturbance from 

equipment operations to stay within acceptable disturbance levels when 

conducting mechanical vegetation treatment operations.

o Prescribe mechanical site preparation techniques and fuels and residual 

vegetation treatments that avoid or minimize excessive erosion, 

sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies, or damage to desired riparian 

vegetation.

o Conduct operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes introduction 
Resource Name 

444

of excess slash or other vegetative debris into the AMZ and 

waterbodies; damage to streambanks, shorelines, and edges of 

wetlands; and adverse effects to floodplain functioning.

o Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank 

stabilization, and as a source of large woody debris within the AMZ.

o Avoid felling trees into streams or waterbodies, except as planned to 

create habitat features.

□ Locate transportation facilities for mechanical vegetation treatments, 

including roads, landings,and main skid trails, outside of the AMZ to the 

extent practicable.

o Minimize the number of stream crossings to the extent practicable.

o Evaluate options for routes that must cross waterbodies and choose the 

one (e.g., specified road vs. temporary road vs. skid road or trail) that 

avoids or minimizes adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources to the greatest extent practicable.

o Do not use drainage bottoms as turn-around areas for equipment during 

mechanical vegetation treatments.

□ Use suitable measures to disperse concentrated flows of water from road 

surface drainage features to avoid or minimize surface erosion, gully 

formation, and mass failure in the AMZ and sediment transport to the 

waterbody.

□ Monitor the AMZ during mechanical operations to evaluate compliance with 

prescription and mitigation requirements in the authorizing document.

o Adjust operations in the AMZ to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

detrimental soil impacts where they are occurring.

o Use suitable mitigation or restoration measures on areas in the AMZ that 

show signs of unacceptable erosion or those with high potential for 

erosion due to mechanical operations in the AMZ.

o Remove unauthorized debris from waterbodies using techniques that 

will limit disturbance to bed and banks, riparian areas, aquaticdependent species, and the waterbody unless significant damage would 

occur during its removal or leaving it in meets desired conditions for the 

waterbody.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, 

will be completed during low flow conditions prior to XX of any calendar 

year when the potential for delivery of construction-related sediment can be 

minimized. Stream water will be diverted out of the channel during 

construction. 

□ The stream crossing replacements in perennial streams, to be done under a 

separate contract after the timber sale, will be completed during low flow 

conditions when the potential for delivery of construction-related sediment 

can be minimized. Stream water will be diverted out of the channel during 

construction to minimize turbidity. 

□ Equipment should not operate in any no cut buffers unless expressly analyzed 

through the NEPA analysis or consultation with local resource specialists.

□ Burning within the riparian zone to reduce fuel hazard near stream channels 

will be carefully controlled to minimize fire intensity and will be in 

accordance to the established Blue Mountain PDCs.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

445 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

□ Implement PACFISH Buffers 

□ Where treatment in Category 4 streams is approve d a 25 ft no harvest buffer 

will be delineated on the ground by the silviculturist, the fish biologist or

hydrologist.

Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources during ground-based skidding and yarding operations by minimizing 

site disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and 

chemical pollutants to waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Use ground-based yarding systems only where physical site 

characteristics are suitable to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, 

mass wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to 

determine areas suitable for ground-based yarding systems.

□ Use existing roads and skid trail networks to the extent practicable.

o Create new roads and skid trail where re-use of existing ones 

would exacerbate soil, water quality, and riparian resource 

impacts.

□ Design and locate skid trails and skidding operations to minimize soil 

disturbance to the extent practicable.

o Designate skid trails to the extent practicable to limit site 

disturbance.

o Locate skid trails outside of the AMZ to the extent practicable.

o Locate skid trails to avoid concentrating runoff and provide 

breaks in grade.

o Limit the grade of constructed skid trails on geologically 

unstable, saturated, highly erodible, or easily compacted soils.

o Avoid long runs on steep slopes.

□ Use suitable measures during felling and skidding operations to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to soils and waterbodies to the extent practicable.

o Perform skidding or yarding operations when soil conditions are 

such that soil compaction, displacement, and erosion would be 

minimized.

o Suspend skidding or yarding operations when soil moisture 

levels could result in unacceptable soil damage.

o Avoid skidding logs in or adjacent to a stream channel or other 

waterbody to the extent practicable.

o Skid across streams only at designated locations.

o Use suitable measures at skid trail crossings to avoid or minimize 
Resource Name 

446

damage to the stream channel and streambanks.

o Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along 

predetermined yarding patterns with the least number of passes 

and least amount of disturbed area (e.g., felling-to-the-lead).

o Directionally fell trees away from streambanks, shorelines, and 

other waterbody edges.

o Remove logs from wet meadows or AMZs using suitable 

techniques to minimize equipment operations in the sensitive 

area and minimize dragging the logs on the ground.

o Winch or skid logs upslope, away from waterbodies.

o Use low ground pressure equipment when practicable, 

particularly on equipment traveling over large portions of units 

with sensitive soils or site conditions.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and 

Control) to minimize and control erosion to the extent practicable.

□ Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use.

o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage.

o Install suitable drainage features.

o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation 

conditions.

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural 

revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before 

the next growing season.

o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation.

o Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to 

prevent and control invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Veg-5. Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources during cable and aerial yarding operations by minimizing site 

disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical 

pollutants to waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Use cable or aerial yarding systems on steep slopes where ground-based 

equipment cannot operate without causing unacceptable ground 

disturbance.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, 

mass wasting potential, and other soil or site properties to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

447 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

determine areas suitable for cable or aerial yarding systems.

o Consider slope shape, potential barriers, lift and deflection 

requirements, and availability of suitable landing locations when 

selecting cable-yarding systems.

□ Identify areas requiring cable or aerial yarding during project planning 

and in the contract.

□ Identify necessary equipment capabilities in the contract.

□ Locate cable corridors to efficiently yard materials with the least soil 

damage.

o Use suitable measures to minimize soil disturbance when yarding 

over breaks in slope.

□ Fully suspend logs to the extent practicable when yarding over AMZs 

and streams.

□ Postpone yarding operations when soil moisture levels are high if the 

specific type of yarding system results in unacceptable soil disturbance 

and erosion within cable corridors.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and 

Control) to minimize and control erosion in cable corridors to the extent 

practicable.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Veg-6. Landings

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from the construction and use of log landings.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Minimize the size and number of landings as practicable to accommodate 

safe, economical, and efficient operations.

□ Locate landings to limit the potential for pollutant delivery to waterbodies.

o Locate landings outside the AMZ and as far from waterbodies as 

reasonably practicable based on travel routes and environmental 

considerations.

o Avoid locating landings near any type of likely flow or sediment 

transport conduit during storms, such as ephemeral channels and 

swales, where practicable.

o Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid roads.

o Avoid locating landings on steep slopes or highly erodible soils.

o Avoid placing landings where skidding across drainage bottoms is 

required.

□ Design roads and trail approaches to minimize overland flow entering the 
Resource Name 

448

landing.

□ Re-use existing landings where their location is compatible with management 

objectives and water quality protection.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to 

minimize and control erosion as needed during construction and use of log 

landings.

o Install and maintain suitable temporary erosion control and 

stabilization measures when the landing will be reused within the 

same year.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-6 (Hazardous Materials) and BMP 

Road-10 (Equipment Refueling and Servicing) when managing fuels, 

chemicals, or other hazardous materials on the landing.

□ Use suitable measures as needed to restore and stabilize landings after use.

o Remove all logging machinery refuse (e.g., tires, chains, chokers, 

cable, and miscellaneous discarded parts) and contaminated soil to a 

proper disposal site.

o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage.

o Install suitable drainage features.

o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation 

conditions.

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural 

revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the 

next growing season.

o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or 

revegetate disturbed areas in compliance with local direction and 

requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation 

ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs 

Veg -7 Winter Logging

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from winter logging activities.

Practices □ Consider using snow-roads and winter harvesting in areas with high-water 

tables, sensitive ri- parian conditions, or other potentially significant soil 

erosion and compaction hazards.

o Use snow roads for single-entry harvests or temporary roads.

□ Mark existing culvert locations before plowing, hauling, or yarding 

operations begin to avoid or minimize damage from plowing or logging 

machinery.

□ Ensure all culverts and ditches are open and functional during and after 

logging operations.

□ Plow any snow cover off roadways to facilitate deep-freezing of the road 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

449 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

grade before hauling.

o Manage hauling to avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to the 

road surface.

□ Use suitable measures to cross streams (see BMP Road-7 [Stream 

Crossings]).

o Restore crossings to near preroad conditions to avoid or minimize ice 

dams when use of the snow-road is no longer needed.

□ Conduct winter logging operations when the ground is frozen or snow cover 

and depth is ad- equate to avoid or minimize unacceptable rutting or 

displacement of soil.

□ Suspend winter operations if ground and snow conditions change such that 

unacceptable soil disturbance, compaction, displacement, or erosion 

becomes likely.

□ Compact the snow on skid trail locations when adequate snow depths exist 

before felling or skidding trees.

□ Avoid locating skid trails on steep areas where frozen skid trails may be 

subject to soil erosion the next spring.

□ Mark AMZ boundaries and stream courses before the first snow in a manner 

that will be clearly visible in heavy snows.

□ Avoid leaving slash in streams or AMZs to the extent practicable.

□ Install and maintain suitable erosion control on skid trails before spring 

runoff (see BMP Veg-2 [Erosion Prevention and Control]).

o Install erosion control measures during the dry season if needed.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs 

Veg-8. Mechanical Site Treatment

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known,

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources by controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, chemical, or 

other pollutants to waterbodies during mechanical site treatment

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as 

appropriate or when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional 

guidance, land management plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and 

professional judgment.

□ Evaluate multiple site factors, including soil conditions, slope, topography, 

and weather, to prescribe the most suitable mechanical treatment and 

equipment to avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to soil while achieving 

treatment objectives.

o Consider the condition of the material and the site resulting from the 

treatment in comparison to desired conditions, goals, and objectives 

for the site when analyzing treatment options (e.g., a mastication 

treatment will result in a very different condition than a grapple pile 

and burn treatment).
Resource Name 

450

o Use land management plan direction, or other local guidance, to 

establish residual ground cover requirements and soil disturbance 

limits suitable to the site to minimize erosion.

o Consider offsite use options for the biomass material to reduce onsite 

treatment and disposal.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-3 (Aquatic Management Zones) when 

conducting mechanical treatments in the AMZ.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to 

minimize and control erosion.

o Conduct mechanical activities when soil conditions are such that 

unacceptable soil disturbance, compaction, displacement, and erosion 

would be avoided or minimized.

o Consider using low ground-pressure equipment, booms, or similar 

equipment to minimize soil disturbance.

□ Operate mechanical equipment so that furrows and soil indentations are 

aligned on the contour.

□ Scarify the soil only to the extent necessary to meet reforestation objectives.

o Use site-preparation equipment that produces irregular surfaces.

o Avoid or minimize damage to surface soil horizons to the extent 

practicable.

□ Conduct machine piling of slash in such a manner to leave topsoil in place 

and to avoid displacing soil into piles.

□ Re-establish vegetation as quickly as possible.

o Evaluate the need for active and natural revegetation of exposed and 

disturbed sites.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the 

site in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 

2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and 

control of invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

□ No Additional BMPs